/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>477511
I made a ZIP file of the website.

>>477515
ty

>>477515
>>477511
Hey uh I took the liberty of using pandoc to convert this to pdf and epub, without any guarantees of correctness.

>>477519
It's nice to know the approximate length of the book when published is around 760-800 pages. I didn't think it would be that big.

One thing about the pdf is that the footnote hyperlinks didn't translate.

And this is why I say, if humans are to do something different, it would happen under very different conditions, which we can only guess at today. We can see the kind of changes that would take place because some of them are happening now - the desperate attempts to break free from this trap that was set for us. What I can say based on that is that humans are very, very far away from conceiving of a different way to do things, let alone a markedly different world or a different entity we would call "post-human". I believe in the end humans cannot direct this change or struggle to make anything happen, but that the true change only happens when the world and the situation will allow it, and it will not be evenly distributed or "just" in any way. When it does start, it is more likely humanity will look to each other, ask "what was any of it for?" as so many have in the past, and see that what they've been made to do was ridiculous and never should have gone on the way that it did. But, the way out likely means that humans become very detached from past concepts of the political, while having a sense of the world that allows them to subvert the machinations that drag us back to this situation. Very likely, these people would have already, due to the misery humanity inflicted on others, lost interest in "life for its own sake", or the philosophy that struggling for life is the point. It's not difficult to see that the "struggle for life" is counterproductive, but to get past that requires getting past this imperial biological pseudoscience regarding evolution, and to use sense to reconstruct how something like evolution could even happen in the first place. That is not a difficult challenge, but eugenics is the holy of holies. They kill anyone who tells these Satanics they will be anything less than living gods.

Just getting rid of eugenics and its creed would improve everything drastically in obvious ways, even if humanity remains fundamentally evil. Given human history and what is likely, humans will abandon conceits about republican government and see that all such political forms are unworkable, which is already happening. This leaves only one real option as a true political theory, and those will be the conditions of humanity moving forward.

But, humans won't actually live in any "different world" or get over themselves for a very long time, if that ever happens. It doesn't even happen at a local level. The better of humanity just sigh and find some way to reconcile with the world, and keep society at a distance.

It would be better if anyone surviving the nightmare to come saw this for what it was, knew that modernity was a failed experiment, and learned the proper lessons from it. Perhaps, sooner than I expect, there will be a way forward to endure this. Humanity was denied social interactions worthwhile, but a dismal existence with a half-aware understanding of what might have been stays alive until the bastards snuff that out, and record recurs from the damned who carry on against a race that cannot cease its cycle. The world cannot change, and if humanity insists of following a crass interpretation of the world as the shortest route to political power, humanity too cannot change. Ever. But, humanity would not have grown into anything if such a foul logic were true. It would exist - humanity's origin is demonic and there is nothing to redeem it - but anything we would regard as good exists because the world allowed it to exist, because there were no malicious humans around to destroy or pervert it, and because of some decency humans inherited - which will never, ever be theirs - that suggested that allowing something better than the purest rot would be a good idea because this makes life easier for everyone, and pointless suffering and torture led to predictable results every single time their theories have been tried.

>>477507
Back again with your a historical retard hot takes I see.

>>477466
He was also using money y'know. & even invested all of the profits from one of his books into ComIntern Inc.
What a fucking cappie-kike, being a capitalist in a feudal shithole, surrounded by capitalist world ordnung, amirite guize?

Not even talking about how he made deals with Bri'ish Empire & their Iranian cocksock sheikh & also t*rkoid republicans, damning all the communists in these countries to death so he could get sum noice deals.
Oh, & RSFSR also supplied Arditi de Popolo with rifles. Y'know, the Italian popular fascists with death squadrons specifics who denounced that socialist cuck Muzzolini.

>>477476
>I think you distrust the proletariat too much which is why you don't want to give them high capacity fully automatic weapons. This is a liberal brain worm: a socialist state should not disarm it's own populace but instead eliminate the weaknesses of soft targets such as schools.
I agree that once we arm large parts of the population we have to improve clothing items and various other objects to have bullet-proof characteristics to reduce "the weaknesses of soft targets" as you called it.

