When will the Left finally let Sam Kriss back into their cool kids club?

when will the Left finally let Sam Kriss back into their cool kids club?


When he denounces the Vampire Castle. So never.

He claims Zizek is orientalist without providing evidence aside from 'muh muslim feminists'.

does he have an email?
i'll send him that article by mark fisher about the vamp castle

Oh don't bother. He already knows about it. He was part of the lynch mob that formed in response to it back when the SJW clique was at the height of its power.

it's shit

oh i forgot he's a maoist too isn't he? into the fucking trash it goes.

A lot of people on the left have a problem with Zizek

The SJW "left" hates him with a passion because he doesn't care about them and their language policing.

a lot of people on the left lie about Zizek's beliefs and take him out of context

tbqh most of his anti-Zizek stuff was psychoanalytic theory debate, not moralising

What did he mean by this?

theres a reason something like 3/4s of uk jews vote conservative

I liked his writing. Shame he turned out to probably be a shitty person in real life

What's the reason?


its not like he went to court and was convicted of being guilty or anything

Because many of us believe the Left doesn't give a shit about us. Bring up any Jewish issue and it always comes back to: "BUT WHAT ABOUT PALESTINE????" You can acknowledge Jews face real problems without being an apologist for anything the Israeli government does.

defending all of Israels policies and crying that anti zionism is anti semetic is not leftism, stop it

lel you literally use "jew" and hasbara appears like clockwork

That's why I said probably. I mean he didn't deny it in his apology, but yeah, there's a chance it didn't happen

I said the opposite, dummie. No one said anything about supporting Israel, only recognizing Jews still get shit for being Jews.

What problems do Jews face?

Attacks from the far-right, being compelled to "give up" being Jewish via emotional blackmail, being attacked on the street for wearing religious garb.

I wasn't defending anything, I was just curious as to why Jews voted conservative and why Sam Kriss being jewish was a mark against him. I wasn't even accusing anyone of antisemitism



fair enough. yeah that's fucking awful and shouldn't happen.
but israel is still shit and has lost any moral right to exist :D

Which states have a "moral right to exist"? The very concept that any state has a "right to exist" is ridiculous.

Not saying I agree with Israel but ffs communists seek to abolish the state, not sort out which states are "moral".


White supremacists love ethnocentric Israeli policies, not Jews themselves.

I think they admire the individual Jews for their "successes" on that front, too.

when he writes more funny stories about Tony Blair being evil and J.K. Rowling being a demented fantasist dragon sitting on a pile of children's gold and stuff like that

It's not necessarily unique to Jews, either. Armenians, Italians, even the Mormons all remain heavily close-knit. Try dating an Italian girl from Boston's North End if you're a non-Italian, for instance.

I agree, of course states don't have a "right" to exist, but that is Israel's main defence when anyone tries to stop Israeli violence and expansion, and they won't agree to start treating Palestinians like humans until they acknowledge with this facile statement that "Israel has a right to exist".
"Israeli" people have a right to exist. But it would be nice if they could do it someplace else where it a genocide of natives wasn't a prerequisite. Because the Palestinians have every right to resist what's being done to them, and by any means neccessary.

Boston has remained uniquely segregated compared to a lot of other cities. I'm well-aware of that phenomena and of Irish nepotism, being from the area.

Just asking, since there are almost six million Jews between the river and the sea, and most of them still strongly believe in the Zionist project, what do you propose happen to them? Obviously they aren't going to get along with Palestinians whether the land they're in is called Israel or Palestine.

They can learn to get along or they can leave

Wow 6 million Jews? How many holocausts is that?

That won't happen though. If it did, Palestine would suffer huge brain-drain and other economic losses.

Guess they'll just have to learn to get along, then

I'm saying losing the Jews would be a loss for the Palestinians.

……..and jews wonder why they're hated

lol there's that famed persecution complex.

Palestinians would lose out if the Jews all left on their own accord. Just imagine what would happen to the US if 50% of the population, especially the vast majority of its scientists, engineers, agricultural technicians, doctors, etc., got up and left.

So what you're saying is that Palestinians should allow the Israelis to genocide them because otherwise all the smart people will leave.

That's quite a leap you've got there.

I'm saying it would be stupid to make Israelis leave from a Palestinian POV because it would cause a future one democratic state of Palestine's economy to essentially collapse. Israel puts a ton of funding into its STEM sectors and education in general, so with all of that money and brains gone the Palestinians will be fucked.

A much better idea would be to keep Israeli institutions in place and merely democratize them.

