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.



Because I’m not whiny and infantile, and insist on looking at things like the USSR with historical and geopolitical context in mind, rather than rejecting it outright as some kind of autocracy.

Granted I’m not a *true* De Leonist, I don’t reject revolution or vanguards.

Tankie is a perjorative used to describe Marxist Leninists first coined by Trotskyists who opposed Kruschev’s invasion of Hungary in 1956 because the Hungarian government were running national pogroms. It’s something the ill-informed use as a type of ad hominem on MLs

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one’s own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along–“So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell.” This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

Firstly: Maoism, Marxism, and Leninism are all forms of communism. Naxalism refers to the Maoist party of India, so they would fall under the umbrella of Maoism. So that leaves us with three distinct ideologies to break down: Marxism, Leninism (the proper name for which is actually “Marxism-Leninism”), and Maoism. Oh, and Trotskyism. So four ideologies.

  • Marxism (non-Leninist varieties) – Classical Marxism refers to the political, social, and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels spent far more time critiquing capitalism than they did proposing an alternative, so I think it’s helpful to think of classical Marxism as a cohesive set of criticisms of capitalism and capitalist society. Non-Leninist forms of Marxism which take this as their starting point include:
    • Council communism – Founded by Anton Pannekoek, this revolves around the idea that workers should self-organize and take control of their workplace, organizing them via democratic worker’s councils. This new form of organization would render capitalism and the state obsolete, thus resulting in a classless and stateless society. Council communism is extremely similar to anarchism (particularly anarcho-syndicalism), the only real difference being that council communists, being Marxists, tend to more highly value historical and dialectical materialism (and Marx’s ideas in general) than an anarchists would. Overall, though, their methods and goals are virtually identical. This is probably the most popular form of Marxism (and communism in general) in existence today, as most self-described Marxists advocate this viewpoint (or one similar to it).
    • Luxemburgism – Founded by Rosa Luxemburg, this can be considered something of a middle ground between council communism and Leninism: it retains the use of a vanguard party (as in Leninism), but argues for it to be far more democratic and de-centralized, with a emphasis still placed on worker’s control the workplace, as in council communism. This is one of the more obscure forms of Marxism today, although it has had a tremendous influence on other, less obscure branches.
  • Marxism-Leninism – Founded by Joseph Stalin, based on the ideas of Vladimir Lenin and (he claimed) Karl Marx, this the ideology of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, and other authoritarian “socialist” states. In other words, when your dad calls a politician he doesn’t like a “commie”, this is what he’s talking about. This ideology calls for complete centralization of the means of production in the hands of a “vanguard party”, which acts in the name of the working class. Think of it as an indirect form of worker’s control: rather than the workers themselves owning the workplace, a state which claims to represent them owns the workplace. Historically, this ideology has failed massively and is essentially considered obsolete by most of the radical left today. However, the same can (unfortunately, in my opinion) not be said of its Chinese bastard child…
  • Maoism – Founded by Mao Zedong, Maoism is Marxism-Leninism adapted to the conditions of China. In other words, rather than the basis for revolution being the industrial proletariat, it is the peasantry, or the agricultural proletariat. Because of this ideology’s focus on primitive peasant societies, it has a gained enormous popularity in the developing world, and is advocated by numerous revolutionary groups in Asia and the Middle East. One example of such a group would be the Communist Party of India (Maoist), or the Naxalists. This is the main form of statist communism today, along with…
  • Trotskyism – Founded by Leon Trotsky, this ideology can essentially be thought of as a slightly less-authoritarian form of Marxism-Leninism. It calls for slightly less centralization and bureaucracy, but overall, it advocates a similar political and economic structure (Trotsky was a Leninist, remember). It has an inexplicably high level of popularity in the West; essentially, what Maoism is to the developing world, Trotskyism is to the developed world.

No one is entitled to the product of anyone’s labor, however ancaps seem to think all of scociety was created just for them and that they have no obligation to pay for the shit they don’t even realize they use or to society’s mutual advancement.

Commies are the kids who grew up in an ultra strict house hold forced to do chores with no allowance, relying on their parents to provide completely while cappies are the kids who didn’t have to lift a finger but got $50 a week so they appreciate the value of currency.




I’ve invested a lot of my own money into organic and sustainable farming, and to converting American farmland to organic, and I’m here to dispel some misperceptions about organic food. There is this prevailing notion that organic farming is more expensive and less sufficient, right? And that we need industrial agriculture and factory farms to feed the world.

“Feed the world.” Well, I’m here to dissect some of the assumptions behind that logic, and to share some information that leads to a very different conclusion. We all know organic food is expensive.

This is a fact. And it’s logical to therefore assume that it’s for the 1%, the foodie elites, the rich people, not for ordinary people.

Well, that’s actually not correct logic, and I will show why in a second. It also leads us to assume that if organic food is expensive, organic farming must be more expensive, which then leads to wonder, surely, it can’t feed the world, and back to concluding that it’s only for the 1%.

Well, those assumptions actually are wrong as well. The idea that organic food is only for the rich, only for the 1% is a powerful one, with huge implications on both business and policy.

And we need both business innovation and policy change in this country to support organic.

Think about it, if you are a business person or a politician, the way to be successful is to come up with products or policies that cater not to the 1% but to ordinary Americans. And so we need businessmen and policy makers to recognize that organic food is not just for the 1%, it’s for everybody, it’s for ordinary Americans.

And the first step in that change is to change that perception. So, who is buying this expensive organic food? Who in America is buying it? According to Nielsen and NMI research, three out of every four Americans have consciously chosen to buy organic food in the past year. Some of them might have only bought a single organic product, but there is a subset that there are the so-called devoted organic shoppers, that represent the vast majority of all organic food consumption in this country.

These so-called foodies are not 1%, they are 25%, one out of every four Americans. Now let’s look at these elite foodies. What does the elite foodie look like?

Two out of five of them have an annual household income of less than 50,000 dollars.

One out of five has an annual household income of less than 30,000 dollars.

These elite people are about 20% people of color, and another 15% Hispanic. Six out of ten of them shop at Walmart.

How does that profile compare to the general U.S. population? It’s exactly the same. The general U.S. population is about two out of five income less than 50K, one out of five income less than 30K.

About 20% people of color, 15% Hispanic, and about six out of ten shop at Walmart. In every respect, the foodie elite who are buying organic are the average ordinary American.

And it’s one out of four Americans, and they’re already buying organic in spite of how expensive it is.

Just imagine how many more Americans would be buying organic food if it wasn’t so damn expensive. Well, we actually know some of the answers to that. Walmart asked its consumers and found that 91% of them would be buying organic. So, why is organic food so darn expensive? It must be because organic farming is more expensive, right? Not true; organic farming actually saves a ton of money on a lot of very expensive inputs. Fossil fuel is expensive.

Fertilizers are incredibly expensive. The chemicals, the antibiotics that are used by factory farms.

These things are very expensive. Not just their externalized costs, but their actual dollar costs are very high. Well, so maybe organic farming saves money but perhaps it produces less food. That’s not necessarily true either.

This is not a blanket statement, it varies by crop and region, but there are lot of ways in which, when done right, organic sustainable farming can produce more food.

One part of that is crop and livestock rotations, so that nutrients are recycled into the soil.

Growing multiple crops at the same time, increasing the revenue of the land.

Exploiting natural synergies. One of my favorites examples of this is sheep and asparagus. Sheep love to graze but they do not like the taste of asparagus.

And so, when the asparagus farmer has a weed problem, rather than spending a lot of money buying a chemical herbicide to spray in the fields, they can invite in a sheep farmer.

The sheep will clear the weeds. The sheep farmer gets free pasture for his or her animals, and the asparagus farmer gets free weed control. And, the sheep add fertility to the soil.

You must be thinking: “Well, great, but industrial agriculture, for all of its ills, surely at least the one thing it has is that it’s more efficient, right?” I would say that it has the illusion of efficiency, and it’s a short-lived one.

For example, think about the topsoil. America’s topsoil, perhaps the single, greatest national treasure this country possesses, this rich topsoil, is like a bank account that we’re drawing on every year. Withdrawing money and not putting it back in.

That’s not efficient. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. Similarly, the way we treat nutrients. Nutrients are supposed to come from the soil, go through the body of a plant, into the body of an animal, and back into the soil.

We all learned that in high school. And that’s not how the vast majority of North American agriculture works today. Instead, we’re mining minerals in Morroco, shipping them across the Atlantic, spraying them on the fields, only to have them wash off into the waterways, and end up in dead zones, and places like the Gulf of Mexico. That’s not efficient, it’s incredibly wasteful. Not just ecologically, but economically. Similarly, what I said earlier about fossil fuels, antibiotics to feed the factory farm animals. And all of this to increase the yield of corn and soy.

Crops that humans don’t even actually eat. We’re maximizing the yield per acre of corn and soy, yet the vast majority of American farmland does not feed humans. It’s either used to create ethanol or to feed livestock. About less than 10% of the corn crop in this country actually goes to feed humans.

This is the system that is supposed to feed the world? Well, it’s actually not feeding the world today. If you measure, the right way to measure productivity in agriculture is not the yield of corn per acre or soy per acre, but the yield of human food per acre. And when you measure how much human food is produced per acre, America is not a leader. We’re not even average.

We’re behind the world average, and we’re behind countries like India and China, that are making a much better job of feeding the world population than we are. So, if you were smart, you would realize what’s really behind that status is the fact that these other countries consume less meat that America does. And, so, who is going to produce all the increasing appetite for pork in China,

And surely, American industrial agriculture and factory farms are going to step forward to supply all the meat. Well, I’m not sure that’s true either. The leading exporter of pork in the world today is Denmark. Denmark is a country that has for many years banned the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock.

One of the most disgusting and reckless practices of American factory farms has been banned in Denmark, yet Denmark has continued to maintain high yields and low prices for their pork, and is the number one exporter of pork to places like China.

Ironically, China has recently banned pork imports from several U.S. pork producers because of the use of antibiotics.

The real question though is: What’s the most efficient way to produce food if people are going to eat more meat? Well, if you look at one acre of corn, it can produce about enough corn to feed one head of cattle. This is an approximation, this is not very exact math.

That same acre-I wouldn’t advocate planting organic corn to feed the cattle – that same acre can produce about enough grass to feed one head of cattle. Now, it’s not an exact math. I’m approximating, and there is a lot of other things that change the equation. Corn is a more efficient crop in a lot of ways.

It’s a wonderful crop, it allows for a lot more control, it has less seasonality, but it also has a lot of other costs on the balance sheet. At the end of the day, it’s not a slam dunk that industrial agriculture is more efficient, even for producing meat.

Now, the truly more efficient way to feed humans is to use that land to produce crops that people eat, like fruits, vegetables, wheat or rice.

But the benefit of growing meat on pasture is at least those animals fertilize the land, and if you do a rotation between those animals and fruits and vegetables, you can actually produce more off that same land. It must be about the money then, right? These so called evil corporations like McDonald’s and Monsanto.

Perhaps they are shoving this industrial food down our throats because it’s more profitable, right? Well, that’s actually not true either. In fact, using the techniques I just described, Farmland LP, – which I’m a very large investor in – converts farms from conventional crops to organic, and significantly increases their profits. They’ve done a cohort analysis of farmland that they’ve been progressively converting to organic, and in doing so, significantly raising the income from the land, from something like 100 dollars to 450 dollars per acre.

You might think: “Well, that’s great but perhaps it can’t scale.” Well, the answer is actually organic and sustainable agriculture is scaling. For one thing, Chipotle, which is the closest we have to a fast food organic company, is the single fastest growing fast-food company of the past decade.

And, more broadly, organic cropland in the U.S. has grown tremendously, more than tripling in less than two decades. So, organic saves money, is less expensive, can produce as much or more food, is more profitable, and is scaling. Then, what the… why the heck is organic food so expensive?

And the answer is because the demand for organic food is growing even faster. That graph of organic cropland growing is still a drop in the bucket, and it pales compared to the surge in demand for organic sustainable food in this country. The total amount of organic cropland in America is about 1% of this country’s agricultural land. The total amount of consumption of organic food is between 4 and 5%, and that does not even reflect the total demand.

That’s how much has actually been consumed.

One out of every four Americans is a devoted organic shopper, and 91% of Walmart customers say they would be interested in buying organic food. The demand that we need to satisfy is not just that 5%.

But you might wonder where is that 4 or 5% of organic food coming from if not from our cropland? It’s being imported.

And where is organic food growing on this planet? In developing countries. 80% of the certified organic farmers are in developing countries. The country with the most organic farmers is actually India. So, the poor countries of the world are feeding the food that the majority of want to eat.

So, I think America should stop worrying so much about feeding the world, and focus a little bit more on feeding itself.

The solution to this is actually relatively simple. We need organic sustainably managed cropland in this country to increase dramatically, to catch up with the enormous demand. I put my own money where my mouth is, and I’ve invested a lot of money in Farmland LP as I mentioned, which is converting land to organic, and I think we need both policy change, and more business innovation to accelerate the expansion of sustainable organic agriculture in America. Thanks very much. (Applause)