You really need to learn how to use the 'Copy' and 'Paste' command.
"When today’s far-rightists talk about how much more masculine the “white working class” are compared to the “silver spoon fags”, they are making almost the exact same association between prole and masculine, and between bourgeois and non-masculine, that the real communists used to make in their propaganda. In this sense, they themselves psychologically resemble the real communists much more closely than those whom they wrongly label as “communists”."
...
One of Hitler’s many intellectual achievements was to expose both capitalism and communism as two poles of a false dichotomy that ultimately served Zionism.
...
...Marx, while critical of capitalism itself, viewed the spread of capitalism to non-Western countries via Western colonialism as an indirectly beneficial development for his own ends, as only thus would non-Western societies be thrust into economic conditions that make communist revolution attractive, whereas communist revolution would have been a much harder sell to non-Western countries had they remained pre-capitalist. Incidentally, this makes it inconsistent for any serious anti-communist to believe in Western superiority." - Aryanism's Authentic National Socialism, on Communism and Western Civilization"
"Communism and Marxism historically have always been conservative. It's a new era of 'communism' in the West that claims to be adherent to these liberal-leftist values. This is not true Marxism, you know; this is 'Marxism' funded by George Soros, and they trying to take away what Marxism actually means for the American people.
Marx, while critical of capitalism itself, viewed the spread of capitalism to non-Western countries via Western colonialism as an indirectly beneficial development for his own ends, as only thus would non-Western societies be thrust into economic conditions that make communist revolution attractive, whereas communist revolution would have been a much harder sell to non-Western countries had they remained pre-capitalist. Incidentally, this makes it inconsistent for any serious anti-communist to believe in Western superiority.
(https://trueleft.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faryanism.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fcuck.jpg&hash=d6246f3938e539110e87bdf585ed1893cd8f14c6)
Marx (Jew): true founder of the Alt-Right?
...
Indeed, considering the popular appreciation for the Iron Curtain among today’s far-right for shielding the people inside from the Counterculture ideas that spread around the rest of the world during the late 20th century, it could be argued that it is today’s far-rightists who are most communist-sympathetic. In fact, When today’s far-rightists talk about how much more masculine the “white working class” are compared to the “silver spoon fags”, they are making almost the exact same association between prole and masculine, and between bourgeois and non-masculine, that the real communists used to make in their propaganda. In this sense, they themselves psychologically resemble the real communists much more closely than those whom they wrongly label as “communists”. The only difference is that they add “white” in front of “working class” because they feel no solidarity with the “non-white” working class.)
(https://trueleft.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faryanism.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Flenin.jpg&hash=b10804846ab568e2a01be3b0ef87e28842e6585b)
Dietrich Eckart considered Moses (Jew) to be the first Bolshevik
“In the False Left/True Left dichotomy, where would communism be?”
False Left.
“given that it is, in essence, class-based tribalism, would it not, in fact, be more accurate to place it at the right, together with the other forms of tribalism?”
No, because tribalism is not what makes an ideology rightist. A positive evaluation of Western civilization is what makes an ideology rightist:
I do state that Marx has something in common with neocons, but since neocons are only one faction of rightists, this cannot be considered a general rightist position. Besides, Marx only wanted capitalism to spread so that it could then be overthrown, whereas a sincere neocon would want it to spread and last.
Both.So when compared to 'progressivism' and 'liberalism', both which claim to promote social justice, what is our stance on social justice? National Socialism? I remember reading on the main site that socialism is essentially social justice, and either Hitler or Goebbels stated that socialism is supposed to be 'collective welfare'.
Perhaps not. If siding with us or siding with rightists were the only two options, some might side with us. Specifically, those who love Western civilization more than they hate "white" supremacy will side with rightists, whereas those who hate "white" supremacy more than they love Western civilization will side with us.
QuotePerhaps not. If siding with us or siding with rightists were the only two options, some might side with us. Specifically, those who love Western civilization more than they hate "white" supremacy will side with rightists, whereas those who hate "white" supremacy more than they love Western civilization will side with us.
Could we expect the former group to have relatively more Aryan blood compared to the latter group?
Sanders responded by attempting to distance himself from Venezuela's Bolivarian government, replying to such worries by stating, "When I talk about democratic socialism, I'm not looking at Venezuela. I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden".[206]
For years, one book dictated how and what people could eat.
In the newly independent Czech Republic of the 1990s, cheap comfort food—such as goulash, pork knuckle, and dumplings—dominated every eatery. Meanwhile vegetarians were encouraged to feast on fried cheese and stewed cabbage. (The late Anthony Bourdain famously called it “the land vegetables forgot” in an episode of his travel show No Reservations.) For the most part, tourists loved Prague in spite of the food rather than because of it. But Czechs didn’t understand the criticism. After 40 years of communism, the culinary splendor that once dominated Czech culture was a distant memory due, in part, to one very specific cookbook.
