[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1686749891767.png ( 28.55 KB , 864x519 , non-man.png )

 No.470041

So apparently lesbians got demoted to "non-men" in the rad-woke caste hierarchy. Lesbians always were on the lowest rung, but it seems they are now getting the boot.

I wonder what's going on here ?
Are they just erasing Lesbians or are they erasing women altogether ?
What is the material basis for this ?
>>

 No.470042

>>470041
lesbians and now some gays seem to be the only ones calling out troons for their retarded behavior and equally retarded and idealistic ideology. Thus troons turn lgbt to /tttt/. This is why we should form a united front with terfs, dykes, and faggots against troons before it's too late. I got nothing against normie fags who keep sex at home away from me.
>>

 No.470044

File: 1686754498777.jpg ( 66.15 KB , 640x853 , Bdiidhrrorj.jpg )

>>470042
>This is why we should form a united front with terfs, dykes, and faggots against troons before it's too late.
Fuck off back to twitter. Cis women are the enemy here and always will be.
Trans girls have been nothing but nice to me and I have no issue with them. While cis women - especially TERFs - hate men and want us to live miserable lives while they get preferential treatment in every section of society. The only reason they hate trans women is because they see them as men, which means if you are "gender critical" you are anti-male.

We should actually form a united front with trans activists against feminism and the monopoly cis women currently have on the discussion around gender. Working with feminists is reactionary and actively against the interests of the working man. Trans women on the other hand suffer the same attacks from feminists as we have had to bear for decades, we have a lot more in common with them.
>>

 No.470045

File: 1686758930160.png ( 1.06 MB , 1000x1474 , 1686758729847.png )

>>470044
uigha you gay lol. Of course the friendless sperg would love troons because they are all fellow autists. Gender in the layman's sense has existed as long as gametes! Gender in the faggot troon sense has only existed in the minds of autistic mentally ill retards since the mid 20th century. Get your mind out of porn and into materialism.
>>

 No.470046

>>470042
>lesbians and now some gays seem to be the only ones calling out troons for their retarded behavior
What is this referring to ?

Are they calling out the aggressively narcissistic identity-self-referencing, where everything a person says is tied to their identity and disagreeing with them is fallaciously equated with attacking their identity ?

That shit is super annoying behavior.
>>

 No.470048

The trans culture war since 2015 is clearly an op to see if English-speakers have lost their minds and how to herd them to the slaughter. Homosexuality in general was always a proxy for mental illness and defect, intended to promote eugenics.

The longer run goals are transhumanism and promoting fetishism, and women who don't sell themselves on Onlyfans and make themselves available to the masters are punished. There are plenty of dykes enabling this, but the ones who are too vocal get screwed. In general, there was a current of homosexuals, women and men, who didn't like anything about "militant LGBT", and they had already been pushed out of their world when the libs started this offensive in the 1990s. Behind the ideology and narratives there is only pure, steaming eugenics through and through. Back in the 50s they bragged that they would make men homosexuals because that would contribute to population control and intercine conflict.
>>

 No.470049

Basically, like many things, the ruling interest of the liberal world order is locking ranks and purging anyone who is not 100% with this fascist new world order, and especially everyone who isn't a venal fuck enabling eugenics.

The Right has a lot to do with promoting this talking point. They pretty much fund it on their own, and the liberals let them be the enablers.
>>

 No.470050

>>470048
this is a rare point of agreement on the gay question as to promote natalism gays like all nonreproductive elements in a society must pay a tax
>>

 No.470051

>>470046
broadly no anti-idpol gays exist outside of conservative circles, which still might deserve collaboration to some degree. I can only speak to my limited organizational experience, but in both orgs I've participated in, normal gays were still there to talk about politics primarily. The introduced Marxist topics, they engaged in discussion about the topics, and they were open to criticism or themselves had constructive critiques. Women to a much smaller degree but still. Troons on the other hand seemed incapable of this much like autists with unrelated interests. It's my theory that troons and autists are one in the same. Troons only bring up troon topics or engage only to divert discussion or make it seem as if they are the only ones qualified in the room to speak on anything.

What's more, troons are weapons of the most divisive BPD opportunists. Discussions were often shot down with troons being wielded by BPD women to get what they want. This, to me, presents a more explicit form of Idpol that must first be targeted before any implicit idpol can even be dug up from under the surface.
>>

 No.470052

>>470051
This is an interesting approach. You measured the level of engagement with Marxist topics of various groups. I haven't formed an opinion about it, but it gives me something to think about.

>It's my theory that troons and autists are one in the same.
Well neurologically body-dysphoria is adjacent to schizophrenia. Certain types of medications that were developed for the treatment of schizophrenics also appears to reduce body-dysphoric symptoms.

I don't really know what definition of autism you have. However before it became commonplace to label nearly everybody as neuro-divergent. Autism meant a severe inability to communicate with others, to the point where affected people could barely make eye-contact or speak. People with very severe autism can suffer from "meltdowns" that can result in very aggressive and violent behavior. Are you sure there is a link to that kind of stuff ?

>Troons only bring up troon topics or engage only to divert discussion or make it seem as if they are the only ones qualified in the room to speak on anything.
This type of behavior could also be explained with narcissistic tendencies of seeking to become the center of attention. Have you considered that ?

>weapons of the most divisive BPD opportunists.
i don't understand what that means. Borderline Personality Disorder is a very broad category that even includes things like chronic boredom. Can you please narrow it down a little.

>Discussions were often shot down
How to deal with wreckers, that's indeed the question we need answered.
Maybe we should mimic what they did in court-show drama television.
Allow people to yell:
<"objection, derailing the discussion"
and then there is like a discussion mediator that can bang a gavel or toot an air-horn and proclaim:
<"objection sustained, get back on topic"
>>

 No.470062

File: 1686850494620.jpg ( 63.61 KB , 885x516 , zapaśniczka.jpg )

>>470044
Agreed.
troons are the lesser evil here

femoids are just afraid that transhumanists would threaten their political monopoly - starting with the sexual revolution femoids were at the center of the sexual political agenda. Now this comes to an end.

For all the rightoid sperging about feminists, femoids are actually one of the primary groups that are REALLY interested in keeping the traditional gender status quo - a man slave is supposed to be masculine, "provide" for "his" queen, die in wars, etc-etc
you know, the usual man-slave stuff..

transhumanists undermine this man-slave ideological narrative and so are a mortal enemy of every feminist
>>

 No.470063

File: 1686851943590.jpeg ( 190.03 KB , 840x582 , anime laugh.jpeg )

>>470062
Also, femoids tried to hijack the transhumanist agenda at first with promoting FtM troons but failed miserably - transhumanism in the popular mind is still largely associated with the MtF troons.
It's a fucking men's movement lol, even if troons themselves don't get it.
>>

 No.470065

>>470062
>>470063
you 9chan leftcels have to be the dumbest uighur monkeys on the planet. Out of all you retards what good has come from your invasion of the board? Ukrops, anarchists, and autistic faggots. You would sell out to the degenerate pedo Epstein elite just to spite women for being different from men. Look where it's led you. You would side with troons and the depopulation agenda against workers. You should be ashamed but I'm not idiotic enough to expect anything from the slime that you are and will continue to be without the love of mankind.
>>

 No.470066

>>470063
no one cares about ftm because it's all quackery
>>

 No.470067

>>470045
I guess the reactionary part of gender-theory is that it negates all the people that don't want a gender-identity. You know, you can have any gender-identity you want, but you aren't allowed to opt out, and just have a biological sex, because they are the CEO of sexuality.
>>

 No.470068

>>470067
no the reactionary part of gender theory is that it is functionally idealistic and posits that shit like "attitudes" and "feelings" comprise separate fucking categories of "gender" here in the $$$academic$$$ sense. Sex is a biological reality and to every person who isn't a porn addled retard, intellectual scum, or a hapless member of the ruling class cult, gender=sex while gender in the academic sense doesn't.
>>

 No.470069

>>470068
I don't really know what to make off this, you are correct in the sense that they asserted the gender-identities without proofs or functional explanations. Maybe we should treat it like a secular religion.

