#polpookaposts

Language

There is a common confusion about 'Georgia'. The confusion stems from the centuries-existent country in the Caucasus and the US state founded much later sharing the exact same name in English, seemingly the lingua franca of the internet. I think the best solution to this problem is to use a name similar to the endonym for the country in the Caucasus. Not Sakartvelo, but Kartvelia, as it rolls off the tongue nicer. This means that never again will we have to distinguish between Georgia and Georgia, and the country will get the luxury of having a name much closer to its native counterpart. The best way to drive this change is to enter Kartvelia into popular usage, so from now on, in all communications, I will refer to the country by that name and that name only, as one of the drivers of this change.

Foreword

Abkhazia was subjugated under Russian rule in the 1800s during several expansionist wars in the Caucasus and following the Circassian genocide. Since then, Russia has made life for Abkhazians all the more difficult. Other than perhaps the most grave crime, the expelling of Abkhazians into the Ottoman Empire, Russia also salted the wound by banning Abkhaz as a language in church services as part of a Russification effort.

Brief respite was had during the Kartvelian Republic declared during WWI, during which Abkhazia enjoyed considerable autonomy, and it continued up til the death of Nestor Lakoba, who gave his personal protection to Abkhazia as its administrator during the early years of the USSR. After friction with the USSR's dick-tator, Stalin, Lakoba was very likely poisoned by Soviet statesman, serial killer and serial rapist, Lavrentiy Beria. A mouse didn't fart in the Union without Stalin's say-so, so while officially only up for speculation, there is no way Lakoba's murder happened without Stalin's knowledge.

What followed in Abkhazia was a process of Kartvelification, where Kartvelians settled the empty land from which Abkhazians were expelled way back when during Tsarist Russia. It is important to note that Stalin and Beria were themselves Kartvelians.

This population of Kartvelian settlers would prove to be a hot-button issue during the prelude to the USSR's collapse. It was greatly upsetting that the majority population of Abkhazia should not be Abkhazians, but settlers occupying once-Abkhazian land as forced by the totalitarian USSR.

By playing favorites with ethnic groups, the USSR had effectively made Abkhazia a powderkeg, ensuring that if the caucasus is to ever see independence, daddy Ivan can come and mediate. Since the settlers were Kartvelian and not Russian, Kartvelia became the most immediate threat to Abkhaz identity and independence.

Smaller states always flock to larger powers for protection against whatever threat is most grave at the moment. This isn't always a good thing, but it's the way things are. I don't think it's how they have to be, though. In a sad turn of historical tragedy, Abkhazia turned to its century-long oppressor for guidance. It came to Russia.

While at first independent, after more than a decade, Russia moved in to support the small country against Kartvelia during new armed conflict. Since then, Abkhazia has largely remained reluctantly dependent on Russia, while trying to function as a regular democratic country.

For Abkhazia this is an important step toward legitimacy and proper function. For Russia it is another opportunity to expand its influence and subjugate the countries of the former USSR.

The war for independence was marked by gross human rights violations against Abkhazians and Kartvelians alike. The result is thousands dead and hundreds of thousands of Kartvelians displaced.

The story of Abkhazia is a tragedy for all involved, and there are no winners. Except for Russia.

Proposal

No one chooses where they are born. For the Kartvelians who settled in Abkhazia, it is their home. It is not right to murder and expel them. If they are not allowed to return, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against them.

Yet at the same time, it is not right for Abkhazia to have its titular, native population be a minority. The settlement of Kartvelians came as part of a subjugation and assimilation policy. It was not a natural migration, but an attempt to make the indigenous inhabitants a minority in their own country. If the Kartvelians make up a majority in Abkhazia, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against Abkhazia.

Abkhazia is only partially recognized, its main supporter is Russia. Abkhazia yearns for diplomatic relations with legitimate countries, but if the position of the world at large remains that it is illegitimate itself, it will never be able to get out of the Russian sphere of influence.

I would say the best thing Kartvelia can do to help end the conflict is to extend a helping hand. If recognition and trade normalization comes, and the world at large stands behind Abkhazia, it will not have to live under a Russian boot any longer. This would come with dropping territorial claims against Abkhazia. I would say that's worth it in exchange for pushing Russia out of the region further.

Abkhazia, very clearly, wants to be independent. Once you give a population a whiff of freedom, they will never forget it, and even if you take it from them, they will forever have that memory to reminisce about. Incorporating Abkhazia into Kartvelia might be viable someday, but that cannot come by force and it cannot come today. It has to come out of love, and it can only happen once trust has been built.

It goes both ways, though. A full right of return for the Kartvelian settlers would create a demographic crisis for Abkhazia, even if fair. There are about 100k Abkhazians living in the country, with 200k displaced Kartvelians. Their return would mean a Kartvelian majority.

This crisis could be avoided were the Abkhazians deported back in the 1800s also given a right of return. The ones in Turkiye either number as little as 15k or as many as 1.5 million. Some of those are assimilated into Turkish society and are Abkhaz only by descent, but with tutoring and re-Abkhazification they would be able to get in touch with their roots and become indistinguishable from any other Abkhazian.

Were Abkhazia to receive international recognition, those same Abkhazians in the diaspora might feel safer about coming back to their ancestral home, and with financial incentive, might even stay there.

You might find yourself skeptical since the Abkhazians that were expelled in the 1800s were Muslim and the Abkhazians in the country right now are majority Christian, but in a secular state this should be no problem.

While all of this might be a difficult sell, it is worth a try. For Kartvelia's safety against Russia, for the displaced Kartvelians, for the Abkhazian diaspora, for the independence of Abkhazia.

Аиааира!

Thoughts:

The creation of art is labour in itself. It is the intersection of both mental and physical work, first requiring the creation of the mental image before the actual piece is birthed. Every single piece of art is the result of the artist toiling away at their work in the hopes of reaching some kind of satisfactory endpoint. Artists often have little to no success when it comes to their extensive efforts, due to a volatile and highly competitive market, where corporations dominate over independent auteurs. Being an artist under capitalism usually means financial instability and insecurity. You are not always fairly paid for your labour and companies find much more success and have way more money to spend and earn. Other than some creatives that make it big and become millionaires and such, most artists will never see this kind of success and will have to do the work they enjoy with no monetary achievements.

The process of labour is art in itself. Labourers also toil away at their own creations, yet the perception is different. Their endpoint is a commodity that should come to serve somebody. I would argue that the process of creation is what makes art, it is the human effort behind the product. I would say the buildings in my city, the cars roaming the streets and every other product of effort is a tapestry of the millions of unidentified hands that toiled for the comfort of people and their own security. Every single man-made object is a piece of art simply because of the effort that went into it from people we will never know by name. But you've passed them in the street, or maybe talked with them at family dinner. It is the labourers who build our society, and it is the labourers who, like artists, will often get the short end of the stick. What sense does it make for bosses to get more money just for managing the people that do all the work?

