Left-wing nutjobs
In a democracy he wouldn't be fucking that fine young pussy he's getting every night.
Lol the dprk is more democratic than the us lol
DPRK is cucked... their foids have equal rights
Well, women in the dprk have actual responsibilities unlike the women in Western societies
Andrew VanHauer This is when the liberalism in your brain start spilling all over the place. What is "freedom of movement"? Why is it awful that professionals be forced to go to the third world to serve the masses? Slavery is a mode of production with its own economic logic, you can't spam the word "slavery" to describe whatever you don't like, it's like when anarchists say Stalin is a "Red Fascist".
I'll give you an example: After reunification the Socialist Republic of Vietnam basically forced professionals to be relocated to areas where they are more needed, in service of the proletariat. Is the Communist Party of Vietnam practicing "slavery"?
NOTE: amerikkkan refers to white settlers. I don't believe there are "African Americans", Black people are their own colonized nation.
People often ask me: "An Lê Quý, what will decolonization look like, are you gonna just deport all white people back to Europe?"
Well, I'd love to do that but unfortunately it's not logistically feasible. So what would decolonization actually look like? Well...If you want a serious answer, any decolonization process would fulfill a vital task of the bourgeois democratic revolution: land reform. All land will be confiscated from the white settler nation, the amerikan suburbia won't continue to exist as it is today (no, you don't get to keep your suburban homes, it's not "working class personal property"). amerikkkans will be forcibly relocated, their residence will be confined in certain northern states to make room for the republics of internal colonies that will inevitably de-link from the u.$ empire - the Black Nation, the Chicano Nation and of course, the First Nations.
Aside from that, one of the top priorities would be reparations. This can come from a couple of sources:
1) One might think that there aren't many "means of production" left in the u.$, so there won't actually be much to "seize". In actual fact, there is still a fair amount of infrastructure and technological equipment in the u.$ that the global proletariat can expropriate: medical equipment in hospitals, teaching equipment in schools which are taken for granted by amerikans but are actually rare in the third world (computers, projectors, lab equipment), automated manufacturing technologies, vehicles, advanced construction equipment that aren't available in the third world, tractors, chemical fertilizer, etc... You get the idea. All of this will of course be brought back to the oppressed nations to aid their process of development - which the u.$ has obstructed for so long.
2) Personnel. Scientists, engineers, programmers, doctors, skilled workers or even managers with organizational skill be forced to go to the third world - where they are desperately needed for industrialization. Ultimately, this must be done to reverse the decades of brain drain that the third world has suffered. This measure combined with the abolition of intellectual property rights mean that the imperialist monopoly on technology will finally be relinquished. For the first time in history, substantial technological transfer will be a reality.
3) Land reform necessarily implies that the the white settler nation will be excluded from the decision making process with regards to what will be done on the land. Buildings maybe demolished, new farms and factories maybe built as the global proletariat sees fit. The amerikkkan population will be put to work in these newly constructed facilities (as well as any industrial & agricultural facilities left in the u.$ that haven't disappeared due to outsourcing). They will produce goods which will be taken back to the oppressed nations as reparations. This is also done to rehabilitate (or if you want to be crude, "re-civilize") them as functioning members of a future socialist society.
Needless to say, the white settler nation will be stripped off of any political rights, at least in the early years of the proletarian dictatorship - which, in case my point isn't obvious to you by now, will come from the outside. amerikkkans will not be allowed to take part in any political life until the global proletariat finds that they have been sufficiently civilized. Of course, I'm not purely fantasizing about this. You don't even have to imagine, these measures were all used in East Germany during the Soviet occupation. The problem is, Germany isn't a settler colonial empire, amerikkkans are far more reactionary, their culture much more decadent and rotten, and there's no tradition of proletarian internationalist politics among them (for obvious reasons). They will resist these measures, far more than East German workers ever did, and thus the "re-civilizing" stage will be far longer.
Basically, The protests are not peaceful and the students started killing the soldiers first. The students burnt and hung many soldiers before the soldiers retaliate. There were two protests, one in Tiananmen Square and another in Muxidi, a few kilometres near Tiananmen. Nobody died in Tiananmen, and 100-300 (soldiers and students combined) died in a conflict in Muxidi. The tank did not crush the guy. There are some evidence (although I’m not entirely sure) that CIA was involved, possibly funding the rioters. But yeah, western media turns it into very successful propaganda. But the thing that really disgusts me is that they would turn a blind eye to Gwanju massacre (1980) in South Korea and Rabaa massacre (2013) in Egypt but making a hell of a deal out of Tiananmen massacre.
An estimated 94 to 100 million souls lost their lives, killed by Communist regimes. The U.S.S.R. gets much focus but Communist genocides in Asia wiped out millions also. Economic and political systems are intertwined so deeply. It is too simplistic to say Communism did not really fail because it was never truly implemented as it was originally meant to be.
The two points you make are not logically connected.
a. milions died in those so called communism regimes.
b. its too simplistic to say communism did not really fail because it was never truly implemented.
