• 45 Posts
Joined hace un año
Cake day: feb. 28, 2021


It’s tied with China’s Belt and Road Forum or “BaRF” among the world’s silly acronyms.

Yeah, this is basically it. Women are performing better in school but on average still get lower paying jobs after schooling because patriarchy instills a sense of doing work ‘for the sake of it’ in women. Men do school in order to be “better providers”, but if that traditional structure breaks down, they become lost and confused.

What we need is to take gender less seriously, for one. And two, we need more dignity in “less desirable” jobs. A fast food worker doesn’t work less hard than a lab tech. But rather than deflate the lab tech, the fast food worker should be raised up and equalized and given a career.

The UK is part of AUKUS, which is a cultural/military (read “white supremacist”) alliance between the US, UK, and AUS. It seems that the US considers the UK one of its closest allies and will continue to strengthen that bond as it doesn’t take nonwhite allies seriously (like India) or abuses its non-anglo allies (basically Western Europe). There is an expanded version of this called AUSCANNZUKUS which includes Canada and New Zealand. All of these countries could be considered part of the new “Imperial Core” centered around the US.

My take is that, as the US loses power projection and allies, it will double down on these anglo alliances based on ‘shared heritage’ and tie them to the sinking ship. Some might break off and survive as regional powers, but for now they exist to funnel money into the American project. I think after the European Union suffers enough abuse from conflicts with Russia, they will start to notice they’re not part of the ‘elite’ AUKUS club and will start to call for cultural/political independence from the US (“hey, what are all these yankee military bases doing here, anyway?” they’ll say as America’s military budget deflates). But given how their economies are tied, it will become something more like a client state where they begrudgingly depend on the US/UK for energy and AUS for mineral resources, esp as their neocolonies increase trade with China. When the memory of the Ukraine War starts fading, they’ll probably start buying Russian gas again, minus their American contracts.

The UK itself, though, seems to be extremely interlinked with the American economy and political sphere that it seems like they would necessarily follow the same path of America’s ups and downs. So many British Bourgeoisie are tied up in American companies and so many British politicians are influenced by US-Funded think tanks that it feels like almost an honorary US State at this point. Brexit will continue to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, so it will definitely feel like the country is collapsing before it actually does. But before that happens there will be that “sublime moment in history” where the British and American 1% have funneled more wealth upward than ever before, and they will say the economy is working exactly as intended. We can see this sort of thing happening already.

If you don’t want to edit the OP much, you can just put ``` at the beginning and end of the content and it will convert to a raw text format.

Like This


The most ‘sustainable’ thing is to go thrifting, but those places are often owned by greedy corporations anyway. 😔

Since this is still trending, I’ll ask you all for a small donation of $27 to read the Gender Accelerationist Manifesto

Oh, I know, I was just so taken aback my brain broke, lol.

I think it’s a Sears catalog self-build, which were surprisingly common. I’ve seen some irl, but yeah, there are duplexes that look kinda like that.

Hating Africans and black people because…well that’s just normal.

And Latinos are still “illegal foreigners” to a lot of people, even if they’ve been here for generations.

Oh wait, I did already know about this. There’s so much fuckshit it’s hard to keep track.

BRICS is a bit outdated 20th century terminology. The new Anti-NATO is the SCO

Oh yay, more coolzone!

I think it’s fun that all the “cool” lib brands are the ones getting called out. Really breaks the sanitized perception of them. Now we gotta get the dirty jobs too, because they always try to stay unknown.

White People: "I'm not racist, I respect everybody!" Also white people:
> My neighborhood is about 30% black, 30% white, and 30% latino. It gives my white neighbors daily opportunities to demonstrate whether they learned anything from putting BLM signs in their yards in 2020, or if they still have 911 on speed dial and universally white social circles. > > At least once a month, somebody makes a gross show of posting security video of a “suspicious” black kid walking through an alley in a neighborhood “safety” Facebook group, or posting complaints about fireworks a couple doors down instead of just talking to their neighbors. > > This is well studied in places that are getting whiter, where transplants police the lives of those who came before them. Here it’s a little different - the white population has been declining for decades. But the dynamics are quite the same, especially where intent meets action. > > White people who move here often think of themselves as anti-racist. They’ve self-selected to live in a diverse neighborhood, in a part of the city that won’t cater to their whiteness anytime soon. But many of them don’t turn progressive self-conception into anything concrete. > > So you get a concentration of a certain type of white newcomer who admires the work of many black and latino artists, donates money to POC-led organizations, and has all the aesthetics of anti-racism, but still fails to even know the names of their nonwhite neighbors. > > And when something disturbs their peace, like somebody’s uncle waiting on a nearby porch step until family arrives or kids hanging out in the street, they still have such a mental remove from nonwhite people that field all their internal inquiries through calls to the cops. > > The most painful part, frequently, is when a black or latino neighbor feels the need to reply to a scared white person’s post in a Facebook group explaining that the blurry security footage of “a man casing my house” is their 14-year-old son delivering the neighborhood newspaper. > > And again, these are people who “believe the right things”. Who understand prejudice intellectually. So they’ll apologize, and they’ll mean it. But then weeks later they’ll be back at it with a new perceived threat. All because they don’t truly know their nonwhite neighbors.