Art & Labour are linked and inseparable, from both sides. You can't have one without the other. Process and Symbolism: I decided to have the background be FF0000 in RGB, or the purest red possible according to the sliders of paint.net. This flag draws heavy inspiration from already existing leftist and working class imagery. For example, red is widely associated with with leftism as a representation of the blood spilled by the working class. I wanted the red to be the purest red imaginable, very vibrant and striking.

000000, or the blackest black, compliments the red very nicely. I added black as a symbol of anarchism. When red and black are combined they usually signal anarcho-communism, but I want this flag to be useable by any movement that advocates and fights for the working class. This flag is not explicitly anarcho-communist, the red of the working class and the black of anarchy represent the freedom of the working class and do not endorse any specific ideology besides a general libertarian leftism. So if freedom and the working class are what you fight for, this flag is for you, no matter what the specific label may be.

The whitest white, or FFFFFF, is the colour of the anarchist A. I used a common public domain punk-style A, but I changed the formerly diagonal line to be horizontal instead. This was done to distinguish the A and make it less recognizable for people who have a keen eye for the specific punk-style A. On its own, the A represents anarchy, but in this flag it's meant to show the freedom of the working class and that they belong to no state. The reason I made it white is to represent pacifism. If you read any of my other polpookaposts, you might know how I feel about civilian casualties, unconditionally. This doesn't mean that I support pacifism blindly. Once all peaceful means have been thoroughly exhausted, pacifism is no longer an option. I kept it in the flag anyway to show that the working class is non-violent unless forced, and it contrasts nicely with the other colours.

The hydra of hands represents the collective character of the working class. The hands themselves are created from photographs of my own hands. I silhouetted them and touched them up to make them look a bit smoother. There are three left hands and two right hands. The fist I chose to base on my left hand as a nod to leftism. The center fist represents worker solidarity. It is central and larger than the other hands and holds no tools as it is the most important thing, I believe.

The lower-left hand holds a fountain pen to represent the intellectual artist who mostly writes, the upper-left holds a hammer to represent the industrial labourer, the upper-right holds a brush to represent the artist who makes physical pieces and installations, and the lower-right represents the agrarian labourer.

The hammer and sickle were appropriated from the Soviet flag and the pen and brush were free-to-use, no-attribution-required clipart.

I showed the flag to some of my young and progressive-minded friends, and some of them took issue with such explicit use of symbols that have been used by totalitarian communism. Slovakia has a communist past which is still a point of discussion and much of the youth feels apprehensive toward the former regime, which I don't fault them for. Authoritarianism, capitalism, nationalism, are all plagues that need to be purged from the human populace. They are the three pillars of harmful ideology.

Despite the symbols also being associated with totalitarian communism, I feel comfortable using them because symbols of the working class belong to the working class, and not to any specific ideology. Even if the hammer and sickle are most associated with the USSR, perpetrator of many atrocities against civilians, they do not belong to communism or to the Soviet State. They belong to us and we should be able to use them without any shame. There is a lot of stigma in Slovakia about being left-wing and you have to add thirty disclaimers if you don't support authoritarianism or SMER's cultural backwardism and corruption. The best way to fight back against this perception is to not be afraid of using the symbols associated with those negative perceptions, and explicitly use them in a positive manner that is antithetical to those negative perceptions.

EDIT: I have attempted the creation of a flipped-colour variant to some success

A lot of the discussion around SMER and the Opposition is framed as if the voter and ideological divide is only about age. While largely true that the elderly happen to be SMER voters more often than the youth, they are certainly not the only voters.

Some seem to believe that once the older generations perish we will get a century of PS prosperity, but it is not so simple. Fico and corrupt politicians of his kind do indeed exploit the nostalgia of the country's past. Conservatives in the west are often regressive (socially conservative / socially right) and capitalist (economically right). This allows leftists in those countries to cover both problems at once, fighting against one force. Meanwhile, in Slovakia, SMER is regressive and social democratic (or economically left - well, as left as you can be in a capitalist country, and some of their policies put the SocDem label into doubt). This is because their ideology is a kind of nostalgism that adapts an image of the past. Corrupt conservatives in the west are on the economic right because that is how the economy was in the past. Corrupt conservatives in the east, or at least in Slovakia, are economically left because that is how the economy was in the past. Their policy is simply emulating the past in nostalgia as a cover for being corrupt and reactionary. The nostalgia is why so much of their voterbase is elderly. Conservatives / reactionaries (the difference is negligible by now) have one thing in common across both East and West: emulating whatever was in the past to take advantage of an older voterbase, the economic policy is dependent purely on whatever the past of the specific country was.

Regressivism and capitalism must be fought at once, otherwise well-meaning but uninformed leftists might think Fico is a swell guy simply because he is on an economic left. This also creates a situation where there is no true left party in Slovakia, both economically and socially. Our social progressives are economically on the right which creates an odd predicament and Slovak leftists are stuck voting between parties they can't support whole-heartedly. This makes for a weird situation where PS, despite being on the economic right, is the lesser evil. But we know how I feel about lesser evils. Slovakia is in dire need of a truly leftist party, one progressive socially and on the left economically. Preferably one that also supports human rights unconditionally ;)

Back to the point in the first paragraph: I know several youngsters who voted for SMER and Pellegrini, and every elderly person in my family voted PS and Korčok. The difference is not old and young, the conflict in Slovakia is regressive and progressive. While true generally, it is cheap and plain incorrect to attack the elderly as a group because of SMER.

The fight of the social left, of progressives, is not against the elderly and attacking the elderly is unproductive. The fight is against reactionary elements, against regressivism. Once the oldest generations die out, that does not mean SMER will never get into power again. They have young support. It might be hard to look beyond just Bratislava and other urban centers, but there are many youngsters who are regressive in the country. Waiting the older generations out is not the solution. The solution is to subtly promote progressive ideas. Maybe in discussions with your friends, colleagues and relatives.

If you are one of the marginalized, it is not your obligation to defend yourself in front of people who would rather you be out of sight, out of mind, not existent. But for those of us who aren't, yet who believe in progressive values and egalitarian principles, it is up to us to take this fight head on. We won't succeed immediately, but we just might lay the groundwork and plant the seeds of doubt. There are also other important tactics beyond just discussion, like influencing culture through events, television and films, raising visibility, raising voices of the marginalized, speaking of them as they really are: normal people like you and I, without putting emphasis on their identity as their defining value, but their humanity and traits that haven't been politicized by regressives.

What also makes me a bit sad is when I see progressives who are elderly adopting the same kind of mindset, that the elderly voters are the problem. An air of self-deprecation accompanies their speech about their own age, and it bums me out somewhat. So many old people attend the anti-government protests, and other protests, too. I sometimes wonder how they feel about all this. The ones I do speak with sometimes appear as if through their self-deprecating humor they are trying to apologize to me for their age. Or to appease me, a young man. Might just be humor, though, maybe not that deep. I hope it's that.

Anyway, remember: the divide is not old VS young, and the nostalgism of SMER is a cover to appeal to voters from a prior era, but their regressivism is what appeals to some youths. We gotta again normalize being woke. Progressive voters need to stop being embarrassed of woke.

