Is Third Wave Feminism a liberal meme or a leftist issue?

is Third Wave Feminism a liberal meme or a leftist issue?

Other urls found in this thread:

theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm
suffragio.org/2012/11/14/the-role-of-women-in-the-ccp-just-so-much-beautiful-scenery/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterina_Furtseva
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies
forbes.com/pictures/lmj45kjjl/americas-richest-women/#107781c3165e
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_Awada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trưng_Sisters
youtube.com/watch?v=fe3_vUjdHoc&t=157s
thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3420708/Do-work-psychopath-Experts-reveal-traits-tell-tale-signs-successful-ambitious-people.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Liberal.

Actual COINTELPRO.

leftist

It's literally just DUDE SEX LMAO. It has no revolutionary potential.

Undermining the white male patriarchy and triggering whiteboi cucks has no revolutionary potential lol ok

How are they doing this? All I see are a bunch of bloggers who use critical theory to write clever articles but not much else.

which is it?

how is getting rid of the patriarchy not revolutionary?

Women are taking up more positions of power in politics, universities, jobs etc and are destroying the white male bourgeois concepts of family and tradition.

...

It's something that's easy to pick and choose either good ideas or horrifying ones from. I personally give it a pass and don't let it piss me off. Enemy of my enemy and whatnot.

How the fuck is more women getting post secondary degrees, being sexually liberated and getting higher paid jobs a bad thing? It's literally transforming society to the point of triggering the fuck out of whiteboi cucks forming reactionary movements like gamergates and Alt-Rights

You can close the thread now.

You know that feminists and so called SJW's are the only people in politics who actually give a fuck about racism and workers rights right?

fuck off

All feminism is liberal at best, often out and out reactionary.

Yeah it's not as if Russia Eastern Europem, China and North Korea aren't racist as fuck. Muh socialism alone didn't quite help there

I'll lynch you first tbqh ♥️

So you prefer to keep women oppressed in traditional gender roles cuck?

liberalism.txt

feminists and SJWs have no reason to care for the working class because they're not in it.

how is that liberalism?

I couldn't care less what conditions bourgeois women live under tbh

nice one dumbass how are you bourgeois if you don't control the means of production? You sound butthurt

Send this pretender to the gulag

...

6.5/10

How is objective social progress and transformation a bad thing you regressive cuckold?

In that you're arguing that the problem isn't capitalists per se, only that white men are disproportionately represented among the capitalist class - and that somehow replacing 50% of CEOs or billionaires with women is a metric of political progress.

...

...

...

Do you agree that women were a universally oppressed group throughout history?

fag

If power hasn't shifted from one class to another there hasn't been any social progress

Think I'd much rather be a middle class white woman in the 19th century than a black man 2bh

doesn't stop them voting though does it

The alt-right is just white male idpol, much like third wave feminism was white female idpol. They are both embodiments of the same type of classcuckery.

Now that women and minorities are allowed to wield political power and participate in the economy on equal footing with white males that's somehow a bad and "liberal" thing because why fag?

It's not a "bad" thing per say, it just does absolutely nothing to address the core power structures of society, that is class divisions. It doesn't matter if the person cutting your wages and rigging your elections has a dick or not.

Also triggering white dude's to turn alt-right is a bad thing. We want less reactionaries not more, and white reactionaries have been entirely created by SJWs and their identirarian bullshit. Framing politics in terms of identity leads people to see political issues and discourse through that lens. That means that white men who want to be represented politically are going to do so through the lens of their identity, and therin lies to genesis of the alt-right. It makes it even worse that liberals have not only been framing politics through identity and telling people that all identities are equal, but that they have denied some identities (like white men) the right to represent themselves the way other groups do. It's bold-faced hypocracy and it has given us the greasy pizza faced monsters of the alt-right.

We've got a class A liberal here folks

why should I care about conflicts within the enemy class?

what in the actual fuck are you talking about you massive faggot? There is very much a racist white male patriarchy still in place that controls the economy and political system and most social institutions, the fact that they now don't control some social institutions is a bad thing now?

...

Nobody cares, if you don't want to help and be a negative cunt then fuck off an keep fapping to your shrine of Stalin or Mao or whatever the fuck other larpy faggotry you're into

Nobody is saying it's bad, we're just saying it hasn't really changed anything, not even for the majority of women. The fact that there are more female CEOs is great for upper middle class girls who can afford college and have the necessary connections. It doesn't make one iota of difference to Laquanda in the ghetto or Mary-Belle in the trailer park, who will probably get pregnant as teenagers and live on welfare, maybe a job at McDonalds if they're lucky.

Their rise allows the rise of the left as well though. It turns liberals into leftists

Obviously I don't want to help any bourgeoisie scum, the question is why would any leftist?

Furthermore fuck you for suggesting we should appease fascists. If it's not SJWs something else is going to push people inclined to those kinds of things in that direction.

No. Pure idpol is textbook false consciousness.

oh so on top of that women are supposed to lead a revolutionary movement to topple the rich through force as well? And how do you see that happening?

99% of feminists are not bourgeois since they don't control the means of production you idiot

...

And 99% of alt-righters aren't either. The question is as to the character of their political movement, i.e. whether it's fighting for the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

How would women controlling these institutions abolish the patriarchal characteristics of them? Can't women also be patriarchal? It's almost like you believe gender is real

They don't care who gets fucked including themselves as long as people who belong to other races are also suffering. It has nothing to do with class at all.

War of position:
Long struggle;
Primarily, across institutions of civil society;
Secondly, the socialist forces gain control through cultural and ideological struggle, instead of only political and economic contest;
Especially suggested for the liberal-democratic societies of Western capitalism with weaker states but stronger hegemonies (i.e.: Italy);
These countries have more extensive and intricate civil societies that deserve a longer and more complex strategy.

"The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony." (Strinati, 1995:169)

Culture: a whole social process, in which men and women define and shape their lives.
Ideology: a system of meanings and values, it is the expression or projection of a particular class interest. The form in which consciousness is at once expressed and controlled, as Raymond Williams has defined it: "…a mistaken interpretation of how the world actually is." (Williams, 1992: 27)


theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm

I don't know if you meant feminists or the alt-right, but either way I agree.

implying the alt-right isn't a bunch of dickheads who just want traditional gender roles back and the ability to make nigger jokes in public

There's a bourgeois apparatus that controls the economy, political system, and most social institutions. What colour they are or their gender is irrelevant to that, a black female slave master is still a slave master. Racism and sexism are only a real power structure as long as they either support or are irrelevant to capitalism's larger class structure. Sexism has become irrelevant to it, more women executives won't hurt porky's profits, and so they peddle liberal feminism because it creates the appearance of progressivism while preserving their power. Liberal feminism is a perfect example of controlled opposition.

No it doesn't. Bourgeois women in bourgeois positions in bourgeois institutions do not in any way advance the cause of leftism.

Furthermore fuck you for suggesting we should appease fascists. If it's not SJWs something else is going to push people inclined to those kinds of things in that direction.

I didn't say appease them, I said stop creating them. Pro tip: people don't like getting told they are evil oppressors responsible for all the world's problems, especially when they themselves are low on the socioeconomic ladder like pic related. How do you think some dirt poor redneck in Appalachia who has lived his entire life in grinding poverty would react to a trust fund petty bourg college student telling him that he's a muh privileged oppressor? It's ridiculous on the face of it, it undermines class unity, and it swells the ranks of fascism.


By them taking up arms alongside the rest of the working class.

The Eurocommunists in Britain had that idea, they all became Blairites. Didn't turn out so well

It is relevant if you want to actually defeat and undermine that structure.

This is the only leftist board anywhere where you can even say feminism sucks and not be instantly banned, so what do you fucking think OP. Feminism is a right-wing entitlement scheme for worthless women who feel that everyone owes them time, money, attention, and obedience. You can find 5th feminists in literally every ideology, there are libertarian feminists, conservative feminists, etc. but the people most cucked by worthless feminism are leftists and liberals.

It is inherently a liberal movement though, no matter where it goes.

Capitalism is so fucking good at changing that shit it is actually kind of pathetic that leftists are still trying to start a revolution that way. We've been having a social revolution for 50 years and things have actually gotten worse.

Just FYI you would be banned as a mizoogunist for what you're saying on every forum but this one. This is how feminists destroy every movement they get involved with, by screeching whenever people place anything above their own importance.

lmao

How? Racism needs to be fought sure, because it's a weapon against the workers, but the racial makeup of the bourgeoisie is irrelevant to that. Black porkies will be gulaged just like the white ones.

Feminists are harder to peg down. You can't paint them all with the same brush. You have abuses like Adria Richards donglegate where the abuse she got from trolls was well deserved. Then you have every day women fighting for the right for equal pay or abortions who probably aren't crazy SJWs.

The alt right are just nazis that dress up like douche bag wall street bankers in order to seem less threatening. Fuck all of them and their brainwashed white trash followers.

How is the racial makeup irrelevant to that exactly? So native liberation movements black liberation moments should also spend time attacking their own communities and businesses trying to survive withing the white colonial system now ? lmao

If you blame the opposite race/gender/other identity for all the world's ills and dedicate your movement to "fighting" them, don't be surprised when they retaliate in kind.