Except what I've been arguing since the beginning is that the Israelis either stop trying to make their little ethnostate or GTFO. Explain to me how all these "educated jews" are of any benefit when all the Palestinians are either dead or in ghettos.

Productive forces m8. What happens when the Palestinians win all of their 48 lands back and need to build up an economy? Of course they're going to want to keep the educated Jews around regardless if they're racist or not. Telling them to GTFO would destroy any potential new economy.

Which will only benefit the Israelis, since the Palestinians are gone

Who said anything about the Palestinians being genocided? Most Israelis aren't even die-hard right-wingers to begin with, and there is a huge amount of popular support for abandoning the settlements.



There's almost no support for abandoning those settlements, it's about as popular as communism in America - a very small niche.

he is scum and deserves this

I think we disagree here. There are plenty of ☭TANKIE☭s who do believe Jews need to undergo a "civilizing mission" (i.e. they need to shed their Jewishness and become more like the noble savages whom Israel kills), and you will be hardput to find someone on the contemporary left who truly believes Judaism - like Christianity or Islam - holds any kind of revolutionary wisdom.

For example, if a comrade came up to you and told you he/she was converting to Judaism, you would react in a completely different manner than if he/she had told you they were converting to Islam, because Islam has largely been seen by the contemporary Left as a de facto liberation theology (of course, they conflate ethno/religio-nationalist uprisings in the MENA and Europe's banlieues with proletarian ones) whereas Judaism and Jewishness are associated with Zionist barbarism. No one gives a shit if many Jewish comrades existed in the past (some of them explicitly Jewish); they - in true New Atheist fashion - believe the only way to end imperialism is for Jews to give up being Jewish.

I grew up in the Lowell area and would agree.

Productive forces aren't the end-all-be-all, and most Third World people will ultimately prioritize their ethnic/religious interests above their economic ones. Palestinians would take a Mugabe over a Mandela if they could, and I don't blame them.

Right but this can only make sense as a reaction to Zionism and a sense of disappointment in Jews in light of the holocaust. It's closer to disappointed philosemitism than antisemitism

Just thinking, are there any books that talk about socialist theory as it relates to religion? A well known thinker, not some jew or some intersectional shit. I am very spooked by the monotheistic religions. With the polytheists, I think they can avoid the opium of the masses and whatnot type effect of paradises and such. With monotheists, there is the eternal threat of the 43 prophet, pope, politician declaring Communism to be a sin.

Fucking weird, me too. Live in tyngsboro for like 20 years and Lowell for about 5 years

Why bother?

I highly doubt this, because if this were the case then the left would be making an effort to promote revolutionary Judaism (not just "Jewish antizionism with leftist characteristics", but an actual radical Jewish leftism).

Most contemporary Jewish antizionists don't impress me much, because their mentality is entirely self-desparaging and centers on a rejection of Jewishness ("I'm Jewish but I should NOT be, because Palestinians are OPPRESSED by Jews, I need to GIVE UP being a Jew out of solidarity"). Psychologically this mentality is dangerous, because creating that narcissistic wound in yourself - even if it's for a "good cause" - you will ultimately try to drag others down with you as a kind of healing mechanism. This is especially true of westerners in (post)modernity, where everyone is all about ego and constantly needs their ego to be reinforced. Jews should, IMO, just return to Judaism's own history of radicalism and antinomianism and make communism/the arrival of Moshiach their number one goal, not self-flagellation.

Holla Forums may gas me for saying this, but – I do not want my relationship with HaShem to be based on Palestinian activism. I don't have any moral need to water down my prayers just because the people I knew from SJP don't like hearing about the Temple being rebuilt (as if doing so would help anyone anyway). Palestinians don't need white saviors and are actually pretty hostile to white people fetishizing them anyway.

I can give you some socialist thinkers who use religion but if you're looking for stuff on religion and socialism in general (like a scholarly work going over how socialists have incorporated religion into their works) I'm not sure.

Your entire issue with anti-Zionism is based on a false dichotomy. You don't need to renounce your "Jewishness" to oppose Zionism, and furthermore Zionism goes against almost every formulation of Jewish ethics that I'm aware of (aside from ones put forward by the more radical strains of fundamentalist Judaism).