You dont make any kind of connection between those two. How does A mean B is true? We could far more convincingly say the opposite: that A happened BECAUSE of B. Millions died because it was not real communism, since real communism does not have the violent coercion and murder of millions of people on the whim of one absolute ruler as an central aim or method.
ANY system that has ‘the violent coercion and murder of millions of people on the whim of one absolute ruler’ is not communism. It loses its right to call itself communism right away on just that one aspect. Since a key and unalterable aim of communism is “…the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" - Communist Manifesto, Section 2 (Marx and Engels)
Yes, quite the opposite of what we are normally told, the basic aim of communism is: FREEDOM. So, Stalin and Mao etc were state dictators, not communists. Because they deliberately suppressed the freedom of their own people, directly against basic communist principles. It seems pretty clear…
(though, actually, we cant leave it just at that - there are various things that need be taken into account when we consider what actually happened in Russia and China then).
[LifeFuel] Foid defends transagers. This is the first step toward recognition tbh.
As everyone here knows, I have recently come out as a transager incel. That's right! I am now 16 years old. The only problem is that I'm not legally allowed to change my age :( :cryfeels:
Right now, incels and transagers are the most discriminated minorities on the planet! this means we have a lot of work to do. I believe full recognition and acceptance of transage and incel folk is possible. After all, we are only people. We're not harming anyone when we identify ourselves to be a certain age.
I have been doing a lot of research in the last few days about this topic. There are many people who have come out, but we are not yet in great numbers to fight a legal battle. That's why I ask anyone here who identifies as incel/transage to come out. Do not be afraid, do not fear the judgement of ignorant people; they do not have love in their hearts.
Anyway, I have found this very interesting article and I want to share it with the community: Trans-aged individuals are just as entitled to anti-discrimination protection as transgender individuals. (Submitter’s note: link is non-functional)
"The Obama administration has championed special protected classes of citizens, but the government is still ignoring one deeply oppressed group: the trans-aged." :feelsgah:
"Trans-aged individuals are just as entitled to anti-discrimination protection as transgender individuals. "
"Think of the 12-year-old who self-identifies as 19, but is stuck in a middle-school classroom. " >>>>>> Lifefuel tbh
A new day is on the horizon, boyos. Better days shall come. We'll ride this storm together, and when we have left inceldom, we'll look back at this dark period of our lives and smile.
(This apparently originally is from Workers Vanguard No. 843, 4 March 2005. Bolding added by submitter.)
"Recovered memory" prosecutions—which put hundreds behind bars in the daycare and "satanic abuse" witchhunts of the 1980s and early 1990s—are back. In Boston on February 15, 74-year-old defrocked priest, Paul Shanley, was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison based solely on uncorroborated "recovered memories" of a man who claimed Shanley abused him 20 years earlier. Alexander Cockburn wrote in CounterPunch (19/20 February): "In the state that gave us Salem in the seventeenth century and the Amiraults (all wrongly sent to prison on charges brought by Middlesex county District Attorney Martha Coakley) in the twentieth, Shanley's case has reintroduced recovered memory to the courtrooms of the twenty-first."
Shanley has been one of the prime whipping boys in the explosive sex scandals that have rocked the Catholic church beginning in 2002, when the Boston Globe began a series on priests and sexual abuse of youth. Roderick MacLeish Jr., the personal injury lawyer representing Shanley's accuser, retailed scandalous tales to the press about Shanley, which have been refuted by JoAnn Wypijewski in CounterPunch. She actually read the 1,600-page official church file on Shanley, which apparently no other reporters bothered to do. As Cockburn pointed out, "Had they done so, they would have found nothing to buttress the claims that Shanley founded NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], or was ever a member, or had ever advocated sex between men and little boys, or had a 30-year record of child abuse complaints made against him or a history of being moved from parish to parish. Yet all these allegations have become the common currency of Shanley's biography, and if guards usher a murderer into his cell, the killer will probably have the NAMBLA charge at the top of his mind."
In fact, Paul Shanley did openly advocate recognizing homosexuality as a normal sexual variation (based partly on the pioneering work of Alfred Kinsey), and did have homosexual liaisons. He was a long-haired "street priest" in the 1960s, mentioned in the book Common Ground, who tried to help runaways and kids hooked on drugs. Shanley's "association" with NAMBLA is that he attended a conference of people fighting a Boston anti-gay witchhunt at the end of which some people, not including Shanley, founded a group that later became NAMBLA.
NAMBLA's name is perennially dragged through the plentiful Boston mud, having been pounded for over 20 years by media smears and witchhunting prosecutions. We in the Spartacist League have repeatedly defended this tiny beleaguered group as an elementary act of proletarian decency. We oppose criminalizing their advocacy of the eminently reasonable proposition that youth who have sexual feelings be allowed to express them. NAMBLA simply advocates the decriminalization of consensual sex between men and boys.