The choice is simple: solidarity with the proletariat - the whole proletariat - or capitalism. Choose wisely.

back to reddit faggot, this argument stinks of feminist retardation.

Class is a real thing. Your imaginary charm bracelet is not.

...

Learn how dialectics work.

Oh heaven forbid someone targets the businesses, back to tumblr hilary

...

This is what virtually every online feminist does with their time, they inject the idea that anyone who stands up to them is an evil alt-right pychopath. They will not stop, they are incapable of recognizing the basic humanity of anyone who isn't part of their sociopaths club.

what patriarchy? where are my patriarcal benefits? Porky women seem to have much more benefits than me.

where do I get my patriarchal benefits so I can be like the the many women with more than 100.000 U$ in their account? Please tell me

That's literally exactly what they should do. There is no point in liberating themselves from the foreign colonial elite if they are just going to let themselves be enslaved by local elites. That's just trading one tyrant for another.

wow great argument fag

Oh muh dialectics worked so fucking well for native Americans slaves and women for centuries

A progressive one. Second-wave feminists are very hostile to transexuals.

See, this is why "black liberation" is a bourgeois, counter-revolutionary movement. The actual liberation of "black" people can only be accomplished simultaneously with the liberation of all other people - through the abolition of capitalism!

Damn straight nigga.

If radfem hub was still around I could show you 3rd wavers who despise everyone who isn't a natural born white female but they fell apart.

Just a reminder to everyone that the Feminist movement spent the entire election trying to elect a mass murdering neoliberal corporatist on the basis that she had a vagina. Go on /r/socialism and look for the post-election "who did you vote for" thread, 60% of everyone voted for Hillary Clinton.

They are pro-imperialism, pro-war, pro-corporate, far right neoliberals hiding in leftist skin all because a white woman almost came into power. That's truely dangerous.

Memba when commies made March 8th International Working Women's Day?

And allowed women in the army and the airforce?

And were the first to put a woman into a spacecraft and space?

How the fuck is it that NATO is the one that ended up some sort of feminist hellhole?

Well, it was the second-wave feminists that yammered about gender being a social construct. Guess some third-wavers didn't get the memo.

Actually socialist movements have been at the forefront of women's liberation for almost all of their history.

It's quite telling how most responses are attacking feminism and defending the alt-right. It's almost as if your identity itself is shaped and derived from a superstructure that props up your white muh privilege that re-enforces your narrow economistic view of everything rejecting the struggles of people of colour and women

Because Communist equality wasn't based on the "woman's movement" like 2nd and 3rd wave feminism is. It was based on class struggle.

3rd wave feminism is ironically enough probably the least "intersectional" feminist movement since the first wave. Literally only appeals to white girls.

The "gosh all these responses" line is a mark of a COINTELPRO infiltrator. You have to go back now.

suffragio.org/2012/11/14/the-role-of-women-in-the-ccp-just-so-much-beautiful-scenery/

How many women where in the Soviet Politburo? Zero, no woman ever achieved full membership in the Soviet politburo

IMO I think "intersectionality" is the equivalent of corporate "diversity", a nice word that allows people to do amazing mental gymnastics. A way to place first world feminists at the forefront of every class or race/sex struggle everywhere.

pick one not both

...

Literally everyone in thread mentioning the alt-right is comparing it to feminism - as in "feminism is basically the alt-right, but for women" or "feminism is driving people to the alt-right, and that's why feminism is bad." How on earth do you construe that as representing support in any way for the alt-right?

Americuck can't change more than one variable at a time.

I didn't see a single comment defending the alt-right.

The alt-right is far more feminist than I am, if you're white or just willing to play identity politics for the trump crowd go over there and have stupid men kneel before you.
Check out all their 'intersectional' and 'progressive' "do it for her" memes.

They even accuse (non-white) men everywhere of being gang-rapists! Sounds exactly like feminism to me, only mildly more racist.

Feminists up against the wall with the rest tbh

just admit that you don't give a fuck about women and minority issues

Okay, so it's the mark of a useless liberal. Still you have to go back. I for one don't want your bourg ideology here.


kys liberal

wow great argument

I'll admit that, I don't give a shit about women

Giving a fuck about "women" and "minority" issues is anti-Marxist, because the true division between people is not race or sex, but class

Actually four.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterina_Furtseva

Idpol only creates more idpol. One groups safe space can easily be used to justify another's apartheid.

It's funny how they throw the word liberal around so much in defense of their idiotic insistence on appeasing their fascist enemies. It's not dissimilar to a Democrat from a red state casting a vote for Jeff Sessions.

They belong on Holla Forums

The Soviet Union was also one of the first countries to give women fully equal rights to men. They still had problems with sexism of course, but that was still a huge milestone.

As for your earlier comment about slaves, natives, racialized groups etc, there's a reason why basically every anti-colonial and national liberation movement was spearheaded by socialists. The early socialist movement in America was also at the forefront of abolitionism and later civil rights.

You keep talking about the plight of women and colonized people as if socialism somehow didn't care about them or support their struggles, but have you even read their views on this? Have you read Franz Fanon? Huey Newton? Ho Chi Minh? Angela Davis? Rosa Luxembourg? The simple fact is that attacking social inequality without dismantling the underlying class structure that produced it is entirely pointless. Not only will you likely fail to do get rid of these inequalities, even if you succeed all you will have done is made the ruling class more diverse while the proles continue to suffer.

Idpol, like other forms of nationalism, is advocacy for segregation - and with its calls for "PoC only spaces" it's not even all that subtle about it.

The historical civil rights movement, which demolished legal if not practical segregation in the United States, was led by socialists.

That's the truth, virtually the entire youth body politic voting for Trump is angry about being called sexists and racists by feminists non-fucking-stop. Or I guess, SJWs in their terms. Find a single one of them who isn't motivated by hatred of SJWs and I will eat my hat .

idpol is there so porky doesn't have to worry about people talking about class strugle

PATRIARCHY CONFIRMED TO BE REAL

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies

forbes.com/pictures/lmj45kjjl/americas-richest-women/#107781c3165e

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_Awada


POOR FUCKING CEOS AND QUEENS I CRY EVERY FUCKING TIME

Someone on Twitter actually did a thread celebrating "badass" monarchs of colour before

Ok I admit that I'm a fascist reactionary larping as an SJW just to test your responses. It's not surprising that the SJW liberals took over the left since their arguments will shout you down rely on rhetoric and appeals to emotion and you don't have any arguments to counter them except for

Don't worry, when every slot is taken up by women things will magically get better.

When women rule the world it will be perfect equality, even though you can't name a single leftist female leader of a nation and the majority were absolutely bloodthirsty.

Don't forget Victoria for starting the genocidal actions in India. Important moment of intersectional feminism there.

Nobody is saying appease them, all we're saying is don't create them. That's what this SJW nonsense is doing, turning proles that ought to be forming the core of the revolutionary movement into fascists by telling them that they are oppressing female multi-millionaires.

It's not SJWs that they hate unless they're a Holla Forumstard. They're motivated by hate for niggers and spics, simple and plain. They want cops killing niggers and spics dragged from their homes and swiftly deported. Sandra Fluke and Hobby Lobby are incredibly minor compared to the Muslim ban and the wall. True SJW causes only play to the evangelical part of the base which will support anything as long as it promises anti abortion legislation. They'd vote for a fucking Satanist if he promised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Stay solidly Marxist or your gonna get infected with liberal ideology. If you wanna do feminism, make sure its solidly grounded Marxist feminism

...

Apparently you can't read. We've been demolishing this bullshit throughout the thread.

woah is that handsome astronaut lady captain Janeway? Did that wormhole at the end of voyager send her back in time to the USSR?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova

All i'm saying is ever see them at the same place at the same time?

Didn't think so.

No. This is demonstrably false.

did you see that clever Gramsci superstructure manoeuvre I pulled on them? I'm literally becoming a jew tier subversive

That's just not possible though. It's a pipe dream.

This is common liberal propaganda after the election. 20% of Trumps voters voted for Obama in 2012. under no condition would any real racist do that.

I know what conservatives are like, you don't need to remind me like I'm not taking that into account. FYI, there are regular commies who want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The SJW definitely provokes these people and makes the situation far worse, as well as convinces the young generation coming in to overlook the crimes of the conservative body politic. This is how Breitbart became huge in the past 3 years.

Yeah, a few silly people actually believed he was going to solve their economic problems. "I'm not racist I voted for Obama, now I voted for Trump and I'm absolutely shocked that he's acting on his word" doesn't impress me. Stop making excuses for fascists.

You were almost rational for a moment there. Now the blood is rushing back into your head SJW.

People in flyover states voting for Trump after losing jobs and homes for 8 years is not "fascism".

If the entire voting body of Trump supporters were fascists, antifa would probably all be dead by now and we wouldn't have elections.

Funny how many people think how muh talk pretty should be the sole criterion determining who gets to participate in the conversation, as if anyone were owed an equal opportunity to pollute the discourse.

Death to micronationalism

Bullshit, Bernie drew on the same demographics of support that Trump did because he had a solid class based message. Poor blacks and poor whites need to be made to see that fighting each other will only hurt both, and that socialism will benefit both groups equally. All that takes is directing anger at the right people. Many people are already angry at vague euphemisms for the bourgeoise like "the elites" "the bankers" "the 1%" etc, that just needs to be capitalized on as a central message.