From a practical point of view, they shouldn't be allowed to impose their views on others, you know like religious believes shouldn't be imposed.

I think it's futile to go further, from a materialist point of view, all the relevant stuff happens in the brain, and until we get detailed "blueprints" how the brain objectively works, there will remain a scientific gap and people are going to fill that gap with what ever they want to believe.
>>

 No.470070

>>470069
You should read Lenin on religion in the party. I believe the same thing could be applied to troons even. Lenin explains that religious people should not necessarily be prohibited from party activity as long as they simply don't talk about it and don't get defensive when we educate them about the reality of the subject.
>>

 No.470071

>>470070 (me)
of course this effectively prohibit troons since it's impossible for them to shut up about their special autistic interests but in principle if a troon existed that had that capability they would theoretically also not be too far gone. of course troons are eyesores of the worst varieties but who's to say they wouldn't detrans? just keep them from tabling.

>>470052
>meds
I have seen that study but wasn't it only on one subject? I'd have to familiarize myself more but in principle I'd be interested in development as far as treating troons without killing them like medical transitions do. I find the troons I've interacted with often display symptoms of ASD but I have no research obviously.

>narcissism
could be a co-morbidity. I've often noticed pity farming among troons online so I have no problem with that assertion

>BPD
this is part of the board culture that has been used in the past to describe, almost exclusively, women who hijack parties and use other people's handicaps to leverage power while men in the party are usually hesitant to speak up. Either because they are incels only there to get a gf or because they don't want to seem like they're putting down a woman. Often these women will be at the top of the hierarchy among other less active women in the party thus a slight against the BPD woman might cause a membership drop.

>what to do
I think that what you suggest could work but only when codified in the party's rules of debate. unlikely in the current climate of "progressive stack"

overall I am in no way suggesting I know everything but I've just noticed some trend and hope that some people might keep this in mind when organizing irl and perhaps come up with solutions.
>>

 No.470076

Pointless discussion. LGBT as an organization shouldn’t exist. Non hetero people should just live normal lives like everyone else
>>

 No.470113

File: 1687001634765.jpg ( 1.17 MB , 1250x1500 , 2.jpg )

>>470065
>you 9chan leftcels have to be the dumbest uighur monkeys on the planet.
if nazoid retard thinks so then we get a negation here, ie we are the smartest

>what good has come from your invasion of the board?
"invasion" is what you ziggas doin lol

>Ukrops, anarchists, and autistic faggots.
some random words you don't like lol
unhinged

>You would sell out to the degenerate pedo Epstein elite just to spite women for being different from men.
It's YOU who would sell out to the feminoid elites and belittle men who fight against them for a chance to lick that foid booth, you pathetic man-thing

>Look where it's led you. You would side with troons and the depopulation agenda against workers.
Compared to you man-slaves troons objectively undermine this feminoid order. You, on the other hand, only reinforce it.

>depopulation agenda against workers
breeder scum, what against workers is when you force them to slave away for a cunt backed by a state because soyciety needs more slaves and cannon fodder

>without the love of mankind
you man-slaves equate mankind with the feminoid nazoid soyciety

I have no love for such a thing, yes.
>>

 No.470115

File: 1687006667899.mp4 ( 1.31 MB , 634x360 , The Tragedy of Bob ''Oofy-….mp4 )

>>470048
>>470049
how are you simping for w*men THIS HARD when w*men are the primary enforcers of the eugenic order in our soyciety?

this is what "damaged by the feminoid propaganda bombardments" looks like lads
>>

 No.470116

>>470048
>The longer run goals
>women who don't sell themselves to the masters are punished.
Is that the material analysis why lesbians got demoted ?
They aren't available to the masters ?

I mean that does make sense on some level. But can you derive a sort of "counter culture" from this by inverting the underlying logic ?
>>

 No.470118

>>470116
Well you can’t have any serious analysis as to why they’ve been “demoted” when your abiding by the pointless logic of an identity group. But ig a sort of “material” analysis on the matter would be that they are the only ones affected reproduction wise. Gay men ignoring ftm is no big deal, but lesbians denying mtf is however a huge deal b
>>

 No.470119

I'm late to this stupid thread, forgive me if what I'm going to write has already been said.

It's really weird that they actually put out that they wanted to include non-binary people who "identified with the label" as their rationale. What do you called a woman who's attracted to women, then? A dyke? It's just very silly. It's a weird thing to be so obsessed with definitions and identity, and labels, and then not be able to coherently define those in a useful way. Like, for all the dick I've sucked, I could identify as a lesbian if I wanted to - I could do it, it would be fine, but nobody else needs to amend the dictionary to say "lesbians are women who are attracted to women and also men who used to be attracted to men but are now burnt out and hate men from having too much gay sex and meeting too many people." It's just not necessary. The tendency for people who aren't women or don't identify with femininity to casually call themselves "lesbians" runs contrary to the tendency to write medical definitions of observable phenomena - they're opposite behaviors, and that's perfectly fine, they don't have to mix.
>>

 No.470235

>>470116
It was less about a concerted effort to "attack the establishment", but that the rulers did not want any outlet to escape the sexual politics and morality of eugenics. That's one reason they were this obsessed about male homosexuality - because it presented men with a world where they didn't have to join a rat race, and generally showed contempt to the entire practice of sexual control and the great game. You can tell how they freak out at the thought of gay men having women on the side, like something horrible were transgressed, to tell what this really was. Normal people always saw male homosexuality as a choice or at worst an affliction or vice, but didn't have any obsessive need to sort people into a "gay" identity or anything like that. So far as homosexuality was opposed, it wasn't about essentialism but the moral implications of lurid sex rituals. Most sodomy laws pertained specifically to rape rather than attraction or any male-male intimacy. In practice, most people looked the other way and simply didn't acknowledge something they felt to be disgusting. Very often the homosexuals didn't want to be noticed at all, and probably saw their experience with homosexuality as something they wish they didn't do, or that they could be different than this. Oh, and they HATE the idea of homosexuals being dis-satisfied with a damning social identity that was specifically intended to humiliate them, which is what a gay identity was understood to be historically. It's a taboo that would be channeled for eugenics. The eugenists of course favor all manner of depravity and rape, i.e. most of the things that motivated others to loathe homosexualism.

There was a brief period where much of the world found homosexuality was just not interesting, and that was an immediate reaction to the eugenic creed's obsession with it. People who found homosexuality disgusting found the eugenists far more disgusting, and there are fags who were enablers of eugenics the whole way through as long as they got theirs. So, basically, every way we're trained to refer to the matter is colored by eugenics, and that's what is being defended, more than anything about what homosexuality does or means.
>>

 No.470236

>>470116
The part about women being made to put out to advance is a whole other matter. Ask women who can be honest - you probably know some - and they will tell you this is what was expected of them to climb the ladder or survive, whether they liked it or not.
>>

 No.470243

>>470236
I accept your analysis.
Now, what cultural hierarchy would undermine this ?
And would that weaken the class power of capitalists ?