It is telling, in this deeply puritanical society, that the pitch of modern inquisitions increases according to the proximity of youth and sex. It is no accident that the church sex scandals have focused overwhelmingly on gay sex (did no priest ever touch a girl?), as this is guaranteed to set reactionary alarm bells ringing a lot louder. Since the daycare witchhunts, the code word for anti-sex crusaders, from the Christian right to the straightlaced morality feminists, has been "protect the children" from so-called pedophiles. This campaign reflects anti-gay bigotry, increased powers of repression for the capitalist state and a shoring up of reactionary "family values" like the domestic slavery of women and stultifying "abstinence only" for young people.
Gerald Amirault, a married man with children of his own, was released from prison in 2004 after being unjustly imprisoned for 18 years, framed up with incredible tales of evil robots, knives and dead pets at the Fells Acres Day School he ran with his sister and mother (who were also imprisoned). This was based solely on the coerced testimony of children whose only real abuse came at the hands of the prosecutors who, in their zeal for convictions and publicity, fed so much crap into them that they still reel from the trauma. Just as Amirault was up for a commutation, the church sex story exploded and he lost another two years to prison, as the cowardly politicians of Massachusetts refused, in the midst of the scandal, to set him free, despite the Board of Pardons' unanimous recommendation. We defended the Amiraults, and many other daycare workers, against the witchhunts of their time.
Now former priest Paul Shanley has been thrown to the wolves of "recovered memory" prosecution. This is a very dangerous thing. No evidence was presented that he committed any crime. This may be a difficult case for some of our readers to grasp, given the passionate—and legitimate—disgust so many feel for the real miseries inflicted by organized religion in this socially backward country, from the Christian fundamentalist right to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic church upholds subservience to authority, from children's submission to parents, a wife's submission to her husband, the flock's submission to the priest and submission of all humanity to God. The worst thing, ultimately, about religion is that it preaches blind faith in false, mystical forces ruling our fate, crippling humanity's fight for freedom from oppression and for control over nature.
We care about the suffering of those victimized by corrupt, violent institutions and adults—whether priests or bullying state prosecutors. The terror and helplessness felt by children coerced into submission by frightening authority figures like priests, especially when combined with enforced guilt about sex, does scar them for life. Obviously the church has a lot to cover up—look at the millions in hush money it's been dishing out (including to some of Shanley's accusers). Forced out over the scandal was Boston's arrogant Cardinal Bernard Law, the Catholic version of Harvard's all-purpose bigot Larry Summers (who recently speculated that women, Jews, Catholics and white basketball players are perhaps innately incapable of certain activities). Surely there are many abusive priests. But we'll never know what happened in many cases, as the actual guilt or innocence of those singled out to be demonized is irrelevant to both prosecutors and the church hierarchy, who would rather throw money at accusers than uncover the truth. This too is a terrible injustice to those abused.
The falsity and reactionary political uses of "recovered memory" prosecutions were thoroughly exposed a decade ago. In a major review of research and books debunking "recovered memory" prosecutions, we wrote: "Much of this persecution aims to strengthen the bourgeois state in its regulation of the population and to spread panic, as a diversion from the real brutality of life in this twisted, mean, bigoted, racist society" (Women and Revolution, No. 45, Winter-Spring 1996). What we wrote then is equally true today: It is in the interests of all in the workers movement to protest and oppose this new, deadly "recovered memory" witchhunt. Free Paul Shanley!
Word of advice
If you see an effeminate male that takes pictures of themselves with anime face masks, striped stockings, "cute" Snapchat filters and are "uwu softbois"
Chances are they're either racist, transphobic, have bad taste in humor, use slurs a lot, or all of the above
>How was it a bourgeois influence when the vast majority of rock and metal fans weren't bourgeois,
The fans may not have been porkies, but the musicians were. Rock music is fascist. It was a CIA PSYOP.
>a lot rock music had major anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist themes(John Lennon
Liberal hippie bullshit, lots of anti-communism mixed in ("You say you need a revolution…").
The USSR did fail to promote new proletarian music to an extent, but shitty boomer noises were not the answer.
>What makes this hypocritical is that at the same time ballet and classical music was kept in high regard, when these arts are to this day just entertainment for decadent and pretentious nobles and the grande bourgeosie
This kind of music is socially organized (in orchestras, practice sessions, etc) and performed by everyone. In comparison, the kind of music that is distinctly stamped with the approval of the bourgeoisie is rock music that focuses on stardom and expropriates musical performance from the masses. Orchestral music was accessible to all in socialism. Would you complain also that the socialists preserved beautiful tzarist architecture and made it accessible to all instead of demolishing it and replacing it with bourgeois skyscrapers?
If you are a man, you are part of rape culture.
I know … that sounds rough. You’re not a rapist, necessarily. But you do perpetuate the attitudes and behaviors commonly referred to as rape culture.
You may be thinking, “Now, hold up, Zaron! You don’t know me, homey! I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let you say I’m some sorta fan of rape. That’s not me, man!”
