Back to the Central Indexing Page

A publication of short communist literature by Lesley Zore

Year 2, release 4 – September 2020; the Author is Lesley Zore.


Special edition: 

Post-Anarchism and Other Essays





The Issue of Agreement


Majority this, Majority that


A Critique of Sexual Education


Scaling and Classifying Murder vs. Sexual Violence


The Corpse: Intel i7 9700k Inside


On the Prevailing Tension


NATO Is Destined for Breakup


Brest Republic: On Belarus


Tirana Committee


Lesleyist Movement Updates


Standardised Lesleyist Examination


Lesley’s Technological Index Mathematics


The Final Release



IG: @lesley_zor3

YT: Lesley_Zore


Phone: 068-600-008 (Slovenia, +386)

Or in person – Lesley Zore.

Confidential contact:

Source (where not quoted): just use Google to check if you don’t fucking believe me!


In the analysis of the works of many authors preceding my thought, there is an essence of tyranny. Let us take a look at Kropotkin. While our pal Peter opposed state collectivism and bolshevik practices, he did not sharpen his attacks against the leninist principles of his later years. His idea of a utopian anarchist commune would not do away with local consules, communal agreements and other social structures, spooks.

Let us take a surface overview of the theories of democratic confederalism, neozapatism and other “anarchist” versions of society. They were both described as stateless, as anarchist. I doubt such interpretation. Rojava, the “realization”, the “manifestation” of democratic confederalism relies on a control of armies. The police force has not been fully abolished, but has been replaced with people’s units. Control is, like in the territories of the EZLN, localized, and yet, present.

Therefore, to provide that the EZLN or Rojava are not anarchist, we have to proof that a system where people meet in their local consuls to discuss and create agreements is not anarchist. Such an idea is one of democracy, of direct democracy, of platformism. It sure is a step towards a free and inclusive society. However, is it really necessary? Can’t everyone just do their own business, like Kropotkin himself dreamt of? I do not want to be pressured into changing the look of my house, because this was “rationally” agreed to by the commune. Such a system is only necessary to regulate the control of private property in anarcho capitalism (as else, I could simply detonate explosives in my backyard and kill everyone). This makes a system with private property statist.

This is opposed by the thought of self-determination. People can get along, and do get along, or mind their own business, as long as materialistic, capitalist-related issues or motives do not alter their minds.

As long as private property is expropriated, as long as I am free to work according to my ability, and receive according to my need; as long as I am ensured the place to reside, a perfect accommodation, and as long as I do not own others’ residences, I have no motive to enter a disagreement, or conduct a crime against my neighbour, or a family member, based on land - or heritage.

It is highly unnecessary for me to make arrangements with the whole town on whether or not I should publish a book, on anything. I should be free to work as I please, to enjoy my life as I please. Roads should be constructed after a team of workers, enchanted with automatization and comradeship, hold a debate, which is disorganized, without any lead or organization. Make team work, organized construction etc. dependent on comradeship and cooperation, not on leadership, fear and pressure. Let a few workers make friendly arrangements on where, and how they should build, much like they agree, where, and how, they should go out for a coffee.

The argument presented above, including how reactionary people would become against anyone breaking it, constitute for the replacement of the state. Why do I hate the idea of a communal platform? It is simply because it is forcing ideas on the people. It is democratic. It is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Come on. If you wanna have a government, a spook, which forces ideas onto people, play smart - build a technocracy or something related. I’ve had more than enough occasions when the “majority” overpowered me into destructive situations using their popular support. Direct democracy is not anarchism - it is no other than a polished and less imperialist version of a system, where, no matter who you vote for, the bombs don’t stop, the powerful stay abusive, and the masses remain poor.

To distance myself from the practices of a system named anarchism, which is not truly anarchist, and also to distance myself from the hate, dispensed against “those chaotic anarkiddies”, and the “repressive commies”, I have been using the terminology of the stateless expropriation to describe my anarcho-communist beliefs to those, who misunderstand or miscalculate my intentions, and our calls for vengeance.

I must, as well, express my disagreement with, and my disruption by the hateful anarchists. I am speaking of exclusionists and self-proclaimed “anti-snowflakes”, who dare declare themselves “anarchist”, “feminist”, or “egalitarian”.

Conservative libtards, masking themselves as “apolitical citizens”, constantly show up. They ask people to adopt something they name harmony and peace. It is conformity that those centrists are trying to sell - they have no problems with us, they may even cooperate with our ideals, but they let us know, or at least, in practice, support the idea that we are invalid, and should - and must be forced to - conform.

We see this idea of an attack on other’s neural networks, named brains, among our lines as well. It is those very groups - SWERFs, TERFs… Heck, there are even worse groups - anarchist esoteric fascists, and similar unprecedented groups.

In the name of all the evils which rightist libertarianism does stand for, we have abandoned it and moved on to call ourselves anarchists. Considering how much the given word has been used to describe not only chaos, but mainly, consul and vanguard movements, we, the radical, stateless anarchists, declare post-anarchism, the most utopian society one can imagine - post-anarchist communism; stateless expropriation.

Lesley Zore

The Issue of Agreement

Let me quickly recap on the Anarchist idea of the denouncement of morality.

Anarchism, especially the kind of stateless society I believe in, does not make a claim to morality. This is the opposite to Theocracy, which forms all of its ideals of the Universal Moral Codex, no matter in what set of morals a certain theocracy believes.

Anarchism observes that we seek to conduct certain processes and to assert certain means and achieve goals. We proceed to claim that anything which in the long term helps us achieve these goals is moral.

For many people, it is the goal of humanity to spread, to enjoy or to simply be moral. Individuals who believe in such a reason, calculate that a certain action or set of actions may hinder it, and is thereby “immoral”. Those very individuals may calculate that some action or a set of actions does help them achieve this glorified goal and thereby, is “moral”.

We must, however, observe the disconnect between an action benefiting their long-term goals and individuals thinking it will benefit their long-term goals. Let us take the example of transphobes. A conservative anarcho-capitalist, a paleo-libertarian may claim that a corporate society may only survive in a static social structure. Hence, they might say “the gender binary ought to be preserved”, and “yet, let the market capitalize off pink capitalist propaganda” at the same time. Corporations, benefiting off the queer liberation struggle, while ensuring the transgender folks are opressed, are an institution of oppression. However, this may seem moral to the conservative AnCap, because it strengthens their society and asserts their social goals.

Thereby, something may be called moral simply because one thinks it will benefit the society they dream of. However, this is not a general morality. Not everyone, however, agrees on what is beneficial to achieving some goal and what is not.

One may believe an action is beneficial to their goals. If the academic community comes to agree, it becomes a norm to believe so. However, the academic belief is an appeal to scientific consensus, which may be influenced or overall wrong. A mistake, delivered through influence may be, for example, a claim on neuronormativity of gay people, who were once seen as mentally divergent for political or social reasons. An example of a plain mistake might be flame phlogiston or luminiferous aether. The academic opinion does not constitute a necessary positive, a complete truth. Scientists may reach a certain conclusion, but this does not mean this conclusion is universally correct, nor will the future scientific community agree with the given conclusion. What most of society calculates to be the best way of achieving the long term goal perpetrated into their minds by the propaganda machine of the very society, is what we call “moral”. This is why we, Anarchists, may see morality as a social construct.

As seen, one may attempt to argue that an action is good at benefiting a certain process or a certain goal. To make this seen as moral by the society, some academic or political general agreement is necessary.