I'm asking here whether it's worth it to bother with the culture stuff. If all culture is just a downstream effect from economic power, it obviously would make more sense to focus on that. But if influence flows both directions bothering with the culture stuff would obviously matter.
>>

 No.470247

>>470243
It's not worth political action but it is helpful to know what this is and why sexual politics is dredged up, even though we all fucking hate it and want it out of our lives. There are so many gay men who will tell me - tell anyone online who will listen - that they fucking hate the "LGBT" lobby and corporate Pride shit.
>>

 No.470248

>>470243
I do think it is politically necessary to call this what it is - bullshit - but it's not like the world will change if we have the correct ideal take on sexual politics and the right forms of relationships. The typical for people is that we don't want to think about what others are doing in such affairs, because we have our own bullshit to contend with.
>>

 No.470258

>>470247
>There are so many gay men who will tell me - tell anyone online who will listen - that they fucking hate the "LGBT" lobby and corporate Pride shit.
So the opposition to identitarianism is universal ?
How do we organize that into a political force ?

Is this a battle of words ?
Should we start saying things like identitarianism "is a vector of oppression" ?
>>

 No.470263

>>470258
that will make you sound retarded. just cut off the autism from the new pride flags and that can be a new symbol. like Hungary fags.
>>

 No.470474

>>470263
>that will make you sound retarded.
Alright how do you suggest conducting the battle of words ?
>>

 No.470488

>>470041
>So apparently lesbians got demoted to "non-men" in the rad-woke caste hie
In some fucking niche fringe fucking backwash you found using fucking abritrary rules like some fucking dipshit fucking BOOMER FUCKING 4CHAN CONSERVATIVE OH FUCKING WOW ALL THE FUCKING WOKE LEFT DOES THIS NOW
GOD YOU FUCKING RETARD
>>

 No.470495

File: 1687962146952.jpg ( 59.72 KB , 400x524 , radlib cryptonite.jpg )

>>470488
So you're defending this ? You certainly seem to be attacking people for pointing out how reactionary this is. It follows the dichotomy-pattern of human vs non-human except it's less general. What are we to conclude other than, you hate lesbians and you want to make it socially acceptable to insult them as "non-men".

It's such a strange phenomenon to witness radlibs attempting to bring back sexism but instead of using reactionary traditionalist language they invent entirely new words.

Maybe you're just a bit dim, let me explain. The point of this exercise is to circumvent womens-rights, because if they succeed in re-defining lesbians as "non-men" they would no longer qualify for those rights. Basically: put out for the bourgeoisie, or no rights for you

sexism with woke characteristics
>>

 No.470497

File: 1687966973834.jpg ( 60.44 KB , 590x332 , get the fuck our of my fac….jpg )

>>470495
>So you're defending this ?
NTA but I am

>You certainly seem to be attacking people for pointing out how reactionary this is.
Cry more feminoid

>It follows the dichotomy-pattern of human vs non-human except it's less general.
yes, we need to dehumanize w*men to overthrow their nazoid militarist dictatorship

>you hate lesbians
I hate w*men
they were the main pillar of nazoid militarism all throughout history

Iliad. 8th century BC. Based on the true historical events. No wonder it was the Bible of the whole Greek world - it spoke fluent blackpill.

>It's such a strange phenomenon to witness radlibs attempting to bring back sexism but instead of using reactionary traditionalist language they invent entirely new words.
It's actually genius. To destroy this feminoid order we need to destroy traditional gender roles first - the source of feminoid power.

>The point of this exercise is to circumvent womens-rights
there is no such thing as "womens-rights", feminoid
we're all "fluid" now, GOT IT?

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DIE IN WARS AND BE SILENT FEMINOID!
>>

 No.470498

>>470497
<I hate w*men they were the main pillar of nazoid militarism all throughout history
I'm pretty sure that ruling classes are responsible for most wars throughout history.

<To destroy this patriarchal order we need to destroy traditional gender roles first - the source of patriarchal power.
>To destroy this feminoid order we need to destroy traditional gender roles first - the source of feminoid power.
You're a fool, radlibs hate you with a passion, why are you bothering with the ass-kissing, they would sterilize or "euthanize" you if they could.

>we're all "fluid" now, GOT IT?
The majority of people don't have a gender identity just a biological sex, so this is not applicable to most people.

Pls stop fishing for personal information about me, i'm not going to tell
>>

 No.470502

>>470495
>*makes shit up/hyperfocuses on two fringe freaks* you're defending this?
>>

 No.470506

File: 1687982470465.jpg ( 50.19 KB , 940x625 , see ya bitches.jpg )

>>470498
>I'm pretty sure that ruling classes are responsible for most wars throughout history.
I'm pretty sure the logic of the reproduction of material life is responsible.
It's not like the ruling classes can just decide not to wage war lol.

But w*men AT MINIMUM are eager accomplices of the ruling classes, because they don't risk their hide in wars. In this they are similar to the ruling classes lol.

Again. Iliad. It's a fucking anti-war poem at its heart. All because of a fucking spiteful goddess.

>To destroy this patriarchal order we need to destroy traditional gender roles first - the source of patriarchal power.
nice deluded feminist talking point lol

as expected from a brainwashed feminoid footsoldier lol

traditional male gender role - disposable draught cattle and cannon fodder

the moment w*men get the same treatment as men - they will cry to bring back """patriarchy""" (some are already started crying lol)

>they would sterilize or "euthanize" you if they could.
they would sterilize you either way retard, like they were sterilizing plenty of people before there were any transhumanists

priorities. I have them.

>The majority of people don't have a gender identity just a biological sex, so this is not applicable to most people.
you still don't GET IT do you?

it doesn't matter if its "applicable" or not

society with its coercive apparatus said we're all "fluid" now - you better start "flowing"

got it?
>>

 No.470508

File: 1687983756545.mp4 ( 10.37 MB , 640x360 , Rammstein - Sonne (Officia….mp4 )

Imagine claiming to be for poor men, but also crying to ban the easy road for men to make money in w*men sports lol.

"n-not fair you troon! easy road is for queens only!! Dwarfs belong to the mines!! That's how it always been!! Now every dwarf thinks he can be a queen!! SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE!?"
>>

 No.470509

>>470506
>I'm pretty sure the logic of the reproduction of material life is responsible for war.
War is not inevitable, it's the result of class society.

You should read Peter Turchin on "elite overproduction"

<Past waves of political instability, such as the civil wars of the late Roman Republic, the French Wars of Religion and the American Civil War, had many interlinking causes and circumstances unique to their age. But a common thread in the eras we studied was elite overproduction. The other two important elements were stagnating and declining living standards of the general population and increasing indebtedness of the state.

<Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class.

Seriously he's been able to make accurate predictions on a rigorously scientific basis. He's a rare breed of scientist who treats social sciences like a quantifiable hard science, where you have to make your claims falsifiable and then test it against reality.

Check out his website
https://peterturchin.com
>>

 No.470510

>>470506
>To destroy this patriarchal order we need to destroy traditional gender roles first - the source of patriarchal power.
>nice deluded feminist talking point lol

No you misunderstood this completely, i was trying to mock you for having the exact same talking point as the radlibs except that you switched "patriarchal order" for "feminoid order" in this post >>470497

I thought that it was very obvious, that i wasn't ranting about muh patriarchy. Why would i bother doing that since there are basically no more actual family patriarchs in control of the family estate and arranged marriages.
Good grief i regret not spelling this out more.
>>

 No.470512

>>470509
>War is not inevitable, it's the result of class society.
class society is inevitable at some point, egro war is inevitable

>You should read Peter Turchin on "elite overproduction"
I agree, all social fallouts are started by infighting of the elites.
Lenin was a part of the elite. Even fucking Stalin was a part of the clergy.

but "elite overproduction" is a feature of the material reproduction, and so is inevitable too
>>

 No.470514

>>470510
>No you misunderstood this completely
No I'm not.
You tried to "mock me" and failed. I showed you WHY you failed.