I totally know how you feel. That was pretty much exactly my response when someone told me I was a part of rape culture. It sounds horrible. But just imagine moving through the world, always afraid you could be raped. That’s even worse! Rape culture sucks for everyone involved. But don’t get hung up on the terminology. Don’t concentrate on the words that offend you and ignore what they’re pointing to — the words “rape culture” aren’t the problem. The reality they describe is the problem.
Men are the primary agents and sustainers of rape culture.
Rape isn’t exclusively committed by men. Women aren’t the only victims — men rape men, women rape men — but what makes rape a men’s problem, our problem, is the fact that men commit 99% of reported rapes.
How are you part of rape culture? Well, I hate to say it, but it’s because you’re a man.
[Click the link for the whole article]
this comment below the article articulates things quite well. Identity politics is a tool of the ruling class to pit workers against each other rather than focus on class struggle, congrats on serving the ruling class.
Trans is a product of capitalism. You are buying an identity. Making the purchase easier isn’t revolutionary. There is zero-evidence that hormones are live-saving. This is the typical hyperbolic nonsense that the trans movement spouts. Gender is a tool of women’s oppression; not an identity playground, not some internal essence or belief that changes material reality. If people who think otherwise were a little smarter they’d realize they’re conservatives. Gender identity is to the left what climate change denial is to the right. If you are Ph.D. level philosophy student and can’t think any better this you should consider a lawsuit against the schools you’ve attended. They owe you a refund.
Metoo is a self aggrandising project squabbling over scraps at the neoliberal table, framing justice as gender war (instead of class war) is retarded, and it merely props up the status quo by avoiding structural critique. I’m not imagining utopia, I’m pointing out a smug fraud.
Furrydom is not driven by the commercial aspect of it though, you mong. The furry fandom's commercial aspect happens because it is not created by a centralized, mass-produced source, meaning that the barrier of entry to start getting on the market for furry product (BECAUSE WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM, EVERYTHING WILL BE IN THE FORM OF MARKETS ON A BROAD SCALE) is almost nil, meaning that anyone who can get even a semi-regular internet connection is now capable of attempting to start hawking their personally-made wares with nothing in general to drive people out by the creation of productive capital, on the whole, the furry community has been particularly resistant to the development of capital because of the demand for small scale personalized product.
What this means, you absolute moron, is that the furry fandom has been particularly anticapitalist, you even admit that yourself that it does not follow traditional capitalist developmental periods. The reason that commercialization of furrydom has gone further over the last few years is because niggas be poor because neoliberalism has been leeching off the lower and middle classes of the first world and it's been leaking into even their escapist fantasies..
I looked up the age difference for Stalin and his wife and I gotta say, our king shouldn’t have had a 21 year gap and now I really don’t know how to feel
Re: Mass same-sex wedding held in Israel to campaign for marriage equality
Strange that PN hasn't reported on the mass same sex wedding in Palestine. Oh, wait...
Palestine? That's not a country. It is an illegally occupied territory that's been stolen by the brutally racist and murderous Apartheid state of Israel.
Terrorist Israel denies Palestinians freedom of assembly so a mass wedding is not permitted to the Palestinian people.
Did these people murder a Palestinian cicivilian after the ceremony to prove their loyalty to the murderously racist, Apartheid state of Israel.
Until Palestine is free, Apartheid Israel does not deserve peace or security.
It's not possible to worldbuild without ending up with it coming from a position of cultural hegemony, which is flat-out colonialism. It's also extremely presumptuous and colonialist to presume that the world is the same for everyone and that the world is objective in the way that worldbuilding necessitates.
There's also the fact that the impulse to worldbuild comes from a place that lacks real understanding of the structures and oppressive systems that make up our society. That lack of understanding leads to major issues of transferring over the author's biases writ large. Couple that with the fact that worldbuilding is primarily the realm of SF/F, a genre that's predominantly loved by fascists, and I think you see that I'm getting at.
Worldbuilding is at best reactionary intellectual masturbation, and at worst (which its often at its worst) purposeful fascist propaganda.
I’m not saying that all genre writers are fascists who intentionally back an agenda (although many are). I’m say that SF/F is innately fascist, and even the most well-intentioned SF/F writers are going to propagate fascist ideas, whether they intend to or not.
(NOTE: The link leads to a reblog of the post, as the OP has deleted their blog.)
can i just say like telling people not to smoke or drink alcohol while they’re pregnant is ableist and classist as fuck and it needs to stop
first off the majority of smokers/substance abusers are from disadvantaged and poor backgrounds or are struggling with mental health issues and they use it as a coping method so to tell them theyre a bad person for doing that is both classist and ableist
the main argument against it is that your child will come out disabled but honestly if that happens so what??? whats wrong with that??? this whole mindset has deep fucking roots in ableist thought process and im fucking sick of it. like. why do you hate people with disabilities lol
How would I go about sharing my two cents as an ex-incel from a left political perspective (communist)?
Disclaimer: not an 'AMA'.