I, however, may recognize something to be beneficial to a goal, even though the state does not. I, personally, have calculated that taking HRT treatment before the age of 18 may help me with my gender dysphoria, thereby benefiting my consciousness. Society does not agree with me. I think that the most beneficial idea for my welfare would be to receive HRT, but the society does not think that. Our vision of what benefits the randomly chosen but majorly accepted goals is not a single vision. Thereby, one can disagree with what the society sees as moral, and still appeal to a certain group of people, possibly even to a bigger part of society.

We come to a point that the vision of what is seen as beneficial, what is seen as boosting for some process or goal, may differ.

Thereby, it is an infringement of a political view to dictate to an individual to feel bad about doing something or not doing so. It is a one-sided political enforcement, a campaign of infringements, to prevent a murder.

However, such a political enforcement is not necessarily negative (though not necessarily positive either). If I see one’s actions as threatening to my long-term goals I may decide that they are threatening my goals. If I see a person being violent to others, I may wish to stop it, because I think it is harmful to my goals of peace.

In this way, there is nothing wrong with a group of workers using force - lethal only if necessary - to combat a rapist, who is hurtful to workers’ long-term goal of common benefits.

There is nothing objectively moral, because for something to be objectively moral, there would have to not only be an objectively absolute way of achieving a goal… There would have to be the goal itself. However, the time is not necessarily limited - each process or goal may both cause and affect other goals. There is no long-term final goal one can try to achieve. Thereby, not only that morality is not possible, the social construct of morality isn’t either.

Morality as a social construct should be called “actions benefiting a certain goal”. Morality cannot become a social construct because it cannot be thought of - as stated above, there cannot be a final goal, for no goal is stable and results in other processes resulting in future goals.

I claim that religion is false, and yet it is a social construct at least. Morality, however, is not even that. Morality is what I call a “double spook, a spookidy spook” (a double social construct).

Note that even if religion was true - in a monotheistic sense - it does not yet provide a need for morality. Even if there was some kind of a god and it would command something as moral or immoral, why should one follow that piece of advice? There is no reason to. Especially regarding any existing religion, seeing their corruption, transphobia, patriarchy and militant views (though some of those may be exempt from certain religions).

Any implementation, integration of or claim to morality is henceforth nonsensical and may actually be very harmful to achieving a peaceful environment if used to defend some hierarchical, rotting system.

And I shall not let this take place. I shall rebel and provide my service to my goals.

Long live the revolution!

“We need to be immoral to reach morality, but that itself is immoral, thus, moral to not be immoral”, said my friend Sergio, upon hearing this verdict of mine.

Lesley Zore

Majority this, Majority that

Time and again - the authoritarianism of oligarchic democracy spreads as populist regimes make the claim to the popular support, to the cause of the major part of the population they control, they hinder, they possess. What choice does the population have but to endorse their regime? It is not the individual, it is the majority that has, supposedly, elected and justified the leader and their team. The cabinets, the heads of state, the parliaments, the oligarchs - call them as you wish - time and again make their claim to the people. And yet the individual has nothing to say in this. Whenever a democratic process comes to a resolution, to a verdict, it is the vibe that decides the outcome. No-when before, has the scientific conclusion, nor the one benefiting all the individuals, been chosen in the midst of anger, in the midst of destruction and in the midst of the Reaction. It is only the combination of the scientific, collectivist, and individual’s thoughts that has come to a rational outcome.

Ask the populous what parties shall represent them. The distribution of seats, the new coalition, new self-proclaimed era of enlightenment, then becomes the one of populism. And yet - it is not the vibe, it is not populism, it is not party propaganda, which shall dictate our future.

What options does democracy provide to deal with this issue? There are two main points to discuss. The representation and self-determination of minorities on one hand, and a scientific consensus on the other.

Through a democratic representation, it may be challenging to provide representation of minorities sufficient for guaranteeing safety, comfort, and coverage of each and every individual. This is only possible by replacing the whole Institution of the representatives with committees of minorities. However, this would not simultaneously represent the scientific consensus on the well-being of the majority. Another option is, thereby, a technical government.

Is a scientific committee a good measurement to provide the majority with their well being and to secure the minority rights? Possibly so. Does it provide their representation however? A technical government is a debatable tool of transition from an imperialist to the more egalitarian system. However, it is not a replacement for the latter.

A popular democracy is exclusive against the representation of minorities and the latter is hardly compatible with technocracy. All the systems of people's will are still a “democracy”, hence an appeal to humanity, an appeal to society. Much like the hierarchy was the one to create the idea of a “god,” the individual was the one to create the hierarchy. As each form of authority steals from us, whips us, tortures us, infringes upon our individual liberties, we shall let no hierarchy rule above us - each hierarchy results in an accumulation of power, of an unfair advantage!

We, anarchists, do not recognize the right of the population to limit our liberties. We do not recognize the power of the majority to infringe on our body autonomy, to infringe on our identity, to infringe on our thoughts and our responsibilities. What right does the majority have to allow discrimination against the people of color? What right does the society have to produce extreme rates of sexual violence against the transgender folks? What right does the government possess to generate the detrimental suicide rates of neurodivergent people?

The majority has no right to dictate against an individual. It is the right of the individual to dismiss the majority. And every system which makes a claim to the popular support, be it fascist-imperialist or be it a state-run bureaucracy, is responsible for sufferings of millions, of billions of people. Simultaneously, the systems of minority representation and of academic platformist decision making, exclude and rot each other through Power struggle, accumulation of power, and infringement on the individual.

We may conclude that though the system of parties ought to be replaced, technocracy or representation of minorities are not a good enough solution to end up with. Though they are a good alternative, it is high time we realize that the final struggle is the battle for the abolishment of states, of capital, of imperialism, and that of violence.

It is high time the egalitarians of the world make a move to abolish all unjust hierarchies. No authority should be left unquestioned! From each, according to their ability - to each, according to their needs!


Lesley Zore

A Critique of Sexual Education

Whomst'd'ven’t the dark enlightenment of the era seen, the esoteric fascists had proclaimed, is the counter mind of the State, and the point of the flame which takes down the Evil.

As little sense as the preceding sentence made, I shall in this chapter try to achieve. And as much as it has critisized the crypto-facscist mind of the Reaction, I shall critisize the flaws of modern sex education and the downsides of the Reaction against it.

Maybe the lives that matter are the friends we made along the way, once said the rapist. They did not come to realize how deadly this world is. A friend does not exist. There are, exceptionally, the friends. The later, we may never experience thanks to the one who wants to eat us all up, dead.

It is, most certainly, important that education includes sex education. This includes, but is not limited to - describing, understanding and normalizing all genders and sexualities; support at discovering one’s gender and/or sexuality; prevention of sexual violence; prevention of pregnancy; etc., etc.

The problematic factor I often encounter when discussing sex education is involentary studying of its. In modern schools, it is present for around five to ten hours in the whole timespan of a person’s education. Whenever a lesson does occur, it is compulsory. Listen up. I’ve had enough of talks of sexual violence and other bigotry. I do not want to listen to any more lecturing about reproduction. You cannot, and should never attempt to, force people with PTSD from rape, and people with similar disadvantages, into sexual education.

Do not get me wrong - it is highly important to prevent sexual revictimization. However, ranting about sex to someone who is simply trying to avoid mentions or explecit content of that very thing may cause disruption. Do not, ever, simply give people a lesson they can not escape.

In some cases, there is an exit. This is, however, blocked by many factors. Sometimes, there is so much social pressure, peer pressure, that one is not capable of leaving the class. Another time, that would anger the teacher, or block the pupil from learning the remainder of the lesson. Other times, the theme is simply not declared in advance.

