3
lTentacleMonsterl 3 points ago +3 / -0

Imposing western, liberal heresies, on non-western countries, people, and artists in effort to exert control over them and what they can and can't draw, is a perfect example of cultural imperialism and is far more vile than whatever one finds heretical.

23
lTentacleMonsterl 23 points ago +23 / -0

The government of France has directed schools across the country to stop using ‘gender-neutral’ spelling of words, saying the practise threatens the existence of the French language. The ruling, according to a news website, was issued last week by the country’s education ministry which aims to put an end to the use of midpoints that include both feminine and masculine endings to words.

Academie Francaise also known as the French Academy, which is entrusted for the preservation and promotion of the language, also said that the gender-inclusive words are “harmful" to the practice and understanding of the French language. In French, nouns, pronouns and adjectives reflect the gender of the word. For example, the French word ‘dirigeants’ means ‘leaders’, but has a masculine tone to the word. So, gender-inclusive activists and speakers advocated for putting an ‘e’ - symbolising femininity - before the end of the word and a midpoint, to make the word gender-neutral. So, ‘dirigeant•es’ would mean that men and women both can be leaders.

5
lTentacleMonsterl 5 points ago +5 / -0

To start with, we need to define racism - which is a bit difficult, seeing as the word’s definition has been in a fluid state for the past decade or so.

Since it originated, in fact. Language is malleable, and power influences it quite a bit.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2010, the definition of racism comes from 1933 and is as follows:

Not really, no. This covers it sufficiently:

Racism as a term has its origins in France, 1890. It was created by Gaston Mery, intended as a positive characterization of those genuinely French. For example, he argued back in 1897 that: “It is truly time, in popular meetings, that truly French — truly racist — voices oppose their eloquence to the rhetoric of internationalist boastings.”

Meanwhile, the first recorded negative use was by Richard Henry Pratt in 1902, who argued against segregation of Indian nations and in favor of their forcible assimilation — abandonment of their culture, language, and compulsory Christianization. In the following decades use of the term was sparse and varied; Henri Lichtenberger and Edmond Vermeil used the term in their books in 1920s, in attempt to translate German word volkisch into French; in 1930 Leon Trotsky used the term to denounce “Slavophiles,” traditionalist Slavs who valued and wanted to preserve their native culture; during the 1930s it was also used to denounce National Socialist racial doctrines, while some Italian fascists employed the term in a positive way, comparative to the use of the term by Gaston Mery.

Despite such occasional use of the term it wasn’t until early 1940s that it began spreading, something Magnus Hisrchfeld and his book “Racism” are often credited for, in particular the translation of his book in 1938 which came several years after his death.

Anyway.

This is the correct definition of racism, and the one we will therefore be using.

The "correct" definition of racism is as a heresy against liberalism. While terms might originate from few people and spread outwards, entering common use, what a term is about is down to its function and purpose, regardless of what those using it say. And the purpose of "racism" is as a form of heresy against liberalism and its ideals.

we should reject that definition based on it’s ideologically biased meaning

All definitions of racism are "ideologically biased," as racism itself as a concept is ideologically biased; in fact, it's not a thing.

Again, her response does not indicate what “political blackness” is beyond that an individual’s immutable characteristic of black skin pigmentation does necessitate being politically black and that there are entire courses on black politics.

Race is more than skin color.

It is a fundamentally racist argument

No such thing,

and to hope you didn’t notice that her argument in itself is racist to the core.

This is actually a good example of function and purpose of racism vs definition of racism. The latter is largely irrelevant, but its use - such as here - demonstrates its function; it's an attempt to conjure stigma associated with it, and thus the power behind it granted to it by society (or better said those at the top, while enforced by segments of society who were raised by the system) in effort to harm one's opponents. The entire article consists of an attempt to brand people you dislike as heretical... and heretical to what? Well, as you've said it yourself, their arguments are "racist to the core" - so we might as well assume that you find them heretical against liberalism and its ideals. Which is hardly different from them really, radical liberalism is still liberalism.

While the article is decent and obviously more than a bit of thought and research was put it into it, it's weak; for someone attempting to deconstruct their arguments you at the same time just gloss over the entire concept you're utilizing and baselessly assert that a "correct definition" of racism is a thing, without even questioning the concept of racism itself.