As a former cultural capital of both the Holy Roman and Habsburg Empires, ingredients and ideas once flowed freely between Prague and major metropolises in Austria, Hungary, Italy, France, and beyond. By the time Napoleon’s army claimed victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, the city was an epicurean epicenter rivaling Paris and Vienna. Czechs were roasting goose better than Germans, using gnocchi in ways the Italians never thought of, and incorporating French techniques that made their meat sauces even richer. Royal banquets often featured delicacies including pheasant, turtle, and Španělské ptáčky (Spanish birds), a Czech version of roulade made from beef or veal. Economic and gastronomic excellence even survived the First World War.
It wasn’t until the Nazis invaded in 1939, implementing stringent rationing and 10-12-hour workdays, that Czechoslovak cuisine took its first big hit. Every person was issued coupons that signified the amount of bread, sugar, meat, and fat they could obtain (children under ten were given additional rations of butter and milk). But after a few years, Jews were forbidden to purchase fruit, cheese, and meat. Daily life was such a challenge and access was so limited that cooking was no longer a priority. Occupiers encouraged Czechs to cook Eintopf (a one-pot potato stew), but this was a far cry from traditional Sunday roast, and it never quite caught on. Those fortunate enough to have family in the country would meet them at quiet train stations to receive black market eggs and meat.
When communists came to power in 1948, citizens were hopeful they could return to a life containing more prewar luxuries. Though the quality of food improved, life under socialist ideas still proved restrictive. Twenty years later, when liberalization started to gain traction, the party saw a need for even stricter control. In an effort to consolidate power, they purged reformist officials from the government and established a range of restrictions on everyday activities. Eating was no exception.
The state Restaurants and Cafeterias company soon issued a national cookbook entitled Receptury teplých pokrmu, or Recipes for Warm Meals. Dubbed “normovacka,” or “the book of standards,” it dictated what cooks in the country could serve in 845 recipes. Ladislav Pravaan, curator of the Gastronomie Muzeum of Prague, explains that the book even specified sources and serving styles for everything from sauces to side dishes.
The cookbook’s authors, František Syrový and Antonin Nestával, were relatively well-known chefs at the time (Nestával had even represented Czech gastronomy at the 1967 Montreal Expo). But the book emphasized limiting food imports and cooking economically, so it didn’t include anything you might expect to try at a culinary competition. Nutrition was also a core component of the book: The idea was that the the better-balanced people’s meals were, the harder people would work. In the book, calorie count and vitamin details were listed alongside ingredients and instructions, and certain recipes were suggested for certain professions. Portion sizes were designed by the hundreds, indicating that select dishes were to be cooked in large quantities each day.
Cooks that wanted to deviate from these recipes had to get approval from the Ministry of Health, a request that could take years to go through. Most people opted for the easier route, which is how thousands of nearly identical menus came to be established across the country. Paired with limited ingredient diversity, the nation suffered a creative drought: It wasn’t just that all the same dishes were served, but the dishes were prepared exactly the same way, resulting in identical versions of dishes, too. Each bite was calculated as a means of productivity, and dining for pleasure was considered extravagant. “Special” meals were no longer considered, and the scope of Czech cuisine shrunk...Entire article: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-communist-cookbook-that-defined-prague-s-cuisine?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime.[3] Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.[4] Hermann Göring was a professed animal lover and conservationist,[5] who, on instructions from Hitler, committed Germans who violated Nazi animal welfare laws to concentration camps. In his private diaries, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a vegetarian whose hatred of the Jewish religion in large part stemmed from the ethical distinction this faith drew between the value of humans and the value of other animals; Goebbels also mentions that Hitler planned to ban slaughterhouses in the German Reich following the conclusion of World War II.[6] Nevertheless, animal testing was common in Nazi Germany.[7][8][9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
The current animal welfare laws in Germany were initially introduced by the Nazis.[10]
Dr. Ricardo Duchesne
@dr_duchesne
Blaming socialism is a strategy orchestrated by right wing establishment to sidetrack from the equal culpability of capitalist globalists in the promotion of immigration replacement and transsexualism. As Marx said, capitalism destroys traditions and makes the world homogenous.
https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1635001854995349504?s=20QuoteCarl Benjamin
@Sargon_of_Akkad
The salt that emerges when someone correctly points out that the Nazis were a socialist party, followed a form of socialism, and engaged in political violence as socialists is just delicious.
Movement is the mode of existence of the entire material universe. Energy and matter are inseparable. Moreover, movement does not come "from outside", but is a manifestation of internal tensions which are inseparable not only from life, but also from all forms of matter. Development and change occur through internal contradictions. Thus, dialectical analysis begins by exposing these internal contradictions through empirical investigation which then results in development and change.
From a dialectical point of view all the "opposites" are one-sided and inadequate, including the contradiction between "truth and error". Marxism does not accept the existence of "Eternal Truth". All "truth" and "wrong" is relative. What is right at one time and context is wrong at another: right and wrong cross one another.