Themes of sexual activity are used all over advertising. Don’t get me started about sexualization of minorities and of women by corporate exploitation - there will be a special chapter regarding corporate-led sexualization, transphobia, sexism etc. What I am talking here is how much the theme of a naked body, of sexual activity, is used in every media. One may open youtube to watch some videos about programming, and all of a sudden, an ad pops up, attempting to exploit such content. One may try to see a film, read a book, listen to a lecture - and sooner or later, one is struck by such material, and slowly starts filtering and avoiding all sensations, all inputs, to block it off.

Highly triggering content is derived in sex education a simmilar way. Give me a choice, as I do not wish to listen to such lectures. I am not capable of living this through any longer.

This is why trigger warnings exist. Before I begin a lecture, before I see a film, before I read a book or when I launch a game, I want to be informed about its explicit content. This is not limited to sexual violence. There is a long list of content that should be listed, such as, but not limited to: sexual violence/rape, substance abuse, physical violence, general abuse, car crashes, war, torture, mentions or explecit descriptions of sexual behaviour, etc. It must be done for the same reason for which we notify people of a blinking screen (epilepsy) or for the same reason that makes us ask someone for consent before touching them or commenting on their looks…

It is very obvious that I must comment on the lack of understanding and support of the modern sex education at the variety and complexity of sexualities and genders. Modern sex education is not designed to help us navigate ourselves through this, hence, in communism, that has to be fixed as well.

Modern sex education is completly flawed. It forces one to absorb content they might find triggering or upsetting; it does not adapt to individual circumstances; it usually assumes cisheteronormativity and biases itself around the governmentally-recognized examples of protection, sexuality, anatomy and individual’s sexual development.

Authors of science-fiction tend to describe utopian, dystopian, or mixed societies humanity might progress to. One utopian novel describes a progressive, relatively utopian society. The book is a good read. To secure the title of the book, I shall not mention it. The only thing that I really really disliked in the text was a sentence somewhere along those lines: “Sexual education is deemed important in the schools. Younger teens are taught by their older peers in regards to it, including practice of protection and sexual activity itself.”

I do understand that the novel talks of the world which is so progressive that sexual violence simply doesn’t happen because people are highly conscious of their environment and take care of the community. However, I must note that submitting millions - if not billions - of young teens to sexual practice will not help them discover their sexual orientation and will not help them develop their sexual understanding and activity. Submitting millions of young teenagers to regular sexual activity will deal the opposite effect. A child, who is repeatedly subjected to sexual intercourse at an immature age does not learn. The only thing such a child may develop is complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

My dysfunctional egalitarian utopia is far better than their dysfunctional egalitarian utopia because in my society, the PTSD rate is not around 95%.

Lesley Zore

Scaling and Classifying Murder vs Sexual Violence

Excluding cross-governmental crimes, such as genocide, tyranny, or violations of the Geneva Protocols, people tend to classify murder as the worst crime which could happen to one. They commonly progress to the conclusion that serial killers are “the most violent and most problematic types of criminals”.

First, we must discuss the Good and the Evil. Let me describe a little of the Anarchist Morality, as portrayed by Peter Kropotkin. There is no common “good” or “evil”. Because the universe has no essence of morality, because there is no higher beings, because everything is pure action-reaction, there is no inherent good and evil. All of this is a product of our chemical reaction to an event or a process. On the other hand, a big part of our processing is dependant on our sense of the companion’s feelings. Even a person with no empathy, even a person who does not comply to others’ feelings, will cooperate thanks to their understanding of Cooperation. It turns out that the more voluntary the system is, the higher the chance for the consciousness of our ego about this relation. Hence, we cooperate in a free society if we are allowed to. We judge everything in regard to that cooperation. We will deem something destructive as “evil” because we, our brain, will calculate and reach a conclusion: “it is destructive to cooperation”. We will deem something constructive and “good” because we, our brain, will calculate and reach a conclusion: “it is constructive to cooperation”.

This idea of a division to “constructive” and “destructive” does allow for neutral ideals to be practiced, as they are “constructive”, because at least the person supporting them finds them “constructive”.

The division on the labels is effected and affected by the form of society, the form of ownership of the means of production, myths and beliefs portrayed onto and into people, discrimination, education etc. As society progresses into a free and borderless utopia, people become more and more constructive about it.

I, a person who supports and cheers for such an utopia, try to think using this “constructive” thought, Anarchist Morality. Therefore, I conclude that a murderer has been usually pushed into their action by a great motive. There is no point in punishing the murderer - it is much simpler and it is only efficient to ensure their motives will no longer require murder. For instance, the murder might have been a retaliation for the preceding hostility, or a result of a neurodivergency. In any case, let us fix the system, pushing the murderer into their actions. Compensate all the victims of all the interchanged hostilities. Rehabilitate the victim (if they’re alive), protect the witnesses, and give medical aid to the murderer. If necessary, treat the murderer psychologically.

Murder is no problem to treat and should not be seen as the evil. The situation is solvable, a lot of times without a medical intervention, and can be understood. The murderer isn’t to be blamed just because they have murdered “a human being”. The community, including the survivors and the murderer shall be rehabilitated, and stabilized, to prevent ANY further damage and to prevent what we see as “destructive”.

Meanwhile, sexual violence is a whole other problem. There is absolutely NO valid reason for someone to be disruptive in a sexual way, especially in a violent way.

Considering the living state of the damaged victim, the prolonged suffering of theirs… Considering the psychological, physical and mental damage done in such an event… Considering the choice the violator had… Recognizing that, unlike with murder, there is not a single motive to rape anyone… Acknowledging that medical intervention is the only possible treatment… I declare that sexual violence is far worse than murder. We shall not punish murder - but sexual violence shall always be treated with an intervention.

Also, let us consider long-term social damage created by rape. When one is murdered, the people may rage, and one has to be intervened against to prevent further motivation for homicide. But when one is raped, talks are usually suppressed. Whether or not rape is aknowleged, whether or not compensation is aimed at and attempted, there may be a high need of retalliation. Mutual retaliation is the fear we must prevent from realizing. The need for death penalty for rapists whom we can rehabilitate is what we are trying to minimalize. Thereby, sexual violence is the issue we have to watch for in an utopian society. We must ensure it does not escalate to the point where death penalty for sexual assault is the only possible result.
 Understand that I have biases regarding this subject. I would, for sure, round up all the rapists, all the damn bigots of this world and have a half of them shot… The other half would be tortured so badly until the end of their lives… Sure, I would like to torture a rapist or two to death - but wait! This is the very revenge we are trying to prevent, to avoid, in our utopia. One solution is that the victim is given a simulative compensation of being given the feeling of being the victor, the possessor of their own body. Make the rapist’s rehabilitation process a part of the victim’s compensation process, if the victim so desires. Meanwhile, make sure both are treated in a way that cures the harm, and mainly - puts the rapist’s feelings and/or tendencies under control. Understand that the violator’s feelings and life must not be “controlled by the tyrannical communal mob”, but rather “rehabilitated with the supervision of a large medical team which cooperates with the rapist, who is willing to cooperate because an ideal society has been set up, and they want the best for everyone”.

This concludes my chapter on the treatment of the murderer and the rapist. I am sorry for I didn’t focus on the techniques of the compensation to the victim, but this had to be designed first, for I had to get some of this weight off my Gulag List.

Lesley Zore

The Corpse: Intel i7 9700k Inside

To create something which does not yet exist in the desired form originally, the desired shape and specification of the something must not yet exist in the observable distance from the designer. Thereby, we can state that a unique creation done by one is only possible where one subtracts what does not exist from what does, and what exists is what one observes and declares existing within reason.