A Queer/Intersectional Theory for Tankies
# The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto [[Español]]( [[Download]]( I expect this to be a bit controversial. I actually went into this article a bit skeptical of its scope. Intersectional feminism is already pretty heavily written about. But what our authors have done is figure out how to remove the liberalism. In removing liberalism, however, what remains is a proposition far more radical than most people would have ever conceived. We're going to take the *"abolish gender"* slogan seriously at face value, because doing so is the only way to alleviate the contradictions of gender norms under capitalism. Some choice quotes: > Material relations are relations of production. That is, they are the way we relate to the various ways we labor and produce things. All of society is based upon these relations of production and they produce all of our social systems. Gender is no different. > > So where does gender’s material base lie? Gender is produced primarily by the division of reproductive labor. Reproductive labor is any labor that helps to produce the next generation, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, and gender is defined by how this labor is divided up, with the different genders being distinct classes which are expected to perform specific sorts of tasks regarding reproductive labor. > Gender is the earliest class systems and, as a result, it precedes the state, even in its earliest most basic form. This means that, unlike capitalism, race, neuronormativity, and the various other class systems, the state is not the primary means by which gender is imposed upon people. This isn’t to say that the state doesn’t impose gender, but it is supplementary, not primary. By the time states were cropping up, gender had already solidified itself and become quite adept at imposing itself upon others. > As has been referenced previously, gender is a system of class, and is one defined by the domination of manhood over society. This is why another name for the gender class system is patriarchy. Gender as a social system is patriarchy and patriarchy is the social class system of gender. Within this class system, we find three distinct classes, two accepted and one subversive. > This class dynamic of man over woman is the principal dynamic of patriarchy, but they do not comprise the only two classes. Instead, we find that some people relate to reproductive labor differently than how it’s imposed upon the population. This is especially the case with regards to sex, when someone engages in sexual relations that do not fit with the dynamics imposed by patriarchy. This includes people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender (gay/lesbian people), of multiple genders (bisexual/pansexual people), or no gender (asexual people). In addition, people whose gender is different from the one patriarchy assigns to them can’t be classed as neatly as people who accept the assignment by gender. While they might be personally men or women, they aren’t treated by society in quite the same way so they comprise a distinct social class. Characteristic to this is the detachment of sex and romance from reproducing the next generation. While it’s still possible for all of these groups to reproduce the next generation, it is no longer a necessary part of sex and romance. > > Since this third class is defined by it’s difference from those of the first two classes, it is named queer. Queer people are all those who relate differently to the division of reproductive labor assigned to them by patriarchy. Because of the different relations, queer people are inherently subversive to the class system as a whole and constitute the revolutionary class under patriarchy. > Class, class, class. We are dominated and controlled. Sorted and divided. But where do we factor into all this? People see class like this as merely imposed, but that fails to account for the ways we actually interact with it. It isn’t simply imposed upon us. We are active participants within it, we perform it. > This is hardly done freely. The violence of the system is inherent and systemic. We perform these acts surrounded by the violence of gender. But we still perform them. Gender isn’t content with forcing itself upon us. Instead, it forces us to say “yes” to it. > > This serves as a method of control and reproduction. Gender isn’t inherent, but it spreads by assigning us to a class and forcing us to say yes to that class. “Yes, I am a man. It is who I am and who I always have been. I cannot escape it or deny it. I am a man.” This is nothing but a lie we are forced to repeat. But by repeating it enough, we come to believe it. Gender becomes natural, inescapable, eternal. It ceases to be an imposed identity and becomes an eternal part of who we are. By objecting to my gender, you are objecting to that which is inherently me. > > Here lies one of gender’s greatest defense mechanisms: Ourselves. We insist upon it and reject those who turn away from it. It becomes an unholy act for those who turn from the path. Indeed, it seems to us as if there’s no other option. We say yes because that’s all we can say. It is made inconceivable that it could be any other way.