You're comparing both "talking points" only because you've been brainwashed by the feminist propaganda.

Because only deluded feminists can believe that traditional gender roles oppress them lol.
>>

 No.470515

>>470512
>class society is inevitable at some point, egro war is inevitable
Well i would say that class society is very likely to occur during the lower modes of production in prehistory(which includes our present) , but not inevitable. It's not like it would have been entirely impossible to organize human civilizations without the emergence of class stratification. Technological progress would probably have been a lot faster too, if there had been more civilizations that did not have rulers trying to keep their subject's ignorant. Eventually we'll emerge from prehistory and then we won't have wars unless we run into hostile aliens.

At best you might be able to get away with saying that there is a phase in prehistory where wars are inevitable. We certainly would not survive as a species if we tried to keep fighting wars amongst our self once we invented seriously advanced scifi-technology.

>but "elite overproduction" is a feature of the material reproduction, and so is inevitable too
within class societies it sure looks that way, but class societies are not inevitable
>>

 No.470527

File: 1688029218879.jpg ( 72.79 KB , 300x300 , 08.jpg )

>>470515
>muh prehistory
useless semantics

we work with what we have, it doesn't matter if you call it "historic materialism" or "prehistoric materialism"

>It's not like it would have been entirely impossible to organize human civilizations without the emergence of class stratification.
hence it is inevitable

>Technological progress would probably have been a lot faster too, if there had been more civilizations that did not have rulers trying to keep their subject's ignorant.
rulers don't just try to "keep their subject's ignorant" for the fun of it - they are coerced by the class system of material reproduction of life

they can't just "not do it" lol, or they would cease to be the ruling class

>Eventually we'll emerge from prehistory and then we won't have wars unless we run into hostile aliens.
unfalsifiable claim

>At best you might be able to get away with saying that there is a phase in prehistory where wars are inevitable.
No. I'm saying how IT IS and how IT WAS.
It's you who is saying how IT WILL BE with a blind conviction.

So AT BEST we can say that wars were inevitable at least until the current point.

>but class societies are not inevitable
baseless assumption

there has NEVER been a classless society whose material reproduction is based on technology

on the contrary, the arrival of technology signalled the arrival of class society - the opposite is yet to be proven
>>

 No.470529

File: 1688029619029.jpg ( 62.01 KB , 300x300 , 06.jpg )

>>470527
>It's not like it would have been entirely impossible to organize human civilizations without the emergence of class stratification.
<hence it is inevitable
wait, I thought you said "it's not like it would have been possible to organize human civilizations without the emergence of class stratification"

another baseless claim then lol
>>

 No.470531

File: 1688033528355.jpg ( 56.74 KB , 300x300 , 10.jpg )

>>470527
>they can't just "not do it" lol, or they would cease to be the ruling class
oh and also to elaborate further, as technology-based society (at least at the level up to the current point) CANNOT be organized ANY OTHER WAY but on the basis of class, it follows that if you're not a ruling class - you're an exploited class (discarding all the declassified elements in the middle)

if you're not up to the task that the system of the reproduction of material life puts on you - it will push to the top in the ensuing social fallout those who will be

so ruler's """free choice""" is as any other human """free choice""" in life - between death and necessity
>>

 No.470535

>>470514
You support almost the same position as the radlibs do.

The radlibs are wrong because they claim to champion the rights of women, when in reality they don't. You are more honest in that regard, since you clearly spell it that this is not beneficial for women.

I'm a socialist who wants an organized working class and since half the workers are women, that makes it a political necessity to have equality between the sexes.

The pro-capitalist social conservatives who's cultural happy place is with women being housewife's like in a black and white TV soap opera from 1955, that's a lie too because capitalism isn't going to accept the reduction of available labor-power if most women quit their jobs to become a housewife. From the perspective of male workers this isn't such a great deal either because it basically means that they can only get the right to reproduce unless they subjugate their labor power to capitalists.

Under socialism it will definitely be possible to have a social arrangement that is similar to that what social conservatives want(with a housewife mothering the children). The only difference is that women will get payed for raising children. Men won't have to give up the surplus they produce to capitalists which means they'll also have more resources to offer for that provider role.
What will be different is that women won't be in financial dependency. This means that the people who chose this lifestyle are those that want it. Fewer people will choose it but those that do will be more successful at it. Since this arrangement will be born out of volition entirely, it will also become above cultural attacks. If you build a system with a self-selection bias rather than a conditioning bias, it will become more robust in the long run because all the people that make up the components already have the necessary behavioral traits to make it function.

As far as cultural power goes, i'm deeply skeptical about that. It always seems to produce societies that uphold some kind of submissive opportunism instead of principled strength.
>>

 No.470536

>>470527
Prehistory becomes history proper once humanity gains the ability to decide it's own fate. That won't happen as long as there are ruling classes that undermine the ability of civilizations to build higher order organizational features to achieve this kind of collective self-determination.

I don't see a factor where to point at and say the development of class society is an inevitable outcome in prehistory. So i don't see how one would support such a claim. Lets face it humanity didn't take the optimal path. And the system we have now does have better alternatives that we are missing out on.

I understand that rulers do things to keep their subjects ignorant because that's the logic of the power they wield, but that's no excuse for not building a different system that does not operate on that logic. For example if your civilization does not enable a population to have scientific literacy, it will eventually get clobbered by one that does. Keep people ignorant is a loosing strategy.

>Eventually we'll emerge from prehistory and then we won't have wars unless we run into hostile aliens.
>unfalsifiable claim
If ruling classes can persist and we don't emerge from prehistory, we'll go extinct. Ruling classes will continue to divide humanity into different factions and make them fight each other. Eventually we'll figure out how to make weapons the use of which will destroy us.

>there has NEVER been a classless society whose material reproduction is based on technology
All human societies use technology even the most primitive ones do. Technology is part of our species being.
I would even go as far as say that ruling classes are a hindrance to technological development.
Consider the following example: if you invented a table top fusion generator that powered a table top molecular synthesizer, that could transform matter in to almost anything you wanted, the capitalists would try to ban this technology because people wouldn't buy anything from them anymore.

But we don't have to look at science fiction examples.

In fact if you look at technological advances in capitalism there's always some capitalist faction trying to hold back some technology. Like the oil companies that are lobbying against the construction of nuclear power plants. The record distribution companies that tried to ban the internet. Right now the pro-war-lobby is trying to ban the internet again because people might use it to organize for peace and that would interfere with their war-profiteering. There's all the patents that large capitalists use to prevent other from using a technology, 3d printing only took off once the patent on it ran out, which basically delayed that technology for 20 years.

If we managed to become a class-less society technological progress would increase significantly because all those special interests that seek to block technologies would go away. Don't forget that Ruling classes always abuse technology to bully people and that creates a lot of Luddites and techno-phobia. Which means that public support for technological advancement declines as a result of class society.
>>

 No.470554

File: 1688076846189.jpg ( 24 KB , 560x700 , 23.jpg )

>>470535
>The radlibs are wrong because they claim to champion the rights of women, when in reality they don't. You are more honest in that regard, since you clearly spell it that this is not beneficial for women.
yes, that's why I think troons are objectively a good thing even if they delude themselves into believing that they can do something about the reality of sexual dimorphism in our species

humans in general are delusional retards who believe they can dictate shit to this universe, and it always doesn't matter because universe always wins in the end

sometimes it is beneficial to pretend that men can be w*men to undermine the feminoid superstructure - objective reality remains the same anyways after all

>I'm a socialist who wants an organized working class and since half the workers are women, that makes it a political necessity to have equality between the sexes.
But I'm for equality between the sexes lol. How about equality of military conscription between the sexes huh? How about equality in the health damaging fields? Funny how they don't have gender quotas in the fucking coal mines lol.

what do you say feminoid? are you REALLY up for equal opportunity for your beloved femoids to be crippled, tortured in a POW camp etc?
YOUR HONEST ANSWER: OF COURSE NOT

so don't you bullshit me here bitch

>capitalism isn't going to accept the reduction of available labor-power if most women quit their jobs to become a housewife
Real Existing Socialism isn't going to accept this for exactly the same reason. So I dunno what you're whining on about..