I'm 20 something years old and with an inhuman amount of effort I've 'ascended' to being a normie, with my own day job's income and place, a halfway finished BA at a university, a couple of girlfriends (none higher than a '4') and a current girlfriend I've had sex with on multiple occasions (also probably no higher than a '4' or maybe '4.5' if I asked the layman), all met at work and school.
I'm by no means very attractive naturally (though I've fixed much of it with callisthenics, proper self-care, proper amounts of sleep, improving my posture and facial expression, etc.) spergy (diagnosed with Asperger's, personality development disorder, MDD), rather frequent drug user and had the typical bleak loner and clown-like childhood.
In spite of what I would call the 'reactionary' character of the online incel community, I highly sympathize with it and believe that it is the product of legitimate structural failures of modernity against men and that the cause lies in the increased social demand to be more than just an authentic individual and partner to a woman, but a full 'product' that needs to be valorizable as more than a partner but as a commodity and status object in general.
With the decline of old rigid patriarchal structures this subjectivity in relations has opened up but in a world where, increasingly, value must come from socioeconomic status, which can primarily be sold materially in the form of: disposable income or other forms of capital, a conformed physical appearance and outwardly matching confidence and (sexually enticing) personality; all elements that improve one's ability to sell oneself and acquire the means to purchase others. Attraction is a financial transaction exchanged for either financial or social capital, and one must have both or be able to acquire either one with the other to succeed in obtaining intimacy. I strongly believe that 'neurodivergent' incels in reality fail to find intimacy because they would never want to sacrifice their authenticity for conformity, and that this is then communicated through a resentment of the object of desire (an authentic female companionship).
I'm not much happier now that I've improved myself, but in effect that is the real problem: anyone can 'ascend' if they truly try hard enough, but it will never really fulfill any real needs, because the real desire is for a world within which folding oneself over so hard just to fit in and obtain what is today arguably the most important form of social capital, a female companion, is so necessary.
My ideal would not so much be a world in which society itself coerces women to (once more) conform to being the guaranteed other to men (enforced monogamy, arranged marriage, social division in sex, etc.), as this would equally remove any element of authenticity, but rather a world in which propertied social capital is an impossibility and as as such serves no real inherent added value in the experience and reproduction of daily life but that sex and romance is then reduced purely to its own, non-vital element of life. I realize the former is that which is attractive to you because, on a metaphysical level, you have already concluded that there is a difference between men and women so fundamental that it cannot be changed by altering society to have the woman be less of an object (inherently, you believe this will always be the case), but to me that reality is not only false but untennable: if our predicament is in effect that we have strayed from a metaphysical essence (patriarchal society) by introducing subjectivity and that we must either return to that essence or suffer mentally, then I would honestly rather kill myself twice over as it would imply that the human experience as such already exists, that there is nothing to discover or experience whatsoever but something in particular one must just as well conform to as the current predicament.
Essentially this means that for all intents and purposes incels are right about the present state of things, and do identify a problem, and are right when saying that, objectively, when one is an incel, there is little more to do than try to 'looksmaxx' or whatever oneself to be as close to a 'normie' as possible. And likewise I share the agreement that this is a decrepit state for a society to be in. I simply don't think salvation lies in the past.
I'm not sure I'm making much of a point here anymore, so I'll leave it at this. I haven't gotten into why I'm a communist now and, frankly, I don't think it really matters in more than how I roughly view the incel question on a macro-scale. Again, I know this is no AMAs, and I wasn't looking for an AMA either. I just wanted to tell you my experiences and perspective and get your opinions on them straight.
If this wasn't the right place to make this post but such a place exists please link me to it before nuking.
E: apologies for how everything in the title starts in caps; nothing else here is formatted that way and it looks stupid.
@itsa_talia
https://twitter.com/itsa_talia/status/1124948284785688576
there is so much cum on your face
being a woman is totally normal and very cool
The hysterical discourses of our era — #metoo prime among them — adopt a patina of sexual moralism, but the sex is a mere cloak by which bourgeoise ideology propagates & reproduces itself. Discursive gasoline poured on a fire of neoliberal acceleration, atomisation and alienation.
Ladies splashing their asinine antagonism toward men all over the timeline are showing their sterile, ruling class hand. Most women don't have the luxury of hysterical revulsion toward their partners. Caring isn't creepy; it's deeply human to need other people and to be needed.
That ruling class hand becomes an iron fist upon receipt of a lonely fools flirty DM. If you're an adult who cannot politely but firmly reject an unrequited advance or hit the block button, you need help. So does every yas-kween girlboss and male-ally enabler in your mentions.
99.99% of the people who have ever lived would LOVE for a cum filled dm to be the "emotional burden" they have to bear. Ruling class scum.
[From "Remembering Hugo Chavez"]
YOU won’t read about it much in those parts of the media currently arguing for war on Venezuela, but when Hugo Chavez first became president in 1999, Venezuela had endured a wave of economic and social catastrophes in the preceding two decades.
Up to seven in 10 people had been left in poverty. Income per head had collapsed to the levels of the 1950s. Millions were left to live in barrios dangerously clinging to the mountainsides, often without clean water or sanitation. Many had no proper access to healthcare and education
After Chavez’s election in 1998 with a 57 per cent vote, he set about his mission to transform the country.
