Anybody here have reactionary friends from before you were a leftist?

Her eyes are too distracting

listen man, I love different opinions, it gets exhausting when those opinions are contingent on some form of exploitation or another.

do you have an example because complaining about muh exploitation won't get you anywhere

maybe you should shut up then?

attackthesystem.com/what-maoism-has-to-offer-anarchism/

Rothbardian "libertarianism''

It has nothing to offer socialist anarchism at all

eat a fucking dick, red fashy

if you read the article

"I’d like to mention that here that Mao was a mass-murdering statist fuck, who murdered more people than anyone else in history, including Hitler and Stalin. He used intimidation, prisons, police, concentration camps, and bogus trials to terrorize and murder countless people. I am in no way a “Maoist” in the traditional sense, like the RCP or MIM are. I just see many aspects of Maoist philosophy worth salvaging. Nothing is “entirely good” or “entirely bad”, everything has something to offer us, so I take the good parts of Maoism and discard the rest. Also, there is a big difference between Mao’s regime and the popular masses that fervently worked to create a free society."

If I read the article I notice the writer is a fairweather fucking retard who chastises the CNT-FAI for wartime measures like tankies do and manages to absorb all the anti-materialist aspects of Mao (literally praising a disconnect from technological developments and the necessity of capitalism) that makes ill read anarchists such foolish idealists

read Marx, you worthless faggot

why do you care about anarkiddies?

...

why are you so angry guy?

I really like anarchism, but I don't think it addresses how to deal with rural and non metropolitan areas as well as Maoism does.

Sartre was an anti-materialist idiot as well

and Camus was always better anyway

Maoism fails to deal with them completely, are you stupid

I think we seriously underestimate how much of a problem this is for the left-wing particularly in the anglosphere. The "woke" left has fully adopted this moralizing self-righteous tone where all political struggle should be based on whining and guilt tripping people. This sort of I'm a victim, I deserve sympathy rhetoric attracts people who base their whole identity around victimhood.

Due to the overlap of the woke left and the radical left we have ended up with a ton of self-identified leftist who are just pathetic weaklings and/or repulsive social outcasts. This seriously repulses people particularly young men and its hard to address without being called out as macho or sexist. Even using the word pussy in many leftist circles would get you in trouble. We need to get back to the rhetoric of the old left. We are taking back what we produced when we expropriate property and we can do it because we are strong. Not we are victims and you have a moral duty to help us.

Maoism has a lot to offer theoretically but idk why leftist groups insist on labeling themselves maoist. Just use maoist strategy but be non-sectarian, people aren't going to just dissociate the word maoist from mao.

wtf he was a shit tier theorist

when did this board get so full of plebbit retards

READ MARX

What the fuck did you just say, you little bitch?

Badiou is not Mao

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, but I think that would land me in the brocialist category with most leftist circles, pretty much completely discrediting me. Liberals definitely don't realize the value in cultivating masculinity, going as far to say it is a force for evil in the world (I understand making this argument for the patriarchy, but masculinity??? gtfo m8), but it seems like leftists don't understand how important masculinity is in enlarging the movement. We will never beat actual fascists (fuck off ) in the streets without actual strength, something that modern feminists movements have completely failed to acknowledge. There is no feminist movement (that I know of) pushing physical strength alongside strength in solidarity. Masculinity, exhibited in its male and female forms, does place a high value on strength, and is also good for appealing to those who feel they've been emasculated by the liberal left, but are comfortable turning to proto-fascistic ideologies to find value in strength again.

He held Mao in high esteem.

meant to say uncomfortable in that last sentence

anarchistnews.org/content/anarchist-response-masculinity-not-revolutionary

This puts it more coherently than I ever could

pure
reactionary
bullshit

So because history has horrible moments in it we should encourage those moments, or just sit idle while things go bad?

I think we should just encourage strength in general, not even necessarily masculinity. Being fit and in shape, being a leader and ready to fight can be done by everyone.

I'm not sure what you're asking?

whoa there mussolini

:( okay, I'm no theorist by any means, and I definitely should have proofread it before I posted it.

is there a way to emphasize strength without a conflict between femininity and masculinity?
pardon my reactionary tendencies please I would like a honest answer

As Zizek says in one of his videos the Fascist idea of cultivating mental/physical health and strength was something that was lifted from leftist movements. Maybe masculinity is to exclusionary of a word but we should be encouraging and lauding personal strength and physical bravery rather then viewing it as something barbaric.

Don't be to apologetic masculinity is the wrong word, but you are making a good point.

You don't need to emphasize the need for physical strength through any overarching ideas

Strength and health are good in general

Yes, it's called heroism and militarism.

are you talking about the "support our troops," "fightin fer our freedumb," "thank you for your service" style militarism, or something else?

Of course not. I'm talking about having paramilitary training, organization and mindset.

k. thanks for clarifying

Then let me expand further: heroism means being so brave that you're even willing to sacrifice yourself to take down your enemy or help someone else. In this sense it's similar to the military's core principle of fulfilling the mission even at the cost of the soldiers lives.