I think the school shootings in the US are largely caused by capitalism degenerating the social fabric of society. My intuition is that socialism would likely not have that problem. However i still think socialism won't automatically cure all mental diseases and you'd still get some shootings. And for those cases it helps when the available weapons aren't bullet hoses. But my main objection is that it would be too expensive to produce enough ammo for everybody to train on assault rifles.

But you are not wrong, i do have sort of a prejudice against assault-rifles. I think they're kind-off aristocratic weapons. Akin to swords and bows during the medieval times. You have to train really hard to get any good at fighting with a sword or a bow. And you have to train really hard to get good at using fully automatic weapons. Most proles can't dedicate the time and resources towards mastery of a weapon like the warrior cast in a feudal society. What further raises my skepticism about assault weapons is that the people in the "gun-enthusiast spaces", all swear that assault weapons need to have lots of extra, complicated gadgets mounted to it. That makes it completely unusable as the people's weapon. We're not going to be able to pull that off at scale, these gadgets aren't really mass-producible. I consider simple weapons like revolvers, bolt-action rifles and shotguns to be prole-weapons because they don't have the aristocratic learning curve. Also look at the prices, with a few exceptions like the AK-47 or the AR-15, assault weapons are really expensive. The Soviets being able to pull off affordable, reliable and capable assault weapons, is more a testament to their engineering prowess than the weapon-type being inherently suitable as the firearm of the masses.

Now the political aspect. One of the reasons for aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>477482
>ok so then my original point stands from a couple replies ago that you won't get an average joe to shoot that sort of projectile. If it's carrying all the extra fuel, it may be less recoil than a traditional projectile at that velocity but the amount of initial powder to spin that shit out of the barrel will have more recoil than an assault weapon cartridge like 5.56 nato
>Anything larger than a 140 grain projectile is going to be too much
But i've seen youtube videos of tiny women with spaghetti arms shoot enormous elephant hunting rifles, so what gives? I wonder if changing the recoil profile from a short spike to a more spread out curve makes it more palatable. We could add a simple air-friction dampener into the stock and go for a huge muzzle break that exploits Bernoulli's principle to reduce recoil by using scavenged waste energy. It would look like the nose of a hammerhead shark tho.
>let alone a likely unreliable sci-fi cartridge dreamed up for a boardgame.
I admit i haven't found a real world example of a Bolter, and yes it was dreamed up for the WH40k board-game. But adding a solid-fuel-motor is not really high-tech or scifi. Basic solid fuel rocket-motors were invented in the 18-hundreds. Those can be reliably triggered with simple shatter-glass-fuses using a chemical reaction timer. Basically the initial kick of the round being fired breaks a small glass container, releasing 2 chemicals that when mixed ignites the solid-fuel-motor. The speed of that Chemical reaction can be tuned like the speed of a old-school fuse-wire. Even in mass production runs the variation on those will be small and the rocket-motor will trigger within tight tolerances. If that doesn't satisfy you, we'll stick a magnet at the end of the barrel and trigger with a Hal-sensor, that'll get the variation down to a few nano seconds.

>I think you have some good ideas bro
thanks
>I don't think you have any practical experience.
Yeah that's true, but firearm permits are way to expensive where i live. That's a rich men's hobby.

>>477485
those fags pay thousands to boers to shoot on their land with their fag guns hopping out of their humvees with 20 pound rifles. This will never be practical for a militia. Mobility mobility mobility small arms should be exactly that with emphasis in being capable of reaching out practical distances: this could mean sub guns for city slickers but here in the country, someone needs 1-500 yards easily and that's where 5.56 comes in. Ammo weight is also a factor. I wish I could take you shooting out here in the west. it's really beautiful even in Jan out here in the desert.

It's funny how people think that "military training" is some arcane science accessible only to a few very powerful people, based on nothing really. The most effective armies in history were those that could mobilize a shit ton on men and machinery, usually because they had to and couldn't afford the usual bullshit stories that are told about it.

Everyone who is trained filters to the general population, and the basic methods of fighting are known enough - they're designed to be simple enough that it's impossible for a grunt to fail if they read the fucking manual. The real heart of the matter is that war implies a singular victor to be meaningfully war, and the victor of the present war is the institution against the people. It can only secure this victory through forced ignorance and degradation of the conditions of the people, and that is the war constantly fought - to degrade, denude, and prohibit any iota of independent action which is the objective of the present war. There wouldn't be a "civil war" here except by the choice of aristocracy to make one. It can end immediately if the bastards cease doing this, but if that ends, eugenics ends. The project ends, with the people remembering what was done to them and no violent recapitulation of the creed working to cow people into submission. It would then become the obligation of everyone not in the club to exterminate those in the club, by whatever means are suitable. There is no forgiving eugenics and what it did to us, and so the war will continue, absent any particular reason why this should happen.

What is really at work isn't "training" or some special knowledge, but a simple reality that wars have one victor, and an arranged "struggle" with preplanned outcomes is never stable, nor something that resolves with the victor unchanged and whole. The damned will either survive, or a new damned will appear for the same reasons that the old damned came to exist, and inherit the same struggle. Aristocracy cannot change under any circumstances, and it would be quite impossible for humans to abandon aristocracy in total. The closest they ever got was a genuine natural aristocracy, which will lose faith in its status within a generation and undermines its claim from the outset. For the damned, there is no reconciliation with aristocracy, or even "making a new aristocracy" in their own image. Were the damned ever to truly win this battle, they would probably see the situation, see humanity is Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>477486
Can you explain why mobility is important for a people's militia. If there's war and people go on a raid to harass a nearby hostile military formation, they wouldn't have to travel a great distance. Plus there are many pictures of these lets call em "fighter groups in the middle east region" that carry absolutely huge rifles. Pic related, looks like something originally intended to be mounted on a vehicle or something. They seem to manage hauling that stuff around somehow.

Maybe there is a design trick and these are lighter than they appear, if you make the barrel really long, you don't need as much barrel pressure, because a long barrel extracts more energy from the same gunpowder charge. Plus a long barrel has more cooling. Less pressure and less heat means less material strength is needed, and potentially weight.

If there is no "objective intelligence", then computability and any metric is impossible. Reality itself is impossible.

He knows exactly what he is saying. Just substitute everything he wrote with "you are retarded, hahaha". Satanics have a familiar script.

You can tell he's just recapitulating the eugenic claims about "inborn intelligence", and then states in the same post that "intelligence is a black box" - which is never how anyone believed intelligence or consciousness worked. This is purely a political and legal thinking that protects his favorite institutions, makes them sacrosanct and unmentionable. Eugenics relies on this controlled insanity. It's all so Satanic.

If you wanted to defend a failed theory that gives you a knife at the throat of everyone in the world, you would lie about everything and anything regarding intelligence, and claim "intelligence is subjective". It's the usual Germanic horseshit. He is only thinking "I am strong, he is weak, I push the button I was trained to press so I win, win, win". The idea that this turns on itself is inadmissible in his world-system. Like I said, it's all so Satanic.

>>477490
>this is not rocket science.
Because it's brain science. Btw. brains might be more complicated than rockets.
>about how middling intellects are comfortable in their stupidity as long as they have someone to kick down
Ironically enough that might be the primary application of EYE-Q tests these days.

>>477425
Hersh really fucked up recently regurgitating that fiction from one of his sources that the top Ukrainian general was negotiating with the top Russian general. I'm really surprised he got duped like that, and I wonder if anyone else in the past has tricked him similarly.

>>477424
>you don't have a "right to say whatever you like"
Fine there are a few edge-cases like you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded place, but those are very rare.
>you don't have a "right to truth"
It depends, in general people do have a right to lie, but when it comes to what powerful people do, yes absolutely people have a right to the truth, also scientific knowledge that seeks to approximates truth, you have a right to that as well.
>If you're going to think like a German
Dafuck does that even mean ? Stop speaking in riddles.

>If you're already invoking an idea of "protecting your sources" and the clandestine nature of your investigation, you're invoking the terms the national security state set.
Sneaky cloak an dagger stuff existed aeons before national security states did, so that attribution seems wrong. No matter, "protecting your sources" is meant literally, as in protecting the sources from persecution and retaliation. Keeping the sources a secret is just one strategy towards that end. But you are correct it would be preferable to do all that stuff in the open. But then it becomes necessary to organize sufficient force to frustrate potential threats to journalistic sources. Maybe you can enlighten us how to do that.

>Naturally, secret societies do not let you disrupt their mechanisms of action, or play by any such rules.
Your premise is that secret societies are powerful. Is that actually true ? The ruling class appears like an open conspiracy and they're not even subtle about it.

>Ultimately, you the subject
You're thinking in hyper individualist terms. Maybe it would be better to think about this in terms of base and superstructure to figure out what's what.

>>477426
>Hersh really fucked up recently regurgitating that fiction from one of his sources that the top Ukrainian general was negotiating with the top Russian general.
There probably was some background channel activity happening, there usually is during wars. So it's probably easy to get this shit wrong.
>I'm really surprised he got duped like that, and I wonder if anyone else in the past has tricked him similarly.
I don't know about tricked, but Hersh has gotten things wrong before, but you'll find very few journalists with a perfect record. But all things considered, he's gotten a lot of big scoops very right.

>>477427
>Fine there are a few edge-cases like you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded place, but those are very rare.
No, you don't have a "right to say whatever you like" anywhere in the history of American law, and this is all about subverting American law and replacing it with a Germanic impostor.
Really, saying "FIRE!" - making a false warning - has nothing to do with political rights one way or another. It's not inherently illegal or immoral to do things like that in a way that the state has any say in. A private establishment can enforce its own security, within the bounds of law, and so if a patron made a false alarm, the owner of the establishment would be the first to discipline that, for the owner's own interest. The state or society generally has no say in that matter. Pulling a false alarm is a dickhead thing to do, and nothing prevents a state from making such behavior illegal, but all of that has nothing to do with political speech or assembly. Such laws against doing that are numerous and are the rule rather than exception - that is, any magistrate which can pass laws has a lot of latitude to regulate speech. Free speech in particular mostly says the feds aren't going to smash your press "just because", and the feds aren't going to insist that everyone has to say the one acceptable idea. It has nothing to do with this Germanic "unlimited freedom" faggotry that derives from Kant and Hegel, which has nothing to do with freedom in the genuine sense or the legal rights. It is free assembly and political rights that were the more relevant part of the first amendment and similar laws of that sort.
The only reason this Germanic impostor is encouraged is to allow transgressive, Satanic people to conduct lawfare. Those arguments are routinely laughed out of court. Nowhere in American history has a "right to say what you want" ever been protected. All of those laws are about what the state will do to the press, what sort of laws against speech it can and cannot pass.
Making arbitrary laws against speech based on empty sentiment would be against the intent of society and the purpose of the law, for a variety of reasons, but again, that has nothing to do with a codified "right to say whatever you want". It would be understood that an arbitrary law like "you have to espouse the correct ideology in school or we will Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>477436
In any event, the freedom of the press in the United States was abrogated early when President Adams didn't like the press reporting on a scandal that was, you know, illegal. He got the law anyway, and while it was struck down and there was a pinky promise not to do things like that again, it has long been understood what lines the press can and cannot cross.

If you think the state has an implied regulatory power over speech - and the "lack of power" of the state to enforce speech implies really the opposite, that in principle the state's power is absolute if the state obfuscates and works through private interests - then nothing like a free press is possible. You can use endless reductio ad absurdums to say that "there is no such thing" or "freedom isn't free", and begin ridiculing the concept. Originally, the crowns of the conservative order could smash anyone's press, make it illegal to publish anything the crown didn't like, break up any assembly, and basically mandate what you are and what you will be. It is that sort of thing that the bill of rights and the concept of rights is intended to resolve - what the state can and can't do, and to whom the law applies. I've said before the real target of this is the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause - the part that doesn't allow broadly defined classes of persons to be designated as "possessing no rights" without due process. That was already effectively abrogated completely by eugenics - they can say anyone is insane without standards of comparison - so there's not really an argument to make about freedom. Without the dominance of eugenics, none of this discourse would be tolerated.

As for the original post about investigative journalism - the control of the press today doesn't take the form of legal punishments or smashing the press, which is what the legal rights originally referred to. People are allowed to investigate. The government will just refuse any inquiries and say "national security" on anything that is remotely real, and seed a bunch of bogus reports. The MO of the US has always been to leak through familiar channels bits and pieces of what actually happens, much like a secret society or a new religious movement gives away little bits as initiates climb the ranks in the organization. This method of disseminating information is very effective at controlling what anPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

It's like this shit, I agree with everything said but at the same time I would despise anyone who wore this unironically.

>>477428
I don't want to be associated with retards calling themselves "himbos" on the internet. It's stupid and makes a mockery of the Communist movement.

>>477428
>defending succs instead of hunting them
pic

>>477431
>the Communist movement
You're not in the 1920s or even 1968. Find some meds in this ancient trash already ffs.

>>477395
Trick question - there is not "living matter". There is matter animated by a process called life, but no substance called "living matter". When life ceases, the body decays into its constituent materials, assuming there is a body left. Parts of the body die and are shed or recycled, such that the body reconstructs itself over time, absorbing dead matter and energy to accomplish all of its functions. There is no "living matter" which is a self-contained substance in that way. It always stores energy from the environment and consumes a lot of resources simply to maintain its processes. Life is a vampire, but not a mindless one and not an evil vampire by nature, unlike our ruling elites.

The "bullshit" are these efforts to sanctify life as an essence or substance, when any competent systems view of life long ago abandoned such a thing. There isn't a singular "origin of life" story that doesn't devolve into religious koans about what life is "supposed" to be, and this is intended. Suggesting mechanisms by which life processes begin wouldn't give that origin story any inherent value to explain life now, because living things adapt as an open-ended and versatile goal to be meaningfully alive in any complex arrangement. It is at heart the processes, the life-functions, that are preserved, rather than the "life-essence" or genetic material. If that were ever adopted, which is the correct view of life mechanistically, it would mean the end of the eugenic creed's religion. That is not tolerable, and that's why all the pseudoscience is cranked up to 11, to defend a failed system.

Everything we do, and everything we ARE, is life-functions rather than genes which just happen to act in ways that conform to political expectations. If there is genetic material, it is meaningless without a corresponding life-function or behavior resulting from it. The stubbornness of life did not require a technocratic plan or blueprint to make life "regress to the mean". Life-functions to make life attain stability so that those functions continue, and it is the life-functions which "repair themselves", either by their own power or in concert with other life-functions that comprise the life-form. The body doesn't have a planning committee internal to it by some immaculate design which "just knows" what the body is supposed to do. The preservation of organic functions would be very obvious, absent a compelling purpose why those functions would cease at the command of the life-form's more prominent functions - for example, letting a limb be amputated to save the brain, which animal life cannot continue without.

The life-functions are not inexorably carried out "to the last gasp", as if a drive to live is paramount above all other concerns and all life will axiomatically preserve its life-functions in all cases. But, generally, there is no good reason why life-functions should cease just because they don't fit an intellectual conceit. There's not really a cycle of obligatory death and life. We are, in the main, "dead" creatures. The matter of the flesh is dead, absorbed largely by other dead life-forms. We interface with dead technology, and dead knowledge. The very contact we have with society to say nothing with spiritual thought pertains almost entirely to a dead or unliving world. We could view "life" as a fleeting phenomenon if we chose, and continue living happily - probably happier than if we indulged in philosophical obsession regarding life-worship or death-worship. There is much more in this world than essentialism, and eugenics exists to terminate all of it and leave us with the purest shit.

>>477416
Not the reform I was hoping for. Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.

>>477419
>Not the reform I was hoping for.
Honestly it went further than i thought it would go. My guess would be chinese finance capital lost a political powerstruggle and the weakening of western economic power are the biggest factors.

>Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.
The Chinese have actually done this, for extremely severe cases of financial fraud. But I get it, that's not what you meant, you want a political rupture with decisive political action. But in china things are going relatively well, so don't expect dramatic changes. I think they're basically experimenting with incremental changes to improve their economy. I wouldn't knock this too much, because having a oversight body filled with communist carders that can overrule big finance, that's something we wish we had.

>>476699
So you are basically arguing that the great man theory of history is the most influential political force in history (in 2023) and that because only
successfull" political revolutions in the past have been carried out, planned, and organized by great men that, for some reason, that you will not explain, this means now that a decentralized, more collective revolution cannot be lead in the modern era? Ignoring the fact that basically the whole of history since the industrial revolution, especially in the united states, was lead and organized by labor unions and syndicates in leftists countries that don't fit into your propaganda narrative about the USSR? Am I getting this right?

>>476700

Cope

>>476699
>Political rule in China relies on local collaboration from agents whose sole occupation is enforcing top-down regulations and snitching.
I don't know what you mean with this "agent-based-governnance", but china does not have a uniform regulatory environment, different provinces have different regulations.

>Any revolution in history has been carried out by a leading cadre often drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, albeit with the support of the diverse array of people.
Yes all successful revolutions had revolutionary cadres, and they wouldn't have succeed without the masses.
>There has never been a revolution spontaneously directed by 'the masses.'
But nobody has argued for a spontaneous revolt in this thread ?

>a highly organized minoritarian vanguard party, such as in Russia.
Minoritarian ?
Bolsheviki means majority faction

>>476701
You should spend more time actually trying to prove your point by organizing something in the real world, not fingerwaving on your dead image board.

Or, at the very least, maybe you could invite some members of the 'working class' to participate here. Display some sort of competence in organizing the masses lol

…Anything that would vindicate your faith-based view that the masses are the makers of history

I won't hold my breath.

>>476710
Are you brain dead or something?
You need a physically see a labor strike for what?? To prove that labor intrinsically has more power than capital? What even are you trying to prove?
Since you want to be a child I will hold your hand and walk you through the last 100 years of industrial organizing in the unit d. You realize people fought and died for the things you take for granted today right? Things like the 8 hour work day. All of this was done through collective bargaining and organizing labor.

OK so recently I got the essential works of Lenin. I was really excited to get into it, but it's really hard to grasp. I read a good bit of "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" without knowing he meant communist when he was saying social Democrat. He also brings up so many newspapers that my head is in a constant spin trying to remember who is who. Should I just read Stalin's work on Leninism? Or is there a better work that kinda puts all this simply? I'm sad that I'm struggling with this,and I haven't gotten to State and Revolution, but it's kinda sapped most of my excitement for reading this.

>>470996
>a country that imprisons and kills political dissonants (some of which are communists) and homosexuals.
Good, they should kill more. Kill their families. Go abroad and kill even more with as much polonium as they can. Kill their extended family and friends, and friends' families. And there has not been a single communist worth shit that was killed by the RF. All of the based ones are tied to the KPRF in some way, I don't care if glowfeds, westernized transhumanists and traitors to their nation like Navalny would call themselves "communist".
You are lower than the scum on my shoe. If dissidents were the bottom of the barrel of society, then you would belong in a secret compartment underneath that, swimming in shit and garbage

>>470999
Nations are concrete and objective. Read marx. Read stalin. And kill yourself westoid. You can easily spot who's a closet anarchist or if someone used to be an anarchist in the past based on their aversion to nationalism - something on an equal level of importance as class.

>>477310
>>477310
If that were true we wouldn't be having this conversation right now retard, lmao. Just because nations developed along historical and material influence doesn't make them anymore "objective" than money or your collection of lolicon. This is delusional cope from desperate faggots.

>>477314
If nations weren't important, no one would care about Ukraine being annexed.

>>470996
Russia haven't changed much since the Tsarists area. Aristocrats, communists and now autocrats keep driving the same train on the same roads.
I don't see you condemning the murder of political opponents and the decriminalization of homosexuals in the USSR, tankie.

>>477318
>If nations weren't important, no one would care about Ukraine being annexed.
Spooky.

u wut m8?

>>477274
more sucessful than trots.
also rojava and chiapas my friend.

>>477276
I'd say much less. trots have been in majority party coalitions across latam at many points of time. Rojava has one "anarchist" microparty but I'll give you the chiapas: agrarian shithole that is getting crushed by organized cartels. just be a maoist he already incorporated anything good that anarchists had to say

>shitting on anarchism while under the chinese flag
>despite the fact that it is precisely anarchism that was the most powerful thing in Asia for decades, & so much @ that that even some kid named Mao wasn't reading any of the marxoid shit due to it being practically nonexistant in Asia

Your memes are shit, you should feel bad, kill yourself.