On Unfiltered Thinking, The Miracle of The Psychedelic Experience and Human Genius

When you think, focus on thinking with the part of your brain that forms thoughts, not the part that says them aloud in your head. When that filter is removed in times of extreme meditation, psychedelic experiences, etc. you will find that thoughts can flow like a turbulent river, whereas before it was only a trickle. But such a skill can be cultivated in the sober mind as well. This, I believe, is a key to human genius. It exists in all of us, regardless of if we know it or not. 
In normal times of sober reflection, we notice that we think in 2 stages, first we know what we are going to say in our mind, and then we say it aloud in our head. Focus on that part that spontaneously brings thoughts into being. Listen to it, and it alone when you need inspiration, or to think quickly.
Thoughts arise naturally, independent of language. This is the realization that comes from such thinking. We imagine first the essence of what we want to think, then the words. The essence forms in our minds 50x quicker than it takes to say the thought aloud. If we focus on the essence, and not the time consuming process of putting it into words, we will find the genius of the human mind, regardless of who is thinking.
I believe such thinking can only be fully unleashed during spiritual and psychedelic experiences, when the filter between the essence of our thoughts coming into being, and it’s translation, is removed. In such a state we think of 50 thoughts per second. Incredible realizations about life, language, ordinary phenomena, inventions, being, etc. These experiences of completely unfiltered thinking under the influence of psychedelics have led to incredible innovations and discovery. I will give you several examples.
The shape of DNA was discovered on LSD. A group of scientists had been working for many months on trying to figure out the shape of DNA. They all dropped acid one day, and within several hours had discovered that the double helix was the best shape to bring the molecules of life together in a functioning pattern. Steve Jobs and Bill Gated both attribute LSD to their success. And most of the music on your phone without doubt came from someone on some form of psychedelic. 
I too have experienced the profound realizations that come under psilocybin, I speak from experience alone. Unfiltered thinking can be cultivated, I believe, in a mind that has not had such an experience. Unfiltered thinking is natural thinking, divorced entirely from language. I believe it, along with psychedelic drugs, to be keys of human genius.

20th Century Marxism-Leninism: Not a failure of “socialism” but of skipping over capitalism to reach socialism

Initially I wrote something longer and much more complex, but I will keep this short and simple. 
According to the official Marxist-Leninist ideology in Albania, the purpose of the communist movement was “leading it (the country) from its backward semi-feudal state to socialism, bypassing the phase of advanced capitalism” -History of The Party of Labor of Albania, 1st edition (p.6-7). 

Indeed this was the ideology of practically every Marxist-Leninist state of the 20th Century. But what did Marx believe? Precisely the opposite, that socialism would likely only be achieved by building off of the progress made by the advanced capitalist phase of development, in the most advanced countries first as a result of the internal contradictions of the capitalist system and not the external contradictions of imperialism. 

It must be said that Marx did have high hopes that Russia in particular could go through a new phase of development, bypassing capitalism. But he never based such a view on any evidence, purely speculation, as he stressed. All of Marx’s works support the notion that socialism can only be achieved in the most advanced capitalist countries first. This view is supported by the overwhelming majority of Marx’s writings on capitalism.
Thus the failure of the 20th Century was not by any means a failure of ‘socialism’, but of the attempt to ‘skip over’ an advanced capitalist stage of development, to reach socialism in semi-feudal countries without the help of revolution in advanced capitalist countries. Thus we go back to the theory of ‘socialism in one country’, and its failure.

On that annoying Margret Thatcher quote, and others

“Under socialism we’d all be equally poor” Yeah, in one of the poorest countries on earth if you just immediately transferred to socialism, you’d all be equally poor. That’s why rapid industrialization was a thing. Shall I even mention the fact that every single socialist revolution took place in the poorest countries on earth? You honestly think ALL the wealth in our bourgeois society would simple vanish into thin air?

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” This statement results from a complete and total lack of knowledge as to what socialism even IS. Socialism is NOT just taking money from the rich, it’s taking the MEANS OF CREATING WEALTH (means of production) from the property owning class that “owns” them, placing them under public ownership and democratic control by the workers and the general public.

Let’s Clear Up Some Misconceptions About What Socialism and Communism ARE and ARE NOT, Once and For All

What is socialism?

 Social Welfare Programs

 State-Run Enterprises (UPS, Fire Department, etc.)

 Full State Ownership Of The Economy

 Full State Control of The Economy

 When The Government Does Stuff

✔️ State Owned Economy With Workplace Democracy by The Working Class and General Public Under The Dictatorship of The Proletariat

✔️ Social Ownership of The Means of Production With Democratic Control over The Means of Production

✔️ Industrial Democracy W/ some form of Common Ownership of Enterprise

✔️ “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work”

✔️ A system where no one who is able bodied (especially capitalists) can live off of, or make a fortune off of the labor of another.

What is Communism?