So the progress of knowledge and science does not start from the negation of an "incorrect theory". All theories are relative, explaining one side of reality. Initially they were assumed to have universal validity and application. They are "right". But at some point, the shortcomings of this theory began to be recognized; they can't be used for all situations, exceptions always exist. This had to be explainable, and at some point, new theories were developed to explain the exceptions. But these new theories not only "negate" the old, but also incorporate them in a new form.
We can set aside contradictions only by considering objects as inanimate things, static and situated separately from one another, that is, metaphysically. But once we understand things in their movement and change, in their life, in their interdependence and interaction, we encounter a series of contradictions.
...
All forms of human society exist because it is a necessity of time: "No special order disappears before all the productive forces to which it belongs, have been developed: and new, higher relations of production never arise until the material conditions of their existence have sufficiently matured." in the womb of the old society. Mankind has therefore always taken up problems only which he can solve, for, on observing these problems more closely, we will always find that the problem itself arises only when the necessary material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of being formed. ”. (Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
Slavery, at its time, represented a great leap beyond barbarism. Slavery was a necessary stage in the development of the productive forces, culture and society. As explained by Hegel: "It is not from slavery, but through slavery that humans become free". (Hegel, Philosophy of History)
Likewise capitalism is also a necessary and progressive stage in society. However, like slavery, primitive communism and feudalism (see section 2), capitalism has long ceased to represent a necessary and progressive social system. It is already rickety because of the deep contradictions that lie within it, and will in time be overthrown by the rise of socialism, which is represented by the modern proletariat. Private ownership of the means of production and the nation-state, which are the basic features of capitalist society, which originally marked a step forward, now only hinders the development of the productive forces and threatens all the progress that has been made after centuries of human development.
Today capitalism is a porous and backward social system, which must be overthrown and replaced by its opposite, Socialism, if human culture is to survive. Marxism is determinist, but not fatalist, because the alignment of contradictions in society can only be achieved by humans who consciously seek to bring about the transformation of society. The struggle between these classes is not something that is natural. Who succeeds depends on many factors, and a rising progressive class has many advantages over an aging force of reaction. But in the end, the result must depend on which side is stronger determined, bigger organization and more talented and formidable leadership.
Therefore Marxist philosophy is essentially a guide to action: “Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways; but the aim, after all, is to change it.” (Marx, Feuerbach's theses)
The victory of socialism will mark a new and clearly different stage in the history of mankind. More accurately, it would mark the end of humankind's prehistory, and begin real history.
But, on the other hand, socialism signifies our return to the earliest form of society - tribal communism - but at a much higher level, which stands above all the tremendous contributions made over the thousands of years of class society. An abundant economy will be made possible by the application of socialist planning to industry, science and engineering, which has been established by capitalism, on a global scale. This would in turn abolish the division of labour, the distinction between mental and physical labor, between town and country, and the barbaric and unnecessary class conflicts, and allow humanity to finally be able to allocate its resources to the domination of nature: in the words of Engels who famous, "Humanity's Leap from the world of necessity to the World of Freedom". (Marx and Engels,Capital Vol. III)
Translated by Sekar from “What is Marxism?” by Rob Sewell and Alan Woods (In Defence of Marxism)14th September 2018
b) Everything is determined by circumstances, place and time
Recognizing that there is an organic mutual relationship between phenomena also means that the existence of something cannot be separated from the circumstances around it, or the existence of something that has certain conditions. The meaning of something is determined by the circumstances or situation. When the situation changes, the meaning also changes. For example, the growth of the capitalist mode of production or capitalism requires certain conditions, that is, on the one hand there is capital, on the other hand wage labor is available. And these conditions only existed at the end of the feudal era in Europe. At a time when capitalism has a revolutionary meaning against feudalism, the bourgeoisie has a revolutionary role against feudalism. But capitalism and the bourgeoisie in the countries of Western Europe and America are no longer revolutionary, but reactionary. Because the bourgeoisie in these countries no longer wants revolutionary changes in society, they are desperately defending a system of society that is no, they repeated what the feudal lords they had overthrown had done.
Thus it is clear that dialectical materialism is opposed to a frozen metaphysical view, which seeks to perpetuate or absolute something, or to look at and analyze something that is separated from its surroundings, from being separated from other things. For example, viewing capitalism as something that stands alone; because capitalism is a system of exploitation of humans by humans, it is considered a reactionary system and must be opposed absolutely anywhere and at any time. As a continuation of this erroneous assumption, is to assess the position of the national capitalists in our present country definitively as a reactionary class, because they consider the paying class. Thus, they do not see each other in conflict with imperialism and feudalism, so that the revolutionary role of the national bourgeoisie is not seen at the present stage of the Indonesian revolution which is objectively anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism.
In short, with this view of mutual relations, we teach that when looking at and solving a problem, do not separate it from the relationship as a whole, because there is nothing that has no cause or effect, everything is determined by circumstances, place and time.
"Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world and you will have anarchy— the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.10- Karl Heinrich Marx
What Marx was saying in effect was that Negro slaves were needed to produce raw cotton; cotton was the basic raw material of modern capitalist industry; therefore, Negro slavery was necessary to the survival of America and to the survival of modern civilization.