This should be decent enough to address the point:

Built on the notion of race as a biological myth but a social truth, of individuals as free, independent, and inherently equal to one another, with things that make the individual in the first place relegated to irrelevance, as mere accidents or circumstances of birth, discrimination (and thus racism) amount to ideological conflicts with nature made abstractual; demonized, pathologized, then reified as facts. Racism and discrimination are thus better understood as manifestations of heresy towards liberal (and leftist) doctrines and ideals, but also as villains within those ideologies, and fundamental tools.

The main purposes of racism within our society are power and control. On an individual level, accusing someone of racism serves to lower their social status; to win the argument against them; to deflect from the subject/stop the conversation; to exert control over them, their behavior, or thoughts; and most often, to vilify in them in an attempt to justify harassment, abuse, doxing, and threats against them. Often that leads to attempts to get them fired, bring them to the point of attempting suicide, physically harm them, and in many western countries it may even led to them being arrested for it.

Punishment of heretics, whether through actions of individuals and thus abuse, harassment, doxing, threats, or through actions of corporations and thus firing, or state and thus imprisonment, serve to make people conform to those very ideologies and ideals. Faced with the threat of destructive power of such actions, to their safety, well-being and livelihoods, individuals have little choice but to conform. Even worse, they internalize heresies dominant in our society and self-police themselves, their own actions and thoughts, becoming “their own overseer, each individual thus exercising surveillance over, and against themself.”

https://scarletnight.medium.com/the-case-against-racism-25ae8435f47f

15
lTentacleMonsterl 15 points ago +15 / -0

First it was the woke CIA ad, now it is a super-woke woke animated army recruitment ad featuring a lesbian wedding, an LGBT rights parade and women "shattering stereotypes" by joining the world's largest killing machine.

14
lTentacleMonsterl 14 points ago +22 / -8

Reminds me:

GloboCap is not insane, however. They know exactly what they are doing … which is teaching us a lesson, a lesson about power. A lesson about who has it and who doesn’t. For students of history it’s a familiar lesson, a standard in the repertoire of empires, not to mention the repertoire of penal institutions.

The name of the lesson is “Look What We Can Do to You Any Time We Fucking Want.” The point of the lesson is self-explanatory. The USA taught the world this lesson when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. GloboCap (and the US military) taught it again when they invaded Iraq and destabilized the entire Greater Middle East. It is regularly taught in penitentiaries when the prisoners start to get a little too unruly and remember that they outnumber the guards. That’s where the “lockdown” concept originated. It isn’t medical terminology. It is penal institution terminology.

As we have been experiencing throughout 2020, the global capitalist ruling classes have no qualms about teaching us this lesson. It’s just that they would rather not to have to unless it’s absolutely necessary. They would prefer that we believe we are living in “democracies,” governed by the “rule of law,” where everyone is “free,” and so on. It’s much more efficient and much less dangerous than having to repeatedly remind us that they can take away our “democratic rights” in a heartbeat, unleash armed goon squads to enforce their edicts, and otherwise control us with sheer brute force.

Others, who see it, can’t quite accept the simplicity of it (i.e., the lesson being taught), so they are proposing assorted complicated theories about what it is and who is behind it … the Great Reset, China, the Illuminati, Transhumanism, Satanism, Communism, whatever. Some of these theories are at least partially accurate. Others are utter bull-goose lunacy.

They all obscure the basic point of the lesson.

The point of the lesson is that GloboCap — the entire global-capitalist system acting as a single global entity — can, virtually any time it wants, suspend the Simulation of Democracy, and crack down on us with despotic force. It can (a) declare a “global pandemic” or some other type of “global emergency,” (b) cancel our so-called “rights,” (c) have the corporate media bombard us with lies and propaganda for months, (d) have the Internet companies censor any and all forms of dissent and evidence challenging said propaganda, (e) implement all kinds of new intrusive “safety” and “security” measures, including but not limited to the physical violation of our bodies … and so on. I think you get the picture.

https://consentfactory.org/2020/12/16/year-zero/

6
lTentacleMonsterl 6 points ago +6 / -0

Calling the catalyst of all this a "real estate dispute" is a particularly noxious way to diminish what's actually occurring: Nahalat Shimon, a U.S.-based settler organization, is trying to have Palestinians who have lived in the neighborhood since 1956 evicted. Once they are evicted, the property — occupied by Israel along with the rest of east Jerusalem since 1967 — would then be turned over to Jewish settlers under Israeli law. The six families who have been fighting to keep their homes since 1982 would get nothing to ease their displacement.