"Yeah I support gay rights and all but I'm not woke about it" no, be woke. Straight up. Even if you don't personally feel yourself as what you think woke means, say you are woke. It is only by normalizing what should already be normal that we bridge the gap between inevitable social progress and current social perception.

And especially: don't over-rely on electoralism. Remember that the divide is bottom and up. It is politicians and the wealthy that are the ultimate enemy of the regular person, but the fight against oppression cannot happen when a fourth of our allies are being denied their basic rights and demonized, used as fuel for votes. Once they get them, they'll come for more of us next, just to have something to justify their existence, or something to get elected.

Authoritarianism, capitalism, regressivism, must be fought all at the same time. Your only true enemies are the people on the top, and they love all three of these to varying degrees.

You might notice that I excluded nationalism, unlike previously when I described the three plagues of harmful ideology. Nationalism can exist ethically when it is practiced by an oppressed nation, only then. The three in the above cannot exist ethically ever.

When practiced by an oppressed people, pride in your nation, no matter its irrationality, is resistance in itself. Simply being proud and nationalistic when you are being discriminated against because of your national identity is a resistance against that very oppression. Because you are proud of what they want to take away. Identity becomes a shield, a weapon. But once you are not oppressed based on a national basis, nationalism becomes pointless, and it searches around like a detached parasite for fictitious oppression to latch onto. This is what drives anti-migrant or anti-EU sentiment today. Once national oppression stops, nationalism can very easily metastasize into fascism and extremism. With nothing legitimate to fight against, it seeks out enemies that do not exist, and the nation that was oppressed often becomes the oppressor, merging with the above three plagues. Once you create a country for your nation, nationalism reaches the natural end of its lifespan and it has no legitimate reason to exist.

Aimless people will always try and find an identity for themselves, and sometimes, when they supplement it with ideology, they will find nationalism. This is why it continues to survive in some places despite having no legitimate enemies, only boogeymen. People want to feel whole and sometimes they find nationalism for that. However, for it to survive, the nation must be oppressed, and with no real oppression, narratives are invented so the identity is justified.

Anyway fuck nationalism for the most part, half the time I see it it's the stupidest shit ever, you've already got a country, now turn to the real enemies.

You must swear off nationalism. You must swear off authoritarianism. You must swear off capitalism. You must swear off regressivism. Because while the politicians and the wealthy oppress us, there is only one nation you belong to: the nation of people.

Got my wish. People are certainly talking about the Beneš Decrees now. I just wish it were different. The Slovak Republic is about to criminalize free expression about the discriminatory Decrees and their practices which violate the basic human rights of Germans and Hungarians.

First they are taking their land, now they are taking our speech. I am reminded of what Aaron Bushnell said. So many people think they would kill Hitler or resist Naziism, had they been there all those years ago. There are ten Hitlers now and fifty proto-Hitlers. Where are you? What are you doing to stop them?

If this thing is nipped in the bud before it ever starts, who knows what horrors we will have avoided. The Slovak Republic must be stopped, for all our sakes. Not just because of the Hungarians and Germans. If you can simply speak, it concerns you now too.

Six months in a cell or cowardice and eternal shame. Take your pick.

When the idea of facial-recognition AI cameras in every room and classroom of every school was floating about in Slovakia, I made a pact with myself that I would tape them over if it ever went through. Nothing came of it. So, I'm making another pact here. Let's hope nothing comes of that either.

It is necessary to clarify that none of this is a call to violence. It is a call to action. Protest, speak out, lobby your representatives. This is the phase where that is still enough. It's not too late.

A collection of polpookaposts I distributed online, either in public or in private, somewhat edited. Mostly from 2025.

The Perfect Afterlife

I think my perfect afterlife would be a unity of all people and creatures. Every single being to ever live and every single experience to ever happen as one, ushering in complete empathy and enlightenment.

The best antidote to wronging someone is to then be forced to live as them, seeing it for what it was in the moment and in the grand scheme, getting to experience both the very best and the very worst of humanity. The ultimate repentance, living as all you ever wronged and vice versa. Getting to see the pain you caused first-hand. But also all the good you ever did. And all the times you were indifferent.

It's interesting to see how connected everything is already. All the same elements, compounds, atoms. Common ancestors for humans and all species alike (possibly).

What fundamental difference is there between you and I?

Domowina Anniversary Announcement

Founded 113 years ago today, Domowina is arguably the most important organization in Sorbian history.

Despite being shut down by Nazi Germany during the years of their rule and overtaken by East German authorities during their own time, Domowina has persisted.

Through thick and thin, through the good and the bad, it has powered on and survived, just like the people the organization represents.

So may Domowina and the Sorbs persist for another century more, and may we stand by their side, side by side, brothers and sisters and all.

Happy birthday to the Domowina!

Zohran Mamdani's Victory

With capitalism becoming ever-less popular among the regular people of the US, we must make sure to guide new socialist visions into the libertarian and not the totalitarian brand. Zohran is a great example. NYC is lucky to have him.

If every politician was a Mamdani, if every cop was a Serpico, if every soldier was an Aaron Bushnell or a Hugh Thompson Jr, then I'd never have to write another post. Even these few outliers, though, are not enough to justify the entire system.

Not saying that Zohran is a Libertarian Socialist BTW. To my knowledge, he has never described himself as such, so it would be incorrect to call him that. If the two general varieties are Libertarian and Authoritarian, he certainly aligns more with the former.

Hoping he doesn't drop the ball and that Trump doesn't obstruct him at every turn.

Beneš Decrees

Just found out that the Beneš Decrees were never officially repealed, and the Slovak Republic occasionally uses them as a pretext for taking land from Hungarians. This is completely unacceptable and blatant ethnic discrimination. Nationalistic chauvinism is a core part of how this republic functions and it is a complete embarrassment.

It's strategic too. As long as the discrimination is not open and loud, then the EU, the media, nobody will ever call it out. Were it any other ethnic group the same would happen, because having a policy that allows you to confiscate land willy-nilly comes in handy no matter who it affects. A detached discrimination driven by economic benefit.

The Slovak Republic, through its conduct over the years, has shown itself as a completely illegitimate actor propped up by xenophobic laws from the 40s. I feel crazy, nobody is talking about this. Everybody should be talking about this.

What pride is there in a country that discriminates? What pride is there in a country that sends people to do hard time for marijuana, or one that allows Neo-Nazis to run in elections? One that enshrined two genders in its constitution? One that meets with Israeli and Russian officials as their countries commit war crimes?

There is no pride. State politics have tarnished any pride that could have ever existed. This country is a sham, like all other countries. And like all other countries, it needs a power transfer to the people ASAP. Too long have out of touch politicians been dictating how we should run our lives, who we should hate and how we should love. We must put our foot down before it gets worse.

If you deface Slovak national symbols you get 3 years time max. It's something straight out of Nazi Germany, not a modern democratic country. What Slovak national symbols? Slovakia doesn't exist. All there is is a sham theater performance propped up by a military.