>Under socialism it will definitely be possible to have a social arrangement that is similar to that what social conservatives want(with a housewife mothering the children)
But I'm not a social conservative lol

I don't want a fucking housewife and children - no true blackpiller would want those things - not in capitalism, not in socialism, not even in feudalism - not after you know the truth about w*man nature

>Men won't have to give up the surplus they produce to capitalists which means they'll also have more resources to offer for that provider role.
So w*men would just get more free shit. Thanks for confirming my point lol.

>What will be different is that women won't be in financial dependency.
Hello. 19th century was calling.
W*men have been "financially independent" (at least from their husbands) for at least half a century now lol.

This is what I mean when I talk about dumbfuck leftoids - they are like a broken record that keeps on repeating their tired 19th century talking points. If they had even a couple of baincells they would've understood that the world long moved on from their 19th century philosophycel models.
>>

 No.470558

File: 1688082956426.jpg ( 193.34 KB , 500x705 , 17.jpg )

>>470536
>Prehistory becomes history proper once humanity gains the ability to decide it's own fate.
philosophycel mumbo-jumbo

>collective self-determination
meaningless wanking

the only """self-determination""" from material reality you gonna get is death lol

>I don't see a factor where to point at and say the development of class society is an inevitable outcome in history.
the factor is the same reproduced pattern in various physically isolated environments, ie Americas and Europe

>Lets face it humanity didn't take the optimal path.
unfalsifiable claim.

to think that the path that humanity took REPEATEDLY in different environments is not at the very least close to optimum - is to be idealist

>And the system we have now does have better alternatives that we are missing out on.
Maybe. Maybe not. Not for you to tell.

>but that's no excuse for not building a different system that does not operate on that logic
you can't just build "different system" you retarded idiot - the current class system would collapse into a bloodbath

and NOBODY (well, maybe except for Lenin lol) would consciously pursue such goal - peasants no more wanted all the chaos of the French Revolution than the fucking aristocracy and bourgeoisie lol - and nevertheless it happened because universe wanted it lol

>Keep people ignorant is a loosing strategy.
Lol. If you say so.
I'm sure your very important opinion trumps all those CURRENTLY EXISTING societies that brainwash their population with nazoid propaganda 24/7 lol

>If ruling classes can persist and we don't emerge from prehistory, we'll go extinct.
we'll go extinct either way, chump

u know, the speed of light barrier, laws of thermodynamics, all that shit

but I'm sure you have your nice scifi copes about """wormholes""" and whatnot ready to prove me wrong lol

>Eventually we'll figure out how to make weapons the use of which will destroy us.
Nukes already exist u know..

Anyway, I think if any new mode of production will be born out of capitalism - it will be born in the atomic fire.

>All human societies use technology even the most primitive ones do.
I dunno why you're splitting hairs here. Correlation between technology and social stratification is a pretty established historical fact at this point. Technology leads to more surplus and more surplus leads to more stratification.

>I would even go as far as say that ruling classes are a hindrance to technological development.
ruling class is just a part of the mode production
at least claim that mode of production is a hindrance lol

AGAIN, ITS NOT LIKE BEZOS CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT LABOR BEING CHRONICALLY UNDERVALUED IN CAPITALISM RETARD

>Consider the following example
<Consider my scifi fantasy
*Sigh*
Okay.

In your example there would be another social explosion and many capitalists would be simply murdered. Problem solved.

>there's always some capitalist faction trying to hold back some technology.
and they always fail

>If we managed to become a class-less society technological progress would increase significantly
unfalsifiable claim. AGAIN.

your classless society might as well hit a physical limit to technological progress

Again, delusional leftoid - your consciousness is not magic. At some point you're gonna hit the wall and no gommunism will help you.

>Which means that public support for technological advancement declines as a result of class society.
that's quite a ridiculous claim

Science and technology got ENORMOUS authority in our current society. It literally murdered religion and wears its skin now lol.

And religion was a REALLY big deal for the past 3 thousand years u know lol?
>>

 No.470820

>>470041
>Are they just erasing Lesbians or are they erasing women altogether ?
Bruh it's literally the exact opposite, you will literally never see a transman or transwoman pushing that crap, its exclusively pushed by "nonbinary" cis women who are just the trans equivalent of "spicy straights", they adopt the stupid "nonbinary" label because they think that they're rejecting sexist stereotypes by doing so but still want to be regarded as women in every meaningful sense, up to and including clinging to the lesbian label. Its a result of women taking the "gender critical" ideology to its logical conclusion.
>>470045
>Gender in the faggot troon sense has only existed in the minds of autistic mentally ill retards since the mid 20th century.
The "performative theory of gender" which basically equates the very concepts of "maleness" and "femaleness" with sexist stereotypes was a feminist creation, it's literally the basis of much of the terminology that terfs use such as "gender critical" or "gender abolitionist", and which serves as a means for intellectual dishonesty on their part- "we're totally not sexist, we only hate the male 'gender' not the male sex, if only we could 'abolish the patriarchy' we totally wouldn't have to demonize men the way we do!", "akshully, female members of the ruling class are acting in a 'male' role so it still counts as patriarchy when Thatcher behaves exactly the same as Reagan", etc.
It had nothing to do with trans people and was vocally opposed by them until relatively recently when the feminists succeeded in foisting it into them, if anything that garbage is fundamentally transphobic in its own right.

If anything, there IS a genuine problem with modern "trans activism" in the sense that its being deliberately steered off a cliff by a bunch of crypto-terfs who basically agree with the same crap that the open terfs say while working to silence actual trans people who support the previous, coherent approach to trans issues.
>>

 No.470822

>>470820
>transphobic
rofl imagine using deranged Orwellian psychobabble like this with a straight face.
>>

 No.470823

File: 1688739658096.jpg ( 49.36 KB , 647x910 , mirror.jpg )

>>470820
<Are they just erasing Lesbians or are they erasing women altogether ?
>Bruh it's literally the exact opposite,

Lets begin with the following: The capitalists control cultural production, and that means they control what defines cultural identities. I'm not willing to consider that you don't accept their definitions, unless you figure out how to make culture production that is not dominated by ruling class interests. I also find it hard to parse your post, all i can discern is that you say "blame women". So I'm going to tell you what i think is happening instead of replying to you directly.

I think the ruling class is seeking to gain control over the reproductive capacity of the female sex. Theoretically, effective bodily self-determination for prole women would make it theoretically possible for them to refuse to give birth to ruling class offspring. There are of course female ruling class members but they aren't numerous enough to reproduce the ruling class. And lets not forget that most "girl-boss"-capitalists don't want to take off time from profit-hunting to gestate their own spawn. They want to "offshore" that task to poor women in the role of surrogate-mother gestation-serfs. Which of course is utterly incompatible with effective bodily self-determination. Using financial desperation as a means to coerce others gets no exemption here. So expect bourgeois-feminism to become really sexist relatively soon.

It is of course very questionable how realistic, wiping out a ruling class via a class-conscious birth-strike, is. But it doesn't matter if they act against a real or imagined threat to their privileged class status, their actions are materially real in either case. If you look at the history of ruling classes nearly every single one seeks to create cultural hierarchies that impose "ruling-class womb-control", over lower class women. It begs an explanation for the lack of ruling classes that don't do this. Is there a forgotten past of wiped out ruling classes that got birth-striked out of existence ? or do all ruling classes just gravitate towards this praxis out of some compulsion ?