Slavery, at its time, represented a great leap beyond barbarism. Slavery was a necessary stage in the development of the productive forces, culture and society. As explained by Hegel: "It is not from slavery, but through slavery that humans become free". (Hegel, Philosophy of History)
Cologne, February 14, 1849...Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of civilization already came under foreign sway, or which were forced to attain the first stage of civilization only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence.
...
In point of fact, the position of the Germans and Magyars would be extremely pleasant if the Austrian Slavs were assisted to get their so-called rights! An independent Bohemian-Moravian state would be wedged between Silesia and Austria; Austria and Styria would be cut off by the "South-Slav republic" from their natural debouche [outlet] - the Adriatic Sea and the Mediterranean; and the eastern part of Germany would be torn to pieces like a loaf of bread that has been gnawed by rats! And all that by way of thanks for the Germans having given themselves the trouble of civilizing the stubborn Czechs and Slovenes, and introducing among them trade, industry, a tolerable degree of agriculture, and culture!
But it is precisely this yoke imposed on the Slavs under the pretext of civilization that is said to constitute one of the greatest crimes of the Germans and Magyars! Just listen to this:
"Rightly do you rage, rightly do you breathe vengeance against the damnable German policy, which has thought of nothing but your ruin, which has enslaved you for centuries...." p.5
"... The Magyars, the bitter enemies of our race, who number hardly four millions, have presumed to seek to impose their yoke on eight million Slavs...." p.9
"I know all that the Magyars have done to our Slav brothers, what crimes they have committed against our nationality, and how they have trampled underfoot our language and independence." p.30
What then are the great, dreadful crimes committed by the Germans and Magyars against the Slav nationality? We are not speaking here of the partition of Poland, which is not at issue here, we are speaking of the "centuries of injustice" supposed to have been inflicted on the Slavs.
In the north, the Germans have reconquered from the Slavs the formerly German and subsequently Slav region from the Elbe to the Warthe; a conquest which as determined by the "geographical and strategical necessities" resulting from the partition of the Carolingian kingdom. These Slavs areas have been fully Germanized; the thing has been done and cannot be undone, unless the pan-Slavists were to resurrect the lost Sorbian, Wendish, and Obodritian languages and impose them on the inhabitants of Leipzig, Berlin and Stettin. But up to now it has never been disputed that this conquest was to the advantage of civilization.
In the south, the Germans found the Slav races already split up. That had been seen to by the non-Slav Avars, who occupied the region later inhabited by the Magyars. The Germans exacted tribute from these Slavs and waged many wars against them. They fought also against the Avars and Magyars, from whom they took the whole territory from the Ems to the Leitha. Whereas they carried out Germanization here by force, the Germanization of the Slav territories proceeded much more on a peaceful basis, by immigration and by the influence of the more developed nation on the undeveloped. German industry, German trade, and German culture by themselves served to introduce the German language into the country. As far as "oppression" is concerned, the Slavs were not more oppressed by the Germans than the mass of the German population itself.
As regards the Magyars, there are certainly also a large number of Germans in Hungary, but the Magyars, although numbering "hardly four millions", have never had the occasion to complain of the "damnable German policy"! And if during eight centuries the "eight million Slavs" have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars!
But, of course, the greatest "crime" of the Germans and Magyars is that they prevented these 12 million Slavs from becoming Turkish! What would have become of these scattered small nationalities, which have played such a pitiful role in history, if the Magyars and Germans had not kept them together and led them against the armies of Mohammed and Suleiman, and if their so-called oppressors had not decided the outcome of the battles which were fought for the defense of these weak nationalities! The fate of the "12 million Slavs, Wallachians, and Greeks" who have been "trampled underfoot by 700,000 Osmans" (page eight), right up to the present day, does not that speak eloquently enough?
And finally, what a "crime" it is, what a "damnable policy" that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a "historical necessity", the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness, and if Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon had been capable of being moved by the same sort of appeal as that which pan-Slavism now makes on behalf of its ruined clients, what would have become of history! And are the Persians, Celts, and Christian Germans of less value than the Czechs, Ogulians, and Serezhans?
Now, however, as a result of the powerful progress of industry, trade and communications, political centralization has become a much more urgent need than it was then, in the 15th and 16th centuries. What still has to be centralized is being centralized. And now the pan-Slavists come forward and demand that we should "set free" these half-Germanized Slavs, and that we should abolish a centralization which is being forced on these Slavs by all their material interests!
In short, it turns out these "crimes" of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.
Moreover, as far as the Magyars are concerned, it should be specially pointed out here that, particularly since the revolution, they have acted too much submissively and weakly against the puffed-up Croats. It is notorious that Kossuth made all possible concessions to them, excepting only that their deputies were not allowed to speak the Croatian in the Diet. And thus submissiveness to a nation that is counter-revolutionary by nature is the only thing with which the Magyars can be reproached.