Speaking of it, though, I came across this on Twitter... it's not sarcasm:

Tel Aviv. The queer, feminist, egalitarian capital of the Middle East. Yes, Hamas is firing rockets at it because it’s filled with Jews. But also because it stands as a beacon for human freedom.

Jihad will never win against these impenetrable values.

https://twitter.com/blakeflayton/status/1392181069210918913

9
lTentacleMonsterl 9 points ago +9 / -0

Why would they care? Radical liberalism is better than different forms of liberalism as it serves to enact conformity; making workers anxious and afraid to dissent is a good thing for those at the top.

18
lTentacleMonsterl 18 points ago +18 / -0

Nothing says marxism like doing everything the capitalist ruling class wants you to.

2
lTentacleMonsterl 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's merely representation of what radical liberalism is about; victimary politics coupled with hyper individualism where any recognition that men and women are different is basically heretical.

0
lTentacleMonsterl 0 points ago +1 / -1

marxism (apparently fine with you if not woke)

Anyone who's opposed to the system is definitely fine with me.

Ahhh i get it you are a CCP wumao

Just about the type of intelligent retort I'd expect from rw libs.

1
lTentacleMonsterl 1 point ago +2 / -1

Sure, take an one way trip to Libya and get a master, I'm sure you'll fetch them a few hundreds $ at the slave markets Obama caused. Go on, off you go.

-1
lTentacleMonsterl -1 points ago +2 / -3

I don't believe there's much truth to it, but if I did my views would likely remain unchanged. Grayzone did a good job covering a lot of it, including where such narratives come from. For example:

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

Here's one of the studies on which claims re: Uighurs come from:

The first, by the US government-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, formed its estimate by interviewing a grand total of eight people.

And another:

Zenz arrived at his estimate “over 1 million” in a dubious manner. He based it on a single report by Istiqlal TV, a Uyghur exile media organization based in Turkey, which was republished by Newsweek Japan. Far from an impartial journalistic organization, Istiqlal TV advances the separatist cause while playing host to an assortment of extremist figures.

Zenz pads this data by citing reports from Radio Free Asia, a US-funded news agency created by the CIA during the Cold War to propagandize against China.

While admitting that “there is no certainty” to his estimate, he has concluded that it is nevertheless “reasonable to speculate.” He attempted to evade personal responsibility for the figure’s questionable reliability, however, by stating “[t]he accuracy of this estimate is of course predicated on the supposed validity of the stated sources.”

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nato-arms-industry-cold-war/

And so forth. BBC also had a decent article on "forced labor," which they couldn't prove and even noted the people were paid considerably well - as if labor isn't forced under capitalism lol.

I've read the narratives from "individuals," about which you can't really find much. Like that one woman that was living in some country now, Azerbaijan was it? Who said she witnessed no violence at the place she was, then a year later started talking about rape of women and whatnot. Also "organ harvesting" is interesting for various reasons.

In general, given who's pushing it, including American politicians, media, what studies and narratives it's based on, and the larger purpose of it, along with American stance re: Hong Kong, those who organized protests being funded by a neo-con regime-change org, etc, it's hard to believe there's much truth to it. I certainly don't find it convincing, it's what US has been doing for decades, whether it's Iraq wmds, Golf of Tonkin incident, Nayirah testimony, McCollum memo, "Russian bounties," Syrian chemical attacks, etc.

Further, as Darren Beattie noted, the enemy isn't really China but the western ruling class, the last thing that's needed is to fall for their narratives and aid them.

28
lTentacleMonsterl 28 points ago +28 / -0

Nine months after officials in the affluent Carroll Independent School District introduced a proposal to combat racial and cultural intolerance in schools, voters delivered a resounding victory Saturday to a slate of school board and City Council candidates who opposed the plan.