Thereby, it is not possible for one to originally create something which already exists with its required specifications, approximated within reason. A simple designer does not specify these specifications, but rather locates their limits and spectres, allowing some mistakes.

However, a designer which would be all-capable and would be creating a design no-where materialized before with a detail to a transcendental extend, would have to first imagine such a detailed system. Therefore, for a designer to create a new system with extraordinary details, one would already have to be imagined. This would make the creator of the detailed system already create the system in their “neural network”, or brain, if you insist.

Thereby, if one was to create the universe, it would have to first be imagined. This would ensure the universe is not unique and has already been set up in one’s imagination.

However, for one to imagine a universe, there has to be a never ending running algorithm of binding the constant of pi to a very specific point. This process is infinite, anyone who has created pi-searching algorithms will agree. Thinking of a number pi would indefinitely, probably permanently, suspend the actual realization of that imagination.

A christian may say that we might be simply living in god’s imagination. This is utter rubbish, as then there could be no more than one number as pi is, but we also have the euler’s constant.

Therefore, the only argument for a chrisitan to resort to is that god functions using a multi-core processor, preferably an Intel-build one? However, that would make realities of past and future imagined, as they would be a part of a running imagination planted in a “timeless”, “spaceless” god. However, physics can prove that every point in time is as real regardless of what point in time you are in. If we did live in a multi-core imagination by a god, we would therefore not have a real past or future, but a distorted and indeterminable chain of order-lacking chaos.

One may say that we still are realized outside of a creator’s mind and that the transcendality of some constants are being thought of as we go on discovering their succeeding digits.

However, I refuse to believe that the universe would work properly with the constant of pi being incorrectly determined. This is because it is physically true that the probability of an electron being in a different place in the atom would shift completely if the constant of pi was to create improper radios of probability. Those very radios of probability are a reason why pi must be exactly how it is and cannot be simply changed randomly; applying to the euler’s constant as well.

Thereby, we can see that it is only possible for the universe to be neither created by an intelligent designer nor simulated/imagined.

Thereby, I needn't have examined and didn’t touch the issue of the Mind Arguement. The universe being simulated or created during an initial intervention is impossible because it would have to be thought of or decided for by the so-called god, or creator. This would require a mind, which has to conduct a process to do so. Process, howsoever, is dependant on time, which is a contradiction to a god existing outside of space-time.

Also, if a god is outside the timespace and is all-capable and all-knowing, why would it not create the universe instantly, if it creates the universe at all? When in the god’s time frame does the universe start? In the timeframe of a god, who is supposed to be both “all-capable” and not capable of doing harm, and still does permit harm?

Thereby, one does not need to examine further than think of the fact that an intelligent designer requires an intelligence to design. This intelligence is not possible. The universe does not need a more complex designer, as it did not simply pop into existence. God couldn’t have died for it had never lived in its very sense. I am god. No-one thinks as well as I do and no-one understands logic as well as I do. I am, thereby, the sole superintelligence my consciousness shall recognize.

Religion is a spook, my friend. And spooks… Down with spooks!

There is an argument that a god might not be using a process to imagine the universe, or to decide about it. Then you are just saying the god doesn’t exist because there was no creator nor are there any interventions, because you claim there is nothing to cause these.

Believing in a religion is as logical as supporting both conspiracy theories, that HIV is delivered by the CIA and that HIV does not exist.

Lesley Zore

On the Prevailing Tension

A system where capital dictates exploitation, is often the very system that capitalizes off the liberation struggle of those exploited. A good example of this is the modern-era tendency of neoimperialist corporations to profit off the queer liberation struggle. They sell us rainbow pins, rainbow flags, and other symbolic relics. In the meantime, their system of wages, of stocks, of ranks, encourages discrimination and assaults. This system, however, does not hold water. People across the world are standing up. Chile, Slovenia, Bolivia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Serbia, the United States, Lebanon, Belarus, Israel, and many other lands, are seeing insurgencies as never before.

Support for egalitarianism has risen greatly all across the world - and yet capitalism is on the rise as well. The two giants may clash or the never-ending competition between the two may sustain itself. But I myself see thirst for blood growing on both sides. The ultra-nationalists scream for my death. Who else is screaming?

"A whisperer is going around the world /.../ War ministers are whispering. Chemical warfare is Whispering too. A whisper comes from all continents - mobilization" - against an individual's traits.

As I cross the street, there is an always higher chance of a Nazi coming by and punching me right in the face. Fascism is catching up to all of us. But the capitalist, the eugenicist, the totalitarian forgot about something - all forms of oppression have a boiling point assigned. A system cannot indefinitely push its agenda of violence. A movement cannot indefinitely infringe on the safety of minorities. Sooner or later, we shall stand-up, and fight back.

Our attempt at our final Redemption may result in myself being shattered with bullets and all I know full of lead and gunpowder. However, the sole way of stopping us, shall be judged by history. While I believe we can overcome fascism, even their unlikely victory would be a lesson to future generations. The Catalan revolution of 1936, the KPAM, the Huliaipole rebellion, the Kronstadt mutiny, the Neozapatista uprising... And above all, the struggle in Moscow, in Stalingrad, in Leningrad, in Rzhev - and finally in Berlin, - the courage of partisan movement all across Europe, and East Asia... Provides us with a great historical example of an unbreakable spirit that we now possess and are ready to deploy.

Comrades, keeps thy gun powder dry. Those who exploit are all-powerful, but we are as well. When the next whip of theirs lands on our backs, when we receive yet another insult, as yet another assault takes place - the self-defense of the workers will be publicly justified and we shall make history.

Personally, I have gone through enough violence, torture, defamation and terror to know the enemy. Only the privileged percentage of the supremacist classes has the ability to wage campaigns of terror. The sole answer I carry is my despise to live through this tyranny. I shall either receive my liberties or I shall be riddled with bullets reaching for them.

It is time for the fascist menace to come to an end. It is time for each individual to take care of their life, and to mutually aid each-other.

Be this the final struggle or not, it is our responsibility, as we answer to ourselves and to humanity, to fight back. "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!"

Lesley Zore

NATO is destined for breakup

In recent years, a controversial president has taken power in the White House of the United States. His name is Donald Trump, and he may easily be one of the most important people in the history of geopolitics.

In the beginning of the 21st century of the Common Era, the United States rallied heavily to integrate as much of the World as possibly into the West. All of the Americas, Europe, Africa, Pacific. However, in 2016, a large shift occurred in the American foreign relations.

Until 2016, the US was the most powerful neocolonialist regime, and was the most prominent imperialist force in the history of the humankind. Interventionism of the US was disliked by many, while in the US, both leading parties applauded it. However, that is only possible due to the moderate nature of the two-party system. While both campaigned for corporatism and expansion, backroom elements of theirs started brewing.

At some point, it all boiled over. The fuss has been ongoing for some time, but then it became real. The left, long separate from the liberal right-economic Dems, stood up for their life. Queer folks and other minorities, devastated by national and international statistics of violence, of discrimination and of patriarchical relations, stood up.

As the spectre of the humiliated awakened, the force of reaction was present. The ultra-nationalists, which had not split with the Reps, and still had the support of the most prominent conservative voice in the world.

It just so happens that screaming “scrap ‘em fags” is much more appealing to the ear than citing a hundred pages of queer theory and Das Capital. The far-right thus secured its platform.

A candidate, who personally holds no political values, but always opposes the ruling president of the US, sought to replace the democratic candidate as the republican President. He recognized the platform of the far-right and gave them a go-ahead.

This would not cause many issues. In fact, it could give a moderate a chance to betray the republican party. However, Trump continued his grab for money. He steadily built tensions to justify measures which hurt the public and forced it into a de facto serfdom.