Gottfried is of course correct that Marxism is not woke, though it was a radically progressive ism for its time --- but he is not right identifying wokeism with cultural Marxism, and calling it a new form of collectivism: it is liberalism and it is individualistic.
On September 14, 1901, the Social Democratic Herald characterized Negroes as inferior, depraved elements who went around “raping women [and] children.”20 In an article in the same organ, dated May 31, 1902, Victor L. Berger, one of the national leaders of the Socialist Party, wrote that “there can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower race” and that “free contact with the whites has led to further degeneration of the negroes.
Apparently the International Socialist Bureau was content with this explanation.
Despite differences of opinions as to the causes of race hatred, both Center and Right agreed that socialism was exclusively an economic movement and had nothing to do with social equality. The party would insist that under socialism both Negro and white workers received all they produced. But that did not mean that the two races would work in the same factories or even live in the same cities. Center and Right-wing Socialist explained that Negroes and whites did not want to associate. It was capitalism that forced them to live and work together. Socialism would solve the race question in the only possible manner-complete segregration.128 Until socialism was achieved there was no objection to separate Negro communities, schools, and Socialist locals.129 There were no Negroes in southern Socialist locals,130 but the Center and Right-wing Socialist insisted that this was not discrimination. Jews also live apart from gentiles, and "no one will claim that there is, in any civilized community deserving the name, any vestige of ill-will between the two peoples."131
There is no record that the party ever actively opposed discrimination against Negroes from 1901 to 1912. Only one resolution on the subject was offered to the National Committee. In 1906 President Roosevelt dismissed without trial and apparently without justification three companies of Negro troops in connection with a riot at Brownsville, Texas.132 A member of the Socialist National Committee moved that the committee condemn Roosevelt's action. The Right and Center objected to this "attempt to inject the negro question into the Socialist Party." The Left objected because the army was a "capitalist tool" and Socialist were not interested in army justice. The motion was defeated, 28 to 4, with 25 abstentions.133
The party Left wing had no use for distinctions between economic, political, and social equality. Debs opposed all discrimination and toured the South calling on the Negro to reject the false doctrines of "meekness and humility." Only through organized struggle in the labor and socialist movement, said Debs, would the Negro win equality.134 The Left held that the South should not be permitted to build segregrated locals. Southern Socialist should work to wipe out race prejudice and discrimination.135 The party must engage in active propaganda and organization among Negroes.136 As the years passed with no organized work among Negroes and with race prejudice apparently increasing among Socialist, some members of the Left became increasingly bitter in their criticism of party chauvinism.137 But despite their theoretical stand for Negro equality, the Left made virtually no effort to use the party in a struggle for Negro rights. Those Socialist who felt the urgency of work among minorities turned more and more to the Industrial Workers of the World as the organization that was not afraid to fight.138
From these conflicting conceptions of socialist theory, organization, and activity it is not possible to generalize with certainty on what the Socialist Party as a party thought it was doing or accomplishing. At best it can be said that from 1901 through 1904 most Socialist considered socialism a science whose leading expounders had been Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. This science showed that new industrial techniques were rendering obsolete the capitalist form of production and distribution. Economic law made the transition to socialism inevitable. The Socialist Party was to be exclusively a political or electoral organization for which workers and farsighted farmers and members of the middle class would cast their votes. Socialism would be ushered in either after the national and local electoral triumph of the Party (Center-Left position) or as the almost unnoticed culmination of a long series of reforms (Right-wing position). Participation in the problems of minority groups or in the economic struggles of labor was at most of secondary importance. The major concern of the party was education leading to votes for Socialist candidates. And that meant speeches and distribution of literature.
(https://incels.is/attachments/1664859151098-png.661500/)
It may seem difficult to understand the realities of the blackpill. It may be hard to come to terms with how - and why - the world functions as it does. And even when you do, it is even harder to understand where to go next.
But there is one set of techniques which shines a clear light on the world we live in. A scientific and logical analysis of systems of limited resources - Marxism. When we undertake a Marxist analysis of the sexual economy, we immediately find its nuances explained and its realities presented for all to see.
The fundamental element of inequality is exploitation. In economic Marxism, exploitation occurs when a capitalist takes most of the value a worker's labor creates, leaving them barely enough to survive. In other words, the worker's surplus value is stolen from them. This is how capitalists make profits. Sometimes, the capitalists let some segments of workers keep more of their value, in order to bribe and pacify them.
In the sexual economy, there are two distinct classes of men - Chads...and everyone else. There is a group which keeps most women for itself - the Chad-Bourgeois - and a much larger group which, despite being responsible for maintaining global civilization with their labor so that Chad is free to take all he wants, is denied most women. These are the sexual proletariat.
The sexuality of women should be evenly spread among society, but it is not. Instead, it is commodified by sexual capitalism and given to Chad. The Chad-Bourgeoisie allow the sexual proletariat to have just as much **** as they need to keep the human race alive through reproduction. But even here is it not fair; the proletariat get Chad's leftovers - only when the Chad-Bourgeois no longer want a woman does she go to settle down, marry, and reproduce with a non-Chad.