Two key pillars of progressive change in Venezuela were transformations in healthcare and education, funded by a massive programme of wealth redistribution that redirected Venezuela’s oil revenues to collective social purposes.
Under Chavez, the government built thousands of new clinics, hospitals, and diagnostic centres across the country.
Through Mission Barrio Adentro (Into the Neighbourhood Mission), the main healthcare programme established in 2003, care and treatment were provided free. In Chavez’s lifetime it saved as many as 292,000 lives, cut infant mortality by a third and increased life expectancy by over two years. Mission Sonrisa (Mission Smile) provided free dental care, while Mission Milagro (Mission Miracle) restored eyesight to about 300,000 Venezuelans.
In education, tackling illiteracy was an early priority. In just 18 months, 1.6 million adults learned to read and write, two thirds of whom were women. Beyond meeting this basic need, free education at all levels was made a constitutional right.
Investment in education doubled from 3 per cent of GDP in 1999 to 6 per cent of a much greater GDP in 2011, funding provision such as free nurseries, free school meals and the constriction of more than 3,000 new schools and 40 new higher education institutions. Two million children were added to school rolls, a 25 per cent increase.
Millions of adults were also enabled to return to school to complete their basic education, while Unesco data recorded Venezuela as achieving the fifth highest level of university enrolment in the world.
Free education as a legal right was just one measure of a new progressive constitution instituted by Chavez that guaranteed a wide range of human rights and prohibited discrimination. Turning these provisions into everyday reality against a background of decades of deep-rooted discrimination was never going to be easy, but huge advances were made under Chavez’s leadership.
Women were the main beneficiaries of the social programmes tackling poverty and disadvantage, such as entitlements to social security, help to set up small businesses and co-operatives and advancements of women’s rights in the workplace, particularly through the 2012 Labour Law legislation.
Coupled with these material improvements was a drive to ensure that the concerns of women were represented at the heart of the political process. This led to women substantially increasing their representative and leadership roles, particularly in the 35,000 community councils that form the backbone, along with 130,000 grassroots “Bolivarian Circles” in neighbourhoods and workplaces across the country, of Venezuela’s constitutional commitment to being a participatory democracy.
The new progressive constitution also provided protection for indigenous people and those of African descent, within an acknowledged multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Parliamentary political representation was guaranteed; a Ministry for Indigenous People set up in 2007 and service provision such as medical care tailored to meet specific community needs.
Alongside redistributing 1.4 million acres left idle in large landed estates to 15,000 peasant families, Chavez’s government returned one million hectares to indigenous communities through 40 collective title deeds
While a specific law against racial discrimination was passed in 2011, Chavez — proud of his own African heritage — also promoted the celebration of indigenous and African ancestry and culture.
The 1999 constitution’s fundamental provision that “The state shall guarantee to every person, in accordance with the progressive principle and without discrimination, the enjoyment and inalienable, indivisible and interdependent human rights,” also enabled Venezuela’s LGBT communities to strengthen their struggle against homophobia and transphobia.
The 2012 Labour Law explicitly prohibited “exclusion or restriction in access to work and work conditions” based on sexuality, as well as other forms of discrimination.
Chavez’s programme also included advancing rights for disabled people, rooted in the new constitution’s commitment that “any person with disabilities or special needs has the right to the full and autonomous exercise of his or her abilities.” The 2007 Law for Disabled People helped translate this commitment into effect through various measures, not least the establishment of a specific Mission to meet the medical and social needs of disabled people.
Taken together, all these policies had lifted five million Venezuelans out of poverty by 2011 and transformed the lives of many more.
But to help realise his vision that “another world is possible,” not just for Venezuela, Chavez also led the creation of key regional organisations to unite Latin American voices and provide progressive economic alternatives to neoliberalism, such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), a regional bloc made up of 33 nations, and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (Alba), a trade alliance made up of eight countries.
On the global scale, he opposed the disastrous US wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, becoming ever more an enemy of the Bush administration, who (like New Labour’s Denis MacShane) backed the shortly successful coup against him in 2002.
Of course, like any other leader, he made mistakes — and he was known to have regretted not doing more to diversify the economy away from its historical overreliance on oil, which has caused so many difficulties in recent years — but we mustn’t let enemies of socialism delete from history what he achieved.
I was proud to host Chavez as mayor of London when he visited here, and I’m proud to write this article on his achievements and legacy today.
Chavez was the spark for a revival of the Left and Latin American liberation in the 21st century and for that he will always be remembered.
(About the mass imprisonments in Xinjiang)
China, which is taking resolute actions to stem violent terror attacks in Xinjiang, is a more moral country compared with the US that has done nothing to prevent the repeated gun crime.
A former French left-wing parliamentary candidate has been arrested over his tweets about a policeman killed during a jihadist siege in southern France last week.
Stéphane Poussier appeared to celebrate the death of Lt-Col Arnaud Beltrame, saying it was great.