 A one-party state

 Authoritarianism

 Dictatorship

 Totalitarianism, Some Orwellian Dystopia

 Any Form of State

A society where no one owns personal possessions (Laptops, houses, cars, etc.)

✔️ A society which abolishes private property (Private ownership of enterprise, in a word, the abolition of the entitlement to what one does not produce)

✔️ A society that deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

✔️ A stateless, classless, moneyless society embodying the principle of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

✔️ A society where there is no exploitation by economic means, nor oppression by a state

✔️ The doctrine for the liberation of the proletariat

✔️ Inevitable

What did Karl Marx study and write most about?

 Communism

 Socialism

 The State

 Poetry

✔️ Capitalist Economics

✔️ Human Society and History (including, mind you, human nature)

*If you search all 50 volumes of Marx’s works, you will find less than 7 pages describing what a communist society would look like, when asked, he would always say, “I don’t have a crystal ball” The overwhelming majority of his works are a detailed study and critique of how capitalism works.*

When and where did Karl Marx believe the first successful socialist revolutions would take place?

 The most backward countries on earth (Russia, China, Albania, Cuba, etc.)

 At the beginning of capitalist development and at the end of feudalism (Russia, China, etc.)

✔️ In the most advanced capitalist countries in the world

✔️ At the end of capitalist development, building off of capitalism as capitalism built off of feudalism (the modern era, not 1917)

Why then, was Marx wrong?

 He did not understand the inner contradictions of the capitalist system

✔️ He lived before the time of imperialism, whose conditions brought the first socialist revolution in the world to Russia, and subsequent revolutions

(Now from a Trotskyist perspective)

What, then, was the USSR?

 An ideal example of socialism

 A socialist economy in the proper sense

 A purely state-capitalist economy (technically in some ways, but not really)

 A failure of socialism, or communism

✔️ A failure of Stalinism

✔️ A degenerated workers state where democratic control of the economy was replaced by that of a small bureaucratic elite (Stalinism)

✔️ A betrayal of the original democratic ideals and gains of the October Revolution

Why was this?

 Human Nature

✔️ An almost inevitability due to 1.) The backwardness of Russia 2.) The fact that international revolution (which Lenin and Trotsky both believed to be the sole hope of the RSFSR) 3.) The failure of ‘Socialism in one Country’ (Stalinism).

Why has every socialist revolution not attained favorable results?

 Human Nature

 The superiority of Capitalism

✔️ Every single socialist revolution since October has been based, not on the early October revolution or the Paris Commune, but on the Stalinist example of a one-party state, and the theory of ‘socialism in one country’. We live in a global, integrated economy. Revolution must be international in scope, or at least in several advanced countries. The completion of the socialist revolution in one country alone is unthinkable.

✔️ Revolution in an advanced capitalist country has yet to take place, we are only just recently finding ourselves in the conditions Marx wrote about in which the internal contradictions of capitalism bring us to proletarian revolution in said countries. Without aid from an advanced country, revolution in a poor country will be mercilessly crushed by U.S. imperialism, even given its already dim prospects

✔️ Every single socialist revolution has happened in the most backward countries in the world, (and not the most advanced as Marx and Engels believed necessary) attaining remarkable yet still not desired results

✔️ We are only now entering the era of late stage capitalism, of the end of capitalism

Feel free to comment and share, I am tired of having to explain this to liberals.

Briefly, On the accusations of the (God forbid) “atheism” of Marx and Lenin by the right- From a Christian and a Communist

Yes, Marx and Lenin were atheists! Do you know what else? Buddha was a Buddhist. Martin Luther King was a Christian. Malcom X was a Muslim. Great men are great regardless of their religious convictions. Your attempts to slenderize Marx and Lenin for being atheists are wholly baseless. Were they wrong for being atheists? I believe so, but their criticism of religion was not unfounded.

What has “christian charity” done to lift broadly, the toiling masses out of extreme poverty? What has mindfulness done to improve the material conditions of the poor? They are not wrong in their criticism, if anything, they were atheists out of love for working people, out of their desire for the complete freedom of working people. And yes, I say that as both a Christian and a communist. That is your first mistake.

Your second is the ignorant accusation that atheism implies immorality and malevolence. I am friends with many atheists, some of the best, most loving, most dedicated, most compassionate and inspiring people I know happen to be atheists. Religious belief is absolutely no indication whatsoever of a persons ability to feel empathy and to be a decent person and an implication of such indicates a lack of empathy, something that is, to put it bluntly, inhuman.