How is it possible that it is legal for Slovakia to confiscate Hungarian land but illegal to deface national symbols? These are the priorities of the state, out in the open. Symbols that represent a state which discriminates should absolutely be defaced. Another example that legality ≠ morality.

Empathy for the Other Side of the World

I really despise the attitude of "it's so far away and doesn't concern us." All human suffering concerns us. What if it was you starving in Sudan? What if you got shot in Gaza? What if a rocket blew you up in Ukraine? It concerns all of us because we must all be concerned about each other.

But I adore the narrative that these issues are simply too complex for our little primate brains to understand, so anybody that has an actual opinion is somehow a radical. That it's better to just give up and not think about it, because we are all idiotic morons apparently.

Language

Freedom, truth, justice, liberty, equality, human rights, are all buzzwords now. Half the people who think they believe in these things work against them without remorse. Everybody believes in the words themselves but it's never the same things. We say we believe in them but few of us really do.

We must de-sloganify them and make sure there is only one of each, so we don't have every single ideology from bonkers to normal all claiming to preach these values at the same time. We must support and realize these concepts as they are in their purest forms.

Part of this is pointing out whenever they are infringed and being clasped down on. We can never let our oppressors get an edge, never let them get room to breathe. We will accept the maximum and nothing else, because it is the minimum of what we all deserve.

Israeli-Slovak Relations

I think I finally understand why so many Slovak progressives and liberals support Israel. The very real Russian threat has made the progressive crowd unquestioningly jump into the arms of the west. The west is seen as the most civilized, developed, democratic and innovative and without any faults.

Meanwhile, Slovakia is apparently the biggest shithole ever and literally every single person you know wants to leave. Israel is part of this west, "the only democracy in the middle east", and it is why they can do no wrong ever. This is why so much of the Slovak Opposition openly supports Israel.

If in the west = always good. A portion of Slovak liberals and progressives are like caricatures of what they believe their western counterparts look like. They fight for progressive ideas often not because they actually believe in them, but because they think them to be western.

You take a Slovak liberal and put him into any actually western country and he will become a conservative. I know people who are raging homophobes and transphobes and yet they support the Opposition because that is what seems western and developed, even though PS fights for LGBT rights. The fight for these things is good, but it is not coming out of an honest place.

Anyway fuck the Coalition (obviously), but fuck the Opposition, too. we deserve better than picking the least smelly turd. And happy belated 17th of November.

Since I've been giving so much flak to the Opposition, let me say that SMER is completely anti-left, hypocritical and corrupt, but this is already widely known in Slovakia. A true leftist party would raise the wages of the doctors in the country, not forbid them from leaving when the wages are shit.

Of course, raising the wages of your country's workers would mean having to hold off on buying another villa for yourself. The Coalition does not have the best interests of the workers in mind, just ask the actual workers. The Consolidation was rightly protested by our labour unions.

I remember when that clown motherfucker Korčok was parroting pro-Israeli talking points and HLAS or SMER rightly called him out, but then when in government they started buying Israeli arms and improving diplomatic ties no problem. They are not leftists, the only thing they believe in is money.

Of course, the Opposition has no problem with the Coalition improving ties with the war criminal terror state of Israel. Like I said prior, the west can do no wrong and Israel is in the west. Is it really too much to ask for a party that supports human rights unconditionally and for all?

Because a party like that does not exist in Slovakia, and I doubt it exists in much of the world's countries. Representative democracy is much better than the autocracies of the past, but it is time to let it retire. Democracy needs to be direct if the citizen is ever to have actual say in policy.

Conservative Youths

It bums me out whenever I see somebody my age pushing conservative drivel. Young people should be forward-thinking and mindful of their fellows. It makes me realize that our generation is no different from those before us. All the same ideologies, the same bickering with new set dressing. We need to stop thinking ourselves any more enlightened than those in the past.

Left Unity

Before you ever join any leftist organization, always ask about their stance on: 1. the USSR, 2. China, 3. leftist unity.

Before you ever join any rightist organization, always ask yourself what you are doing with your life.

Do Politics Always Equal Morality?

I don't think your politics inherently determine whether you're a good person or not. There are people whose beliefs can be horrid but who have a positive impact in society. Vice versa, there are people who can believe in good things but are bad people otherwise.

Your politics don't have to determine what kind of person you are. Importantly, there is a difference between belief and action. Simply believing in good things doesn't give you any free passes. Translate it into something measurable. You're not off the hook just for picking the correct side of politics (the left in case that was ever unclear).

An Allegory for Life

I like to imagine life as a fortress that you are defending. You might be under relentless attack constantly. It might seem completely hopeless at some points. But you're still hanging on as long as it doesn't collapse. And death is the only thing that can let the enemy in.

Death is the end. It's over for you, the fortress. Whether you open the doors yourself, or whether they get broken down, this is the end. Death is the only real end. Because no matter how bad it always seems otherwise, it's still standing.

Simply because you are alive, the fortress is still standing. And your fortunes can always reverse. Once the attacks weaken, when life grows calmer, you're on the offensive. But then you can get beaten back again. Just remember that as long as you draw breath, it cannot be over.

All for One, One for All

I remember when some years ago in school we were slated to write an exam from a certain subject. In preparation for the test, a classmate of mine ordered the answer sheet / teacher's guide for the specific book which our tests were always taken from. The answers to the exam were sent into a groupchat of our other classmates, and we all cheated to get a better grade once the time came to write the test.

When the results came back, the teacher immediately suspected cheating from the guy that got us the answer sheet in the first place. Only him. The subject was a linguistic one, and unlike with other subjects which you can just cram information for, everybody has a certain dynamic skill level with languages, unique to just them. His prowess in the language was rather poor, but in the test he did well.

The teacher sussed him out, but he wasn't budging. The rest of the class didn't stand up for him, even though they all cheated, too. On the contrary, they were afraid that because of this incident, from now on, the tests would be custom-made and the newly-acquired cheat sheet would become obsolete. So they tried to pressure him into confessing. If he admitted to cheating, maybe the tests wouldn't get replaced, and they could continue with their own cheating, I guess was the reasoning. They wanted him to make a sacrifice for the collective.

Whether a loud minority or the actual prevailing opinion, it quickly made the atmosphere hostile. The entire class, plus the teacher, ganged up on one guy. I advised him not to budge. In the end, nothing could be proven and the teacher let him off the hook.

During the following year when we got new study materials, I got ahold of another teacher's guide which I sent into the groupchat. This was met with groans and bitching about "learning our lesson from last time." without naming the specific person. Interestingly enough, the vocal protests came from the same people who berated the guy a year prior.

No incident of a similar nature ever occurred again. We all kept cheating in the class, and the same two individuals that were the most intense in their opposition got perfect scores on the tests since then. Not even trying to hide it. And I do mean perfect. One point away from a full score at most. But I guess it's apparently okay, since their skill level matches up with their cheating.

Another incident comes to mind, taking place years before the one I just described. This happened in a Geography class, in which cramming for the subject should be enough, especially at lower levels of education.

The way the class went, every time we had it, there would be an oral exam at the start of each lesson. I don't know if they have something akin to this in other countries, but the gist is that you get called up to the board and you have to recite the topic the class went over during the previous lesson, with the teachers sometimes budding in to quiz you about specific points.

This was standard and to be expected, yet during this one lesson in particular, nobody looked at the topic. Or, at least, nobody wanted to go up to the board and talk about it. If nobody volunteers, the teacher usually picks somebody randomly in most other classes where this kind of method is employed.

Not here. Here, the teacher felt offended at the lack of preparation from the students. So, she threatened an exam for everybody. A spontaneous exam from the topic for every person in the class, if nobody volunteered. The atmosphere was tense. Not a single person knew the topic. It would've been a bloodbath of bad grades for the entire class.

Then, someone volunteered. The kid came up to the board, and everybody else could take relief in what the class just dodged. The burden of the collective would get heaped on the individual instead. It became apparent, soon enough, that the kid knew as little as everybody else. He just stood there, in front of the board, not saying a single thing from the topic. Because he didn't know anything. Yet he still came up and took the bullet for the class.

In the end, the teacher relaxed a little and sent him to take his seat. He wouldn't get a bad grade that day, and the class continued as usual. Nobody got any grade that day.

This exact story is the one I told years later to the classmate who got accused later on, the one who obtained the teacher's guide, before the incident. He was hesitant to send pictures of it to the entire class, for fear of being found out. He sent it to just me and a couple of friends. I thought this was ludicrous. If we, as a class in that school at that time, are supposed to function as a collective, we must all look out for each other.

I brought the Geography class story up, and then I mentioned how many other times other classmates provided the answers to exams and such, and how many times it helped him out. I'm not just bark, though. I ended up sending that first sheet into the groupchat, and the classmate ended up being anonymous. He said that next time he might be up for it, but for now it was more sensible for somebody who wasn't as worried about getting caught to send it. I wonder, if they had found out it was him that got them the cheat sheet, whether they would've treated him a bit better when he got accused of cheating.

The collective and the individual are intertwined. One cannot sacrifice the other for its own benefit, they must stand together, bound like weld. When a crisis arises, the individual must make the choice to sacrifice himself. The collective can't make it for him. When the collective throws the individual under the bus, there ceases to be a collective. All that remains is disorder and selfishness.

If that collective was truly strong, they would've immediately shut those naysayers down, and stood by the side of the classmate. You can't sacrifice somebody for the greater good, that choice belongs only to them. It cannot be made for him by other people. His sacrifice was his and only his own choice, like the Geography class kid. What kind of story would that have been, had the class instead been egging him on to go up to that board?

Collectives like that aren't worth a limping dog. Make sure to choose your collective carefully. Make sure to get to know them, make sure to stand by them, make sure they stand by you. And make sure to remove bad actors who would sell you out for a few good grades in some school subject.

The Revolution

I can't help but feel like the way many leftists talk of The Revolution is the same way many Christians do about The Rapture. The two have a couple of things in common, I think. A, is that they're probably never happening, and B, is that everybody thinks they'll see them come about in their own lifetime.

Karl Marx himself probably thought he would get to see The Revolution, and it's been quite a bit since then. We all keep saying that capitalism will eventually see to its own destruction, yet all that's been happening is growth overall.

Even the times when it crashes, it always gets bailed out by states. I think that's the scariest possibility for the future. That capitalism never falls, and that it'll just keep getting bigger and bigger and whenever it fails it'll keep getting bailed out and it'll never ever end.

We can't hold out for The Revolution, for world communism. There's gotta be something else we're missing, something to focus our efforts on. You probably won't see The Revolution in your lifetime. In the meantime, spread the word, organize, join a union, amplify each others' voices.

YouTube

I swear this isn't because of the algorithm stuff with the channel.

YouTube has an indisputable monopoly on long-form video content. Anti-trust measures could never change this, though, as this monopoly wasn't acquired based on buying or merging anything. This monopoly was created by people.

Few are satisfied with the way YouTube is being run, with YouTube's goals and changes often being in direct opposition to popular demand from all sides. Changes like removing the YouTube dislike, algorithms that negatively impact auteurs and favor corpo-slop, AI summaries, unskippable and longer ads, etc.

With no real competition in the internet video market, YouTube is free to do as it pleases and make any terrible changes it desires. You're gonna move to Vimeo, or PeerTube? Yeah, right. Try having success anywhere outside of YouTube.

This is harmful to both creators and to viewers. YouTube has no incentive to change for the better, because people will keep using it no matter what. If we want to break YouTube's monopoly, it'll have to be through our own action. We need to scatter to other sites to stoke betterment and action on the part of companies, both as creators and as viewers. We must re-introduce competition into the market, or we'll be worse off. So do use Vimeo, PeerTube, whatever. This is the only way to improve the situation.

While I don't have experience with the site, I like seeing something like Nebula pop up. Creators taking matters into their own hands and breaking from YouTube's restrictive clutches. I wish them well.

Everybody dies twice. The first time is when their heart takes its last beat. The second is when their name is spoken for the last time. This and other cool quotes to put in your video essay have been kindling much interest in things such as legacy, mortality, our meaning for a time now.

But this interest is not a new thing. Immortality has been the fascination of humans for as long as humans have written. One of the oldest known pieces of literature, The Epic of Gilgamesh, is exactly about this topic. Coping with death has been one of the favorite past-times of people, and it continues up to this day. Perhaps it is a quality inherent to the human condition, to ponder death. We simply can't make peace with it as a species.

Life expectancy overall has become higher than ever before, mainly due to great leaps in medicine and healthcare which have improved our overall standing as a species. We have managed to delay death farther and farther back. It's not quite immortality, but it proves there is a drive to lengthen the lifespan of the person. We don't like death, most of us. We would rather delay it and keep alive for a few more years, months, days.

I think this kind of progress is for the better. Helping improve the lives of every person out there should be our goal, because every person deserves the best. What is a shame is that much of progress, not just in increasing the lifespan but in other fields as well, is in the hands of the very wealthy. This means we are reliant on the patronage of ego-maniacs who only see green, and not the ecological kind. This field should not be the domain of eccentric millionaires, billionaires, trillionaires. It should be a shared human effort not subject to the whims of small men with big bucks.

I also happen to believe progress should not be chased at all cost. All it takes is one look at the environmental destruction which dooms us to ever-increasingly warmer temperatures to make one doubt whether the free market should truly be left to its own devices, and whether progress is really the most important thing to fight for. Progress must not interfere with our comfort or survival, there should be no contention with that. All those rising stocks won't do you much good when your house is burning, your backyard is flooded, and your air unbreathable. Probably not all at once, though. But it won't be the wealthy bearing the brunt, of course. It'll be us. The countries emitting the least are often affected the most, in a cruel twist of fate. It'll be like that for citizens, too. The rich will live in comfortable air-conditioned bunker-villas while we suffer in the streets, the countryside. Who does this progress really benefit? Who is this immortality really for?