He added that the death in the town of Trèbes meant one less voter for President Emmanuel Macron.
[ on otto warmbier , an american who was sentened to 15 years hard labor in north korea for allegedly stealing a sign]
No mixed thoughts on this one. The guy is a cry baby little thief. He is no more a victim than the kid who was caned in Singapore for vandalism. He is probably a spoiled, self-entitled little brat. Mommy can't fix this one with a call to the teacher. He will have a couple months to let this lesson sink in. He will be released in under a year or so, I bet. No sympathy for the shame he's brought upon himself or his country. And on top of it all, he empowers an enemy of the United States and the entire western world by sobbing out that pre-written story about how the America Government made him do it. I hope he spends at least the next 5 years over there planting apple trees. At least 5. Fuck this guy.
(You know how Alt-shite always say that only whites have multiculturalism "forced" on them, while other groups are encouraged to have ethnically pure countries? I think those people are trying to support them.)
A White Person Wrote ‘Why Anyone Can Be Chinese,’ And It’s A Checklist In Privilege
A white scholar’s recent op-ed suggests he might need some lessons on his own privilege.
Daniel Bell, a white dean at China’s Shandong University, recently penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why Anyone Can Be Chinese.” In it, he laments how he’s not considered Chinese despite his self-proclaimed dedication to the culture.
China, he argues, should look at identity as cultural rather than racial, concluding the piece with his ultimate hope:
“President Xi Jinping describes his broad agenda for the country as the ‘China dream,’” Bell writes. “My own China dream is more modest: to be viewed as a Chinese not just in my own mind but in the minds of my fellow Chinese.”
Bell claims to have respect for the Chinese. But his piece shows that he’s not looking at identity through the lens of the Chinese, John Kuo Wei Tchen, associate professor and director of Asian/Pacific/American Institute, NYU
Bell begins his piece, making comparisons between himself and a Chinese-American who “doesn’t speak Chinese or identify in any way with Chinese culture,” and “forcefully rejects” the label “Chinese.”
But the connections Bell makes are apples to oranges. Bell, a white man from Canada, ignores the real, human experiences that Chinese people live through, Tchen noted.
Bell isn’t someone whose family has been brought up in China through generations, communicating through insider references. His ancestors haven’t lived through events like the Opium Wars or the Cultural Revolution that have shaped the population’s outlook. Bell is a white man whose roots and values come from elsewhere.
There’s another issue at hand with Bell’s comparison. Ideas of belonging and identity are tied to political environment, Tchen says. These concepts are forged out of history and traditions, constructed over time by cultural and political forces. A western view of these ideas will be different from, say, a Chinese one. Bell doesn’t seem to acknowledge that, though.
“Notions of citizenship and belonging come out of particular political cultures. Just because that’s what he believes in, he wants to apply that to China which doesn’t really make any sense,” Tchen said. “It can’t just be willy-nilly applied to any other place.”
Bell continues his argument, listing several traits of his that he believes somehow underscore his “Chineseness.” Though he brings up possible barriers to acceptance like citizenship, commitment to culture, and lack of language skills, he insists those aren’t problems for him. He points out how he’s often “the only person wearing Chinese-style clothing” at conferences. And earlier in the piece he mentions his marriage to a Chinese woman as if those details help assert Chineseness.
In another line, he even puts down native Chinese people and pretentiously writes, “millions of poorly educated Chinese citizens speak hardly any Mandarin, and yet nobody questions their Chineseness.”
However, identity isn’t so simple as checking traits off a list, Tchen said. Bell’s possession of such qualities does not make him more “eligible” to be Chinese.
To be Chinese is not a mere checklist, just like being black or from any other culture isn’t about hitting a set number of achievements.
“If he were to become an expert on Toni Morrison, if he were to then master African-American cuisine, if he had married an African-American woman, would he feel he can claim being African-American or black?” Tchen questioned.
At one point, Bell attempts to point out the flaws in seeing Chineseness as racial and describes the country’s tumultuous relationship with foreigners.
“When China is powerful and secure, foreigners are welcome and considered employable, including at the highest levels of government,” he wrote in the op-ed. “When China is weak, foreigners are often viewed with suspicion and even hatred.”
Tchen told HuffPost that he agrees that ideally, we “need to reject the very notion of ’race’ and hence racial belonging.” These ideas don’t translate across historical and cultural differences, he says. But again, being part of a culture is dependent on historical context. Identity goes further than today’s politics and culture.
At the end of the day, Bell’s piece begs the question posed by Tchen.
“Are there not deeper shared values that are more important to explore than a European Canadian wanting to be accepted as ‘Chinese?’”
People usually laugh when I tell them I am a convicted terrorist. I try not to open with that — it seems a little bit forward. First, I explain how my friend Tyler and I entered a fur farm in the dead of night. I describe the unspeakable suffering we found there. I tell people how Tyler and I opened every single cage and released 2,000 mink to save their lives. And once they have the context, I segue into the terrorism thing.