The most prominent of those tensions is - the tensions with Iran.

Trump has been careful with Tehran. He knows the nature of the IRGC well. He intends to poke everyone around him, only to create a backlash. He then uses that controversy to gain on his strength with rethorics.

As painful as his rethorics is to listen to, and as beneficial it is to him, they are also destructive to those around him. Trump has not used his rhetoric to defend the Status Quo of the neverending scramble for colonies. Instead of continuing the US’ never-ending war with the East, Trump has abused his position to replace diplomacy with rhetorics.

However, one thing Donald does not realise, is the difference between the American voters and the delegates to the United Nations. One can persuade thousands, millions, billions of people with their speech, with their look. One can win an election by screaming and by name-calling all opposition. However, one cannot persuade a highly educated diplomate into supporting oneself in the UN General Assembly. It is one thing to persuade the public; it is another thing to burst into an embassy and scream at diplomates.

While trying to build up tensions with Iran to justify the hate he needs for his rhetoric, he had to pressure his allies out of their comfort zone. Initially, this was seen as minimal. Only now, does the unbelievable implosion of diplomatic failures surface.

Let us take a look at the recent UN Security Council vote on sanctions on Iran. Out of 15 members, only the Dominican Republic supports further sanctions. France, Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia and even the UK, along with seven others, oppose the proposal... Out of 15 countries.

Trump is failing Europe. Even his most important opportunity, the UK, is probably lost.

The UK has never been a welfare state as much as the rest of the European Union strives to be. While both the EU and the USA serve the imperialist force of corporatism, the USA is the one mismanaging welfare and ultra-corporatizing themselves. With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the US was promised an ally, one who was already falling into the rabbithole of the US markets. However, the UK, the most important ally of the US in times of interventions, is drifting away. Trump’s management of his rhetorics is his strong point domestically, but is costly to him internationally.

Trump’s mismanagement of foreign relations and of the internal economy as well has left serious wounds on the cooperation between the US and the EU, After Federal Reserves were given the go-ahead to print over 3 trillion dollars.

The structures of institutions of foreign relations of the US have been permanently affected. There is no chance of natural recovery. After the rumble between Germany and the US, the USA is about to be left alone. In 2017, it was the US who would pull out of agreements. Now it's everyone else.

The EU no more wants to cooperate with the aggressive policies of the US. The People’s Republic of China has won in Europe. NATO no longer serves its purpose. It is full of logistical issues and failures. On one hand it claims to not be positioned by the Belarussian border, and at the same time it calls its positions there “purely defensive”; yet another time, it claims its positions can transition from defensive to offensive in a matter of seven minutes to an hour.

NATO has not won a major struggle in the Middle east for some time now, and is retreating on all lines. In Syria, the East has won; its only opposition is Turkey. Even in Libya, the East was clearly winning, and would by now conquer Tripoli, was it not for Turkey.

All American presence in the World has been deleted. The US no longer succeeds in playing a role in the Middle East, nor anywhere else. Simultaneously, it is highly disturbing to its European allies. It can no longer take care of NATO, though it is the only country capable of being the hegemonic power.

Turkey has temporarily replaced and impersonated the US in the Middle East, as the USA has refused to cooperate there properly. The US has left its allies to die in Syria.

We see that Turkey is a power to be considered a major effect in the Middle East. As it takes over the role of the United States, it should be thanked by the latter. However, the US has not been very kind. For example, the only geopolitical interaction between the US and Turkey is the countless border disputes between Ankara and Athens - where the US backs Greece unconditionally. The US’ response to the S-400 purchase was quite aggressive as well.

It is clear that the US has aggressed against all of its European allies. As the UK leaves the EU, its only reason to stay in NATO would be to secure itself an entry into American Economics. However, given the British dissatisfaction at the treatment given by the United States, it is improbable that the UK will go down that path. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the UK will drop out of NATO. This should be followed by France, Germany, Sweden, Spain and Turkey reconsidering their membership as well. It is very probable that all prominent EU members will withdraw from the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, and others will be rendered useless.

Thus, NATO is headed to a breakup in favor of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

If Trump wins his second term, he is probable to step up his game and only speed this process up.

Depending on the future actions of the US, mainly on Trump’s reelection, the situation may be sorrow enough for the United States to be stripped of its UN Security Council seat, demolishing the hegemony the US had in the UN, though this is not easy to achieve given how the UN is constructed, but is theoretically possible. This is now becoming a reality.

We leftists all hate NATO, but we want to exit it with a revolution, not a transition to the BRICS.

Lesley Zore

Brest Republic: On Belarus

The book, presenting alternative history, or rather the future, of Belarus, is not written like any other book. Through listing and explaining laws, accepted and ratified by the government; through taking note of the votes and of referendums; through logging every event in a Parliament, it presents the whole story of a country, of a unique rebellion.

Imagine a regime so brutal, that even the nationalist capitalist empires of Europe despise it. Not a country that rich with oil, but a government so oppressive the whole West turns against it.

Following a chaotic election, fraud is declared by the defeated opposition and riots erupt. Hundreds of thousands march in the capital city of 1 point 9 million residents.

Protests are met with police brutality and arrests. The homophobic, transphobic, racist, xenophobic regime intensifies its security and invites its allies to prepare for an intervention.

The west and the east prepare to invade, and each voice their support to whom benefits them the most.

This is the story of Belarus, the story the whole world is now observing. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a human rights activist, lost the election in Belarus to Alexander Lukashenko, who is seen by the European Union as the "last dictator in Europe". This is not quite true, as there are other dictatorships in Europe - Moldova, Ukraine, PMR, Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey, Montenegro, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary... However, the situation in Belarus is quite terrifying.

After Lukashenko declared himself victorious at the election and was accused of fraud in response, Belarus erupted.

Now, Minsk, its capital, faces a number of outcomes. Most probably, Lukashenko will wait for the public rage to calm down. If this fails, his special forces, mainly with the help of the Russian Federation, will take care of any uprisings. There are talks of a western intervention in case that is attempted, but an international military escalation is seen as unlikely. However, Belarus could very easily become a reverse Ukraine.

Brest Parliament is a book written by Lesley Zore, which observes a possibility of an internal conflict in Belarus escalating heavily.

The opposition and Lukashenko reach an agreement at first, guaranteeing opposition a stronghold in the area of a city of Brest or Brest-Litovsk: in exchange the opposition has no voice in the central parliament of Minsk.

However, Belarus soon finds itself in tensions with the autonomous area of Brest, as Brest Parliament requests Lukashenko's resignation. As Belarusian central government refuses to cooperate, Brest declares independence.

As war erupts, Russia is expected to intervene on the side of Lukashenko. However, Brest pledges to unify with Russia once the war comes to a close, thus Moscow begins to supply Brest with nuclear and conventional weaponry. The government in Minsk finds itself in a war it cannot win, as the west is already opposed to them.

Peace is soon signed, but Brest refuses to unify with Russia. In response, Moscow enables the Rus Party to launch a coup d'etat, a humiliating failure. Brest removes all nuclear weaponry soon.

Brest Republic soon enters the United Nations and proceeds to accept many egalitarian reforms.

Brest Republic finds itself in trouble as nationalist parties attempt a coup when their proposals are not implemented. The coup is crushed, and a welfare state of center-left continues to exist. However, the nation is destabilized and led by two corrupt parties.

A detailed national budget is applied, and a democratic system is set up in the Brest Republic. This is followed by many weeks of reforms, breakups of parties, and attempts at creating a one-party system, but eventually, a status quo is approached.