In an unusually bitter campaign that echoed a growing national divide over how to address issues of race, gender and sexuality in schools, candidates in the city of Southlake were split between two camps: those who supported new diversity and inclusion training requirements for Carroll students and teachers and those backed by a political action committee that was formed last year to defeat the plan.

On one side, progressives argued that curriculum and disciplinary changes were needed to make all children feel safe and welcome in Carroll, a mostly white but quickly diversifying school district. On the other, conservatives in Southlake rejected the school diversity plan as an effort to indoctrinate students with a far-left ideology that, according to some, would institutionalize discrimination against white children and those with conservative Christian values.

In the end, the contest was not close. Candidates backed by the conservative Southlake Families PAC, which has raised more than $200,000 since last summer, won every race by about 70 percent to 30 percent, including those for two school board positions, two City Council seats and mayor. More than 9,000 voters cast ballots, three times as many as in similar contests in the past.

The plan was met with swift and fierce opposition. For months, conservative parents packed school board meetings, decrying aspects of the proposal that they said would have created "diversity police" and amounted to "reverse racism." Members of the Southlake Families PAC, which was formed within days of the plan's release, took particular issue with a district proposal to track incidents of microaggressions — subtle, indirect and sometimes unintentional incidents of discrimination.

Southlake Families PAC backed a mother's lawsuit against the district and in December won a temporary restraining order that put the diversity plan on hold. Then, last month, two members of the school board who had supported the plan were indicted by a Tarrant County grand jury, which accused them of having violated the Texas open meetings law, a misdemeanor, after opponents of the diversity plan obtained texts showing that the members had messaged one another before they voted on it.

The Tarrant County Democratic Party briefly posted and then deleted an image on social media labeling all of the candidates who opposed the diversity plan as "racist." Southlake Families PAC, meanwhile, sent out mailers accusing the pro-diversity plan candidates of pushing for "radical socialism" in Southlake.

"Quickly diversifying school district"

Give it 10 years and they'll be echoing the same things they opposed today.

by xleb2
1
lTentacleMonsterl 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's alright, I just remembered seeing it. Aye, if you want to.

-2
lTentacleMonsterl -2 points ago +3 / -5

That's like the much of the Right's views on 'winning'. If we are only finally able to talk more, then somehow that means we won? No, it just means we've finally cleared Step 1 of like 19 steps towards actually winning anything of value.

Basically, one of issues with "winning" is that it's largely utopian, but also that there are no clear objectives when it comes to it. Ask an average "right-winger" and you'll get some nostalgic, idealistic notion of society that never was and something they never lived through, like that picture of a happy family outside that you'll see in some rw circles, which turned out to be an ad made by some company decades back? Lol, basically that, it's fake. Or the others, mainly rw libs, who imagine a good society as basically everything as is already, with US being a hegemonic, liberal, capitalistic country, but merely with absence of the left and some improvements with social policies, as if that'd make society significantly better.

The fundamental issue is that "right" is incapable of winning. Not solely because of what their "winning" would end up being; basically same old liberal capitalism, but because the function of the right isn't to win within the system, but to legitimize the system while - like the modern left - pretending they are opposed to it. Unlike the modern left though, most of right's politics are basically politics of catharsis; whining about the libs, "owning the libs," etc largely serve to release frustration from their excesses, but they fundamentally agree with their worldview they merely think they go too far. It's also why they utilize "marxism" and "cultural marxism" against the radical libs, because while it serves to make them appear as if they oppose the system, it also serves to re-affirm liberal capitalism.

But as I've said, they fundamentally agree with the system, its heresies (-isms), values (equality; freedom; etc), they agree with "sacred" aspects (minorities), support "legal" immigration, etc.

9
lTentacleMonsterl 9 points ago +9 / -0

Ehh, they are just embracing the new ruling class ideology, the only thing wokeness will do within CIA is ensure higher level of conformity. Although to be fair, I can hardly sympathize with people who work within it to begin with.