The problem that the ruling class faces is that womens-rights have been entrenched into the system for about half a century. They are looking for a way to make their roll-back of women's rights appear as a continuation of social progress. That's where the people with the T-identity serve as useful idiots. They can only try to mimic the appearance of women, but they can't do any of the reproductive stuff, that type of biological-alteration is impossible now and the foreseeable future. That means they are motivated to redefine "women" as an identity that excludes anything with reproduction. They will attack all women-rights that include reproductive-rights as being exclusionary to them, because any definition for a "women-identity" that includes reproduction means they can't fit. The ruling class will keep pressing people with T-identities willing to undermine women's-reproductive-rights upwards in cultural hierarchies until they have destroyed or sufficiently eroded effective bodily self-determination for prole-women. Once they have created the cultural context to make it possible to destroy the systemic protections for lower-class women, the People with the T-identities will have served their purpose and become a loose end that gets cut.

Culture production in capitalism is not homogeneous, there tend to be 2 different strains of capitalist cultures, one that seeks to convert women into property, that is purchased all at once and another that seeks to convert women into a service that is rented peacemeal. In case you want to shill for either of those, you'll just make me roll my eyes.
>>

 No.470824

>>470823
>I think the ruling class is seeking to gain control over the reproductive capacity of the female sex.
And why should I, as an incel, care?

I'd say let them take control over the reproductive capacity of society, so that we, the incels, can seize this control from them in case of a successful revolution.

I will not fight to protect a fucking female monopoly on reproduction.
>>

 No.470825

File: 1688743033173.jpeg ( 25.44 KB , 474x302 , you fucking retard.jpeg )

>>470823
>Theoretically, effective bodily self-determination for prole women would make it theoretically possible for them to refuse to give birth to ruling class offspring.
imagine unironically believing this lol

no wonder troons fucking own you feminoids

pussy IS THE MAIN mean of survival for a w*man

good luck with your "birth-strike" orbitoid lol
>>

 No.470826

>>470824
And why should I care?
You have an interest in self-determination of your body. The capitalists might not want to use you as a gestation pod, they might want to implant you with a control chip. You need allies to uphold the principles of body self-determination.

>female monopoly on reproduction.
Maybe it's possible in the long term future for a socialist society to build a gamete-bank (analogous to a sperm-bank) and combine that with an artificial womb to enable single parent men to have children on their own. However don't expect capitalists to build that for you. They'll do shit like scamming the military with vaporware promises of a soldier cloning facility and they'll do garden variety fertility investor scams. But don't expect them to pay for the 50-100 years of research necessary to figure out bio-synthesis of the ~ 10'000 compounds in umbilical-nutrients and amniotic-fluid as well as study the fetus development effects of all that biochemistry over an entire human life cycle. And on top of that develop artificial versions of all the other life-support systems like a liver and kidneys. When bullying prole women to hatch bourgeois crotch-fruit is so much cheaper.
>>

 No.470827

File: 1688754209717.jpg ( 223.87 KB , 1280x960 , 9chnigs.jpg )

>>470823
Good post wasted on closeted troon loving fags. They will never understand that the ruling class seeks to annihilate them through eugenics because in their mind and/or in reality they cannot relate to this segment of class struggle: they are already annihilated.
>>

 No.470829

>>470827
>They will never understand that the ruling class seeks to annihilate them through eugenics
you can't annihilate what has already been annihilated through eugenics by w*men, bluepill
>>

 No.470830

File: 1688766277493.gif ( 809.66 KB , 498x280 , music_anime_girl.gif )

>>470826
>You have an interest in self-determination of your body.
so what about transhumanist self-determination? w*men deny them their self-determination, no?

>The capitalists might not want to use you as a gestation pod, they might want to implant you with a control chip.
and w*men issues relevant to this how?

>You need allies to uphold the principles of body self-determination.
I agree. Only those allies are not w*men, but other men that want to become w*men.

>Maybe it's possible..
Not if w*men hold political power.
They're already freaking out about sex dolls, imagine their reaction to artificial wombs lol.

THEY KNOW that their reproductive function is the ONLY thing that gives them value. They would fight to the death against any attempts to break their reproductive monopoly. AND I CAN'T WAIT. CUZ THEY WILL FUCKING DIE.
>>

 No.470839

>>470822
Try actually addressing anything I said next time
>>470823
>I'm not willing to consider that you don't accept their definitions, unless you figure out how to make culture production that is not dominated by ruling class interests.
Again, my whole point was that the "performative theory of gender", which equates the very concepts of "male-ness" and "female-ness" with sexist stereotypes, is a feminist creation, do you deny this? The person I was responding to was trying to blame trans people for this nonsense, when trans people had generally rejected it until relatively recently when feminists succeeded in reframing the discourse about trans issues to conform to their ideology.
Additionally, the whole whole "nonbinary" thing and the notion of lesbians as "non-men" was the result of people taking this feminist ideological position to its logical conclusion- if you unironically try to define "female-ness" as "conforming to female stereotypes", then a woman who doesn't conform to said stereotypes is not "female" under this definition which is how you end up with the whole "nonbinary" silliness. But unlike actual trans people for whom it is a medical issue that has nothing to do with said stereotypes, the "nonbinary" stuff is purely rhetorical/ideological, and the people who adopt the label will continue to regard themselves according to their birth sex outside of this purely rhetorical context. Thus, you get cis women who adopt the "nonbinary" label but still want to be included within the "lesbian" label as well, and you end up with this whole "non-man" stuff- this is not something that actual trans people push for, as much as you want to blame them for it.
And yes, I absolutely reject their definition, as do the overwhelming majority of society outside of feminist circles. Feminism is a bourgeois ideology but all its pseudointellectual jargon and related nonsense thankfully has very little traction outside of academia and weirdo activist groups.
>all i can discern is that you say "blame women"
I blame feminists specifically for their own ideological positions, yes. I do not blame women as a whole any more than I blame zionism on "the Jews" or black nationalism on "the blacks", nor do I even consider such "identities" to be coherent collective groups in the first place.

>long-winded conspiracy nonsense that had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said
Setting aside the fact that your whole rant has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, its pants-on-head retarded in its own right.
>Theoretically, effective bodily self-determination for prole women would make it theoretically possible for them to refuse to give birth to ruling class offspring.
Its literally the exact opposite, members of the ruling class will overwhelmingly use birth control if they have sex with members of the working class, and in the event that doing so results in a pregnancy despite such efforts they will either attempt to pressure the mother into getting an abortion in the case of ruling class men or seek one for themselves in the case of ruling class women, even the ones who are vocally "pro-life". The aristocracy of the past were notoriously inbred specifically because they were expected NOT to fuck members of the lower classes.
>There are of course female ruling class members but they aren't numerous enough to reproduce the ruling class.
What if I told you… that roughly half of the ruling class are women? Are you so unhinged that you think ruling class families are magically more prone to having male children than female children, like they're some kind of pokemon?
>They will attack all women-rights that include reproductive-rights as being exclusionary to them, because any definition for a "women-identity" that includes reproduction means they can't fit.
How the fuck are trans people "attacking women's rights"? Literally the only context I've seen trans issues brought up in regards to reproductive rights are when the "nonbinary" cis women are trying to have their cake and eat it by insisting on the use of gender-neutral terms, and while its stupid and annoying (and as previously mentioned, the logical conclusion of the feminist definition of "gender"), those people are still very much pro-choice, hence their insistence on including themselves in the discussion in the first place.
Honestly trying to blame trans people for any loss of reproductive rights for women just seems like a huge cope for the fact that the fanatically anti-trans weirdos are eagerly aligning themselves with the same conservatives who are attacking women's rights in the first place. And even then, trying to frame the loss of abortion rights as some conspiracy by ruling class men is silly considering that working class women themselves are fairly evenly split in regards to their views on abortion- the real determining factor in a person's views on the matter is not "bodily autonomy" but whether or not one considers a fetus to be a functional human being. If anything, the anti-trans crowd are undermining their own "pro-bodily autonomy" claims by rabidly opposing the bodily autonomy of trans people.
>>