They actually do try that trick quite often in real life. It's a bit weird actually. People are actually using Gramsci claim that having a female president is a revolutionary/"subversive" (they love this term) act.

I wouldn't say you were demolishing. You basically say that the cause of femenism is meaningless to women and that identity politics is meaningless to blacks because class is the only issue when it clearly isn't to them. So you're engaging in a form of whitesplaining from a muh privileged position from their perspective. I'd like to see you try that outside of the echochamber.

You can also reply to that from a leftist perspective by saying that you have to attack all contradictions in the capitalist system until only class remains as the only contradiction.

I didn't say that at all. I said that getting rid of racism is pointless if you aren't going to get rid of capitalism too, because then all you're doing is changing the skin colour of the people who rule you.


That is what I've been saying.

I dunno if it was you specifically but I did get replies that basically said that blacks shouldn't engage in identity politics against the white system and attack their own capitalist institutions which is just funny.

I'm sure blacks would prefer to have their own rule them first and then deal with capitalist oppression.

That is a gramsican cultural marxist point of view that fully justifies SJW identity politics as it attacks established institutions and traditions eroding them in a Fabian fashion

...

Defend poor proletariat Limbaugh listener who thinks Mexico caused all his problems some more. I swear if I ever catch you spouting this utter nonsense in real life I will crack your fucking skull just as fast as I would any nazi.

This shit could have happened any year. Republicans wanted this. They've been begging for it. It wasn't SJWs. Joe Arpaio is an absolute legend and a Jesus figure in their eyes. The only thing standing between them and their dreams was the GOP. The same can be said about the DNC and Bernie but that played out differently.

The majority of the people who voted for Trump haven't the slightest fucking clue what a SJW is. Radical feminists and Shaun King type activists don't live in rural areas. This can be said about where I live. If you came to my village you would have no fucking clue that I reside in the same county as Michael Moore. Trump won it easily.

Anyway you need to get that goofy fucking fantasy where poor white dudes who hunt, fish, and think Jeff Dunham is funny will take up leftist causes if only there weren't loud females and negroes supporting them. Sure, more of them would have voted for Bernie than Hillary. What happened there was indefensible and set our goals back so far. But you are living in a fantasy world. I invite you to come knock on doors with me some time if you are ever in need of a reality check.

yep you're in the minority

Rad fems are hot tbh

Which is to say not at all because you people are fucking weaklings.

I have a physical disability but I am not above using weapons.

You also have a mental disability. You're a fucking retard.

IT'S MY BODY I CAN DO WHAT I WANT

That's nice. Despite my personal shortcomings and the fact that I live in abject poverty I've done quite well in life. You can say whatever you want about me, it doesn't hurt my feelings.

Our task isn't just to win 50% of the vote and ask the bourgeoisie to roll over peacefully; they have the money, they have the entrenched interests, and they've historically proven more than willing to embrace fascist dictatorship and right wing death squads to cement their hold on power.

The only way to overcome this is with popular support - and of an overwhelming variety, not just a narrow majority. The kind where the soldiers don't shoot because they can't shoot everyone.

And this means that we need to get people onside who voted for neoliberal imperialism in the Democratic primary, as well as people who wholeheartedly backed Trump. Not by embracing the reactionary views of a Trump or a Clinton, but by turning them against the bourgeoisie and making them grasp the importance of their struggle as proletarians.

If we write off a majority of the proletariat, how the hell are we supposed to accomplish anything at all?

Shit, m8. Drink some bleach.

Btw, what's the Marxist stance on porn? Is it degenerate? Most feminists don't view porn as degenerate when you would think its female oppression on an industrial scale? What's the ideologically pure Marxist stance on such bourgeois fun? You goys can make a cause out of it to draw in support from feminists and blue pill them into ideologically pure Marxism

oops meant for

The term is RED pill.

same as prostitution most likely

You'll never get the ones who wholeheartedly embraced Trump though. Only the ones that reluctantly did.

But why is it prostitution bad in a Marxist materialist sense? I mean if it's legalized and the prostitutes get to form a national whoring union with weekly doctors checkups surely that is a legit trade?

who is this jizz whizz?

Liberal meme.

People were saying that blacks should be against identity politics. Being against idpol means being against racism.

I always wondered this too. It is probably the part I disagree with most in the manifesto

search up the 'male fantasy' on youtube

You'd be surprised how disillusioned some people can get when politicians fail to accomplish what they promise, or keep their promises but it doesn't make a difference in the lives of their voters - heck, I voted for Obama.

Not that we should restrict criticism of Trump in any sense, but we do need to welcome former Trumpcucks.

I meant this post

and I get these hilarious replies like this one here

It's very advantageous from a realistic material perspective for minorities to acquire their own businesses and capital within the current system you'd think well until they glorious uprising and burn them down but ideally

but Trump has already kept more promises than Obama.

He'd have to nuke Iran for them to stop following him at this point.

That's exactly how Bernie ended up getting elected in the first place. The Republican he replaced pissed off the NRA and they endorsed him out of spite. You still must be careful in your approach, trying to bring on people with nazi sympathies or something similar is just a waste of your time and resources. They're not worth losing the SJW types that would embrace you and preach your message to moderates. Even if you hate them they are your base.

And it's advantageous for proles to become porkies, what's your point? All they would be doing then is contributing to the exploitation and disenfranchisement of other black people as well as white people.

I would agree, but what we can do is target the kinds of people who have proven vulnerable to right-wing radicalization with our own message. The most prominent group that fits this category is working class white men, who should be relatively easy to win over with a strong class based message.

Only if they're under the age of 35. Otherwise it's about as useful as trying to sell Depends to people in their 20s.

Well that's like saying they shouldn't fucking do anything and kill themselves or kill themselves by throwing themselves at the police. I mean unions are designed to ensure the workers get better wages, and blacks can improve their communities in theory by attracting capital, getting jobs etc.

Surely black businesses owners will seek to improve their own communities though jobs, charities, philanthropies and care for their own workforce more than white (and potentially racist) business owners right?

...

What class is she talking about?

I mean those SJW's have a point. Reducing everything to economic autism is just autism and the other side of the coin of lolbertarianism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economism

I want to elaborate on this a little. You will get some of those people. But they won't come to you directly. You will have reached their son, daughter, or wife and they will relay it to them. They're set in their ways and they always hear shit like "they're all the same might as well vote for Trump" from their buddies at the bar. If they'll be reached the appeal will have to be much more personal.

Hey you fucking goddamn idiot liberal. We are not progressive. WE are revolutionary. You will be killed soon as we have power because progressiveness is liberalism and liberalism is capitalism.

Giving jobs, power, and capital to niggers and dykes is progressive. Killing kike globalists and equally distributing resources is revolutionary. Get it? Now you can fucking kys faggot.

Wow, you really are a straw grasping retard. BECAUSE every goddamn male in history was a fucking god damn duke or lord you fucking idiot? NO. Women had it better except in upper classes, and I'm supposed to feel pity for a bunch of upper class women because they aren't treated as good the king and his lords? Fuck you, idiot. Lower class men died all the time from war, diseases, starvation, work exhaution and safety issues, etc, etc… how many women lived and died like a fucking dog such as they did? Not many if any at all especially if you take out diseases.

I'm tired of you liberal liars. You are not morally superior to shit. PS, you are the mainstream you cuck faggot.

Can this "muh rural areas" meme end already. I know there are some people who do live in rural areas, but actual rural areas where people farm and shit are maybe 20% of the population in the US. Everyone else lives in urban areas. Can the Trumptards stop pretending and just admit they live in a declining small town at best (or more likely a shitty suburb). It probably hasn't been since the 50s when real rural areas were as significant as these LARPers make it out to be.

...

Literally COINTELPRO

Wrong answer, arrogant liberal imperialist. They produce 90% of the food produced in the US and 99% of the timber.

What kind of faggot are you?


Literally, can't wait for the real communist revolution to kill you progressives. It's gonna feel good.

Checked.

What you saying though?

That line of thinking worked out great for Pol Pot. It was a real utopia.

A disease of the mind. Feminism has some validity in principle but third world feminists do not uphold this principle and instead push for gyno supremacy or male oppression.

No ones reducing anything to just economics.

It's these people who try to reduce everything to cultural issues. The sout of "economic reductionism" rings out every time issues of class are so much as mentioned.

I'm going to call endlessly bitching about feminism on the internet fourth wave feminism.