One of the parties is eventually caught to have funded war crimes in Libya and is banned from running in the next election by a trial. The party tries to undo this with a parliamentary vote, but fails to secure its existence. To do this, it tries to disable courts from banning individual parties, and it tries to block international supervisors from the elections that are to come soon. However, this backfires as they fail to remove a ban on them, and thereby, opposing parties gain momentum. The Bolshevik Party is the only remaining political entity, popular enough to control the election.

The Bolshevik Party, a breakaway party from an otherwise center-left movement, is accused of electoral fraud in the next parliamentary election.

Given the totalitarianism of the Bolshevik Party, the United Nations launch an unsuccessful attempt to remove the new government in Brest.

In the next election, the Bolshevik Party scores a 100% victory and claims all seats in the parliament. However, opposition soon strikes back.

A number of anarchist, democratic socialist, and libertarian left parties occupy a number of villages near the Capital city of Brest and defeat the Army, which strives to defend the parliament. Within hours, most of the Brest Republic is under the control of the opposition, which enters the parliament building. An election is held.

After a number of terrorist attacks and some guerrilla warfare, the Bolshevik Party is finally defeated. A governmental transition is held, and elections now happen every four weeks. The parliament is required to last through the whole term without coups or turmoils, though this may not always be possible.

Many weeks pass; many new laws are introduced. Everything seems quiet until...

the Brest Republic notices renewed tensions in Belarus. An arrest of Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator, is ordered by the parliament of Brest. He is released following an ultimatum from Minsk, but assassinated soon after.

Thus, the Republic of Belarus declares war on the Brest Republic.

However, unrest in Belarus becomes so bad that the highly trained and well-equipped Brest army takes over great portions of Belarus with little to no resistance. To avoid a bloodbath which a mobilization of Belarus could bring, Brest uses its upper hand to request that Belarus unifies with Brest. As Belarusian army now recognizes Brest as authority, Brest army marches into Belarus and occupies all of it, resulting in an annexation of the Minsk-held areas by the Brest government.

Now, the Brest republic controls all of Belarus, bringing the dictatorship in Minsk to an end.

After an investigation and time confirm the stability of the new state, Brest Republic renames itself into the Republic of Belarus.

The dictator is gone, the people are freed. An internationally recognized republic of Belarus is in existence once again, and is controlled by a left coalition.

However, there was a surprisingly large number of quote unquote left governments, which abused their power over the Brest Republic, and were not in fact so much left. The initial opposition to Lukashenko, the Bolshevik Party, and now...

The vote to end the logging of parliamentary decisions and events, thus a vote to end the book - passes with 100%.

Lesley Zore

Tirana Committee

Tirana Committee is a committee created by the United Nations security council and the General Assembly of the UN to secure peace in the state of Slovenia.


The purpose of this document is to secure an end to the bloodbath that the Slovenian civil war has become; to disarm the factions struggling for power; to protect the civilian population and their freedoms.

Much time has passed since the SDS party assumed power over the National Assembly in Ljubljana on March 13, 2020.

Recognizing the struggle of the Slovenian people to not be led by the SDS party, the Tirana Committee declares the SDS a fascist party, incapable of serving the people well.

This treaty shall work to bring together the opposing sides in the civil war: the SDS-controlled National Assembly on one side, and on the other - the Jenull Regiment, the Movement for Technocracy, the Army Group Lesley, the People’s Media.

Other groups, including, but not limited to - The Navy, the resistance of Andrej Šiško, People’s National Republic of Prekmurje - shall be addressed as well.


GFS (Governmental Forces of Slovenia) includes the following forces: SDS party, the resistance of Andrej Šiško, the Airforce and the Rupnik regiment.

MCL (Movement for Correctness and Liberation) includes the following forces: The Jenull Regiment, the Movement for Technocracy, the Army Group Lesley, the People’s Media, The Women’s Protection Units, the New Liberation Front and the Anarcho-Trotskyist federation of Primorye region.

PNL (Party for National Liberation) includes the following forces: The Navy, the People’s National Republic of Prekmurje and the Central Command of Soča.

GFS is in control of the central districts of Ljubljana, the eastern and southern areas of Bežigrad districts of Ljubljana, Polje district of Ljubljana, banks of Sava river from Ljubljana to Litija, all of Litija, up to 10 km around the river of Sava from Litija to Trbovlje, and in control of a pocket around of Trbovlje 30km in diameter.

PNL is in control of the towns and villages of Koper, Hrvatini, Spodnje Škofije, Zgornje Škofije, Bertoki, and Ankaran and controls all of the sea. PNL also controls all of the navy. PNL is also in control of the villages and towns of Pince Marof, Pince, Dolina pri Lendavi, Petišovci and Tremlini.

MCL is in control of the rest of the country.

Presented is the map of the sides in the war.

Red areas are controlled by the PNL.

Blue areas are controlled by the GFS.

Non-colored areas are controlled by the MCL.

The war is developing in MCL’s advantage. In two weeks’ time, PNL will be extinguished in Prekmurje. Southern part of Koper will be taken over by the MCL. Expected PNL’s naval invasions near Piran are unlikely to see any success.

All GFS’ holdings of small pockets will be taken over; their stretch on the Sava river will be occupied by the MCL as well. That is, if their offensive of Laško-Celje is unsuccessful.

Strength of PNL: PNL claims to control over 20’000 soldiers, but those figures are disputed by the UN committee on Slovenian Civil War, which counts the PNL exercise over the army to be around 1’800 personnel, of those 75% in the Primorye region in Koper. PNL controls all of the navy and the naval police force. PNL has control over 2 planes but fails to use them as it does not have any usable landing spots. PNL’s soldiers are supplied well but are poorly trained; infantry mainly consists of conscripted teens from Koper/Capodistria; naval forces mainly consist of conscripted fishermen.

Strength of GFS: GFS controlled around 20’000 soldiers after the general mobilisation following the uprising of the MCL. Only 6’530 soldiers are left fighting for the GFS, as most of them have either defected or have been killed in MCL’s guerilla attacks. GFS now holds on to a heavily entrenched area around Trbovlje and is attempting to conduct a military operation to conquer the city of Celje and other towns, shown as conquerable in the image. GFS has slight air superiority due to airplanes supplied by the US before being cut off by the MCL. However, this air superiority is not quite enough to endanger the MCL.

Strength of MCL: MCL forces consists of 1’000 special forces, which usually operate as a bridgehead; 6’500 heavily equipped and trained military personnel, and additional 7’500 light-equipped fresh volunteers. MCL controls 95% of the tanks and all heavy equipment.

In the last 14 days (the full duration of the war), the MCL has conquered 5’000 square kilometers of land and lost 48 square kilometers. GFS has taken 47 square kilometers of land, and lost 4850 square kilometers. The PNL has taken 1 square kilometer of land and has lost 150 kilometers.


It is now 17:00 by CET. All times are military CET times.

Usage of aerial devices to launch or project weapons, resembling the act of bombs, shall stop by 18:01.

The PNL shall retreat from the southern part of the Slovenian sea by 18:07.

The PNL should retreat its naval forces to up to 50 meters from the land it controls by 18:12.

The MCL should let the GFS pass a clearly marked route from its encircled positions to its main pocket around Trbovlje by 18:15.

The GFS should retreat all its forces to up to 5 kilometers off the city of Trbovlje by 19:20.

The MCL should advance with no opposition up to 7 kilometers off the city of Trbovlje by 20:00.

All the soldiers of the PNL stationed in Prekmurje shall drop their weapons on the ground by 20:10 and should retreat into Hungary by 20:20.

All the soldiers of the PNL stationed in Primorye should drop their arms into the sea by 20:30.