This flip happened in the 60s-70s, before that Kibbuzim and Labour Zionism was all the rage among western leftists.
1967 is prob the date I'd put on it, when Israel stopped being the encircled beacon of progress in mid-east, and became the occupant.

this is just garbage identitarianism and essentialism, but the other option you present of abandoning Enlightenment universalism and abandoning the negation of identity as a political factor is equally bad.
Pulling 'revolutionary wisdom' from some religious or ethno-cultural tradition is peak idealism. Maybe tactically to convert some spooked retards to your cause, but you aren't supposed to start believing in your own propaganda.

It's not my false dichotomy; it's what I've seen coming from the mouths of other leftists. Go ahead and ask any leftist how they would feel about a religious Jew sitting in their circle vs. a Christian or a Muslim.

I'm not a fan of states, but don't think making a statement this bold - especially if your knowledge of Judaism is limited - is a good idea.

You don't just abandon "identity" on a whim, especially not in these conditions where "identity" (I use that term loosely) has meaning in the greater scheme of things. Of course communism will liquidate most older identities in place of new ones, but until then we're stuck working with what we have. Besides, I don't see how the teachings I follow, my rituals, my experiences, are inherently reactionary.

Liberation Theology is a thing. Marx himself wasn't even an atheist, or a materialist for that matter.

Also, dogmatically clinging to The Enlightenment(TM) is just as bad as dogmatically clinging to tradition.

I had an orthodox girlfriend for ~3 years, and she tried to get me to convert. I'm not an expert on Judaism, but your condescending attitude is hardly warranted, especially given that you know fucking nothing about me.

as a political factor
let's not make judaism socialist, lets make socialists out of jews
there is that one rafiq post discussing the large numbers of Jewish intellectuals among socialists, he claims it's because they understood that only a negation of racialism and racial identity will free them from the potential pogroms. This is the leftist reaction to anti-semitism; the rightist reaction is a Jewish homeland with its lebensraum logic.
elevating the tradition etc. above material reality and progressive change in society is in many ways the very definition of 'reactionary'.
It is, but it is just making the best out of bad thing, a bad thing that is in and of itself unnecessary
Don't know the historical Marx well enough to dispute this, but if he was or wasn't is completely irrelevant.
Quite, fortunately I was advocating for nothing of the sort. Universalism and the ideas of freedom formulated by enlightenment thinkers form the cornerstone of both socialism and liberalism, and as liberalism failed to deliver on its promises, it falls to socialism to carry the torch of freedom for humanity. The Enlightenment itself was a historical occurrence, not some divine intervention or fall from grace.

Why not?

The real leftist reaction to antisemitism is finding the potentially radical (leftist/socialist) elements of Judaism and Jewish thought and incorporating those into your political program.

I've never claimed to be a fan of Israel; far from it. Israeli society is terrible as it is, a completely neoliberal police state.

I know several hardcore religious Zionists and can tell you, they're not going to just give up what they see as their duty to the land. In practice it may play out as disgusting, but psychologically it's much deeper than a "you're spooked go back to Brooklyn" thing.

And how do you suppose we do that, Sam Harris?

Go to Latin America and you'll find most of its socialist revolutionaries are spooked as fuck, in the sense where they're not only motivated by Liberation Theology but also by indigenous thought (take into account most land struggles there are being waged by indigenous peoples). Does this hold back their revolutionary potential? Far from it.

Maybe as a strategic choice, but I'd prefer to avoid such deals with the devil.
Those elements are just as easily turned on their head by the proponents of a right-wing intrepretation. This in general is the weakness of all idealistic formulations of socialism.
sure, I'm just trying to show that the logic of exclusion and ethno-cultural-religious essentialism belongs to the Right
of course not, this applies to all ethno-nationalists, their worldview is fundamentally opposed to communism in the 'real movement' sense
Why pander to their pathologies instead of looking for lasting solutions?
If you get to pick and choose with tradition it isn't really traditionalism but fetishisation and elevation of some tidbits of history and custom just because
if you want to eat bananas every tuesday be my guest but don't expect me to care about your magical reasoning for banana day
I would argue it does. Idealist anti-colonialist (as opposed to materialist anti-colonialism intertwined with socialism) contamination seems to plague Maoist organisations in general: pandering to idealism grows the organisation and makes it durable in protracted guerilla conflicts, but the core of socialism is lost. This is exactly the deal with the devil that destroys the socialist character of the movement. Why do you think China, Vietnam, Laos for example found it so easy to simply reform into market economies? Why do you think the Maoist guerilla movements of the Philippines and India aren't really offering an alternative to the existing system as a whole?