It was no less utopian than any other communist country

nice post-modern ideology you got there fam.

its a raging trash fire, this book alone has more inherent value for the left than 99% of what the nu-fems have excreted

when does third wave start and"second wave" end? is that like womens suffrage? I like some of the fucking radicals from 20-30 ears ago, whos the chick that wrote the "scumm kill all men" thing and fucking shot andy warhol?

at least that book was funny, and she made some decent points. The fems were kinda fucking cool back then stealing dynamite and shit yisss

nowadays they literally seem to be controlled opposition, just look at something like pussy riot, state dept funded and they barely hide it

im gonna have to agree with

here, not that theyre all infiltrated but they mostly seem like useful fucking idiots

Well, as a fascist, I find it quite discouraging that Marxists are unable to use muh analysis to accurately explain the issues of race, gender, homophobia ignoring all of these range of oppression's within the capitalist system and reducing everything purely to class, Stalinists, Maoists Leninists, have historically been down right reactionary when it came to those issues leaving the field open for left liberal bourgeois thinkers to provide an accurate overview of those issues from a left perspective to explain analyze these opressions

ahhgad please dont translate your rants into google german bruh, it hurtzzz mein eyesss

…was soll dieses deutsch dengglish doppelgeposte,,IHR SEID DOCH ALLES ANGLOS

GOTT

STRAFE

ENGLAND

feminism is just Victorian era traditionalist values re: sex that changes into a new dress every now and then.

there's been a handful of exceptions over the last 150 or so years where some short-lived strains have held some influence over the wider movement and pushed it briefly in this or that direction. But really the fundamental character of it as a movement that exploits and enforces traditional sex roles (or "human nature" if you believe in ghost stories) has been consistent and surprisingly resilient given the disconnect between the high-minded rhetoric and material goals that are pursued in its name.

most of the modern left's obsession with championing it or salvaging it from liberals is just fetishism and normal left-wing myopia on social issues.

Feminism in the West, (because your culture is shit and doesn't encourage feminine positions of power like other cultures did for generations and it even needed to occur), originated as a response TO Victorian family values.

How can you even be this historically illiterate

t. Gavin Mcginess


Can you provide some examples of those cultures? Purely anthropological curiosity here

Outside of some countries more open to Westernization like Korea or China or Japan, but even then, women have been both under submissive and dominant role. It is hard to really tell, because Eastern cultures do not value Individuality as anything more than trivial.

The "strength" of men are as strong as their family and their family their people, individually, they are pointless.

In the Western world, masculinity is an individualized sense of power, it isn't an example of strength recognized outside of itself, with exception of the Near East at the time.

It's tradition from ease of access more or less, selfishness.

While the rest of the world has warrior women, Europe has fawned over one, or two.

I think it was more or less the same to be honest. I doubt there were many warrior women within Islamic societies, Japanese had a male warrior caste similar to feudal Europe before the Westerns showed up. Europe had some, like Jean d' Arc, shieldmaidens, Boudica etc


I dunno about native primitive cultures since they vary a lot but I think they are pretty unifrom in the fact that males are the warrior caste outside of emergenices.

Feminism has literally bourgeois roots and is even more bourgeois today.

"Primitive cultures", Vietnam started out life as a Matriarchal culture before Chinese rule, shocking I know.

Interestingly enough, the first people to lead insurrection against Chinese rule, were women.

This is a routine in Vietnamese culture that has been with us our entire span. From women leading insurrection against feudal China, to the Vietnam War. Women have had active combat roles, indeed, active military leadership roles, from centuries ago to the modern day.

Your ideas of the world extend to Europe and the Near East, the rest of the world does not obey them strictly.

Your ideas are alien to me. I do not respect them.

Marxism has bourgeois roots. First and second wave femenists wanted mainly to have equal voting rights and a fair wage.

Nope. Women's movement in the UK came 2.5 decades after the US. The original "declaration of sentiments" for the US movement is about voting and property power, and positions of power in church and home.

Considering what your women went through, and how little exposed they were to Marxism, I do not consider this a negative in historical context.

I'm saying it wasn't in response to victorian family values.


Why are you even here if you think that white women not having command over property was some kind of tragedy in an era of brutal chattel slavery into sharecropping slavery.

White Women lived like aristocrats in this era, that's how they were able to form and succeed in the women's movement.

Well gee I never heard that women were behind a Vietnamese insurrection against China. You learn something new every day I guess. Don't suppose you have a link there?

As an aside my take on Vietnam and much of third world communist insurrections is that they were mostly nationalist uprisings. Instead of the bourgeois class you had a foreign nation controlling all the stuff leading to a national liberation movement that just so happened to be "red" to gain support from the USSR. Once they liberated themselves all the red symbol became national liberation symbols kinda like with Russia now you have red flag waving nationalists.


ditto

Family values in the West at the time were so retarded and the time frames so close together I fail to see the real difference.


I can't see both? This is a false comparison, especially considering African American feminist movements, which indeed, were part of the last real critiques of Western culture and how it produces and perpetuates Capital.

White women did not "live like aristocrats", this is a shocking simplification of a world where poverty exists and has existed for much longer than your stereotyped view of history presents.

I did not say property ownership good either.

This is true. Indeed, the French forced culturally incompatible ideas to us in colonial rule that nobody respected much, that impacted women the most.

When it came to revolt against France, woman took arms to kill the French bastards first.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trưng_Sisters

As one example. As another, our culture, since for as long as we can remember, has lived by the joke/phrase "When the enemy is at the gate, the woman goes out fighting first".

Women didn't have representation in law because they were protected from it, their husbands were punished for their crimes.

Women didn't have property because they were assumed to be on the same side as the family, now women routinely rob men of everything they have and send them to an early grave.

Alimony is quite literally an aristocratic concept, it ensures that women HAVE to be given their accustomed quality of life for the rest of their life on the backs of the ex-husbands labor.

The women's movement also took turns ruthlessly exploiting and infighting with former african slaves, because they couldn't handle the shift in attention to a real class of victims. This perverse attitude persists even today in this thread, where someone offended a white woman so she shrieked and shouted like an idiot that everyone must stop talking about class and leftist and focus on what a professional victim she is.

The Women's Movement successfully took the lion's share of entitlements and made women a sort of automatic petite-bourgeouis. There was absolutely no concern for washer women, female cooks, servants, female labor of any kind. It was a racist, sexist movement of entitled cunts.

a century later the new women's movement, feminism, decided to name these first women's movement the '1st' wave and themselves the 2nd. They fought against discrimination while *no surprise here* fighting with the black civil rights movement for attention. When they got their equal rights act they became even more obnoxious, and 3rd wave feminists focused on punishing men for existing.

Today the movement is a joke, it's victim-culture for the most entitled sex/race identity in existence. No-one on earth is better off than western white women, now speech is sexual harassment and sex with a girl who drinks is rape.

It's true that 3rd and 2nd wave feminists were somewhat socialist, but it was mainly a new means of duping idiots into giving them more entitlements. "critical theory" as applied to race and sex turned them into the most obnoxious pieces of shit on the planet, because now they held that they were incapable of being responsible for anything. Women cannot be sexists, racists or held responsible for murder because "the patriarchy" forces women to do everything (NOT).

You have everything, shut the fuck up.

This is a lot of paragraphs that don't answer the criticisms I have of the West.

Again, White women did not "live like aristocrats", across the board, and this fails to account for actual history of women in Capital, and women in poverty, of really all races in the Capitalist West. More, other races did not fair well here.

Stop huffing and puffing and get off your high horse, you aren't even riding it properly.

It's a bad thing because it fractures the working class over trivial issues shit. Men and women alike get drawn into a fight where they can both feel right and justified, while accomplishing nothing. Great example is abortion. Depending on your starting premise it is very easy to argue for either side. And whats better, the only way it even comes up as an issue is if a case makes it to the supreme court in which case a bunch of justices with life terms and no direct allegiance to voters will actually make the decision. The feminist movement has always been a tool of the establishment. Whether it was a push to increasing the workforce during the industrial revolution, to lower wages in the 80's, or to divide the masses in the 2000's it has always miraculously benefited the ultra rich while the well being and happiness of the working classes declined. However the biggest tell is probably that they never had their leaders assassinated.

see you later cointel-kun

Who is, Assata Shakur. Well, almost, still a fugitive.

How were family values for the vast majority of the peasants in the 18th-19th centuries so different from other cultures?

You have to be specific by what you mean by "other cultures", there's a broad range of cultures, not all are compatible with the Western world

liberal feminism is the problem more than anything, I think.

How do you get over these cultural differences when attempting to forge an internationalist movement though? Do you think "whiteness" / Western liberalism just needs to be eradicated first? You seem to agree reeducation is not working out so well right now. How do you reconcile the other non-Western cultures not compatible with your Orientalist-tier distillation of Asianness?

that was mainly to do with bank robberies and attempted murder.

Ok Vietnam since you're knowledgeable on it

It's simple, ignore the one that benefits from Capital the most and perpetuates it. Within and without it.

That would be, Europe and the United States/Russia.

France tried to Westernize Vietnam.

It didn't work out in the long term and pissed everyone off to high hell. The Indochina Wars and Vietnam should tell you that women were good soldiers. Troops time and again mistook women for what they were used to, not the kind that made nail bombs and trip wires, dug mines and carried bayonets. You should see that as a tell that the two shouldn't be forced on one another. A culture that respects individuality and one that thrives off meaning outside of individual life.

lol


So you're a third worldist?

Have you got a link on matriarchal Vietnam? That's very interesting. China was not a matriarchy, as you seem aware, obviously: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

You seem to have reified and essentialized the West and Asianness (based mainly off your knowledge of Vietnam, while neglecting the rest of the world). but Asian cultures aren't compatible with eachother. Do you really think the anti-modernist Islamic theocratic world is going to work together? It's inherently reactionary, much moreso than the West tbh. You can lay the blame on imperialism but the fact remains. It's hard to get a read on your position tbh. Are you a postcolonialist?

yeah but what does that have to do with family values? It really isn't surprising that an established culture rejects foreign influence especially from the capitalist core, you can even make a similar argument for the ebil Southern Confederacy.