 No.470840

>>470839
>Try actually addressing anything I said next time
There is literally nobody with an "irrational fear of trans-things", you've made up a word to shield your weak ideology from criticism.
>>

 No.470841

>>470840
>There is literally nobody with an "irrational fear of trans-things"
I have no interest in this thread or the topic but that's a complete lie lol, sociopathic hatred for transhumanists has entered fucking parody levels these days, and not just on imageboards. Also I always hate this pedantic shit, you know people mean you just hate transhumanists but you're using the same logic rightoids use to stop you from using words like racist or nazis.
>>

 No.470843

File: 1688789412883.png ( 8.79 KB , 960x900 , 1688789292359.png )

>>470841
>no interest
good then fuck off troon
people are getting wise to your retarded idealism. >I-I'm a woman because… well… I just feel like one okay!
inb4 I made a new word therefore it's a real thing
sorry troon playing around with the definition of "gender" can't change your chromosomes
>>

 No.470847

>>470841
>>470841
>sociopathic hatred for
Not even remotely the same thing as "irrational fear of" something. You understand that hatred and fear are completely different emotions and psychological states, right?

>I always hate this pedantic shit, you know people mean you just hate transhumanists
Then why don't you say what you mean? I think PMC/academic types use this kind of obfuscatory language on this subject because it makes it more difficult to debate against their position.
>>

 No.470869

>>470843
troon face never worked considering there's like 50 different /pol/ shooters
>>

 No.470985

>>470041
I'm trans, and Idk what to tell you I'm never gonna detransition, a lot of transphobia on the thread. I like Cockshott but I will never forget his incredibly wrong take that we are credit card fraudsters, he's a man who can be wrong.
>>

 No.470987

Some people in this thread don't seem to understand what the identitarian discourse is.
In the neo-liberal political superstructure the act of self-identifying with an identity-commodity is a act of subordination to the system.
It's the proclamation of intent to engage in class-collaboration.

The original meaning of progress in social relations was about freeing people from these mental boxes. The act of re-asserting these boxes is deeply reactionary.
>>

 No.470990

File: 1689308245989.png ( 1.14 MB , 1440x1080 , derp.png )

the more i learn, the more i become convinced that there is very little historical basis for these many label "queer" identity issues among successful socialist movements, past and present. any site i go it seems like it's associated with western liberalism.
so how the hell did it become a mandatory factor in western socialist movements?
>>

 No.471052

>>470990
Socialism in any form we would have wanted was defeated. This is one of the marks of defeat. Socialism must be associated with derisive laughter and perversion.

The shitheads who advance that talking point are fully aware of what they are doing. If they are in the know, they hint on the sly that you're not actually supposed to believe in any of the queer shit, and it's all a cover for their typical corruption. If you're out of the know, you're a fool to be used and abused then tossed aside. The shit becomes addictive after a while.

>>470839
Feminism is entirely liberal in purpose - hence the name. It's an imperial trope.
The historical oppression of women is hardly what it is made out to be. Difficult to give a shit about the right to have a credit card if you're a proletarian, and female workers always had to work. Usually the fate of a proletarian family was for the man, woman, and children to all work for the same capitalist.
>>

 No.471053

>>471052
The reason for giving women the vote was specifically to reduce the voting strength of socialist-adjacent parties, since unmarried poor men have nothing to lose, and proletarian women were fewer in number. It existed to shore up the bourgeois family's rights to defend what would become the eugenic dictatorship, for the eugenic interest, by those who won the great game. The losers of the great game were to be weakened politically and turned against each other, since now the valid could basically double their votes.
>>

 No.471054

>>471053
Also racism - so many of the feminists abhorred the idea that black men would get a vote while they did not, and often supported womens' suffrage for explicitly racist causes. That's what Margaret Sanger is for sure.
>>

 No.471102

On the final dissolution of the gender question

The "gender" identity was culturally memed into existence by the upper classes in the pursuit of getting as much slave labor to extract profits from as possible, & the class societies that didn't do that, unsurprisingly, haven't outlived the competition with other class societies that did.
It is always preferable to have MORE jackboots to steal from other societies, & to protect your private property @ the same time, MORE working slaves to exploit their work for more surplus product, &, specifically, MORE living birthpods ‒ the so-called "women" ‒ to get as much reproductivity of your social system as possible, so you will have even more socio-cultural-politeconomical power over your competitors.

So, basically, "gender" exists to force people into behaving the way it is preferable for their masters, like:
<‒ Oh, bro, you've got a cunt? Noice! This means you should behave like a-a… u-u-uh-h… um-m-m… uhhhhhhhhhhh-A! A "woman"! So: *there goes the list of "you WILL be %doing_this/behaving_like_that/or_you_re_the_socially_dangerous_weirdo_for_not_conforming_to_MUH_social_ordnung%"*
Same shit goes for "men" (who are literally the same fucking "women" but with somewhat modified bodies LMAO): it is expected that you will behave the way you are meant by them to, or you will get all kinds & sorts of ostracisation for your nonconformity to this society's leading class's rules & laws.
So, again, this "gender" thing is literally fucking eugenics but with sex instead of ethnicity ‒ it's all about dividing humanity into different sorts for different, predefined purposes, so that this class-based production machine-system will get even more efficient than it already was.
It is not @ all surprising that in many, many societies not touched by le syphilisation (= a society of class-based operation) people with middle sex were/are regarded as saints/god(dess/s)-gifted/touched individuals who are closer to how humans meant to be, & only in privatepropertieddotcom shitholes was this considered as some kind of an offense against "le naycha", which specifically operates on the "do everything in all ways possible disregarding any future outcomes, eternally", LMAO. Upside-down society idealistically presents the reality as wrong, what a fucking bloody joke!

The message of revolt is simple: stop giving them, the rulers, new meat to send to distant wars, to exploit locally, & to reproduce this mess of a "society" they exist to maintain. They don't even provide you with adequate amounts of resources (time included) for that! Leave this stupid game where you are always indebted before the admins!

Besides, with implementing of socialism, it is expected to get LOWER birthrates worldwide since people will have a TON of things to do & experience than fullfilling their "duty" of creating shitty retarded psychologically raped meat as a replacement for them, especially considering that this global concentration camp's mindraped population is totally unsuitable for parenting of any kind, as the historically unprecedented tide of youth's mental traumas & suicide shows us.


>>470509
>Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation
Implying we just need to put a restraint on the amount of elites so that this social ordnung of "spiritual cooperation" will finally cement itself onto human society forever & ever, ending all crises of this system & denying the gawddang revolutionary commiefashies any chance @ stirring any kind of upheaval against it. Hello, India on global scale with its' utterly fucked social stratification where people are feudally assigned their rights, activity limitations & entire destinies by birth. Praise the socio-politeconomical order, humanity be damned!

>make your claims falsifiable
Maintainers & theologists of the present global neo-fascist status quo ‒ the Popperite brainrots ‒ get the wall without any right to be heard.