This is what we need to promote in the Left because everyone can be a hero and a warrior regardless of gender.

i agree with this sentiment. i consider myself an antimilitarist because i hate the servile police and soldier worship that pervades american society, which is why i asked what you meant

...

That's a mistake, because militarism is basically means wanting a strong military mindset and capability. Although it's usually associated with war and military worship, it doesn't necessarily mean that. By describing yourself as a antimilitarist you allow others to mistake you for a pacifist.

i partly agree and disagree. perhaps antijingoist would be more specific, but most people don't know what jingoism is, and frankly i see jingoism and militarism as bedfellows

I was very Christian and all my other friends were people I met through the church and their dads owned businesses and we're involved with corporate oil companies. My dad worked in the airline industry. The first time I mentioned socialism the oil industry friend gets mad and I really haven't brought it up much sense even though I still see them a few times when I can.

Yes all of my closest friends since I was a young person, were or are some form of reactionary. Literally every single one of them had parents who voted hard republican, went to Church, were pro-gun and hated gays and minorities.
stop being a fag, because your opinions are bad, your ideology is necrotic, your mind is debased and in chaos, your understanding is non-existent and you have no empathy or ability to behave as a Self. You're a robopathic barely sentient worker drone. Your opinions of politics don't mean anything to anyone. The fact that you unironically post pictures of dolled-up women wearing fitness outfits with their tits hanging out shows you're a fag and still plugged into the common perception of sex as harmless and light-hearted fun. Which means you're uselss, your friends are probably more fun than you to be around.

All of my friends are reactionary, they all believe in "boot-straps", that blacks are inferior, that gays are mentally ill, that the State is a necessary evil, that the military is a net-positive etc. I don't try to convert them, because I respect their right to be wrong and because I learn things about what I believe from listening to them speak. You don't because you're a fag

Take your meds.

This is a completely retarded attitude. You say this like debating politics with people and trying to convert them to your view is somehow disrespectful to them. Its not like you're violating their autonomy or something they still have a choice to believe what they want. I enjoy talking politics with people and I would never be upset about them trying to convert me unless they were intentionally deceiving me or arguing in bad faith. Anyone who take politics so seriously that they can't bear someone trying to change their view is an insecure child.

Nod an argument, and stereotypical response from a stereotypical leftist. Completely programmed response, just like "kys" or "cringe" or "autist" or anything else. Thoughtless, mindless, biased and useless. Proved my point entirely.

go away please

Its no less retarded than Atheist mechanistic-materialist nihilstic hedonism which is what most liberals and leftists practice in their daily lives
its not only disrespectul its bordering on a form of psychological violence, Politics is analogous to soft-warfare. I am very careful about who I discuss politics with, certainly not with my reactionary friends who are not ready to discuss politics as adult-minded reasonable individuals.
Any form of rhetoric or entertainment is an attempt to arrest or manipulate someone's psychic resources and is an act of violence and coercion and probably should be cautioned against. I don't think someone is autonomous if I convince them to change ideologies, which is reeducation or brainwashing also known as indirect or soft-violence (classic left wing violence).
That's because you think you're right and you don't take other people seriously. If you did, listening to someone whose politics conflict with yours would be like being confronted by an enemy tribe ready to destroy your community (its a subtle act of war).
No you're a preening, adultist, arrogant, pretentious fag who thinks your opinions are original or well formulate or interesting and so you can't wait to share them with people you think will agree with your or are less intelligent than you (who you can manipulate). Nothing mature about that, its attention seeking behavior, nothing more. Or worse, its an act of soft-violence against the minds of other people. You know nothing of their experiences and how they might have led them to their politics.

Liberal's believe in private property, the existence of representative democracy, human rights and equality under the Law (though not in other domains). I am not a Liberal. The word has a meaning, you don't get to make up that meaning on the spot. That's not how language actually works contrary to whatever lunatic 20th-21st century perceptions of it that you hold to.

...

Jesus fucking christ when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded. Where do you think your friends political beliefs came from? Do you believe they developed in a vacuum and reflect some sort of immutable essential part of who they are?

Peoples political and moral beliefs result from being influenced by the media, their family, and their peers. Every single persons political beliefs result from others trying to convince them. That's what political theorists do in books. Is writing a book of political theory or making a documentary literal violence because it might convince someone of something. What about art, that often changes peoples views on politics and morality. Should parents not teach their children that stealing is wrong? Is that a form of soft """violence,""" you're influencing their viewpoint after all.

You are an incredibly shallow pseudo-intellectual. Your ideas don't even make any coherent sense and its clear you are just trying to take some some kind of above it all stance without actually thinking through the implications of what you're saying.