Since immortality itself is not yet achievable, people have been looking for substitutes. Possibly the most prominent and society-altering is religion. In an effort to cope with death, people have adopted beliefs about afterlives, just so the end is not really the end. I suppose it is a comforting thought. That even after your heart beats for the last time you will still be around, just in a different place, along with everybody you love (so long as all you lot follow whatever the rules are). Reincarnation holds a different concept about life after death, yet it still is one. The end is not the end, and you'll be able to come back, just in a different way.

This is not to say those beliefs are inherently wrong, but as far as academia is concerned, there is no proof of them being the answer to mortality. That's why it's called faith, it's not meant to be based on evidence, and that's okay. It is about belief, not anything provable, and that is ultimately a personal choice. But as far as objectivity is concerned, what is in the here and now is all that is concrete. This is why we should seek to maximize the comfort and freedom of every person alive, since this is all there is. No do-overs, no second life where things will be better. This is all we have and we must make the most of it for that reason. This idea is not incompatible with religion, it simply means you get a bonus comfortable life before the more-comfortable eternal one. And if you come back during reincarnation, you just get to experience that comfort more than once. Win win win.

Another substitute for immortality is legacy-building. I recall when many years ago, during a discussion among a small group of people, the question was brought up of who would rather live a life of good deeds and be forgotten and who would rather commit atrocities but be remembered. Of the approximately fifteen, two people picked the latter. This opinion was quite disturbing to me, and it stuck with me for years since then. I believe I asked at least one, if not both of the people for their justification of what was said that day. I recall it not being remembered, or being dismissed as a joke at the time, but I don't know if I quite trust that. While there is no proof, I think they were being honest with that first answer all those years ago.

They're not bad people, not by a longshot. I've been with them through the good, the bad, the embarrassing. Nothing about them stands out so much that you could ever predict such an answer to have come from them. The same can probably be said about any person you know. We've become so obsessed with leaving behind a legacy that it no longer matters to us whether it is good or bad, just that one was left behind, because we live through it. Our legacy is an extension of us beyond the grave. It means we only die once.

I have no doubt this has to do with explicit and implicit expectations being placed on all our shoulders. Every day we are taught about the great men of history, very often two-faced with much good and bad, one often emphasized over the other to turn them into pseudo-deities. "Look at all these great men who have accomplished so much. This is what we admire, this is what we should aspire to." Is this what that leads to? Are we really so obsessed with not being forgotten? Really, I'm not worried as much about the people who identified with that option of leaving behind a negative legacy, as much as I am worried about those who didn't because they realized how bad it sounds outloud, yet they agreed in secret. How many of us do?

This has caused people to leave their actual legacy behind. Their actual immortality. By chasing fame, they've neglected the one legacy all of us have. You might feel bad for not being remembered in the future, but remember that most people who ever lived didn't get to be remembered either. You're not a failure, you're just like everybody else. And everybody else has a real legacy, just like you. It is the impact you have on people and the world around you. The irreversible changes you make to the environment. Simply by being yourself, you have already left an imprint on the world, one nobody can take away from you. Billions of people all charging into each other and their surroundings, shifting them permanently, creating new circumstances that shift everybody and everything else, shifting all else around them forever and ever. Your legacy is the world you leave behind and the changes you made to it. These changes are untrackable. You will never get recognition for them. But so did nobody else. The invisible imprint we all make on the world, molding it simply through existing.

But be wary of whether the change you make is positive or negative. You have a real impact on the world, on the people around you. You must take care to make this impact positive. That is your legacy. Make your legacy the people you help and the good you do. You might not be Elvis Presley, but you can at least be good to others.

I remember a sketch by Studio C called 'The Devil's Dilemma' which I like to rewatch every once in a while. The premise is that the Devil visits a man who died to take him to Hell. Not because the man was evil, but because the Devil lost the coin toss with God. Because the man was milquetoast, a centrist, completely bland. Neither want him because he is neither good enough for Heaven nor bad enough for Hell. My apologies for spoiling the sketch, but the end message is really important, I feel: being good is not simply about the absence of bad, it is about the presence of good. Do not think yourself good simply because you don't do bad. If you're already shaping the world, make the effort to shape it into a good place. Be kind to others, yourself. Your legacy will be the people you leave behind as better off. This is your immortality.

PURPOSE

I've considered myself a rather introverted person for most of my life, and justifiably so. I used to keep to myself as a result of mild social anxiety and I fit the definition of an introvert near-perfectly. I would come to find it quite disturbing when in my day-to-day I would meet people who were very obviously extroverts, yet they would identify as introverts. People who were socially outgoing, in their element when in groups and very outspoken, completely opposite to me. I was and still am completely baffled by extroverts who doubtlessly match the definition and yet refuse to identify with the label.

It seems that introversion has, for no good reason, come to be associated with intelligence. The silent intellectual is a false caricature in our society which has made introversion so appealing to everybody.

We, the extrovertists, posit that introverts are no more smart or stupid than extroverts. The false perception comes only as a result of the former putting themselves out there less and thus, when they do put themselves out there, they come off more intelligent. Obviously, he who speaks more often is more likely to blunder publicly. As a result, the extrovert has come to be seen as a loud and unintelligent buffoon in comparison to the introvert.

People have grown to romanticize the introvert so much that even when their traits do not align with the label, they still adopt it as their own. While wrong, we respect their perspective, since it is theirs and only theirs. The side effect has been that the extrovert has all but gone extinct. With it being an unattractive label, for our purposes, extraversion as a self-identification is dead and it is unlikely to ever be brought back.

Extrovertism is a philosophical and political movement that brings extraversion back in a fresh and nuanced form. One which is necessary for the continued function of society, whether one is actually an introvert or extrovert at their core. Introverts are not enemies to extrovertism, they're half of the movement's members.

People have never been more alone and isolated than they are now. These are the other factors other than perception which have contributed so greatly to the decline of extraversion: urbanization, the rise of the internet, growth of mentally debilitating illnesses, societal polarization and our recent COVID pandemic have all guaranteed our social decline. While any other movement might seek to remove all of these from the equation entirely, extrovertism recognizes their permanent presence, if not their necessity in societal progress and seeks to adapt to the challenges they present rather than returning to a time when they did not exist.

Becoming an extrovertist does not necessitate signing up to any website, newsletter, organization. Our headquarters are planet Earth and our leader is ourselves. Extrovertism operates through extrovertists. They are numerous and lodged in any and every place, all operating as individual cells to repair the bleeding wound in our society. To become an extrovertist, you must simply will it into existence. To cease being an extrovertist, you must simply will it out of existence. To become a signatory of this declaration, you must simply think it. This does not mean individual agents cannot come together and form any groups and such, rather that the only legitimate authority in the movement is the movement itself, made up of the people within. We recognize that it is collectives and communities that drive society, but we need individual actors to form those. Extrovertism serves as a guideline to the formation of these collectives.

Additionally, extrovertism does not claim to be an entirely new movement. Many of the ideas described within the manifesto you will have no doubt seen and heard already. The manifesto only attempts to serve as a coherent compilation and to add a label to the extrovertists resuscitating our societies.

SYMBOLISM

Symbols of extrovertism are determined and created by adherents to the cause, and they belong to everybody in the movement. A symbol of extrovertism becomes such simply because extrovertists use it. Any one agent can create a symbol of extrovertism, and it is their use alone that makes it a symbol of the cause. We recognize that common symbols are necessary, so we encourage that symbols are created and shared by all members to create a coherent identity. Remember that symbols should not go against core extrovertist principles.

Our first stepping stone is the Extrovertist Flag. Similar to the movement itself being counter-cultural, the flag does not adhere to traditional vexillological norms.

A 1:2 flag made up of a yellow (FFFF00) E, where the horizontal outermost lines stretch the entire length of the flag, and a blue (0000FF) X in the center of the flag which puts a stop to the middle line in the E. The two letters are the first in the word extrovert. Other than the two colours, the rest of the flag is completely transparent.

RULES AND GUIDELINES

The extrovertist seeks to revive a healthy community by pushing himself and others into social situations which we otherwise neglect in our daily lives. He must uphold a certain respect, not just towards others, but also to himself. Often the two are actually one and the same. The extrovertist's main goal is to strengthen not only the collective, but also to grow as an individual. We believe that the two are also tied and need to co-exist for a healthy society to function. The collective can only be created if individuals come together and combine their power into one unstoppable force.

For the sake of a healthy community and healthy person, we have outlined a list of rules and guidelines to follow:

The extrovertist engages in small talk with acquaintances and strangers alike. Small talk is not meaningless fluff to say just to pass the time. The extrovertist recognizes it as an important process in building a relationship with another person, whether as the first steps or the continued steps in a relationship. Obviously, if the people within the conversation itself are uninterested in it, it'll be hollow and pointless. The extrovertist, who recognizes small talk's importance, engages honestly and with interest, eager to lead the conversation into a place where the other will be interested in opening up and in the conversation itself.

An effective conversation is often compared to something like a game of tennis. The extrovertist knows this to be true. In order for communication to be effective, both sides need to display interest in each other and in themselves. The extrovertist knows to give their conversation partner speaking room, not hogging the whole speaking time to himself. He also knows he must not be interrogative of the other person, and frequently engage about himself and allow the other person to recharge. The result must be a conversation where both sides participate in equal measure.

The extrovertist does not avoid interactions with strangers in public. When he is not the one who creates the interaction, he at the very least makes himself look approachable and friendly to give the other person a signal. When somebody else does engage him, he either lets the conversation run its natural course or he exits once he judges it to be too long for a public interaction with a stranger.

An apology is one of the most effective tools in the extrovertist's belt. The extrovertist recognizes that our perspectives are biased and coloured by what we think of ourselves, and that objective reality is often at odds with what we perceive. The extrovertist, like any other person, is bound to make countless avoidable mistakes during their life, some more malicious than others. The extrovertist must own up to his wrongs, not just for the sake of the others affected, but also for his own sake. By being honest with his mistakes, he keeps himself humble and does right not just by others, but also by himself. Apology is not given because he thinks forgiveness is owed, it is given so he can do right. In order to gain a more objective perspective, he must judge even his own actions objectively, by their impact, not by their intent, because he recognizes that people make the mistake of judging others by impact and themselves by intent. The extrovertist judges himself by impact and others by intent.

The extrovertist flirts with anybody and everybody. Not to gain romantic or sexual favor, but to introduce silliness and whimsy that combat monotony. By joking with the people around him, the extrovertist builds rapport and familiarity, increasing the social bond. By not taking himself seriously he identifies himself to others as a non-threatening presence that seeks to build camaraderie. This is, however, not his permanent state. He knows when to get serious, especially if their conversation partner desires it. Even if his attempts don't always land, it's worth it for the times they do.

It is important to not try to force chemistry, and the extrovertist is fully aware of this. His conversations and interactions only continue up to whatever the other person's ceiling is with the extrovertist. If the chemistry simply isn't there and it can't be built up over time, the extrovertist must recognize the limits with that particular person and respect them as to not devalue the relationship.

The extrovertist is excited to engage with communities that are often unheard. The marginalized, minorities, and extra-circumstantial groups are the ones which the extrovertist likes engaging with the most. It is their presence on the fringes of society that makes him so eager to engage, because nobody deserves to be forgotten. One of the groups the extrovertist engages with are the elderly. Their upbringing during a more social era makes them aliens in a world of ever-diminishing connections. With dead friends and busy, uninterested relatives, there are few more lonely than the elderly. Other marginalized groups may include the disabled, the poor, the homeless, religious, racial, ethnic and linguistic minorities, people of different sexualities and gender, all of whom are either neglected or attacked by society at large and who need moral support. It is up to the extrovertist to make them feel human.

The extrovertist recognizes that the vast length of life makes any one conversation a momentary blip in a rich tapestry of actions. The extrovertist, just by going out there, will experience much embarrassment and awkwardness through social interaction, and that's normal. It is a natural part of the process. The extrovertist reacts by lifting his chin up and going into the next conversation. In a long and rich life of constant interactions, any one that fails, no matter how miserably, is a momentary blip in what will be a life of more numerous and significant events. The extrovertist is not defined by any one failed interaction, his value comes from love for himself and others, and a drive to learn from his mistakes and improve.

The extrovertist is part of and engages with more than one group of acquaintances. By keeping himself in more than just one group of people, any perceived failure with a single group will be negated through interactions with another. If the extrovertist ever feels himself to have made a mistake with one group, keeping himself around another will remind him of his worth, and that it is not determined only by what he thinks the one group thinks of him and that there are more people than just the one group who like and care about him.

No problem faced by the extrovertist is unique. There is no experience the extrovertist will have that somebody else hasn't had before. While he may never get to meet them, the extrovertist comes from a long line of people with the same losses, doubts, hopes and victories as he. There is nothing that happens to the extrovertist hasn't happened to somebody else before, and the extrovertist realizes this. Many of these people have come back from the same issues already, and the extrovertist comes back, too. There isn't a single thing, no matter how terrible it seems, that the extrovertist can never recover from. As long as there is the will, the motivation, the strength, there is no grave the extrovertist will be unable to dig himself out of. The extrovertist keeps all of this in mind during the challenges he faces. There is only one thing that can ever put a stop to the extrovertist: death. But, if he has done well, not even death can douse his impact.

A romantic relationship just for the sake of a romantic relationship is not what the extrovertist seeks. A relationship that begins not out of love but out of urgency and loneliness will not a stable relationship make, and despite some successes, most will be hollow. The extrovertist improves upon his hobbies and upon himself for his own sake. By not chasing partnership at all cost he has more time to work on his interests and to fulfill himself by more stable and rewarding means. If a relationship is to come then it must come naturally and out of genuine love, not due to desperation. The extrovertist recognizes that platonic allies are more important, and he engages with the sex he is attracted to because of the social reward, not the romantic. Focusing on himself, his interests, his allies, is more important than chasing tail.