Now, I mentioned before that the economic bourgeois sometimes bribe workers by giving them more than they would otherwise. In the modern era, the Chad-Bourgeois are facing a world where the proletariat is no longer consigned to the feudal life of arranged marriages without any questions asked, and can see the reality of sexual inequality via media and their own insights. The Chad-Bourgeois responds by bribing the sexual proletariat - they, too, are now allowed to have sex before marriage, and perhaps **** many women. These women are, of course, still the ones Chad doesn't want, but it bribes most of the world. Remember, this happened when the sexual free market, where women can now choose their partners without having to marry a non-Chad in the end, replaced the Feudal system of arranged marriage. This is sexual capitalism.
The people so bribed are normies. This is the main reason why normies are blind to the sexual capitalist system and lack revolutionary potential.
But the system is imperfect. Due to the female's nature, not all members of the proletariat can be bribed just by the Chad-Bourgeois allowing (pseudo) free sex for everyone. A group at the bottom is inevitability left out - incels.
As sexual feudalism shifted to sexual capitalism, a contradiction was exposed - the Contradiction of Sexual Capitalism is the existence of incels, and the conclusion of the capitalist stage of history must be the resolving of this contradiction. Due to how females are hardwired to be only attracted to Chads, incels always lose in a sexual free market. Many females would rather be single than marry an incel, and a result the incels become a class which doesn't even get marriage, much less any additional bribes. Due to their extreme condition, the incels become "blackpilled" and see the system as it is. The incels thus attain class consciousness.
The basic structure of the sexual world is that the Chad-Bourgeois take all the **** they can, especially the desirable kind, while eventually passing their leftovers to the sexual proletariat as bribes and allowances. Among the latter group, those are who successfully bribed are normies, and those who become class conscious are incels.
So how do the Chad-Bourgeois manage to keep society under their control, even with incels attain class consciousness? In Marxism, the answer is the Base and superstructure. In a sexual capitalist society, all we know is shaped by the system of sexual economy we live in. Our culture, beliefs, and so on are bent to conform to and reinforce the Chad-Bourgeois narrative. In order to prevent the sexual proletariat from attaining class consciousness, the Chad-Bourgouse use culture to create a false consciousness for them to live in instead.
The key to understanding this is to understand that truth is relative to one's class. Comrade Lenin explained this with his concept of partiinost, party truth. What is "true" depends on your class, truth for one class may be falsehood for another. Thus, what class's "truth" you're listening to is very important.
For example, let's take the Chad-Bourgeois idea of "confidence." Confidence is an intentionally vague idea to explain Chad's sexual success as anything besides winning the genetic lottery. It is said that someone - anyone - with "confidence" can also live like Chad does. For the Chad-Bourgoise, this is true. All a Chad has to do is be willing step outside or set up an online dating profile and they will get all the **** they want. However, for the rest of the world, this is not the case. By enforcing the idea of confidence instead of genetic luck, Chad yet again bribes the sexual proletariat - bribes them with hope. The idea of confidence explains structural inequality as personal failure - in the same way the capitalist tells the exploited worker that he, too, would be rich if he only worked harder, so does the Chad tell the sexual proletariat that they could have sex if they were only just a little more confident. In this way, the sexual proletariat are blamed for their own oppression - their celibacy is a result of their own moral failings, because they were not "confident" enough. The Chad-Bourgeois present themselves as having earned the **** they inherent, while the rest of the world deserves to live without. Confidence is just one example of how sexual capitalism distorts culture and creates false narratives to keep people blind.
Normies love false narratives because they are bribed. A normie, who may have even had sex, believes that his success in the past means the confidence narrative and so on is true - he can truly be a Chad, if he works hard enough! Thus the normies convince themselves Chad's world is not only fair but desirable, because they too might have a chance of being chad.
Normies are deceived to varying degrees.
A regular normie has had their bribe a few times and doesn't bother to think about the realities of exploitation and the sexual economy. These normies can be blackpilled with evidence, but most of them just double down on the false consciousness due to their hope that they can be a Chad.
A beta is a normie who is faced with the reality of sexual inequality. He may be an orbiter, hanging around women in the hope he'll get sex. He may be a nice guy, who is nice to women for the same reason. He may be cucked, whereby he shares a single woman with other men so that he can at least get laid. Though he may deny it, he is painfully aware of these material and sexual realities.
A white knight has come against a blackpill before, and it scared them. They swing the other way - they actively try and spread Chad's narrative and enforce it, because they are trying convince themselves. There is great overlap between white knights and Betas, as the latter often exhibit white knight behavior. Many Betas turn into white knights when confronted with the black pill.
All normies have one thing in common - they do not want to accept the reality of the blackpill because they want to continue to believe they can be Chad. Another element is that they enjoy Chad's narrative when it suits them - regarding incels. They don't like to remember that Chad is sexually more successful then them because he is just better....but that's not so bad if it means that they are better than incels in turn, since they at least "earned" some sex and incels could not! In economic capitalism, the reality of economic status defined by class is ignored in favor of an individualist, democratic narrative, and sexual capitalism works the same way. The realities of incels and the Chad-Bourgeois are overlooked in favor of the lie that it's all about individual action, that any individual can work his way to the top of the sexual marketplace through hard work and imaginary concepts like "confidence."