>.com(mercial)
Bro, your social credit called…


>>470512
s*alin wasn't a part of le clergy. He did attend the church school but that was a common thing because that way, his beloved Great_Russian gubbermint could keep in check the kind of knowledge its' population is receiving, with the help of the good old church institution that was specifically chosen for the job since the times of the r*man empire. & even then, he was a dropout, & a mafioso 1 @ that LMAO.
>>

 No.471139

>>471102
>It is not @ all surprising that in many, many societies not touched by le syphilisation (= a society of class-based operation) people with middle sex were/are regarded as saints/god(dess/s)-gifted/touched individuals who are closer to how humans meant to be, & only in privatepropertieddotcom shitholes was this considered as some kind of an offense against "le naycha", which specifically operates on the "do everything in all ways possible disregarding any future outcomes, eternally", LMAO. Upside-down society idealistically presents the reality as wrong, what a fucking bloody joke!

This has a few problems, the concepts of gods and saints only arose in class societies. So called "primitive" societies do believe in all sorts of supernatural superstitions too but those usually are more along the lines of nature spirits, not supernatural superiors ontop of human-hierarchies.

Also sexual dimorphism tends to be slightly higher in societies with less class stratification. It's not a lot, so it's a bit irrelevant, but your theory of
<more androgynous = more socialister
that's not actually true. Intersex or what you called middle sex is often infertile, so at least from an evolutionary perspective that's not the optimal form for humans.

I've seen this line of reasoning before that seeks to demonize sexual-dimorphism and lionize androgyny, and i don't get it. The "Socialist subject" doesn't have body-shape requirements. The "Socialist subject" only needs a class conscious brain.
>>

 No.471142

>>471102
>He did attend the church school
He attended seminary. By finishing which you were basically set as a priest.

>even then, he was a dropout, & a mafioso 1 @ that
It's not clear if he actually finished or not. Because Stalin cleaned documented evidence of his past life. Kotkin for example thinks he actually graduated. Anyway, he either finished or he literally didn't show up for his graduation exam lol. Take your pick.

There is the same uncertainty of him being a "mafioso" - the whole "bank robber" story may just have been invented. He worked at fucking Tbilisi observatory after graduating/dropping out lol.
>>

 No.471144

>>471052
>The shitheads who advance that talking point are fully aware of what they are doing. If they are in the know, they hint on the sly that you're not actually supposed to believe in any of the queer shit, and it's all a cover for their typical corruption. If you're out of the know, you're a fool to be used and abused then tossed aside.
i've thought this for a while, but there's no more than a few handful of people are "in the know." every time i think "there's no way most people can really believe this?", the further left you look for the more genuine it seems to be. it's like useful idiots convincing other useful idiots.
>>

 No.471149

>>471144
There are enough in the know or at various levels of knowing. Many of them just want the degeneracy and faggotry and make their excuses, because sex became political and ideological. If not for that, homosexuality and anything related would be viewed very differently and wouldn't be essentialized. It was historically understood as moral failure and the failure of a man (and it was always against the men, women could do whatever they wanted).

It's a really elaborate game, in which you're supposed to get the secret password to really join. If you're out of the loop, you will never get to know. There are just a lot of people, especially on the left, who know nothing about anything - and that's the point, to turn the left into the reject home, which just emphasizes how far removed from relevance they are. That's one reason the queershit is promoted.

It requires only a few influencers to push social engineering, if you know what buttons to press to make others go along with it. The dominance of institutions and invasion of private life made that inescapable. So much of this is premised on an inability to call faggotry what it is, and the ideological and biopolitical hangups around it. There is a similar game played outside of the left. Fascists are dripping with faggotry and sexualism, and it's inherent to their ideology. For communism, sexpol is highly alien, because reasonable see correctly that it is anathema to anything good they would want. But, that's what won out in the end.
CIA was able to convince a lot of young people to get into drugs with just a few influencers and their strangehold on the institutions. After the fact, the true history of the 1960s was rewritten to remove the last embers of democratic struggle in that time, which were from the start doomed to failure. If you asked people at the time, the drug culture of the 1960s was an abomination and they knew full well that it was pushed by the empire and oligarchy, but just as when the Nazis rose, you were not allowed to say no. It's all so Germanic.
>>

 No.471150

>>471144
With the left as a whole, it's so bought out that the left has basically no one leading it that isn't completely in the ruling class club. If you aren't in the club, you will be marginalized and silenced, and it is easy for influencers to jump in front. They did it here effortlessly and that's why Grayzone rewrote the history of the 2000s and made us believe that was the normal. I remember the 2000s well and basically no one thought Bush was a good leader. The conservatives at the time always justified the war with the idea that they were going to be vastly rich if they just took Saddam's oil, and it was a spurious claim, but they knew to go along with Hitlerism because that is what they are and that is their god.
>>

 No.471151

>>471150
>I remember the 2000s well and basically no one thought Bush was a good leader. The conservatives at the time always justified the war with the idea that they were going to be vastly rich if they just took Saddam's oil, and it was a spurious claim, but they knew to go along with Hitlerism because that is what they are and that is their god.
I remember people believing in the war, and thinking muslims might actually take over and implement jihad or whatever. but they were usually religious nutjobs, with those and actual military people supporting the war. To say that no one actually believed in it wasn't really true.
>>

 No.471152

>>471151
They were paid a lot of money to shill in the churches, and being good Nazis they knew to march when the neocons did their Nazi impression. No one actually believed there was a good reason to be there, and the rulers wanted you to know that America was being run into the ground. They let you know that and know that you couldn't do anything about it. There was no effort to sell the war to the people because the people were no longer relevant to anything that happened, even to the small extent they ever were.

I remember plenty of small-town churchgoers say the war was bullshit, and they heard from soldiers sent there that nothing about the war was real. It was all run by specops and CIA assholes to build torture facilities, and they let you know about the torture. They advertised it on television. It was so over-the-top that it made it clear this was a fascist country now.

It is a necessity of the fake left to believe nothing ever changes until their thought leaders have declared it so, and it only changes as needed. That is why the left is arrested in time, always religating the past. Anyone operating in the 21st century is purged and silenced. So eugenics marches on…
>>

 No.471153

>>471151
You can find a small portion of people who are always amenable to war and fascism, because that is their god and natural proclivity. Bush was banking heavily on them to make people go along with what he was doing, and by 2008 that failed. Both the war and the president had basically no approval with the people, seeing as the bottom fell out of the country so that Bush can try and make the millenarian prophecy xome true. There were a few at the time saying Bush was a maniac, and these were basically the old liberal order types.
>>

 No.471154

The fake left needs to believe in the story that they were the only anti-war voice and "knew the truth", and then jump in front with the same boilerplate stories that don't actually tell anything. It's all an op to keep the left retarded, because the left is politically irrelevant now. All that is necessary is to keep the retards in their pens while they're killed off, and that is what is happening now.

It's really sickening how the people lined up to be killed by eugenics are often those who internalize the Satanic religion the most.
>>

 No.471159

>>471154
still don't really believe that everyone was on it, but i guess that's really hard to even prove. i would have mostly seen true believers at the time but i also grew up in a sheltered environment. although, i've even seen true believers of the ukraine narrative.

>It is a necessity of the fake left to believe nothing ever changes until their thought leaders have declared it so, and it only changes as needed. That is why the left is arrested in time, always religating the past. Anyone operating in the 21st century is purged and silenced. So eugenics marches on…
agree with this though.
>>

 No.471162

>>471159
The propaganda works well on those who were children or young teens at the time of the Iraq War. Those old enough to fight in it knew it was bullshit. Literally no one bought the "we were in danger" story, and you were allowed to say Bush's story was full of shit. It was encouraged.
Why was that? Because mass support didn't matter, and the sense that democracy didn't matter was more valuable than any popular support for the present war. Fear and terror created an impression worth more for them than love.

Unique IPs: 35
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome