/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

You can’t be a communist and support the AoC. It’s impossible. Why? Let us analyze the question dialectically. To start no communist should be using rhetoric about the Epstein affair other than in a completely self-interested way to delegitimize the system. Why? Because revolution is not a dinner party. It requires red terror. The foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is red terror. Red terror must be like the air we breathe. Can you really be angry about the age of consent and Epstein while practicing red terror? It’s only possible while using it as prop to manipulate the most cattle-like normies, the most alternatively petit-bourgeoisied or lumpenized segments of the proletariat. But the limits very soon become apparent. The weepy soccer mom evangelical moralism that leads people to grand emotional outpouring over Epstein’s sexual relations with teens is incompatible with the titanium spine required to practice red terror. Red terror requires hard and ruthless new men who will do anything to destroy the class enemy— this cannot be reconciled with weepy pseudo-Christian moralism that leads he average normie to have psychosexual emotional meltdowns over the fact that some Jewish guy had sex below the magic age line. If you search your heart you know this to be true(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST - No more pedo false flag threads. No more derailing threads with this. Also, you can literally read what Epstein did & who he was, we have a thread about it.)

How do we get westerners to stop using this word? It's nothing more or less than subcultural jargon that creates ingroup feeling and is hyper alienating to normal people. It needs to go. Stop using it! You don't want to be part of any in group that includes DSA members either. pic related - you look like this when you say that, except more gay.

the lgbtq or whatever theyre called are a disgrace to the socialist movements of all the world, theyre capitalistic zionistic inventions to make our movement look like a fucking joke to the average hard working labourers of the whole worl, if it wasnt for those filthy inventions of the liberal satan, we would achieve a large voting and revolutionary base, but instead we achieved whiny little fucks who get offended over anything and everything, and try to spread their degenerate values to the next generation and disgust right wingers who otherwise would be fellow comrades.

Once we get rid of those and many other plagues that affect the modern socialist cause, we will achieve a sucessful socialist state that isnt nazi germany.

One common stereotype regarding today’s western atheists is that they are predominantly white, male, and from Christian backgrounds, and this demographic profile stands to this day based on the latest polls on the atheist community.

And as pointed out by people like Contrapoints, both the alt-right and the SJWs of the 2010s were products of the New Atheism movement, the bulk of its members being, once again, white males from Christian households.
So this begs the question: Did they leave because the churches weren’t racist enough following the adoption of the civil rights movement’s philosophy by most churches in the 1990s?

As polemical and farfetched as it sounds, I don’t necessarily think it’s improbable given the obvious demographic profile, the fact that the decline in Christianity (in America, Canada, and Australia at least) and rise of sub-cultures were heavily driven by young middle-class white people (especially white men) who left the churches, and that was back when the churches were at least nominally anti-racist following the decline of the white nationalist movement as a significant political bloc in both the north and the new south, as well as the fact that whilst elevatorgate did drive many young white atheist men into further reactionary politics (e.g., the “redpill”, incels, scientific racism, transphobia, etc…) the reactionary streak was there since the beginning as the “four horsemen” used bait-and-switch tactics in their writings to sell the message during the GWOT era: “You don’t need to be a fundamentalist Christian to support another crusade in Iraq”, as well as the universalist civilisational rhetoric. and that was long before the “horsemen” like Harris and Dawkins began to promote a particularist view of the west as it becomes clear that its hegemony is being challenged by nominally non-liberal countries like Russia and China.

There’s also the fact that Christianity in America and elsewhere in what made up old Christendom hasn’t gained any more followers outside of mass immigration as seen how churches across Europe and elsewhere in north America and Australia need to import priests to fill the roles of the clergy as white people there don’t wanna work in churches. While it can be argued that much of it is to do with how Christianity’s universalism is clashing with the increasing particularism of white people who only want Christianity if it affirms white identitarianism, that still wouldn’t support tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

This is an issue every American leftist must grapple with: If immigration doesn’t increase proletarian unity, then it’s detrimental. An example would be the post-1945 wave of reactionary immigrants and refugees such as the gusanos, Vietnamese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, Israelis and Iranian-Americans who live in the USA and undermine class struggle by engaging in reactionary politics and manufacturing consent for the imperialist war machine, on the top of serving as tools for counterintelligence against communist states and non-communist rivals of the trans-Atlantic empire like Russia.

Case in point, the Pahlavist Iranian Americans who want to send American people to die for their selfish war against the Islamic Republic of Iran so that the Islamic government can be replaced with an oppressive capitalist secular monarchy that will act as an American and Israeli puppet state, much like modern Syria is. And guess what? Not only are said Pahlavists a bunch of racist supremacists who unironically believe that their “Persia” would be a superpower if it wasn’t for the damn ayabs, but they feel little to no tie with the American nation, instead viewing it as a tool for their ethno-narcissistic ends.

Vietnamese-Americans, Korean-Americans and Chinese Americans are similar to the Cuban gusanos in that they’re often staunchly rightoid nutjobs and anti-communist grifters trying to agitate America for forever wars in Asia to put them at the helm of their countries of origin after the government they dislike gets overthrown and it’s easy for them to support such ventures since ultimately it’s Americans who have to pay for it via their lives and wealth. A similar dynamic goes on with the Pahlavist tethers, even though the price will be NGO-isation and civil war in their country of origin. The case of East Asian tethers is interesting in that even the chuds in east Asia, despite their relatively high living standards, are so devoid of culture that both them and their diaspora get enamored by low-brow chud slop. Case in point, Twitter reactionary influencers Andy Ngo, Arthur Kwon Lee, Kangmin Lee, Ian Miles Cheong, the entirety of the Falun Gong cult with outlets like the Epoch Times, etc… are some of the ones to comes to mind. Not sure why East Asians pivot to chudslop, but I think that goes to show how Mao was right when he launched China’s cultural revolution.

Another extreme and more recent examples are the Boers of SA tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The indigenous spectre is pissing me off. I want some other perspectives.

In a word, there is no inherent value in indigenousness. There is no inherent righteousness in being indigenous. All so-called indigenous peoples were originally settlers, and there is no special snapshot in history where it is 'right' to return to, nor any philosophical fairness in halting or reverting to any point.

That isn't to say we shouldn't oppose the oppression of indigenous populations in colonial settlements, nor oppose these capitalist imperialist projects, nor dismiss the unique connections that indigenous people tend to have with land. But the solution should almost never be RETVRN or reactionary nationalist 'landback' crap.

The Zionist Regime should be destroyed, but not because the Arab Palestinian nationals somehow have a right to the place either. No nationality has a special right to any territory.

im new to this chan, how conflicted are pepol in this board

Securing the backing of 70,000 REI co-op members, REI's union has called for a boycott of the store's anniversary sale over unionbusting activity.

I think alter-globalism is the most reasonable alternative to globalism: it avoids globalism's neo-imperialism and liberal multiculturalism while not falling into nationalism. What do you guys think?

The Democratic socialist party of America is a bullshit zionist piece of dog shit