Regarding women its not really out of the ordinary anywhere that women participate in guerrilla warfare outside of the regular army during an invasion.


And China. It's really an issue of who has power and who doesn't.

Much. Nothing is seen as strictly, or historically, dominated by men or women. There is vagueness there, much more than in neighboring nations. Vietnam has a history of both women's subjugation and women's power. This exists because strong focus is put on the family above yourself, and the community above the family. This makes our culture, during the 20th century, ripe for communism.

There's not much else to be said. At a fundamental level from childhood onward, individuality is seen as a weakness.


China is a grey area, though equal of blame. I would focus more on Japan.

This is just NazBol with chauvinist characteristics, and the fundamental premise of meme Cultural Marxism. I'm still convinced you're an extremely subtle troll. Love your work on Holla Forums btw.

Individuality is associated with the West for only the last 200 years or so spawning from enlightenment values, technological innovations and early liberal revolutions. Adam Smith would get a lot of shit on here but at the time his ideas were seen as revolutionary since he was writing in a world dominated by aristocratic landlords and peasants with no economic or social mobility while he wanted them to get an education (provided by the state) and to be able to acquire capital and participate in a free economy which was a concept unheard of before

It has existed since Western Culture spawned from the Near East.

elaborate kindly

Greece and the Cycladic cultures were the starting point of Europe. And they had their jumping off point from their neighbors, Egypt and the Near East, in art, culture, and trade.

In regards to the Near East and Greece, and onward into Christianity, it is hard to really separate the two. Or if separation is necessarily required.

The original cultures of Europe that were not Mediterranean in nature were wiped out in favor of Greece, then Rome, than Christianity. All formed a culture very Near East in nature.

These effects can be traced, and are still felt. There is no real "European culture", as it is long dead.

Capitalism is the final nail in the coffin of the idea of "European culture".

Also, couldn't this culturally embedded anti-individualistic collectivism, even though superficially more compatible with some conceptions of """communism""" be seen as purely reactionary from a Communist perspective? Western liberal Enlightenment with the protestant individualist ideal was a precondition for the development of Marxism, and Marx didn't frown on it, he saw it as a historically necessary development. I don't see why it's a bad thing. Obviously making a cult out of it like we're hermetically sealed islands and not participants in culture like lolberts do is ridiculous, and the atomized consumerism brand of "individualism" is bullshit. But what is superior about surrendering yourself to these actual spooks?

Ok and what about individualism?


Hopefully not there are French, Italian, British, Polish, Russian cultures etc

Yes, there Vietnamese nationalism is both compatible and sometimes not compatible with Communism as concieved by Marx.

Seeing it from a European perspective doesn't work well.

Especially because you don't understand the idea that culture is so diverse in such a small space that it becomes more threatened, and other neighbors, become threatened by you. Such as Cambodia. Which politically, are just as divisive.

Western nationalism outside of Japan isn't really respected as actual nationalism, because fairly, it is regarded as liberal because the West truly isn't at risk enough to embrace Nationalism, and never will be.

The West's unholy export has been part of its culture since the Near East, Code of Hammurabi wasn't written in a vacuum, and neither were the scriptures.


All except Poland, exist on a bed dominated by Christ. They aren't actual cultures.

well you're more or less kooky nationalist with a racial and cultural axe to grind against the West for understandable historical causes. It's basically more Duginism and Juche tier shit tailored to local specifics.


I know a Japanese Nazi on an obscure forum who hates Christianity the white patriarchy and capitalism, must be an asian thing

Westernism and Liberalism are inextricably linked to you. If you want to argue more effectively you have to get your definitions more precise imho. Liberalism is almost a useless term at this point, it's almost entirely a rhetorical usage, and a epithet used by basically every ideology that isn't the blandest pearl-clutching centrism. I find commies tend to utilize this lack of clarity to equivocate wildly between everything descending from the Enlightenment and the Western capitalist ideology. It's a rhetorical strategy that is nonsensical, because they are ultimately always just picking arbitrarily what they like for agit-prop purposes in that moment.

Is it possible that Asian understanding of the West is also tempered through a lens primarily of mass media representations exported through capitalism, state propaganda, their own folk cultural understanding and so on? Are you not here arguing a form of standpoint theory / strong objectivity of muh privileged access? Why does it not go both ways. Black people in America are Western af tbh fam

what a cuck.

As a first generation immigrant, coming from a white native, I really find your criticisms not of merit, simply because all of this bitterness raised is historically recent, and felt by my parents which influenced me more than "media".

Indeed, I have more reason to speculate on the same lens from yourself.

Yeah Vietnam and Japan are nothing alike don't compare the two

I can't help it you all look the same to me

That's really not an excuse since all of us hate each other, but together all of us hate Japan the most.

It's not valid though. I could argue the same about you being a cosmopolitan college cunt. The point of arguing on user boards I think is to try and move away from bringing self-identity into it all the time, which while relevant at times, more often it leads to absolutely nowhere.

But wait I think I get you now. You think Western culture is effectively dead and now just pure capitalist ideology at this point. So, while some other cultures could get away with attempting proletarian nationalism, because they were more socialized or predisposed to socialization.. whereas any Western attempt will be inauthentic and just a grotesque reaffirmation of imperial chauvinism?

Liberalism, pure and simple.

The worst part about feminism today is two fold. The first being how it keeps falling for the apex fallacy, where they compare the average woman to the .000001% of men instead of the average men proving how bourgeois feminism really is. The second is the fact feminists are not remotely interested in equality but man hating and trying to get rights over men rather than anything resembling equality.

Stirner is one of them. Stirner literally thinks the destiny of the world belongs to the white race.

I don't like Japan either. It's a degenerate shithole who got nuked the fuck out by America and is now their biggest dicksucker and their culture is some perversion of Western mass culture combined with racial envy

I lolled hard when I read that Mussolini was inspired by Spirger. National-Egoism when?

Third wave feminism is competitive, and that's not social.

Well he's not wrong as far as things stand now and at the time he was writing

...

Not what I was saying.

I was saying Vietnamese nationalism exists because its culture was at stake. You have France, you have Cambodia, and other outside colonial interests interfering, combine that with a culture that is about as ready for insurrection as you could possibly create. It's of a different animal than Western nationalism, which is really, a pathetic animal fighting when its life isn't at risk.

As opposed to White Nationalism, where everyone is hysterical and quite literally nothing about "muh white culshure!" is at stake, because it does not exist. Especially in America.

Every time I hear someone say American culture is at stake I do a fucking spit take.

Ok, I get that. I guess our point of contention is whether there is an underlying authentic Western culture or cultures worth preserving, or if it's all 100% the perverse consumer capitalist simulacra? I see them as separable, with an underlying core of authenticity. Look at Japan, for me it shows the contrasts between 100% full retard consumerism and the more genuine culture, it's admittedly very difficult to separate the two however.

What do you mean when you say "white" (Western) culture doesn't exist, but also is not under threat? I'm saying there are authentic aspects to it that remain underneath.

When they are talking about it being under threat they mean by the liberal-progressive project which seeks to delete it for a dubious at best moralist project, and mass immigration which literally triggers right wing authoritarian personality types into feeling besieged. When I talk about this I don't mean we should pander to them, but just that they settle down when there isn't widespread gaslighting about it from the top down etc., which has occurred in the European case. I think the paranoid Americans are the ones who have been paying attention to Europe. When they think under threat they mean in 20-40 years I guess. When you have children it can be easier to understand this kind of mindset, even if it seems bizarre to you. It kind of forces you into it.

I mean, that it doesn't simply end. It just absorbs. It is capitalist in nature, and the internet accelerates this process.

It is neither existant or at risk.

European nationalism, in all honesty, is probably a creation of states to secure more power for themselves and capital.

It never was at risk, Europe was never at risk. They are fighting for a culture that is long dead and will never come back, and defending the power structures that already raped what they hope to achieve to extinction centuries ago. European protectionism is one of the most irritating hysteria bouts I think I can say I've ever lived through.

Paranoid white Americans know that the writing is on the wall for their "culture", culture really is a broad concept that encompasses history, institutions, identity, power etc basically their comfy status quo and way of life.

Since their culture is being fucked with by the import of wage labourers their political power and way of life declines in proportion to their declining population so they are naturally reacting when faced with that coming eventuality.

Not necessarily It's imperial in nature, with the core power centre enforcing it's order on everyone else like Rome wiped out the cultures of conquered nations or absorbed them as vassals and destroyed their cultures by enforcing their own gods, language, laws and social order until those people became Romanized.

They're being encouraged

well, yes

sure thing, buddy

What do you mean just absorbs? It is supplanting traditional cultures just by existing on the internet?

I don't think "Western culture" is inherently capitalistic. Capitalism just developed there first out of historical circumstances, leading up to the industrial revolution, but there was a huge amount of cultural and technological trade with the Mid and Far East leading into that as well. The Enlightenment sort of helped but it was more orthogonal to the underlying changes than a grand design. Popular ideology tends to justify after the fact rather than set down a blueprint.