The extrovertist is compassionate toward himself. Even when following these guidelines religiously, he is bound to forget or neglect some depending on the situation. Even in matters unrelated to the guidelines, the extrovertist practices self-forgiveness, because just like everybody else, he is only human, and humans are mistake-prone. Importantly, though, he does not engage in an act he knows to be wrong under the security of forgiving himself or being apologetic later. He can only forgive himself or apologize once the action is finished, not as it is happening. If he recognizes an act is wrong as he is doing it, he must cease immediately, not take comfort in eventual recognition of wrong-doing.

Possibly the most closely-held value of the extrovertist is that every person is an equal. Not just as respect for others, but also as self-respect. The extrovertist knows himself to not be above anyone, no matter their sex, race, religion, ethnicity, class, or creed. He also knows his own worth. He knows that he is not beneath anybody, and that he need not grovel before anyone else. He treats every single person he knows with the same respect and compassion. He doesn't make rules for one group and other rules for another. Whatever outside characteristics, the extrovertist sees beneath the skin, and that is what he judges a person by.

In the interest of socializing with people he already knows, and even with people he does not, the extrovertist accepts invitations to events, even the ones he might be uninterested in himself. If the event is of interest to the extrovertist, that is only a welcome bonus. The extrovertist does not always attend for the place itself, or what it is hosting. He attends for the people he will meet and the people he already has.

The extrovertist prioritizes truth over saving face. Personal embarrassments must be owned up to, and not covered up by excuses and lies. When the extrovertist makes a mistake that embarrasses himself and only himself, he knows that lying can only dig him in a deeper hole. It is often much easier to tell the embarrassing truth than saving face with a falsehood. The consequences from telling the truth are almost never as bad as the consequences from building towers of lies. Similarly, the fallout from not asking an embarrassing question will often be much worse than simply biting the bullet. If the problem is not addressed and the extrovertist does not educate himself, it can degenerate to a degree much worse than it was originally. Even if mocked for it, asking the question will save time and effort and is the right thing to do.

Be it social interaction or any other kind of action, the most crucial part is taking the first step. Once the extrovertist takes his leap of faith and sets things in motion, it is often easy for things to continue from there naturally, on their own. Once the first step happens, the extrovertist and his circumstances carry him to the finish line. If the extrovertist is afraid of taking that first step, he will often imagine a worst-case scenario of what might happen. He must be conscious of the scenario he is imagining being an artificial and fictitious worst-case, so the calming of the nerves is effective. Once he already has an image of the worst-case in mind and knows it to be a fabrication, taking the first step will seem much less impactful in the consequences that may arise. Imagining worst-cases is applied outside of the first step as well.

In the spirit of maintaining self-respect, the extrovertist knows exactly when a conversation ceases to be productive, or when the conversation partner begins to forget boundaries. The extrovertist is not uniquely social, it is a trait shared by humans at large. Silence in a formerly bustling conversation indicates a wrong turn and silent judgement. The extrovertist knows when to turn off the tap. Without saying a single word, the extrovertist can impose powerful doubt in the conversation partner and immediately induce self-reflection. The power of silence is real and must be used with caution and care.

Most crucially, the extrovertist does not torture himself. He knows his limits and his own situation best, better than this text. He knows not to follow the extrovertist guidelines to a fault, and he knows when and where to adapt and apply them. He knows what he is comfortable with and what his peers are comfortable with. The extrovertist knows that The Extrovertist is not something he can be at any present moment, but rather an ideal to aspire to and a goal to work toward. Sometimes he will not follow guidelines out of necessity. Sometimes out of poor judgement. Either way, he must be aware of and appreciate his own limits, otherwise he is useless to the movement, to himself, to society. Sometimes it is society itself that does not allow the extrovertist to practice extrovertism. A black man in the United States might get his skull shredded by lead if he steps out of normalcy. If a woman flirts with everybody she knows it will always be interpreted as a romantic gesture by men. This is why caution must be exercised. The extrovertist is aware that no society is completely receptive, and this is where caution is crucial for his continued survival. The inherent systemic problems within our communities can be solved by following movements of a different nature, ones that cover what extrovertism misses, yet they are complementary to each other.

Often in history class, when speaking of ancient societies and civilizations, as a task among the class the teacher would draw a pyramid on the board and we would try and fill it in with who the most "important" and powerful members in the society were, down to the least "important" and powerful.

The uncomfortable and obvious truth is that most of us don't live in just societies. Not even in the enlightened west we love to hold up as a beacon. So, 2000 years from now, when a teacher will be drawing a pyramid of how our societies looked like to a classroom full of students, what will they fill it with?

This pyramid does not apply to every country and every society we can observe today, but it applies in a general and broad sense.

The top layer, dominated by rulers and the wealthy, is the most powerful and most rewarded class. In some societies, the rulers have more power than the wealthy, the wealthy more power than the rulers, in some the rulers become the wealthy and the wealthy become the rulers. There are distinctions, but the top layer is made up of this group in general. About as subtle as a car crash, the image I chose is one of an older man lighting a cigar with his dollar. The class has held onto power for decades now for their whole lives. So many of the wealthy and rulers are elderly since they've clung to power for so long. To them, money is no longer something of value. It is an uncontainable and hoarded mass that can no longer be measured or perceived by the human mind, it has grown so disproportionate. Money has become so insignificant they light cigars with it, which I think is an interesting contrast to the bottom image. I would also like to point out that this is the only class to face the right in the picture.

The second-from-the-top is the enforcer class. Recruited, financed, indoctrinated by the top to secure their hegemony. In some rare cases like military governments, the top two layers can also intermix, but generally, while common people underneath, they participate in upholding the power structures which keep the rest of us on the bottom. They have much more in common with the bottom layers on a fundamental human level, recruited from the bottom two, but the power given and their specific role makes them distinct. The image I chose has police in some kind of riot gear. When officers in the US get military equipment the line between the two enforcer distinctions blurs more and more. Plus, no need to mention how DJT has been sending troops to Democrat-run cities, a totally non-fascist non-authoritarian tactic. One of the mistakes the ruling class can make that could benefit us the most is if they piss off the enforcer class. It is then they will come to their natural place by our side.

Getting close to the bottom, the third-from-the-top is something akin to the proletariat in Marx's writing. These are the people who work to uphold the top class, while the fruits of their labour are rarely seen by them. The proletariat of Marx's time was the factory worker, but I chose an image of someone working on a laptop in an office. The proletariat of today is no longer the factory worker. The proletariat of today instead slaves away in his cubicle job where the boss underpays him, overworks him, and then tosses him like garbage so he himself can raise his own paycheck. That's not to say the factory workers are not proletariats anymore at all, just that back then it was the job you'd think of when you think working class and today it is no longer the case.

Finally, at the bottom layer, we arrive at the ones who are worst off. The poor and the homeless. When the top hoards their wealth and refuses to pay their fair share, it is money that doesn't go toward helping those of us who weren't so lucky in life. Who may be trapped in cycles of poverty with no good way out, because the system is not designed to help us. The Upper and Lower Middle Classes can fall into this tier if the top ever-so chooses. This is capitalism's tumor, and the ugly proof of its ineffectiveness. "Will work for food." What a gut-wrenching sight.