By 20:50, all PNL soldiers and governmental members should retreat with no arms to the old city of Koper, where they should be arrested by the MCL by 21:30, and shall thereby unconditionally surrender.

By 21:45, all GFS soldiers should pile their arms in a single building in Trbovlje, chosen by Janez Janša.

By 22:00, the building with aforementioned arms shall be blown up, after the endangered buildings around have been evacuated.

By 22:10, Janez Janša shall be arrested in the city hall of Trbovlje, by the entrance, with no opposition, by the MCL forces.

By 22:20, all of the GFS forces should go into the inside of up to 50 blocks of flats or other buildings in Trbovlje (capable of taking at least 200 people in each) chosen by Janez Janša.

The MCL forces shall enter the city of Trbovlje with no opposition by 22:50.

All the soldiers and the government of the GFS shall be arrested by the MCL by 23:10, thus surrendering unconditionally.

By 23:30, all opposition to the MCL in the country of Slovenia shall be silenced and should have unconditionally surrendered. Thus, peace is declared a new government is to be set up, as detailed further by this treaty.


After the war comes to an end, the government is to be set up by the Public Platform of the MCL presenting a constitution.

No proceedings against soldiers of the GFS and the PNL are to be made for their actions in and up to 1 year preceding the war, except based on basis of:

The MCL (Ljubljana Federation) is to annex the GFS (Republic of Slovenia) and the PNL (Second Republic of Slovenia).


Lesley Zore, on behalf of the Ljubljana Federation

Jaša Jenull, on behalf of the Public Platform of the MCL

Lesley Zore, on behalf of the Lesley Operative Movement

Jaša Jenull, on behalf of Lesley Zore

Lesley Zore, on behalf of Jaša Jenull

Janez Janša, on behalf of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia

Borut Pahor, on behalf of the Presidential Cabinet of the Republic of Slovenia

Andrej Šiško, on behalf of the PNL Staff Committee

Andrej Šiško, on behalf of the PNL Nationwide Assembly

Angelca Likovič, on behalf of the PNL Committee for reinstitution of the Second Republic of SLovenia

Angelca Likovič, on behalf of the PNL Committee for National Rights and Responsibilities

Antonio Guterres, the General-Secretary of the United Nations Deputy Special Representative Council for Slovenian Belligration

Signed in Tirana, Albanian Socialist Federation

Lesley Zore

Lesleyist Movement Updates

  1. The LOM (Lesley Operative Movement) network has been terminated. Following more than a year of activity, it was terminated. The process of death took around four months; after its heights of 50 members, most of the community was dismissed and the central command decided to re-launch the central server. The remaining 7 people slowly decreased to 2 after a raid. After the final project (The Anti-Centrist Manifesto: Dialectic Edition) was published, the LOM movement was disbanded.

  2. Although the Setting of Capital 3 was declared to be the last release, another batch of essays was scraped together by Lesley Zore, presented here in the Setting of Capital 4.

  3. All prominent Lesleyists remain loyal to the movement.

  4. An order has been issued by Lesley Zore for the Lesleyist movement to retreat into hiding or halt all their actions. Our armed struggle has been defeated and no value remains to it.

  5. Partisan activity, reliant on cyberspace, intellect, and other non-militant activity, remains prominent. Please continue your efforts in aforementioned areas.

  6. Armed struggle in the name of LOM is exceptionally permitted in areas of: Central america, Levant, Northern Africa, Philippines, Mali, West Guinea, southern Arab Peninsula.

  7. Armed struggle may be issued by Lesley Zore in any other areas.

  8. Literary releases by Lesley Zore up to this date include Roboti Plutona, Manifest LOM, Politični program LOM, The Setting of Capital I, The Setting of Capital II, Valuta, The Setting of Capital III, Brest Parliament, The Anti-Centrist Manifesto: Dialectic Edition, The Setting of Capital IV

  9. Lesley’s Controversial Dictionary is being written; it is going to be the dictionary of the Lesleyist Movement - we have quite a unique understanding of the meaning of some political phraseology.

  10. From this moment onwards, all Settings of Capital (including this one) are to be published mono-linguistically (in English). Up to now, they were published in English and Slovenian languages.

Lesley Zore

Standardised Lesleyist Examination

This is the approved Lesleyist exam by Lesley Zore.

Historico-Political Exam. Submit your answers for review for cooperation with Lesley. If your answers are propper, she may let you join her in the projects of hers.


There are no wrong answers. I simply want to see whether your understanding of the World is deep and philosophical enough to take place in this cooperation.

I require you to answer at least 50% of presented exam questions. I will not score your answers, but I will be very sceptical of them.

You are allowed to use Google and other tools to supply yourself with sufficient knowledge to form an answer… Just don’t steal opinions from the internet, form your own! (I want to see how you think, not how much you already knew)

Also, do not even try copying off the internet! I have good plagiat recognition tools!


  1. Mandatory: Full name you want me to use for you, Full name you want credited for your work, Email

Answers are to be written in this form.

  1. Optional: Discord username and tag, Instagram username, Twitter username, Age, Additional credentials. This is an optional question.


  1. Derivate your own definition of a country.

  2. Debate whether community-capitalism provokes defamatory tendencies and identity oppression.

  3. Explain the consequences of positive eugenics on negative ones.

  4. Debate whether Say’s law necessarily applies to an anarcho-primitivist society.

  5. Find or dismiss the difference between radical esoteric transhumanism and soulism (as an ideology).

  6. Critique or support, in any direction or shade, the possibility of a military alliance between the Third Reich and the Third Internationale in late 1930s or early 1940s.

  7. Your opinion of major factions in the Syrian Civil War (Syrian Arab Republic, SDF-YPG, Syrian Opposition, ISIL, Al-queida, Turkey-FSA, Israel, any others).

  8. Your opinion on vaccination (no need to quote/link studies, but derivative the critique from verifiable claims is appreciated).

  9. Should schools have a CCTV in each class?

  10. Should minors have access to HRT?

  11. Explain the views of opposing factions in the struggle over the Crimean Peninsula.

  12. Is Russia still a superpower to be taken into the effect when calculating foreign affairs? Explain.

  13. Evaluate the conspiracy theorists’ statement “the virus HIV does not exist, and even if it did, AIDS is not sponsored by the aforementioned organism.”

  14. Evaluate the positivity/negativity of the geopolitical effect of Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista (POUM).

  15. Debate the Novemberrevolution.

  16. Debate antifascism as a pattern of activities, executed by those who oppose fascism.

  17. Derivate or dismiss the intersectional connection between interphobia and race-based eugenics.

  18. Derivate support for, critique in any way, or evaluate the usage of UAVs in assaulting production capabilities of oil rigs in the UAE (assuming the damage of the very assault remains material/monetary).

  19. Debate/critique democratic technocracy as an alternative to parliamentary democracy.

  20. Debate the economics of Hermitcraft.

  21. Derive or dismiss the importance of the Austro-Hungarian navy in the War to end all wars.

  22. Formulate your opinion on any single event of tension between (German) Austria and another party in the dissolution of Austria-Hungary and 3 years to follow.

  23. Why are you submitting this application?

  24. What would you do when cooperating with me, when the two of us would not agree as to what to do with the project?

  25. Evaluate (the consequences of) the bombing of Dresden.

  26. If the Western Allies dropped the policy of Appeasement early on, could WW2 have been avoided in its entirety?

  27. Does the political unrest in Slovenia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Bolivia, Lebanon etc. promise changes, as of late July 2020?