By the methods described above, the Chad-Bourgeois extract all of the surplus value - in this context, surplus **** - from the workers/sexual proletariat for themselves, and maintain the system through bribing normies and creating false consciousness. But here's where it gets really interesting - the immortal science of historical materialism explains even more than this.
Everyone knows that even among Chads there is a hierarchy - a racial hierarchy, with white Chad at the top. In the 1960s, Comrade Mao Zedong developed Marxist-Leninist-Maoism to explain the differences between the first world and the third world. Maoism reveals the first world exploits the third world through imperialism, and sets up a global class hierarchy of sorts. This economic hierarchy in turn ties into a sexual hierarchy - one where the imperialist white Chads are above the colonized Chads. A critique of imperialism explains the racial Chad hierarchy - which, of course, filters down into the sexual proletariat as well.
Following this trend, we can see the close interconnection between looks (Chad privilege) and economic success. Females like money and power...and it seems Chad ends up with those as well.
We all know that studies have proven Chads are much more likely to succeed in economic sphere. They are given quality jobs and often end up in very social, very prestigious positions like executive officers. But this shows us that wealth comes second. Poor Chads still dominate the sexual proletariat, and their poverty, on average, never lasts long. In other words, sexual inequality comes before economic inequality, and due to how intertwined they are, it means that economic inequality is a consequence of sexual inequality due to society's constant preference for Chad. Sexual inequality predates economic capitalism, feudalism, even primitive tribalism - sexual inequality is the original and eternal form of hierarchy, it is harbinger of all other inequalities in other areas.
Thus, the Revolutionary and Immortal Science of Marxist-Rodgerism is born. We see that the fundamental conflict is between the well endowed Chad-Bourgeoisie and the sexual proletariat, and that all other conflicts ultimately derive from this great inequality. We see that the Chad-Bourgeois manipulates culture and society to further its narratives and worldview to maintain this power structure. Finally, we must conclude that the only way forward for humanity is to dismantle the system of sexual capitalism so that sex can be distributed fairly to all members of society.
Incels of the world, rise up! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
There is a group which keeps most women for itself - the Chad-Bourgeois - and a much larger group which, despite being responsible for maintaining global civilization with their labor so that Chad is free to take all he wants, is denied most women.
The sexuality of women should be evenly spread among society
The early history of France’s Third Republic provides another example of the passage to working-class respectability in a colonial context.The new regime was born in the crisis of military defeat and revolution, dramatized above all by the fiery apocalypse of the Paris Commune, which represented the final major manifestation of the insurgent Parisian crowd that had haunted French politics since 1789. The bloody defeat of the Communards definitively exorcised this threat, rendering the creation of a viable liberal democracy possible in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.68
Conquest of the Commune by the forces of conservatism in 1871 was a victory for both liberal democracy and empire. The images of savagery that surrounded the Communards, most notably the portrayals of Communard women as incendiary Amazons, strongly suggested the triumph of civilization over barbarity.69 It is worth noting that a leading punishment for those insurgents who survived the government’s vicious repression was deportation to the colonies: more than four thousand were sent to New Caledonia alone. When in 1878 the indigenous peoples of the island staged a major revolt against the French, the bulk of the Communard exiles sided with the colonial authorities against the insurgents, some even taking up arms and joining the forces of order to suppress the Kanaks. As Alice Bullard has noted, in New Caledonia two visions of savagery, political and racial, confronted each other. A year later, the Communard veterans were allowed to return to France and the French state amnestied them in 1880. By abjuring their own insurgent traditions and taking up the cause of imperial authority, the former Communards symbolized the alliance of liberal democracy and empire that lay at the heart of the Third Republic.70
Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa. - South Africa Industrial Federation, 1922
The renewed emphasis on whiteness after World War I also took place within several Western nations. As we have seen, the war itself had brought large numbers of men of color to Europe, especially France, and in the United States had fueled the first Great Migration of African-Americans to the North.64 The end of the war brought a powerful rejection of this wartime multiculturalism and a reassertion of whiteness, at times in conjunction with radical and revolutionary labor movements. The ultimate example of this came in 1922, when striking South African miners adopted the slogan Workers of the world unite and fight for a white
South Africa, but this was not an isolated incident.65 The year 1919 in particular saw intense labor and revolutionary struggles as well as widespread race riots. From January to August of that year, for example, a series of riots erupted in Britain’s port cities, as white sailors and longshoremen attacked men from the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia and the Middle East. In a climate of postwar economic downturn, white port workers and their unions attacked nonwhites for “taking” their jobs, often successfully expelling them from increasingly white workplaces on the docks of Liverpool, Bristol, London, and other cities. This took place in a climate of radical working-class politics in general, so that in Glasgow Scottish workers seemed to threaten revolution.66