So in other words, in the struggles of the past, Nationalism was or has been an appropriate or understandable response to imperial and colonial aggression, and we can understand it in that context as in Vietnam. And you see Western Nationalism as primarily autistic screeching, fair enough. But the top bourgeoisie is now fully global and nationless. I think my sympathy for these kind of ideas arises from that. We're totally powerless organizationally against it. And I think the road they're leading us down, in the name of progressivism, is extraordinarily perilous. For reasons totally unrelated to the usual Holla Forumsem screeching about the dumbest most autistic shit ever. It's kind of the problem with the academic left's identitarian mindset gradually being embedded into the superstructure, it backfired badly.

Probably a good thing, who the Fuck wants to be around when a bunch of commie cuck larpers run the country into the ground. Its a win win situation for whites, die off and let you retards kill yourself or fight back win and create a new system the void of 20th century nonsense. A brand-new political system.

With or without white identity it will live and thrive exactly as it currently exists. No change occurs.

Dream on.

Fuck white identity. The culture is modified by the underlying socio-economic conditions. What lives on is only the worst aspects, if we don't find a way to appreciate the good - even if that means being more tolerant of other kinds of ugliness. The idea is more about sucking in reactionaries for a populist social democracy movement against neoliberalism which was the global bourgeoisie's power play to route any possibility of libertarian socialism that respects the individual arising again. The current left-liberals are too far gone to be united with. Traditional reactionaries are far more predictable by nature, the left-liberals are just literally insane atm. It's like the idea that the USSR pulled the West left and then when it became less of a threat they dismantled social democracy and replaced it with neoliberal cancer, and made a retarded form of "progressivism" an ad hoc justification for all of it. There are different paths of genuine progress. The zealots think there is only one and everything else is some insane return to the 1930's. Like my main question is why is this idea so nightmarishly disturbing to the academically-inclined but something like Eurocommunism isn't? I intended to troll it out of them.

You will see this less and less.

Explain this pls?

Isn't the fact we disagree so strongly while seemingly talking past eachother, a sign of strong cultural incompatibility that puts lie to the failed dream of unified common internationalist movement as it was attempted in the 20th? Back then we had the USSR, for better or worse, to coordinate and unify and stopgap against subversion. Now we just have a bunch of larping autists and weird sociopaths who, even within the exact same cultural background, can't agree on a thing. I'm just thinking about making the best of a shit situation. Any movement is trivial for the bourgies to infiltrate and crush in the crib even if it somehow gets worldwide, we're just a thousand times weaker. Your Soros-tier accelerated globalization will fuck us all, it'll just be Japan x1000 but way more bland and suffocating, and I think class consciousness will be precluded by then. Especially if the security apparatus goes fully global. It'll just be a dystopian serfdom. You can't imagine it but I can. It's fucked.

when did that happen? We live and always lived in a Darwinian state based system where those states and institutions with the biggest gun make the rules.

You know there could in theory be a mass movement to overthrow the oligarchy. People disenfranchised with the status quo mainly want justice, to have their elites held to a standard, or to punish those that bullied and oppressed them.

But notions of justice and abstract moral principles are non material and alien to the academic leftist because muh spooks lmao and since fapping about the coming "scientificly" determined end to Capitalism like it's fated and guaranteed to arrive like something from the book of revelations and over analysing capitalism and virtue signalling against the reactionary non-globalized working class is so much more comfy

The internet will slow the effects of culture down and keep it more or less the same beyond a slim surface detail, in that the West will continue to be culturally dominant with the means to instant communication at their finger tips.

The methods of the wests madness are more of a virus than an actual culture. Not to be edgy, but, there is no culture that exists in the West beyond a parody of a parody of the Enlightment ideals that nobody actually believes anymore.

It would be significantly better to stop all preconceptions the West as a "culture" is something that is currently salvageable, let alone worth defending.

Culture should be based on an already existing one. The problem is, such a task of finding a culture not dominated by Capital yet, holding of right ideas, is very much futile.

Regardless, culture will likely stagnate, and it will look exactly the same now as it does in 2047

Rojava is pretty close. But yeah I don't think there are good historical examples. Mainly because most of the theory is actually trash, and needs to be square oned.

I know. Fuck the academic left. We academia now.


Pretty edgy.

I'm sort of arguing for a "cultural revolution" that returns us to a more authentic way of being to snap us the fuck out of the insanity of the current year. The old control systems of the liberal global order played a massive part in perpetuating this. The internet is pure cancer but it doesn't have to be. Postmodernism is always devouring itself, to the extent it may negate itself entirely pretty soon. Might as well try. The fuck else have we got to do?

You can't escape it without taking the insanity with you.

That's the problem, there's no way to escape "authentically". As long as the West perpetuates itself, and instant communication at all our disposal. We become the madness of the world, and the madness of the world reflects it. There is no solution to "snap" people out, other than ditching Western society altogether, taking it out of your life, and removing any sense of individuality or self you have.

There is no way you can combat the West without in turn sacrificing yourself.

I love that guy's face & expression in the first pic. I can't explain why exactly. He's handsome, with a powerful seriousness as well.

So you think individualism is the root cause? What about China, and current Russia? All that reeducation and a traditionally far more collectivist culture, and they still went full capitalist. I think the atomized consumer individualism is different from a more authentic mode of individuality. One you can learn through philosophy, which was kept away from the proles through obscurantist gatekeepers for no real reason. It sounds lifestylist pure idealism but there's a lot more to it than that.

What are you actually proposing when you say ditch it? Go innawoods and form glorious commune?

An extra for you.

No. But it is the only thing that you can ditch which is a critical part of it.

Look at every insurgency today. Every effective insurgency, I don't mean political bullshit epiceter's like the Ukraine.

Lack
Of Regard
For the outcome of the self.

It's been this way for forty plus years. Do you know why? Because individuality is pointless in combating the state apparatus, capital, and leaving culture so far away behind that you no longer worry about dying for a cause greater than you are.

Living bomb tactics, Vietnam, the examples of contemporary examples are endless.

You think these things should be inconcievable, impossible, totally unsupportable.

Why do you think the West villanizes them so much, hm?

Because they're effective. They're effective at getting the job done.

And more, you realize you alone cannot destroy the West. Your life will be taken, but if 100 people agree with the sentiment, then you might have 1000.

And that's when it becomes dangerous.

Checked. I think let's call it, something like Enlightenment Nationalism could be a form of collectivism that is more useful than the utopian dream of an internationalist proletarian movement that just can't work because of the current cultural mileu, and won't work in your future scenario where 30 years of 2017 tier culture, a projection you're not basing on anything really btw. What I mean by authenticity is I think it's always already there, just buried deeply because it's culturally forbidden to be pro-West among left leaning circles. But you can't really escape it. You hate the West, but you don't appear to consume traditional Vietnamese culture or involve yourself in it in any serious way, you consume Western media, and primarily Western theory, which you have recruited to argue your reactionary le West is ebin stance.

But it's always there, it's in you too, as much as that appears to disgust you and you want to purify yourself of it. That's what I mean by authenticity. It's just a form of honesty. We can't do anything if we're hypocritical. We can't create a better future because we're blind to the contradictions in ourselves that are emotionally or culturally too difficult for us to accept.

But admittedly it's a very thin line and I'm not sure how to stop it getting co-opted by porkie and full racist authoritarians, but it's better than the "totally clueless and smug about it" nothing ideas everyone else has.

I can't speak for you obviously because I honestly don't know what you're on about half the time. You seem to be implying the individualism is a weak, spineless, selfishness that couldn't possibly do something self-sacrificial for others or a greater good. But that's just a caricature, it's not correct. Maybe millennials. That's why a little bit of reaction is OK. The zealotry that created that whole generation of pieces of shit needed to be challenged a bit.

It's not, and it's not being clueless.

It's about not being.

You can't just drop these koans without explanation and expect people to understand.

Actually I think its pretty easy to consume, and its how so many people in other parts of the world can be seduced into it

You know how shit things are right?

You can't stop them on your own, and if you go up against them, you will die.

What then, are your options?

It's fairly simple logic. And it's easy to emulate, it reduces life to a mere task and goal, nothing more complicated, and nothing more simple.

I didn't understand that post. You're talking about the Western Virus or your Anti-individualist Consciousness? You mean ego-death? Full Bordiga style doomed man? My only qualm is you're young, brash and let's face it: pretty retarded. I'd give it some more life experience, and getting the fuck off the internet for aa while, before you commit to anything on the basis of these ideas. Because I'm a white man, however, you won't follow this advice, but now that I've told you this, the double bluff is that you don't want to get tricked by my reverse psychology.

You asked how lack of individuality would be difficult for people in America to accept.

I explained that if its easy in any other part of the world, if things become terrible enough, it can be taken into America.

It was strictly in response to you saying that lack of individuality would be difficult to swallow.

Traditional American Nationalism is already collectivist though. That's why countless soldiers died for their country. But it also has an idea of individualism built into the national consciousness, one that is not solely about churning out lolbert useful idiots for porkie, though porkie of course coopted it for his own narrative like he coopts everything.

I just don't think individualism and collectivism are necessarily in conflict. You can't have one without the other, it's like agency versus structure, structure only inheres in the minds of agents yet it determines the concepts of both, it's way more complicated than that: intersubjective co-constitution. Academic sociology has barely found a way to talk about it, my understanding is more from phenomenology.

