My two bits?

The Nazis are supremacists, they believe they are the Master Race. Their position is that those who don’t join them are weak , they are Untermenschen.
They have the false belief of Social Darwinianism where only the strongest survive. Wrong, Darwin spoke of only those with the ability to change, would become the fittest, the survivours.

Firstly, I believe that to understand where these people are coming from, we must first have empathy with them, the same goes true of Capitalism.
To know them is to beat them at every turn. Think like them and react to what you feel their next step may be. Be one step ahead.

Now, these people do not have any respect for those they deem to be the weaker ones, the ones who should be wiped out, erradicated in any future National Socialist society.

I believe, we must be stronger than them and from there, they both fear us and respect us.
To me, punching a Nazis is a given. Never forget what these people are capable of. Nazi Germany gives us a good insight as to what they will do if they ever get in power in this modern age.

So yes, kick them off the streets and if necessary, I believe that punching them is a very mild reaction compared to what these knuckle draggers are capable of.
Don’t just sit back and be a woosy about all of this. Meet them head on and terrify them with Direct Action.
These, of course are only my thoughts, but whatever, we must rid this scourge of Nazism, White Supremacy, whatever, off our streets, forever.

Just do it.





Nietzsche said: If you stare into the Abyss, you will find the Abyss stares back into you. If you obsess compulsively about racism, you will become racist. In other words, being overzealous makes you into the very thing you were trying to fight against.

This isn’t a political problem, it’s a psychological problem. We are in an epidemic of narcissistic sociopathy. What this specifically means is that social justice warriors don’t care about social justice – they want power. They don’t protest, they gas-light. They are not interested in improving society, they are interested in forcing society to their will because they are addicted to the cheap thrill of what is known as ‘narcissistic supply.’ We are in a power struggle between healthy people and sick people. The best thing to do with social justice warriors is to ignore them completely, and root them out of government wherever they operate. We already have laws and guidelines for it, we just need to step up and apply the rule of law. Once the rule of law is applied in government, then psychologists need to do the important work of founding institutions to effectively treat narcissism in children in our schools so that future generations have a lower number of sociopaths in the population than we currently do. It’s equally important to resist in ourselves the temptation to believe we are not sick. The problem is that no one wants to believe it could be them. We’re all due for a serious inventory of ourselves, because it’s the healthier people who have helped things get this way by not taking the reigns and being leaders. I’m just as guilty of running away from infantile bullies as any of you are. You have to stand your ground and not run away. It takes courage to heal yourself and not point at and ridicule ‘them.’ The whole problem is based on the simple principle of human beings not wanting to grow up and be responsible for their own emotional and biological state. By keeping calm and having a firm grasp on reason we actually can buttress the collapse to raise the roof beams high again until the storm passes.

I am a real sufferer of Complex-PTSD. Contrary to the SJW these bloody fakes, we people who are really afflicted with this condition are not into trigger warnings! We are no immature crybabies and know a lot about psychology and psychiatry especially Cluster-B. We are tough survivors, not some spoiled little brats collectively externalising a benign paternal super ego ideal representation, that omnipotentially changes the world into their very own comfort zone. We know that to get better you got to be triggered and learn how to deal with your trauma responses. Trigger warnings are counterproductive to healing, they are just an invention by covert (vulnerable) malignant narcissists, to shame, blame and bully other people, they do not even regard as full human beings.



Searching for wholeness within yourself means that you stop relying on others to fill you or complete you. Instead of falling into a relationship with significant other to find meaning, you look for meaning within yourself, within the things you do, within your emotions and perspectives and opinions. And as you do this, you discover that you were never lacking. You never needed someone’s love to fill you, as if there were parts missing. You have always been, and will always be, completely whole and full on your own. —via thoughtcatalog

You appreciate yourself for the imperfect, complex, and astounding being you are.

Discovering your wholeness means falling in love with yourself. It means seeing, for the first time, how incredible you are. It means taking the time to put yourself first, to pamper yourself, and to celebrate each success. It means building yourself up after you fall and speaking words of love and encouragement to your heart when you’re down. It means understanding that you are imperfect, but taking pride in your flaws and failures, as they have created the person you are today. It means giving yourself the pure, raw love you’ve been giving everyone else for so long. It means seeing your worth—both body and soul.

You realize the magnitude of your spirit and the strength within your skin.

Finding your wholeness means realizing how incredibly strong you are. It means resurfacing and taking a breath of fresh air, confident and renewed. It means noticing the way your muscles move, the way your body shifts, the way your spirit brightens an entire room as you walk in. It means acknowledging all that you’ve pushed through and will continue to push through, every single day. Finding your wholeness means seeing, in a new and beautiful light, how truly astounding you are.

You discover that you were always whole, always complete, and never lacking on your own.

Searching for wholeness within yourself means that you stop relying on others to fill you or complete you. Instead of falling into a relationship with a significant other to find meaning, you look for meaning within yourself, within the things you do, within your emotions and perspectives and opinions. And as you do this, you discover that you were never lacking. You never needed someone’s love to fill you, as if there were parts missing. You have always been, and will always be, completely whole and full on your own.

“Like religion, war demands its persecutions, its holocausts, its lurid heroic cruelties; like them, it is noble, primitive, brutal, and mad. Now, as in the past, religion, lagging behind private consciences through the weight of tradition, steels the hearts of men against mercy and their minds against truth. If the world is to be saved, men must learn to be noble without being cruel, to be filled with faith and yet open to truth, to be inspired by great purposes without hating those who try to thwart them. But before this can happen, men must first face the terrible realization that the gods before whom they have bowed down were false gods and the sacrifices they have made were vain.”

—Bertrand Russell, Why Men Fight (1917), Chapter III, p.116

“Why Men Fight” was written in response to the devastation of World War I, “Why Men Fight” lays out Bertrand Russell’s ideas on war, pacifism, reason, impulse, and personal liberty. Russell argues that when individuals live passionately, they will have no desire for war or killing. Conversely, excessive restraint or reason causes us to live unnaturally and with hostility toward those who are unlike ourselves.

Image: Abandoned child sits holding his stuffed animal in the rubble of his home after a V2 bomb hit, London, January 1945. At the time of the photograph the child is unaware his parents lie buried dead underneath in this rubble. The orphaned boy survived the war.

I may be an abyss.
But at least I’m filed with nothings.
That still exist.

Reach inside my depths.
Grasp for something tangible.
Explore the negative.


Delve deeper.
All the biotic coolness to wrap
Between your fingers.


The reason dying is so easy is because death has no meaning… And the reason death has no meaning is because life has no meaning. All the same, have fun!

Janne Teller, Nothing…

“Meaning is not something you can sell”
Janne Teller, Nothing

“We cried because we had lost something and gained something else. And because it hurt both losing and gaining. And because we knew what we had lost but weren’t as yet able to put into words what it was we had gained.”
Janne Teller, Nothing

“We were supposed to amount to something. Something was the same as someone, and even if nobody ever said so out loud, it was hardly left unspoken, either. It was just in the air, or in the time, or in fence surrounding the school, or in our pillows, or in the soft toys that after having served us so loyally had now been unjustly discarded and left to gather dust in attics or basements. I hadn’t known.”
Janne Teller, Nothing

Life has taught me that you can’t control someone’s loyalty, No matter how good you are to them, doesn’t mean that they will treat you the same,. No matter how much they mean to you, doesn’t mean that they will value you the same. Sometimes the people you love the most, turn out to be the people you can trust the least. Sometimes people come in our life to make us learn something, so that we can learn from them.

‘I remember mystep father had beated me with hanger, pieces of wood and all kind of stuffs. After every beating he would tell me, “you hurting me more than that i’ve hurted you. I did it cause I love you” it is kinda communicate me with kind of wrong message about what love was..’

‘So many years, I thought love was, It is all about hurt, and I hurt everybody that I love.. and I measured love by how much pain someone hurted by me.’

If you were to stab me in the back, i would say sorry for bleeding on you




You have one choice. In front of you is a machine: if you put a coin in the machine, the other player gets three coins – and vice versa. You both can either choose to COOPERATE (put in coin), or CHEAT (don’t put in coin).

Exactly! Why let that moocher mooch off of you?

If you cooperate & they cheat, you lose a coin while they gain three. (score: -1 vs +3) However, if you both cheat, neither of you gain or lose anything. (score: 0 vs 0) Therefore: you should CHEAT.

Sure, seems like the right thing to do… OR IS IT?

Because if you both cooperate, you both give up a coin to gain three. (score: +2 vs +2) But if you cheat & they cooperate, you gain three coins at their cost of one. (score: +3 vs -1) Therefore: you “should” still CHEAT.

And that’s our dilemma. Trust is nice, but it can let others take advantage of you — or shoot you as you come unarmed out of a trench. Sometimes, distrust is rational! But now, what happens if we play this game…

Now, let’s play for real. You’ll be playing against 5 different opponents, each with their own game “strategy”. With each opponent, you’ll play anywhere between 3 to 7 rounds. (You won’t know in advance when the last round is) Can you trust them? Or rather… can they trust you?
ALWAYS CHEAT:the strong shall eat the weak
DETECTIVE: First: I analyze you. I start: Cooperate, Cheat, Cooperate, Cooperate. If you cheat back, I’ll act like Copycat. If you never cheat back, I’ll act like Always Cheat, to exploit you. Elementary, my dear Watson.

They called it: the “live and let live” system. Basically, you don’t shoot me, I don’t shoot you. And this worked, in a lot of places!


COPYCAT! (Apologies to your bet, Always Cheat.)

Copycat goes by many names. The Golden Rule, reciprocal altruism, tit for tat, or… live and let live

All that’s needed is that “unsuccessful” behaviors go away, and “successful” behaviors are imitated.

That’s right: the Always Cheats became a victim of their own success! They exploited the naive Always Cooperators, but once they ran out of them, they had to face the Copycats: who are nice, but not naive.

By simply copying the other player’s moves, Copycats can play nice with each other, while Always Cheats just cheat themselves! Not only that, but it also means Copycat can give Always Cheat a taste of their own medicine.

Copycat inherits the earth.

So, in the long run, you were right – Copycat wins! Always Cheat may have won in the short run, but its exploitativeness was its downfall. This reminds me of a quote:

“We are punished by our sins, not for them.”
~ Elbert Hubbard

So, it seems the math of game theory is telling us something: that Copycat’s philosophy, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, may be not just a moral truth, but also a mathematical truth. However…

The Golden Rule

The golden rule is a basic moral directive that generally is phrased as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Many similar variations on this phrase are used. Most interpret this rule to mean people should treat others with the kindness, respect and consideration most individuals tend to expect for themselves. The golden rule is the basic foundation for many human-rights philosophies, and is associated with many world religions.

The Silver Rule

The silver rule is a variation and somewhat an inversion of the golden rule. The silver rule states “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” The silver rule has its own deficiencies, as it only requires an individual not harm others, and does not ask that person to engage in positive behavior.


The golden rule is essential to many different world religions, and endorsed by and associated with various religious figures, including Jesus Christ, to whom the popular phrasing is attributed in the New Testament of the Bible. However, the golden rule predates Christ. According to Siegfried Morenz’s book “Egyptian Religion,” one of the earliest examples of the rule dates more than a thousand years prior to the existence of Jesus to an ancient-Egyptian concept called Maat.


Famous thinkers and critics such as writer George Bernard Shaw have publicly criticized the golden and silver rules for their oversimplified nature and somewhat problematic implications. Critics are dissatisfied with the second part of the golden and silver rules, which seemingly assume anyone can know exactly how others do and do not wish to be treated. As Shaw states in his work “Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy,” “Do not do unto others as you would that they would do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

Maat or Ma’at (Egyptian mˤ3t)[1] refers to both the ancient Egyptian concepts of truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice, and the personification of these concepts as a goddess regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both mortals and the deities, who set the order of the universe from chaos at the moment of creation. Her ideological counterpart was Isfet.

In 1985, when Americans were asked how many close friends they had, the most common answer was “three”. In 2004, the most common answer was “zero”. We now have fewer friends across class, racial, economic, and political lines, because we have fewer friends — period. And as you just discovered for yourself, the fewer “repeat interactions” there are, the more distrust will spread.
The same thing happens: with a lower “win-win” reward, Always Cheat takes over. Game theory has two powerful ideas about this:
“Zero-sum game”. This is the sadly common belief that a gain for “us” must come at a loss to “them”, and vice versa.

“Non-zero-sum game”. This is when people make the hard effort to create a win-win solution! (or at least, avoid a lose-lose) Without the non-zero-sum game, trust cannot evolve.


This strategy is better known in game theory as Tit For Tat. It was created by Anatol Rapoport in 1980, for Robert Axelrod’s game theory tournament. I chose not to use the name “Tit For Tat” because 1) it sounds mean, although it’s a nice & fair strategy, and 2) a lot of the public have already heard about Tit For Tat, so if I used that name, players might just place their bets on this character because they’ve already heard of “Tit For Tat”.

As cool as Copycat is, it has a huge, fatal weakness I haven’t mentioned yet. To understand the problem, let’s say two Copycats are playing against each other:
Mistakes, miscommunication, misinterpretations — accidents happen all the time in real life.
But if the other person doesn’t think it was an accident…
The other player, being a Copycat, had to retaliate…
…and you, being a Copycat as well, will also have to retaliate…
Thus, like the Hatfields and McCoys, these two Copycats will spiral into an endless cycle of vengeance… that started over a single mistake, long ago.
Tragic. But now, are there other types of players who can…  dealt with mistakes.

You were correct — Simpleton wins! This is because Simpleton is actually capable of exploiting Always Cooperate. They both start cooperating, but if Simpleton makes a mistake and cheats, since Always Cooperate never retaliates, it’ll keep cheating them.
You bet on Copycat. Again, go through the simulation…

Good guess, but someone else took the prize — Copykitten wins this time! That’s surprising that with an even meaner starting population, Copykitten, a more forgiving version of Copycat, was the most successful! (note: Copykitten is so forgiving it doesn’t even entirely wipe out Copycat. it shares room)

In this case, a bit of “miscommunication” (5% chance of mistake each round) could lead to more forgiveness. But is this true for all levels…

If there’s one big takeaway
from all of game theory, it’s this:

What the game is, defines what the players do.
Our problem today isn’t just that people are losing trust,
it’s that our environment acts against the evolution of trust.

That may seem cynical or naive — that we’re “merely” products of our environment — but as game theory reminds us, we are each others’ environment. In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it’s us players who define the game.

So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man’s Land to come together…

…to live and let live.
“A Christmas Truce between Opposing Trenches” Illustrated by AC Michael. Published in The Illustrated London News, January 9, 1915.

“We have fewer friends — period.”

Seriously, go read Robert Putnam’s 2000 book, Bowling Alone. Yeah it’s a bit outdated by now, 17 years later, but its core findings and lessons are still true as ever — probably even more so.


Also known as Pavlov, or Win-Stay-Lose-Shift.

The learning rule bases its decision only on the outcome of the previous play. Outcomes are divided into successes (wins) and failures (losses). If the play on the previous round resulted in a success, then the agent plays the same strategy on the next round. Alternatively, if the play resulted in a failure the agent switches to another action.



We also have said nothing about his manner of speech or desire to protect himself or others, again, strawmannjng and guilt by association

Also, stormfront assholes have come into this grouo before. Fyi.

It should read: Hi, I am a capitalist. My masters said I am working hard enough that they are going to give me enough money not to starve and maybe even a little extra so that I can lord it over the others who only make enough to survive if they are marrried and both work two jobs. My master even said that I can take and extra week off and lord that over the other slaves, I mean co-workers. I am good for my master so he doesn’t beat me as much as the others

Definition of “Cishet”


Pronounced SIS-het.

Related terms include cisgender, cisnormativity, ally, and cissexism.

“Karen is a dedicated ally— she’s a cishet but goes to Pride every year to show support for her dads.”

Cishet, used as both an adjective and a noun, describes a person who is both cisgender and heterosexual. A person is cishet if he or she is cisgender, meaning identifying with his or her assigned-at-birth gender, as well as heterosexual, or attracted exclusively to people of the opposite sex. Cishet individuals are not inherently part of the LGBT+ or queer community but may identify themselves as allies.

People who are cishet arguably form most of the human population. The common assumption that all or most people are cishet contributes to cisnormativity and heteronormativity. Most people who are cishet do not identify themselves as cishet because they have never had want or need of a specific label to describe their orientation and gender identity.

The use of “cishet” by the LGBT+ and feminist community has been a source of some controversy, It may be occasionally used in what are perceived as ad hominem or straw-man arguments when addressing cisgender heterosexuals, and this has led to many perceiving it as an insult. In gender, cishet is a shorthand descriptive term and not a slur.

First used in online communities in the 2000s, cishet is a portmanteau of cis— as in cisgender, from the Latin cis-, meaning “this side of”– and het— as in heterosexual, meaning attracted to the opposite sex.

Being trans is a result of a mental illness called gender dysphoria… so yes, it does equal mentally ill.


Gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person’s gender identity, and the person is transgender. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different from their assigned sex may do so not only due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.[1]

Estimated rates of those with a transgender identity range from a lower bound of 1:2000 (or about 0.05%) in the Netherlands and Belgium[2] to 0.5% of Massachusetts adults[3] to 1.2% of New Zealand high-school students.[4] These numbers are based on those who identify as transgender. It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate.[5] Research indicates people who transition in adulthood are up to three times more likely to be male assigned at birth, but that among people transitioning in childhood the sex ratio is close to 1:1.[6]

Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder under dual role transvestism in the 2017 ICD-10 CM.[7] GID was reclassified to gender dysphoria by the DSM-5.[8] Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender,[9] and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals.[8] The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues.[8] The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”[10]

The main psychiatric approaches to treatment for persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria are psychotherapy or supporting the individual’s preferred gender through hormone therapy, gender expression and role, or surgery.[11]

The latest edition of the mental health manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose disorders reveals a change in thinking on gender identity. The perspective change is similar to a decision made in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from its disorders’ list.

In the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released on May 22, the now-defunct diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) receives a new name, gender dysphoria, which reflects a new emphasis.

Both GID and gender dysphoria describe a condition in which someone is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender. Some of these people may live as their desired gender, and may even seek gender reassignment surgery that can allow them to trade, for example, a penis for a clitoris and a scrotum for a vagina. [5 Surprising Facts About Gay Conversion Therapy]

In the old DSM-IV, GID focused on the “identity” issue — namely, the incongruity between someone’s birth gender and the gender with which he or she identifies. While this incongruity is still crucial to gender dysphoria, the drafters of the new DSM-5 wanted to emphasize the importance of distress about the incongruity for a diagnosis. (The DSM-5 uses the term gender rather than sex to allow for those born with both male and female genitalia to have the condition.)

This shift reflects recognition that the disagreement between birth gender and identity may not necessarily be pathological if it does not cause the individual distress, said Robin Rosenberg, a clinical psychologist and co-author of the psychology textbook “Abnormal Psychology” (Worth Publishers, 2009). For instance, many transgender people — those who identify with a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth — are not distressed by their cross-gender identification and should not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Rosenberg said.

Transgender people and their allies have pointed out that distress in gender dysphoria is not an inherent part of being transgender. This sets it apart from many other disorders in the DSM, because if someone is depressed, for example, he or she is, almost by definition, distressed as part of depression. In contrast, the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms, Rosenberg said.

In this regard, the change resembles the elimination of homosexuality from the manual 40 years ago.

“The concept underlying eliminating homosexuality from the DSM was recognizing that you can be homosexual and psychological healthy or be homosexual and psychologically screwed up. Being homosexual didn’t have to be the issue,” Rosenberg said.

Actually, that’s not true. Gender-fluid means that someone does not have a constant gender, so they might identify as female sometimes too. Demisexual means they can have a sexual relationship with anyone they have a strong emotional connection with.

guys it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, “girl-fag”, really? no it’s not, that means shes a straight bitch who likes gay men. it’s fetishizing

Bethany; tri-racial cis gendered -(denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.)

girlfag – (A person assigned female at birth who identifies with gay male culture and/or is attracted to gay men.)

pansexual – ( not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.)

pronoun- “she” Bethany associates with what gender she was physically born with (cisgendered), although she is physically female at birth and is happy with being the female she was born as, she identifies with gay male culture/ or is attracted to gay men, kinda like dan and phil fans. But at the same time who she is sexually attracted to isn’t limited by biological sex, gender or gender idendity, however she is more into queer/gay/bisexual men (but is not limited to them). +++++isnt’t it weird to tell a gay man that you’re into gay men despite being a female?Isn’t that a fetish+++++

Emerson Redhead : 

Genderfluid – ( denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender.)

Heteroromantic – (A person who is romantically (not sexually) attracted to a member of the opposite sex or gender.) Demisexual – (A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone. )

Mutt – ( A dog, it’s a kink ) Pronoun- “zie” Emerson doesn’t strictly associate as one gender, and instead alternates between the two, sometimes feeling feminine, sometimes feeling masculine. Zie is romantically attracted to zie’s opposite gender. (physical or mental gender?. because if physical it mean’s that Zie’s into females, if mental it means he’s into the opposite of what he’s feeling).

Zie is only able to be sexually attracted unless he has a strong connection to a person of the opposite gender. Emerson also has a dog kink. Why would you tell someone you have a dog kink within the first 5 seconds you’ve met them? Rabbit(?) Tax attorney

Genderqueer – ( denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.)

Pronouns – Ve/Vem/vir ( neutral terms for he, she/them/him, her) Rabbit feels feminine sometimes, masculine sometimes, sometimes both, sometimes none. +++ the simplest of the bunch :,)


Chinese Mexican Agender – ( Agender is a term which can be literally translated as ‘without gender’, in relation to mental gender )

intersex – (“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.)

AFAB – ( Assigned female at birth )

DX doesn’t associate themselves with any gender. Physically they don’t have genitals that fit strictly into the male or female catergory however they have assigned as female at birth.