We must assume the people to be good and the state evil (Reflections on our society)

“We must assume the people good and the state evil.”(1) Obviously the state, as an inherently violent institution, is a necessary evil both in our bourgeois society, and in the society which will be born of the triumph of labor under capital, it will be necessary until that day when bourgeois right ceases to be.
We say that the people are of good nature. What do we mean? Anyone who goes to a place where the poor are numerous and paupers beg for change will find abnormally high rates of crime. Everywhere the mentality will be ‘every man for himself’. The poor, who are deprived of the means of subsistence, of the means of production, are found to be in a constant state of stress and disorientation. Their concern is for themselves and their immediate relatives, for their immediate needs.
Then we go to those who own the means of subsistence, who grow extremely wealthy for owning the means of production with which the poor toil day and night without ever making a penny more than the capitalist allows. We find here an extremely wealthy fellow, whose “wealth springs quite literally from the poverty of the poor”(2). He lives off the labor of others, off the poor who have nothing to sell but their labor power as the precious commodity that it is, while he does no real work himself. We find a man who, unlike the pauper, has secured the means of maintaining his immediate survival and happiness. But even among him, selfishness runs rampant. It is a selfishness far worse than that which is forced onto the poor. He is in a state of constant struggle not only against the poor who, lacking class consciousness, want only better wages and better working conditions, but also against his fellow capitalist, both within his enterprise and in those enterprises competing against him.
If he grows concerned for the well being of his workers, for their humanity, he will certainly find himself going down a slippery slope. If he goes so far as to forfeit the means of production to the working class, then he will be forced to work like they do, under explorative conditions, with nothing to sell but his labor power. If he runs his business like the good Christian he claims to be, he will soon go out of business and become a laughingstock among the whole capitalist class.(3)
His own survival is based on his greed, on the ceaseless accumulation of capital. We see for both rich and poor alike that self-interest is compelled to become selfishness. “We see that the worker is compelled to work under feudal conditions, or die of hunger”(2), to look after only his own hide, or risk going hungry. We see that the selfishness of the ruling class becomes the ruling ideas of our age, for rich and poor alike. 
So what madness is it to assume the people good? Everywhere we look around we see that greed and selfishness are the sole motivating factors of our society. But we also know that “the ruling ideas of each age have only ever been the ruling ideas of each ages ruling class.”(4) If we imagine instead, “a free association of producers with the means of production held in common”(5), where the means of production are democratically controlled by society at large, then we see that greed ceases to be the sole motivator, the sole ruling idea of society. We see that the pursuit of meeting actual human needs instead of profits exorcizes the hold that greed has over our society.
Only in such a society can the natural virtue of the people by embodied, only in such a society can today’s rich and poor alike live free from constant want and worry, for the states of rich and poor alike will cease to be. Only in such a society can equality be real, and not “the formal inequality in spite of rich and poor, ‘equality’ in spite of inequality.”(6) Only in such a society can democracy embody the true will of all of society, and not only that of the ruling class. When man is free from manmade poverty, and from being compelled to live off of the conditions that create poverty, we will find a society in which the natural virtue of man is truly embodied. As James Connolly once said, “The.. people will only be free when they own everything from the plough to the stars”.(7)
1: Robespierre, Speech/ Rousseau

2: Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread

3: Connolly, Socialism Made Easy

4: Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto

5: Marx, Capital

6: Engels, Marx Engels Collected Works Volume 6

7: James Connolly

On The “Over-Emphasis” of LGBT+ Rights in Modern Culture

A common talking point of the far right today is the alleged ‘over-emphasis’ on LGBT+ rights in modern culture. Indeed, there is an excessive emphasis on LGBT+ rights in modern movies, TV shows, music, ads, etc. But why is this? I argue that such an over-emphasis is not only acceptable, but also necessary. This over-emphasis is not in the least a result of ‘negative influences’ but on the contrary, it is much needed and long overdue.

I do not have any doubts as to the nature of such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights in modern society. Taking up a ‘liberal’ stance on social issues has always resulted in boosted ratings for celebrities, and it is nearly impossible to tell when it is out of a genuine concern for LGBT+ rights and when it is merely a stunt to get ratings. But this social mechanism of the appraisal of celebrities who take up such views is good, because it changes the ways in which society and culture develop.

Beyond the emphasis on LGBT+ rights merely for ratings, there is the genuine burning passion for equality that dwells within many. For us it must be said that such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights is, as the conservatives accuse us of, intentional. Yes! To this crime we plead guilty. But what the conservative critics of modern culture fail to see is that such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights is necessary. I argue that once we have full LGBT+ rights and equality, in actuality and not just on paper, it will be no different than how we treat issues of race today. You don’t think conservatives were complaining about ‘liberals’ overemphasizing race during the civil rights movement? Of course they were.

Conservatives insist on the ‘evil’ nature of LGBT+ rights. But even taking into account this attitude of religious bigotry (which is absolutely wrong), tell me, which was worse? The mandated chemical castration, psychiatric abuse, imprisonment, harassment, lynching, etc. of LGBT+ peoples in the past or allowing LGBT+ people to exist freely in our society without direct or systemic attacks by society? The answer to this question is both obvious, and extreme! Extreme measures are necessary to end centuries of bigotry.