Gorbachev Feels His Life's Work Being Destroyed by Putin, Close Friend Says
Looks like liberalism Out-Pizza'd the Hut. You could say Dem policies Succ'd. With America's tendency for inflation, it's surprising he thought NATO would keep those numbers down. He's really Lenin in to his ignorance of history. The war seems to really be Putin the fall of the USSR into perspective. Okay I'm done being cringe.

China's space telescope, with view field 350 times larger than Hubble's, to be operational in 2024
US: Announces replacement for aging Hubble in 1996. Fails first project and downsizes in 2002. Spends 20 years pushing the project back 2-3 years. Finally launches in 2021. China: Announces project in 2016, with launch planned for 2021. Setback to 2023-24. 8 years.

One in five US adults condone ‘justified’ political violence, mega-survey finds

The LEFFFFFFFFFFFT can't help itself when that juicy carrot of factionalism hangs in front of them.

[In case you don't get it](

This was so good I had to make it into a full post.

Neo-feudalism is Idealist: We are Witnessing the Re-proletarianization of the Labor Aristocracy Under Neocolonial Fascist Rule — Hexbear
The link is just a CTH/Hexbear post without citations, but it pretty well explains something that's been rolling around in my brain the past few days. I think the patsoc obsession with pandering to conservatives and the anarchist obsession with pandering to liberals are both fundamentally flawed for the same reason: they divide the proletariat into aesthetic/ideological camps rather than attempt to assess them based on class indicators. Who is more likely to abandon their principles during a strike? Liberals or conservatives? Right away, you can see how this thought process breaks down. Liberals and conservatives have both unionized, historically and in the present day. Both ideologies have pro union and anti union elements. Both ideologies have organized reactionary protest movements and strikes. The question we should be asking instead is: who has more to lose if a union strike is drawn out or starts to go south? Who is more likely to scab? People with more wealth and larger paychecks or people with very little wealth and smaller paychecks? Who is more likely to empathize with a fellow proletarian and who is more likely to simp for bourgoise influencers? A. A computer engineer with a comfortable lifestyle, and few at-home struggles \ B. A programmer doing grunt work for the engineer on a temp assignment Take another example: Who is more likely to fight harder for abortion rights? A. Someone who can afford medical tourism \ B. Someone who can't afford medical tourism Material conditions are key. FDR's reforms took some of the wind out of the sails of American socialist movements. India has recently been investing in infrastructure and schooling in Naxalite regions with some success. All the 'socialist' nordic countries are in the cultural sphere of the former USSR for a reason. We cannot allow ourselves to get distracted by the illusions put in place by liberalism. When asking whether a potential comrade will be radicalizable, we should not be focusing on their favorite neolib team, including radlib anarchists. We should instead focus on their actual material place in society: Are they wealthy? What's their financial situation compared to their family's/their childhood? Are they subject to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc and are they excluded from resources and wealth due to said bigotry? Is it normalized for people of their race/ethnicity to be racist to others? Are their finances tied up in investment capital or digital assets? Have they experienced food insecurity or homelessness? Do they work more than one job or side gig? Do they struggle to provide for their children? Do their finances affect their ability to form relationships or start a family? Do they have mental health issues and can they afford to treat them? In essence, I think whether a person is radicalizable actually has very little to do with politics and everything to do with their intersectional position in society.

Not OC, art was originally from Owlturd comics.

Reactionary gender norms hurt men too. Supporting queer rights supports everyone. Thread:


> What is the purpose of saying that? do you actually believe that or you’re just baiting? > it is a 100 percent serious belief I hold in complete and absolute sincerity and it is also objectively and factually correct > Foster and Bittleman see nothing reprehensible in declaring themselves "Stalinites" and thereby demonstrating their loyalty to the C.P.S.U. But, my dear comrades, that is disgraceful. Do you not know that there are no "Stalinites," that there must be no "Stalinites"? > True bolshevik courage does not consist in placing one's individual will above the will of the collective, above the will of the Comintern. True courage consists in being strong enough to master and overcome one's self and subordinate one's will to the will of the collective, the will of the higher Party body. Without that there is no collective. Without that there is not, and cannot be, any collective leadership.