38
lTentacleMonsterl 38 points ago +38 / -0

This serves as good reminder that radical liberalism is the new ruling class ideology. Speaking of CIA, remember when Gloria Steinem, a feminist, was a part of it?

What is often missed, or mischaracterized, however, is the work she did as a CIA agent: Steinem was a spook.

CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to "The Agency" in the 1950s and '60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent Research Service.

While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: "In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable."

https://archive.is/XlRn0

6
lTentacleMonsterl 6 points ago +6 / -0

The best thing to come from Tim Pool is his planned collaboration with Cassandra Rules on afaik murdery type of stuff? Or something along those lines.

3
lTentacleMonsterl 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are egalitarian feminists

Equality isn't a good thing, and they are one and the same, it's just a different approach to the same thing with both serving the ruling class. They are all liberal variations, with liberal values and ideals.

and there are supremacist & Marxist feminists

"Marxist feminists" largely don't exist as any notable force within feminism.

Marxists always parasitise movements and ideas with positive social understanding

Yeah, uh, it's marxists that made feminism bad. In reality, something that tends to bring cries of "class reductionism":

Worker's offensive: Why we reject feminism

The negative reactions to our critique of feminism have varied from accusations of sexism to more resigned criticisms where we have been reproached for "focusing too much" on the subject. Lying behind these disagreements is a fear of losing "the opportunity" to "connect" with a movement that is massive and is showcased in the media as it befits every ideology of the state.

There are those who accept that feminism is a bourgeois movement, but are afraid to reject it as such. They argue that "feminism" is a very vague term and that, therefore, it makes no sense to reject feminism as a whole. We are told that although bourgeois feminism exists, that is, the feminism of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois women, that there can also exist a "proletarian" or "Marxist" feminism. Those who make such claims utilize the fact that feminism is an "empty signifier," that can mean almost anything, and try to present that as proof of its ability to be "proletarianized."

We cannot but reject the notion that female workers, simply because they are women, are somehow less politically mature than their male counterparts, less able to arrive at class positions and, therefore, to come to the conclusion that feminism goes against their interests.

That is why the essence of feminism is the creation of a supposed "community of women" who, on the basis of common interests, independent of class, would build a "sorority", that is, a fraternity based on sex. In other words: an exclusively feminine "sacred union" of bourgeois, petty bourgeois and working women. In a word: collaborationism. And in fact, collaborationism is the narrative that informs all of "feminist theory," including supposedly "proletarian" feminist theory.

It is not surprising that "feminist theory", including "Marxist feminist theory", has been developed in the universities. Universities are a part of the apparatus of state capitalism charged with -especially social science faculties- reproducing and producing ideology, ideology that reinforces the social relations of the capitalist mode of production.

In reality, the ambiguity of the term "feminism" is intentional, a rhetorical shield: feminism is "uncriticizable" because, as we are told, to be against it is to be against the abolition of discrimination between men and women. ...And as if that were not enough, so many variants have emerged from universities and other ideological laboratories that, once they have reached the programmatic discussion, the possibility of discussion is denied because feminism as such "does not even exist".

But the fact that anything can be feminist is yet another expression of the bourgeois character of feminism. In state capitalism, a movement is valued for its ability to incorporate struggle into the framework of the state. And like all "successful" petty-bourgeois movements, that is, capable of being protected and strengthened to the point of exhaustion by the state, it is "flexible". If feminism is consolidated as an ideology of the state, it is because it is capable of shamelessly converting war recruitment propaganda into "progressive" symbols; it is capable of framing the struggle of petty-bourgeois women to enter the corporate bourgeoisie as a universal "cause" for equality and the "end of the wage gap"; it is capable of presenting prostitution and surrogate motherhood as "equal exchange", and even the very word "equality" - which in the view of the working class means absence of poverty and humiliations - signifies equality of sexual representation in the board of directors.

Feminism is today, together with ecologism, the main ideological battering ram of a new offensive of the bourgeoisie.

https://archive.is/qL1IH

14
lTentacleMonsterl 14 points ago +14 / -0

Speaking of which, according to Ny Times, one of the feminists whose accounts were closed such as Liang Xiaowen (who lives in NY), was spreading pro-Uighur propaganda. I wonder if others have as well.

view more: Next ›