Begorrah Sassanach!

shoo shoo, 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧mick🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧!

this rafiq fellow is so close to being woke. getting a Jew to truly negate racialism and racial identy (and Jewish identity more generally) is like asking the bourgeoisie to just nicely hand over the State and private property.

and why would that be, dear satan?
do the jews have some special characteristic that makes them so, is it indeed in their essence in some mystical way?
Holla Forums is the Jewish exceptionalist board, not this one

It'd only be stupid in comparison to a state where the israelis aren't engaging in genocide. Given we are saying "the israelis should learn to get along (that is to say: not commit genocide) or leave" by the point the israelis are leaving we've necessarily already ruled out the situation where it's better that they don't leave.

Basically, Israelis stop committing genocide > israelis leave > status quo, but if the first is ruled out we're still left with israelis leave > status quo.

i think what is saying is, anti-zionists can be just as irrational and deranged as zionists. zionists are wrong for assuming palestinians are going to one day magically give up their lands to israel and just move to jordan or whatever, but anti-zionists are equally as wrong for assuming jews are going to one day give up their religious reverence for jerusalem and hebron and all their other little holy sites.

muslims know that all the calls for an 'islamic reformation' are nothing more than neoliberals pulling their leg. if they can't be colonized with the gun then whitey will colonize them by weeding out their culture and turning it into just another fashion accessory. a lot of jews feel the same way as do other groups, which is basically what's wrong about the anti-idpol left in general. cultures and identities may be spooks but they have histories to them and hold meaning to this day. you can't just tell a jew to stop being jewish, muslim to stop being muslim, native american to stop being native, white cismale to stop being a white cismale, etc.

you don't de-spook someone by bullying. you be a good marxist and find the material roots of their ideology and change those conditions first. you have to approach this shit inductively on the field, not deductively.

the antizionist stance is really more "stop actively committing war crimes"

true but it can become its own clusterfuck similar to how most national liberation struggles turned into race wars more so than socialism. also you can be against israeli war crimes without being explicitly 'anti-zionist.'

being against israeli war crimes is de-facto antizionist

not at all. there are plenty of lefty zionists who want israel to stop committing war crimes. 'zionist' is also a useless word, listen to a finkelstein talk for once.

even most of the "lefty" zionists only want israel to stop committing a certain subset of war crimes. Murdering palestinians bad, illegal settlements replacing the homes of said murdered palestinians… well we can't kick those people out of their illegal war crime homes, two "wrongs" (one a war crime, the other undoing said war crime) don't make a right, Palestinians should be happy with slowing the pace of NEW war crimes!

except you can't just remove the settlers at this point. the only thing you can do is tear down the apartheid wall and give palestinians reparations for past and present crimes. no one wants this shit to go on but you have to be rational in your means of solving it, which is why i say it has to be done inductively not deductively.

The presence of settlers is a war crime, "you can't just remove settlers" is an official statement that war crimes are a-okay if you put off dealing with them long enough.


Their skull shapes compel them


Mugabe pls.

He got Sniffed

You Jews have a perpetual victim complex, stop living as Jews and start living as human beings, and read Marx on the Jewish question before you call be an anti-semite.

Did that really happen? Wow what a fucking peice of shit, and fuck the Chapo fat guys for supporting that nu-male asshole. .

Like it or not, socialism can only refresh itself and cleanse out its errors by taking inspiration from religion/theology and local folklores. Economism and obsession with productive forces is nothing more than an old Soviet truism which has been far more disastrous when put into practice than latching on to culture.

Which is why socialists have to be proactive. No one claims an ideology is enough to form socialism.

Who is advocating ethno-nationalism? You, like nearly everyone whom I engage with on this board, are breeding words in my mouth.

There is a world of difference between the psychology of religious Zionists (settlers or not) and that of secular nationalists (alt-right, etc.). In the case of the former, you have a real transcendence, whereby the religious Zionists follow a goal that is above and beyond them (commitment to G*d, commitment to the land, commitment to ancestors, and such). A religious-from-birth Jew doesn't have much of an ego since their entire mode of thought is programmed on obligation rather than mindless self-interest. The latter (Alt-Right, Neonazis) are, in true modernist fashion, entirely centered around ego. When they say: "I love western culture" they're not talking about how much they love Renaissance art, classical music, troubadour poetry, or German folklore but about how much they hate black and brown people. When religious Zionists say: "I love the land of Israel" they actually mean it and are entirely sincere about it (most of these people don't even think about the Palestinians unless you ask them). No one is saying the settlers aren't brutal or that Israeli nationalism isn't fucked up, only that the psychology of the "Zionist project" is not analogous to that of modern ethno-nationalisms.

Likewise, the "chosen people" concept is not a racial one; it's much, much closer to the idea of a Gnostic Elect than anything remotely coming out of Holla Forums. Religious Jews don't just sit on our asses taking pride in the idea that we're a "superior race", on the flip side we believe we have to bust our asses in order to live up to our responsibilities (religious Jews also shun secular/"cultural" Jews for this exact reason).

No one is advocating pandering to nationalism. All I'm saying is, you can't destroy identity without a grand historical rupture. You get a "one democratic state" of Palestine through gradual transition - great, so how do you just re-educate the "Zionazis" so that they see themselves not as Jews but as universalists, especially when they understand their identity not as a label but as something which they actively partake in? The point is, you have to consider these things before you throw around "hurr durr you're spooked, get over it".

Zapatistas use indigenous Maya culture as a large base of their revolutionary ideology.

Sendero Luminoso does the same with Andean indigenous culture.

Nearly every left-wing group in the MENA agrees you need an Islamic liberation theology.

Even the over a dozen US military bases in Syria aren't a bunch of Bookchinite Enlightenment fetishists. I'd take it over 95% of their membership doesn't give two fucks about Bookchin or anything he thought.

Which is inevitable. Marxism has to let go of hard materialism.

Thanks for being honest.

There are plenty of tanks who fetishize Shia jihadis (Hizballah for instance). You have to be kidding me if you think tanks and Maoists would react the same way to a comrade practicing "anti-imperialist" Shia Islam vs. a comrade practicing orthodox Judaism, simply because they assume the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of these faiths in the current day denotes one as an asset to their goals whereas the other one is seen as reproducing barbarism.


Why are you surprised at wealthy Brooklyn hipsters being more interested in social capital than good moral values?

Pick one.

Have we reached peak idealism? What the fuck does 'inspiration from theology/folklores' mean in practice anyway? Rapunzel, the proletariat, is locked in a tower by the witch, capitalism, and her hair is revolutionary consciousness, the prince is the vanguard party?
Go ahead, conjure some kabbalaistic socialism if you wish, but this has to be some of the worst praxis iI've come across.
Ironic that you'd accuse me of putting words in your mouth, all the while accusing me of saying you advocate for ethno-nationalism when in the bit you quoted I did nothing of the sort. Ethno-nationalism is simply one form in which the essentialism manifests politically.
It's nice that it is a different kind of pathology, but what sort of justification these people imagine for their spooks is not particularly relevant politically. If they are true-believers compared to the false-believers of 'secular nationalists' makes little difference in practice.
Obviously, but what you are doing is elevating these spooks. Nobody is claiming that they are a literal non-factor or simply do no exist as a thing to address.
Not relevant as an alternative to Mexican state, fun experiment and something to talk about but not 'the Real movement'
Definitely not an alternative to the Peruvian state
Unfortunately those groups were and since the 80s are increasingly useless.
Indeed, but that's more or less all large political movements, especially true for a movement engaging in warfare. As far as I know the socio-political organisation of YP.G-held areas is based on Bookchin's municipalism rather than some islamic divine right.
Marxism has to become not-marxism? No.
This is idpol garbage, precisely the sort of reversal of identity rather than its negation that should be denounced. It takes the essentialist view of ethno-national-culture and simply reverses it. Nazis and zionists are the two true believers in Jewish exceptionalism.

Look at it this way: if comrades all throughout the world thought Enlightenment humanism was the means towards socialism, then that is what their parties/organizations would be promoting. We see Mao, for instance, applying Daoist methodology to his dialectics (i.e. everything is external contradiction bumping into each other, one side wins out, new contradiction, and so on). No doubt Muslims in the ghettos of Europe are going to take up Islamic theology over DiaMat if they ever create a socialist thought of their own. Indigenous peoples rely on their own indigenous worldviews to craft their praxis. Want more?

Knowing your enemy's psychology is a pretty crucial thing to take into account if you're looking to defeat them. Feudal empires don't fight wars the same way as republics. Likewise, people stuck in a pre-modern mindset aren't going to behave the same way as modern, narcissistic westerners. If part of your praxis is mass removal of settler-colonials who are super ideologically-driven as opposed to ego-driven you're going to run into a problem when they put up a life or death struggle.

So what is your plan to de-spook? In practice, differences between cultures will matter to some extent. Even if you're talking about something as seemingly mundane as British vs. French culture there's still differences you must work with.

Öcalan himself has called for an Islamic Liberation Theology…

Marx himself was never a materialist. He called himself a "naturalist". Referring to his method as "Dialectical Materialism" is a gross oversimplification (read Paul Paolucci's book on the subject).

Comparing Jews' "chosenness" to Nazism is ridiculous as the two are highly, HIGHLY unalike in theory and in practice.

For Jews, being "chosen" is not about racial supremacy but responsibility. We are obligated by our faith to elevate the world, to give wisdom and knowledge to the other nations, to set an ethical example for others, etc.

When I look at these neonazi/alt-right imbeciles, I see people who are desperate to weasel their way out of any personal responsibility. They desire to flock to their little mythical white enclave because they can't deal with all the problems facing the postmodern world. That's also why they scapegoat Jews, Muslims, black and brown people for issues inherent to capitalism and modernity.

The problem with modern people is, they understand personal responsibility as a punishment, like by insisting people have to take shit into their own hands they're immediately being forced into an unjust power relation. Traditional religious societies take the opposite view: those who are more privileged have more responsibility, and it's considered a great thing to use your power to accomplish what's been placed on you. In Judaism, scapegoating others or your own circumstances for your inadequacies is looked down upon. The state apparatuses may fuck with you, but in the end it's your goal to transcend that influence. Even in Israel, Jews don't really scapegoats the Palestinians for their problems, rather they scapegoat themselves ("it's the lefty Jews! It's the mixed multitude! It's the assholes in the Knesset!").

No, I want less please. I don't want a million 'indigenous' socialisms, I want socialism. The obvious counterargument here is that Enlightenment universalist socialism is just the West's indigenous socialism, which I would dispute on the universalist and materialist basis. If the 'indigenous' socialists want to have some mystical-traditional veneer on their socialism, knock yourself out - but without a materialist analysis it is mere religious utopianism. I don't see how modern religious-utopian communities would do any better at changing society than past ones.
It isn't, really. The problem with the settlements is their exclusionary and chauvinistic nature and that Palestinians are abused for them to exist, not that they exist per se. Fair point about pre-modern and modernistic mindsets though. But eventually capital will claim the pre-moderns too.
Recognition that superficial identities are irrelevant politically, and class is what defines the political interest group. False consciousness. At this point you could even make an argument for a post-class formulation: in the era of managerial capitalism, it isn't owners vs workers but capital itself vs humanity. Even the CEO works, in fact the CEO and his ilk more than anyone is enslaved to the capital.
Let's discuss this again when he declares himself or someone else the Caliph of Islam.
Fortunately the person of Marx is only interesting from a historical point of view. Great thinker, nothing more, nothing less.
Didn't find anything on a quick google search, give me some more information and I'll read it eventually
I'm only comparing it to the extent of Jewish exceptionalism.
"The Jewish Man's Burden?"
Themselves as in other Jews?
Doesn't sound too different from the modern nazi: the brown hordes are coming to Europe only because they and governments are controlled by the jewish cabal, the 'hordes' themselves have no agency or even humanity.
Humanity and agency is only afforded to other 'whites', which is why it is the race traitor along with the transcended jew that are the true targets of nazi hate, the browns are just animalistic forces of nature.
You can generalise this to more 'moderate' essentialists and nativists by changing the Others in the nazi example.

Honest question, what is the point of all this when God doesn't exist? Why are we still debating this after Nietzsche declared God to be dead in 1882? And Marx said in 1844 basically that the only liberation for Jews comes from not being Jews anymore.

No I don't think muh enlightenment atheism is the answer to everything but at least it prevents pointless debates with religious people.

Even if you claim to have some kind of special personal relationship to God I fail to see the relevance to socialism because this esoteric knowledge is not accessible to all of us.

t. doesn't understand Nietzsche

I know there are all sorts of subtle interpretations of Nietzsche, but my point is that belief in God is no longer tenable and hasn't been for a long time. Basing socialism on outdated and dying belief systems (especially which conflict with each other) is a losing proposition. Most people who claim to be religious really aren't tbh, at least in western countries.

He broke socjus dogma, and redemption is only available to womxn. So his only choice is to come out as a tranny.

Never, he'll kill himself in the next few years, quietly. Won't even make any real news. I'd say screenshot this, but in all likelihood, no one beyond a few people will know when it happens

Probably never. He didn't actually do anything to help out and he was a pompous prick to almost everyone. It turned out he was a serial abuser like people believed, so hes got some leeway I guess, but still probably never.

I meant to say WASN'T a serial abuser, not was.