Their kin and lived experiences (both inner and outer orientated). So the ordinary places.
The Mind is like Space. Space is a Vacuum. So in part, Yes.
They also result from thought and experience and instincts and genetics and intuition.
that…AND experience, thought, reason, instinct, intuition, insight and genetic expression
Political theorists try to sell books and start cults
Its soft-violence or psychological violence. Whether its consented to or not depends, though for the most part most people's minds are so underdeveloped they wouldn't even know how to consent if they wanted to.
Art is degraded by politics and morality is implicit not explicit like politics is. Two different quali with different dynamic effects on the mind. I don't like political art for the most part. But, it has its moments. And yes Art is a form of psychological violence, though it can be constructive or life-inducing if done correctly. Just like sparring or weight lifting can be life-inducing if done correctly.
People with bad genetics and bad morals shouldn't breed. So yes, its an unnecessary lesson that only exists in debased societies. You don't teach hunter-gatherers not to steal, they know not what stealing might entail nor do they wish to steal from each other. Teaching them what it is, requires an understanding of property rights, which is severe psychological violence and should be met with extreme force by that tribe (i think the settlers should have been exterminated by the Natives in the New World for instance).
Projection, I am none of those things.
No you just don't grasp them because you deal with things on the gross level and in terms of bias and loss-gain. Which means you're not even thinking in non-dual terms, which means you're bound by the machinations of your own delusion and society's evils. There's nothing more for me to say.

Remember folks, don't be this retarded and do politics while tripping or high.

This entire argument is funny because you're both waging a soft psychological warfare against each other.

...

I didn't know sperging had a wordfilter

If everyone had this attitude we'd still be living in caves, it quite literally prevents any sort of pedagogy or transfer of values.

Also this
By your own standards you are waging psychological warfare on me right now. You should go do penance or something you spooked moron.

lel

Yes, thank you for pointing out the irony of this conversation explicitly so the slow people are "in" on the joke

I like porky posters, I think they understand the spirit of this board more than most. I however, do not appreciate people misrepresenting my arguments. I said that people with bad genes and morals shouldn't breed. Therefore people who are worthy of breeding have little to worry about in regards to spontaneous malicious deviance from their offspring. OF course education matters, it has unavoidable effects. Like for instance, to teach someone about property rights would imply also teaching about stealing, and vice-versa. Which is not good if its not something already there. I would never teach communalists/tribalists about property rights if they didn't hold to them already. That would be cruel of me. They're already on the right path, no need to poison their minds.

Africans and Denisovans didn't inhabit caves and caves were temporary safety precaution due to the Ice ages. it quite literally prevents any sort of pedagogy or transfer of values
No there are other tactful methods of sharing culture without appointing yourself Senpai.
Yes, but you consented and understand how I view political discussion. Because this is an image-board and thus an appropriate place to be frank about how we are communicating and what our motives are. If we were in person I would not speak this way, nor would you or any of the other posters. Because context matters.
You can't be forgiven for sins, if there is no-one to forgive Senpai ;)

wow…

My job's full of reactionaries who I have to pretend to be friends with, so I feel you OP

For one, stop turning "reactionary" into much of a buzzword as fascist.

Where do you work and why are they reactionary?

This, I feel like the word is losing it's meaning.

A fellow Austrian? :O

This fucking post is the best I have read on Holla Forums all week

Generic as fuck supermarket to build up experience

Droning on about how great Trump is and how Syria deserved those 59 tomahawks even though we're in fucking Australia, talking about how "The Left"™ are all "SJW libtards", outright refusing to read books on theory, talking about The Deep State™ and outright stating Pizzagate is probably real. I know one of them's an ancap, not too sure about the other two I know.

Thanks mate.

It still is.

Not reactionary.
Not reactionary.
Not reactionary, plus we're doomed if this was the requirement for socialism to work.
Correct them about the "real" deep state then, still not reactionary either.
This is retarded but I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Ancaps are retarded, but not reactionaries.

Overall a centrist could hold all these views tbh.

Agreed, seriously I feel that people are starting to think like this again more, it gives me hope for the future.

Sounds like dangerous patriarchal thought there mate. Remeber you share a platform with the people declaring all forms of masculinity are toxic.

Sure i do.

literal neo-feudalists aren't reactionary?

are you fucking twelve years olf

Outside of being die-hard alt-right what would you consider "reactionary"?

Topic derailing sage

user doesn't know because user is a fucking reddit retard that thinks "reactionary" is "anything I don't like"

most of my friend are leftlibs so it's kinda refreshing to hear from my more reactionary friends every once in a while. Just to be able to talk to someone who hasn't received all their political views from John Oliver and the like.

Almost all of them to one degree or the other, and I still have most of them as friends.

Read Marx and Lacan.

Since I was a leftist all ny life, I can't say, but I sure do have a few somewhat "reactionary" friends (even though I don't like the term, since it's too vague).

But seriously, how cone everyone on this board "became" a leftist?

because it's not really a mainstream political position in most of the countries where ppl here are from and most people here are in their late teens early 20s so they've probably moved to leftism fairly recently.

hahahahahaha BURRO!