Dominant ideologies and different schools of thought tends to emphasize one thing over the other. I'm not a fan of autistic full collectivism. I see it as only something someone already "dehumanized" by it could want. I see the value in individuals appreciating themselves, which prevents society from becoming a callous meat grinder filled with dull drones slavishly obedient to their state mandated obligations without question. Dury should come authentically from the self, not imposed from without as obligations ultimately working for power and power alone, as with all total ideologies.

My instinctual repulsion at this notion, especially moving forward into the transhuman era just looking at how much the internet has already cooked everyone's minds… I dunno could just be our cultural differences again. You can say that's just Pure White Liberalism again but that's just the circular reasoning inherent to and why "idpol" discourse is so cancerous, despite good intentions.

This post tickles my romantic idealist fascist aesthetical fancy, but it's ultimately naive I think. Only a few can ever be free while the rest is a grey mass that even under a "correct" and "just" system will always be prone to contrarianism their own will to power or just drift towards the lowest common denominator again left to their own devices. You can be a free man in North Korea and a complete slave in America. People will always be to told what to do and how to behave regardless because most people will never be free because they don't want it and it cannot be taught so it then becomes a purely utilitarian matter of whose oligarchy/technocracy/authoritarian system has the best outcomes

This is also ultimately naive…it isn't a single cause that is the factor to today's problem. It's numerous, some lasting centuries, some lasting mere years.

All combined together into a soup of bullshit that is too complicated to take in on its own, and far too easy to simplify. In fact, in the face of so much harmful information, most Americans lock up, refuse to consume and start screaming about their way of life being threatened. Been that way for too god damn long.

People are eventually going to have to confront the facts, and one of them is that their way of life isn't being threatened by anyone but their own government, and worse, their own ideals.

I think it's no coincidence that most political ideologies come to a similar conclusion then figure out the best way to herd the sheeple to get to their preferred outcome. But I think it's self-fulfilling prophecy, if not an outright rationalization of the fact the ideology only holds up when you manage to manipulate a mass of easily lead babbies.

People are kept in check with inauthentic way of being generated by all our autistically designed """utilitarian""" societies: fear, cognitive dissonance, mass propaganda, hedonistic distractions, false obligations and the like. But this entire perverse apparatus assumes people are in general as useless as it forces them to be in order to maintain this level of control. We make meaning together in communities, what qualifies as justice, as the good, only comes from this community practice of combining our shared experiences into a shared narrative.

All the more totalist regimes both left and right, and current consumer capitalist system with a technocratic managerial class, retards this process. It purposefully makes us drones, then claims drones can't possibly know what's best, and so puts all the responsibility for authoring the optimal future on an upper crust of "educated" and "enlightened" bourgeoisie apparatchiks, who are totally divorced from the affairs of the common person and live in their own autistic dreamworld as much as any faggot on 8ch.

So essentially authoritarian utilitarianism then makes no sense. What are we working towards? What's the end game, and why is it good? WHY maximize utility? There is no real vision, and even at the top, what little sense they do make, the various Ted talk tier sci fi ideas these morons espouse are frequently incompatible. If not pure psychopathic opportunism dressed up as an ideological futurism. Look at how empty the church of progressivism turned out to be. Reactionary masturbation is just as empty. It's just chasing abstractions.

You create the conditions for people to think for themselves and you will create a decent society that can come together to formulate a coherent vision for what we actually want to do. Everything else is just going to be a catastrophe led by empowered nutcases.

You act like sacrificing your individuality makes you "easily lead".


I answered that there isn't really another way to combat a power that is as large as capitalism today.

It's either it or all of us. In a head on fight, most of us would die. We have to take that into statistical account, we would die far faster than anyone in the middle east.

So, the answer would obviously be to outdo the middle east. Which sounds horrific, but any hypothetical scenario in which revolution occurs everyone fighting not on the side of capital would be toast anyways, so the question becomes how a revolutionary would use his life under these circumstances to maximum capabilities.

The answer is obvious, it's the uncomfortable truth right in front of you that etches away and gnaws at you that nobody wants to accept.

Terrorism.

People will not confront the facts, that they will always seek a quick fix comfy slogans and then try to move on with their lives.

It really comes down to self interest and my authoritarian personality. I don't like the current globalist liberal capitalist system and the outcomes it produces. I don't like it on the metaphysical and material level and the human product that it creates that I have to deal with on a daily basis because they and the system don't like or value the things I like creating an unbearable amount of background noise in real life and cyberspace that makes my stomach churn. It's very difficult to be someone who values truth, honor and personal dignity and be ok with the status quo and have very little power to change that status quo


From my perspective it's just trying to ensure that something remains that is untainted by the current year status quo, that some form of nationhood and virtue remains and civilization doesn't devolve into a gladiatorial match between Europeans and imported wage labourers. My children and ancestors can figure out how to fix this fuckery.

I really don't want to die

The facts are material circumstance. What you don't understand is the American now has become an addict of information.

Once we all become poor enough to have that access cut off from us, no more phone, text, instant messaging, message boards, social media, no more wikipedia, no more conversation-information at our finger tips, no more music at our fingertip, movies, video games

Once you get rid of it, you essentially send the modern human into solitary confinement. This is future poverty.

And not a lot of people are going to like it.

I see, ironic as it is, the means at which people become twisted into things like fascism, ultimately the tools to bounce them back into class.

This is one of many scenarios. I think once you get rid of both social media and food, a growing space of poverty will side with collectivism.

Truth in this case being largely irrelevant.

Capitalism actually isn't about to collapse any time soon, and Capitalism isn't the West. Which isn't some all powerful imperial demiurge you make it out to be. You talk a big game about giving up your ego but you need to learn some humility before you suggest wyling out to the maximum extent possible.

Implying the oligarchy is incompetent enough to lead to that eventuality for the majority. In Orwell's 1984 they supplied the paroles with free porn to keep them from getting any ideas about things

You make your enemy to be an all powerful demiurge in order to classify and confront all possible outcomes and plots it throws at you, of which they are surely capable and ready.

You fail to realize not all of this is about truth, and you keep making this mistake.

It wouldn't be the first time they did. Likewise you are suggesting Capitalism can fix itself in the coming decades.

It can't.

To that I can agree, and this can be said on both sides. But people would be fucking stupid to deny the damage that capitalism has done to communities, both poor white and poor black. The key is to dismantle idpol, but not in the inflamatory way like Milo Yiannopolous. It has to be calm and, dare i say "rational".

You might not be able to convince them outright, but the seeds of doubt would have already been sown.

You do realise that Orwell was a libertarian socialist right?

It can and it will at least in the core of the West. Things aren't even bad now materially speaking. It's a spiritual and moral abyss that haunts everything

Also, capitalism is unsustainable. How many more global financial crisis, mass unemployment and recessions must we have? The upper class has enough money to get the world out of global poverty four times over, but they won't.

Yes. And? I'm not allowed to read his books now?

They're about to get worse, lad.

youtube.com/watch?v=fe3_vUjdHoc&t=157s

It's booms and busts all the way down, bankers will fuck it up again and again chasing some rabbit, cataclysm happens in a million ways with a million weaknesses built in.

You cannot hope to safety proof capitalism all the way for the rest of the century. It is impossible.


This doesn't mean anything. You could have said the same thing before the 70's, or 2008.

It does not matter how safe you feel, all of it will be ripped from under you suddenly and violently.

Hey guys gurl gamer here, i have to be honest with you
if you don't support third wave feminism, then you don't support hillary and true communism. please understand that despite the fact you're all dirty white males, you need to learn that being a woman is great and that you should not keep us down. thanks.

Yeah but you're veering into a sacral / profane distinction. This gets couched in neutral, technical sounding language like utility and outcomes. But really it's religious idealism. That's the postmodern problem. It's robbed us of meaning and virtue so we look for religious comfort in all the noise. Certain outcomes just seem satisfying to you, but the problem is so complex if we leave it to a few enlightened working towards these abstract ideals, just like the progressivist problem, it will create a nonsensical shitshow. I think if you value truth you want a society where people are allowed to be honest, and truthful. Discovering and interpreting and indeed making truth is a group effort as well. We've never really tried it, because it's always benefitted the powerful and power-hungry to theorize that it's impossible. But we aren't all ass backwards agrarian peasants any more.

You know the fucking oligarchy will reform capitalism kill off their most useless members throw them to the plebeians to rip apart and do anything to remain in power, and when finally it fails things won't be better but it will be chaos and anarchy and not Ina a larpy good way it's like in Russia former Soviet nomenklatura smoothly transitioned into capitalists once their shit went under.

Truth has been as elusive in the past as you believe it is now. And truth now, is beyond elusive.

If Pilate felt it 2000 years ago, I don't know how you could imagine just "being truthful" is easy, or even preferable, now

That is certainly a possibility. Or you could start forming workers co-ops, which are better than private companies. But again, all that chaos was caused by capitalisms fall, and if you implement it again, what's to say that it won't fall and crash again?

thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

What you fail to realize is you are in Capitalism and this rug you've made for yourself is nice, but it is resting on top of a stilt on top of a peak leaning to the side of a cliff.