The situation was more extreme in France. During the war France had brought in more than 300,000 workers from its colonies and China to labor in its factories and fields. With the end of the war, tensions increased between industry, the government, and the unions over the role of labor in the postwar period. Dazzled by the specter of the Russian Revolution, many French workers moved sharply to the left, leading to the creation of the French Communist Party at the end of 1920.67 At the same time, however, France needed labor more than ever. Roughly 1.6 million Frenchmen had died in the war, and many more had returned wounded and unable to work. Moreover, the nation had one of the lowest birth rates in Europe and would soon achieve negative population growth in the interwar years, while at the same time it needed more workers to rebuild the country and repair the destruction caused by the war.68
In this revolutionary climate, however, the one thing all the major parties could agree on was the need to get rid of colonial workers. By the end of 1919 French authorities had rounded up and repatriated 90 percent of the “exotic” workers in the country. At the same time, it made new arrangements to bring foreign workers from Southern and Eastern Europe, whose numbers would swell to the millions in the 1920s. In making the argument for European over colonial labor, French authorities made clear their desire to reverse the multiracial immigration that had begun during the war, saying “[It is necessary] To call upon labor of European origin, in preference to colonial or exotic labor, because of the social and ethnic difficulties which could arise from the presence upon French soil of ethnographic elements too clearly distinct from the rest of the population.”69 The choice of European over “exotic” workers was a clear statement of the importance of whiteness to the character of the nation, and it paralleled the contrast between the extension of liberal democracy in postwar Europe and the continuation of imperial rule in postwar Asia and Africa.70
At the beginning of his research, Prof. Vanhanen theorized that democratic countries were more likely than authoritarian ones to be able to contain ethnic discord, because people could express nepotism thorough politics rather than through violence. In order to test this theory he calculated something called the Index of Democracy for each country, and plotted it against levels of group conflict. He found that as a general rule, the presence or lack of democratic government seems to account for only about 10 percent of the level of conflict, leading him to conclude that “the level of ethnic conflicts seems to be nearly independent from the degree of democratization.” Part of the problem is that democracy is usually found in countries that are ethnically homogeneous, where there is probably not much conflict anyway. When the EH index is held constant, differences in the degree of democracy do not seem to have much effect on the level of conflict.
...
As a general rule, Prof. Vanhanen finds that former Communists countries and former parts of the Soviet Union have higher levels of conflict than their levels of diversity would suggest. This is probably because Communist regimes kept ethnic struggles bottled up, and they are only now reappearing. Prof. Vanhanen predicts that although Cuba has followed the Communist practice of suppressing racial strife; as soon as Cubans are free to express themselves, conflict is likely to break into the open.
Prof. Vanhanen finds that miscegenation can take the edge off ethnic conflict. He offers Brazil as an example of extensive interbreeding that dilutes racial boundaries that would otherwise be much sharper.
“We must accept the mixing of blood as it is. We must not call one blood worse than another, one mixture better than another. Rather, we must employ other means to breed a higher form from this gray mass. We must try’ to bring to the surface the valuable traits ofthe people living in Germany, to cultivate and to develop them, and we must find ways and means to prevent the propagation of all the bad, inferior, criminal, and decadent tendencies and all the congenital diseases so damaging to the Volk. - Adolf Hitler
Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a White supremacist and a homophobe.
...
in his youth he tortured small animals and he enjoyed watching his victims suffer and die and took great pleasure in looking them right in their eyes as he killed them.
...
Anyone who deviated from the “new man” was seen as a ”counter-revolutionary.” Such was the case of gay men —whom Guevara referred to as “sexual perverts.” Both Guevara and Castro considered homosexuality a bourgeois decadence.
...
Guevara also espoused racist views. In his diary, he referred to black people as “those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing.” He also thought white Europeans were superior to people of African descent, and described Mexicans as “a band of illiterate Indians.”
...
BASED GUEVARA.
I always found it funny how libtards will buy T shirts of Che Guerva from private companies while claiming he would agree with all of their views. All communists historically hated ****
(https://incels.is/attachments/ae90ecb5ab1b7349-jpeg.882364/)
Yeah, you are. But you're an Indian Commie, the shitty variant that produces deindustrialised states and might be worse than the British Raj. Please don't equate yourself to space faring, frontiers of science expanding, militaristic, virile, Soviets and Chinese. Thanks.
No serious Communist would support **** like "federalism" (codename for local kulaks running their Satrapy). Centralized States are what have the ability to create classless societies.
Pajeet Communism is one of the saddest things in existence.
The fact that Communism failed in India where it was supposed to have the most appeal...is a testament to how **** useless Pajeet Communists are.
the shitty variant that produces deindustrialised states
Please don't equate yourself to space faring, frontiers of science expanding, militaristic, virile, Soviets and Chinese.
Karl marx believed non-Europeans were uncivilised barbarians just like any other thinkers of that time. third world pajeet communists worshipping a german malechha cant be a human being for sure.