  28. Describe modern political echo-chambers.

  29. Describe or dismiss current prevailing transphobia and/or cisnormativity.

  30. Evaluate the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (Transnistria).

  31. Do we live in the age of Anarcho-Capitalism?

  32. Discuss the penalty for crimes of sexual violence.

  33. Discuss the “Avanti ragazzi di Buda”. Is one entitled to use works of other political views to further their agenda?

  34. Discuss the history of far-libertarian ultra-socialist societies (point out which ones do count as such).

  35. Did Nicolae Ceausescu deserve a death penalty? Elaborate.

  36. Would Karl Dönitz deserve a death penalty? Elaborate.

  37. Does the Red Army of the USSR deserve to be blamed and possibly defamed for not assisting the Warsaw Uprising enough?

  38. Assume the existence of an unrigged federative parliamentary democracy. Should residents above some age be stripped off their voting rights? How did you arrive at the conclusion?

  39. Discuss the populist tendency of a parliamentary democracy.

  40. Discuss the directional advance of capitalism into the final result of mercantilism, neoliberalism, revolutionary communism, neo-imperialist welfare capitalism, nationalism, or other result you perceive as the final conclusion of capitalist development.

  41. Evaluate the Cod wars.

  42. Discuss the fairness of the British invasion of Iceland after the latter broke off from Denmark in WW2.

  43. Discuss Subcomandante Marcos’ theory of WW4.

  44. Describe your feelings for Battalion Parasol-related units.

  45. Discuss the morality of the Social Democrats in the Hungarian People’s Republic at their coup d’etat, and the Communist fraction’s purge during the succeeding Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. Assume morality exists, which is, however, debatable.

  46. Discuss the existence of morality.


Note that the numerical notation of a source does not correlate to the position of a question. Certain questions do not have a single source, or refer to no sources at all. This is here to help you learn more if you wish to.







































































Lesley Zore

Lesley’s Technological Index Mathematics

Here, I will develop a Lesleyist index for measuring technological development and public technological development.

I have been challenged by my best friend - myself - to prove or dismiss the statute that technology is being developed faster than some time ago. This is hard to disprove as we all see more and more news about electronics being renovated, new AIs generated and all science bursting forward as never before.

However, a darker image lies behind all of that. There might be an ever-accelerating technological development, but is there an ever-accelerating benefit to the people?

An average life has not approved much more in the last fifty years as it has in the fifty years before that. And repeat.

What is the problem? Why do our lives increase linearly and not faster?
 The answer lies in capitalism. Imperialism - constant reinvestment of capital - must take up all spare revenue. This means that all overproduction of invention is not recycled into bettering people’s lives, but is just consumed by the markets - sometimes outcompeted, other times inaccessible to the masses.

We see that there is some initial development a human being can create in nature from nothing synthetic, with no help or suggestions. Let me call that value C. Then, there is the value of how much new ideas there are. Given that those ideas stack up with each time, let me call the value of ideas B and the time that has passed X. Lastly, there is the amount of mass production of creations from ideas. Here, each time an idea is brought forth, it can overlap all ideas of current time with already achieved time, resulting in squaring of time. I will call the amount of mass production of creations from ideas A, and the time is still X. However, as we saw, the current time multiplies with the time so far, thereby squaring itself (as each modern idea is cross-checked with each old idea).

Thereby, the production of new technologies follows the formula of A*X²+B*X+C. That is, the production of new technologies is a quadratic equation.

Let’s now recap the formula.

C means the initial development a human could have done with no pre-required knowledge or machinery, the base value of technology.

B*X means the ideas created where competition did not affect the inventors enough to halt the idea, times how much time has passed. This means that each day, B*X technology succeeded, where X is a day.

A*X² is the ideas which were financed to be crosschecked with every system of present, and then each combination with the time that has passed. Given the reduction of past times, past inventions do not stack up. To ensure the biggest coverage of ideas, as many modern ideas must be included in the search as the old ideas, as a rectangle with equal sides has a bigger surface than a rectangle with unequal sides.

Imperialists’ (non-public, industrial) progress is a square equation. It moves as “a*t²+b*t+c”, where t is time, a is imperialist research (re-investing), b is progressive research and c is the base value.

In imperialism, a*t² is taken away from the masses for reinvesting and a luxurious living of the chosen few. Thereby, the people’s (public, materialistic) progress is a linear equation of “b*t+c”, where t is time, b is progressive research and c is the base value.

Thereby, as long as there is capitalism, people’s technology is not accelerating. It is linearly succeeding. However, if all market relations were abolished, technology would progress at a square speed and would accelerate absurdly.

How the “a*t²” is taken away can be clearly seen by the existence of patents, privatisation of science etc.

Now let us define some basic units to standardize the tool, as for imperialist systems.

Time is to be measured in years.

A is to be measured in the amount of money 10 biggest banks control in a society, relative to the world economy. This value is now above 3, as 9 biggest banks control over 228 thousand billion dollars.

B is to be measured in the percentage of researching done by researchers from independent organizations or independent researchers, divided by 100. Currently, this percentage is below 40 percent, as universities and governments fund only a little above 30% of research according to OECD. It must be noted that private funding has a big impact on universities, especially the universities’ fundings. Governments, on the other hand, develop a lot of its projects for the private production and the army. Thereby, even the governments and the universities aren’t pure. It is estimated that around 31% of research does not have ties between the researchers personally and the initial source of funding, and with only 84.5 percent of work being unidsturbed by the initial financier. By Taking 84.5% of 31% we arrive at 26.2% of the work being public.

Thereby, the value B is currently around 0.26.

Value C is measured with how much of the population would be willing to live in a position with no technological development ever happening, thus with only the first-generation base of technology (primitive tools). This percentage is really low, Even according to YouGov, who would be willing to present opposite statistics just to cripple my document, only 8% of people think science is not a force of good in the world; thus, the value C is currently at 0.08.

Time is measured in years. It starts from the year 1848, when imperialism overtook the governmental power.

Thereby, let us calculate the current Lesley’s Imperialist Technology Index (LIT).

A*x²+B*x+C = LIT

3*172²+0.26*172+0.08 = LIT

3*29584+0.26*172+0.08 = LIT

88752+44.27+0.08 = LIT

88796.8 = LIT.

Now, let us calculate the current Lesley’s Public Technology Index (LPT).

B*x+C = LPT

0.26*172+0.08 = LPT

44.27+0.08 = LPT

44.35 = LPT.

As you can see, with time, the imperialistic system guarantees that an unbelievable amount of progress was wasted. By subtracting LPT from LIT, we can get the wasted amount, which always equals A*x² (that is because a*x²+b*x+c-(b*x+c) is always a*x²).

Thus, the wasted amount is 88752, which is the Lesley’s Wasted Technology Index (LWT).

We can calculate the percentage of technological development which was actualized and not destroyed by imperialism by figuring out the percentage of LIT that is LPT. We get this by calculating LIT:LPT*100. That is 0.04994% (Lesley’s Actualized Technological Index - LAT). This means that, because of the imperialist system of research, we have curbed at least 99.95% of technological progress by limiting the public access to technology, by investing in competition, by installing the patent system, and by influencing research with monetary means.

To recap, LIT is the socially available research which could be actualized and provide technology.

LPT is the amount of actualized research.

LWT is the amount of research that was not actualized.

LAT is the percentage of success to actualize development.

The graph presents how quicker research would accelerate, was it not for imperialism. Units on the vertical axis are LIT/lPT. Units on the horizontal axis are years. We are currently at the year of 172 and would be at least 2002 times more progressive than we are now, were it not for imperialism (88796.8/44.35 = 2002.1826).

Lesley Zore

The Final Release

This is - most probably - the final release of the Setting of Capital.

Lesley Zore