You can admire it, you can tell yourself this rug will stay there forever, but once you start falling and have no answer for yourself, with your political allies actually blaming you for your descent

Don't tell us you weren't warned ahead of time by your collectivist friends that putting faith in capitalism is a fruitless endeavor.

It's really always been feature of organized civilizations to drift towards hierarchy power and control that will not go away in a collapse when the people will demand blood and security

Truth and integrity comes first. Any ideology that makes them subservient to tactics, ultimately obliterates its own foundation, and becomes nothing but a thin layer of propaganda. If you have already convinced yourself of the truth to the extent of fervour, then thereafter work on the logic of war, replacing all commitment to consistency with ideas as propaganda, it's going to have hard contradictions at its core. Contradictions make it impossible for you to assess and fix the problem. Hence why Dogmatic Marxism totally failed. If you get stuck in this type of circular rationalization you are capable of and will end up justifying anything. Undermining any claim you had to the special insight from the start. Not only this, it makes your movement totally vulnerable to the type of intelligent psychopath who cares for power and power alone. If you want to actually create a better world you'll stop getting high off your own righteous fervour and learn to control your emotions and think about it calmly.

You act like the American public is capable of large scale violence

They aren't.

They're only capable of dying en masse of lethargic starvation and blaming poverty.

If we did it during the Industrial Revolution, we will do it again. Until militant labor reorganizes.

What truth? What integrity?

If the television screen has become the retina of the mind's eye, the internet has become the mind itself. There is really no way to escape from this, as it is the overriding truth of things.

You really only need a small solid organization to conduct organized mass violence while the rest fall in line

You say "fall in line" behind the right to your labor and the right to escape poverty and have a decent living, like it is somehow negative.

You aren't enlightened above anyone else in this regard.

wew. tylerthecreator.jpg. you need a break. I think encouraging people to get off social media and spend less time drooling on the internet is a good start.

You just said truth was elusive, but then said there was a single overriding truth. That's what I mean. You can't escape truth no matter how crazy and confusing things have gotten, it's still there, under all the bullshit. You can just decide to run away from it, the truth of yourself perhaps, or always strive towards it.

Yes falling in line as in not of their own volition. Then the system consolidates again under whatever banner and it's back towards either organized opression or slowly drifting towards rebellion again

I didn't mean the internet is a hive mind, I'm not ridiculous.

I'm saying the truth can be many things, but none of it is easy to swallow or easy to digest. The truth is overwhelmingly complex, in shades of black, white, grey, and everything in between.

You cannot find the truth in a time where all are addicted to information that popularizes persuasion. Trying to sift through it all will do nothing but make you want to throw up from taking so much in at once.

So whatever "simple truth" that is searched for, will likely be whatever is convenient to stop you from throwing up, so to speak.

Is anything you do in Capitalism of your own volition?

Poverty is its own volition? You can't be serious.

It's a false dichotomy thats what it is, you faggot.

There are some. It's forever a process. You don't just find them and stick with them. But society is informationally overloaded almost on purpose. It's another way they paralyze us, and it's also a general symptom. This shit is all linked together in a blisteringly complex way, there is no unique or simple source that any one purported genius could hope to discover.

That's why we need more proletarian collective consciousness working on this shit. No one can figure it out alone. It's all fucked. Academia is totally dirt now, and probably always was just working within its own subclass interest. We need to hack to bits all received wisdom and rebuild something for us. Any arbitrary action hastily undertaken before then will be a fart in the wind and steamrolled out of existence or simply neutered then reincorporated into the self-sustaining apparatus of the bourgeois techno-capitalist singularity. We need to create simple coherent ideas that are TRUE.

There was always poverty and hierarchy and plebs will get fucked anyway. I think Revolutionary Utopian doctrines are highly situational and rely on a whole lot of faith and assumptions without a whole lot of advanced planning and the people who will be carrying them out aren't equipped for the task to put it mildly both in training propaganda or actual desire to die for a cause and Revolutions have always been a bloody mess without a guaranteed outcome either way.

the truth isn't necessarily democratic or something that is appealing to the masses

The truth is in a sense democratic I think. Consider generalized scientific practice. It only works, when it does, by a structure that democratizes a particular kind of collective truth seeking activity. All interventions by an external and detached managerial elite, through ridiculous grant systems, industry infiltration and collusion and the like, pollute and subvert this process.

I think the fundamental outcome is a society of people who value and are motivated to the truth. I mean, as well, to the extent morality is legitimate is the extent it is a community practice and not an ritual or edict from some papal office. And both are linked. Outcomes we can think of now tend to resolve to arbitrary religious fetishes instilled in us by this garbage culture, and are polluted by the postmodern condition of recursive layers of retardation. This is how progressivism became largely apologetics. The solution is not more attempted regression larping as a 1950's ubermensch though. Because your representations of the idealized past are also filtered through your modern cultural lens.

Truth is nice and all but you cannot create or discover correct values and truths they already are and are subject to a specific context time and place. Like you have believe in a different truth than I do. You can't make me believe it, you have to be either extremely convincing or make me conform to it.

The truth, or, rather meaning, is subject to our unique perspectives, is historically situated, and the rest. But it's irrational to suggest you can force anything like the truth through coercion. And what you're saying verges on pure postmodern relativism, which is dangerous because it's both defeatist/apologist, and also never truly relative, it always covertly has implicit truths and values encoded into it.

We are socially engineered specifically to see irreconcilable differences in ideology, and to argue over one another. It's on purpose. It's part of the conditioning that makes people assume everyone is retarded, except the team of snowflakes that claim to accept your favored take on things / ideology of course. It's hard for you to conceive a society not like this, pretty much on purpose.

it's bourgeouis liberal feminism

'we just need more female CEOs and everything will be ok!'

Well you can certainly gaslight and demoralise someone just enough to make them conform to whatever narrative.


Right, I don't myself know the truth. I know what sounds like the truth to me, it won't necessarily be the same for a Liberian goat herder who will have a different perspective on things, one of us will be wrong or both of us or we will both have some parts of the truth muddled in 90% bullshit. There is probably some platonic ideal form of "the truth" out there but I don't know it and you don't either and nobody does.

You can, but I don't see why would you want to risk a society where this is possible by an unaccountable all-pervasive repressive security apparatus? Seems like a recipe for misfortune imho

This is sort of my point though. Any ideal "design" for society based on abstract principles will largely not match the illustration in the author's heads. Yet they have the audacity to suggest they've got it all figured out.

The fucking enlightenment and mass education was a mistake. Now you have to deal with this bullshit which always devolves into postmodern faggotry and moralising about what's good for the people and their well being when in reality they will be controlled and made to conform one way or another. You had a nice comfy social hierarchy where the peasant and the aristocrat knew their place in society and do not question it or got BTFO. Fucking Kali Yuga

Why Letting My Boyfriend Choke Me and Call Me "Daddy's Little Cumslut" Doesn't Make Me a Bad Feminist

The Guardian, 6 hours ago

No use crying over spilled milk. It happened, deal with it.

You don't know this.

That's literally all fascism is, if not open psychopathy at this point, judging by your posts.

Oh please you're a fucking nazbol who doesn't have his shit figured out. Being a psychopath btw isn't necessarily a bad thing considering for what passes as "sane" nowadays

...

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3420708/Do-work-psychopath-Experts-reveal-traits-tell-tale-signs-successful-ambitious-people.html

But this system seems terrible.

I'm just saying it's not necessarily a bad thing

You know psychopathy is a particular thing rather than another word for 'crazy', right?

It was implied to be that and assumed to be a negative personality trait.

Nope.

well ok then I stand corrected

That's not a very fascist response, you weak nerd. Admit that communism is inevitable.

communism is inevitable

Color me surprised.

Well pack it up boys, communism has won.

Lemme work the ol' thinker:
Real strained the neurons but I daresay they are fucking liberals

Third wave feminism is just young white female idpol. There's a reason why their two biggest issues are access to "healthcare" (i.e. birth control and abortions to a lesser extent) and an obsession with yuppie workplace inequality (le wage gap meme.)

Blacks don't care about racism. Workers don't care about workers. Not unless SJW or avowed feminist. This makes sense. Hard hat hippie punchers are the biggest SJWs of them all.

They want full and equal membership in a self-superior bourgeoisie. That's really it. None of your breeding spooks are even necessary.

...

If you don't see feminism for the bourgeois appeasement of alienated females that it is, then you're probably a fucking woman.

best post

racism is a way of splitting the working class, yes.
but without a change in the material conditions of inequality, no other change in equality can take place.

intersectionality is unavoidable in the current state of things. buzzfeed and its ilk are obviously corporate garbage, however that is not an accurate representation of the current feminist academic discourse.

third wave feminism is a means imo, when it becomes an end is when it indulges in its capitalistic tendencies. however, when the true message of intersectionality is realized, it is an indispensable revolutionary tool.

just my take on things, however we need to realize that getting triggered by any kind of feminist/intersectional rhetoric is a reactionary position and inherently anti-leftist

If we believe that the destruction of the capitalist base will bring about the end of oppressive superstructure, then yes, our goals ultimately align with feminism.

This. MLK won himself the political revolution he wanted to ensure the empowerment of blacks in America, he was about to embark on an economic crusade to properly help those of the United states; a victory in that crusade would have truly equally that nation, but now it is left languishing in the state it presently is.

...

...