Now that I have been out of prison for more than a year, I can be a bit more lighthearted about it. But the seventh circuit court of appeals doesn’t see the humor. Last Wednesday, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the federal statute that put me away for three years and that my lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights have been trying to challenge for nearly a decade.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a piece of designer legislation written and paid for by the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries. It federalizes non-violent property crime and punishes it as terrorism — but only when the perpetrators are motivated by the belief that animals deserve to live free from violence. The court explicitly stated that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act did not apply to four Fresno, California, teenagers who sneaked into a Foster Farms facility and bludgeoned 900 chickens to death with a golf club because “they killed the chickens for no reason”.
Put succinctly, I am a terrorist not because of what I did, but because the government dislikes why I did it. I remember organizing my first protest, outside of the circus, in 2005. I was 19 years old. My friend and I argued with the police about whether our group could stand on a courtyard by the Staples Center and whether we could use megaphones. We asserted our rights, and we were successful.
That same year, the FBI declared animal rights activists to be the nation’s “number one domestic terrorism threat”. A year later, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Suddenly, I found myself being followed as I drove to work. My parents and siblings were harassed. My home was raided by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Three times. We no longer argued with the police about where we could chant and hold our signs. The police brandished assault rifles, and we did as they said. Then, when we were done, they openly followed us back to our cars to photograph our license plates. While the rest of the nation took no notice, simply organizing a protest became a frightening prospect if you were an animal rights activist.
In this atmosphere, more and more of my friends stopped speaking out for animals. Countless times I heard people say they were scared of being placed on a list. More than once, someone told me they had canceled their subscriptions to animal-related magazines. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act achieved its intended outcome. When the distinguishing feature of a “terrorist” is simply an ethical concern for animals, such concerns become marginalized, and voicing them becomes dangerous. What remains is silence.
Now I watch as the rhetoric honed and the precedents established against animal rights activists are expanded to cover an increasingly broad swath of dissent. In Donald Trump’s America, states across the country are introducing legislation designed to bully and deter protesters. Some of these proposed laws include five-year prison sentences for protesters who block traffic.
Lawmakers in Arizona seek to charge protest groups as organized criminals, and seize their assets. In Oregon, a statute would automatically expel students who violate protest laws. Missouri wants to criminalize the use of costumes during protests. And, following the horrors of Charlottesville, lawmakers in half a dozen states have introduced legislation to indemnify drivers who run over protesters, as if the drivers were the ones in need of protection.
This is not how a free society operates. Our rights are meaningless if the government intimidates us out of using them. But as Wednesday’s decision makes clear, the judiciary will not protect us from such abuse. The court has legitimized the government’s use of the word “terrorism” to describe nearly any activity of which it disapproves – and emboldened lawmakers around the country who are beginning to do just that. It is evident that our leaders consider our speech and assembly a threat to their unencumbered exercise of power. Now, more than ever, we must show them that they are right.
I've followed the issue and I can't help but feel little to no empathy for Weinstein's "victims". Don't get me wrong, Weinstein is clearly a dick who used his status and wealth unethically and he deserves the shaming he currently faces. BUT as far as I know all these actresses and actors who were victims and/or didn't speak out didn't do so because their life was at risk. No it was because their ludicrous wealth and fame was. And I'm sorry but I won't feel sorry for people who are willing to physically and/or morally prostitute themselves for massive wealth and fame. I don't earn millions a year nor am I famous yet I live a perfectly good and happy life so clearly these people didn't need to whore themselves to Weinstein. We're not talking about poor people risking to end up on the street and being forced to fuck to get the only job potentially available to them. No we're talking about people who were willing to throw away their moral and physical integrity to become a member of an arrogant elite club.
Now on the general discussion that has come out of this, it sickens me how some high profile people are using this as an excuse to make insane generalities. Just yesterday I had to hear Trevor Noah tell us that it isn't a "Hollywood" problem but a "Men" problem. Well if he treats women like that maybe he should confess but I ain't nor is anyone in my department, my circle of friends, etc. So no it's not a Men's problem. It's a problem among some men who hold power and decide it's ok to use it unethically. And I'm willing to bet that some women with power do that too. Yes sexual harassment and abuse of power on the workplace is still a problem and it has to be fought. But it's not by making stupid generalizations that we will solve this.
The powerful never have the backing of powerful organizations which could render even attempts at criminal charges useless.
Better they all risk throwing away their dreams and careers so some chodes on the Internet and prominent right-wing pundits can call them hysterical feminazis for complaining about some aggressive flirting.
God forbid we generalize about men. Everybody else is fair game.
How is the military relevant here? Or Bill cosby? Or O'Reilly? Was I referring to those people or cases? No. I was referring to actors and actresses who surrendered their own dignity in order to stay on the good side of someone (Weinstein) who could either make them millionaires or doom those poor victims to a mediocre middle class life. (And even so, who knows it was more bluff than anything else)
Do these powerful people often have a lot of backing? Sure. But clearly not enough to be untouchable otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing". And that's what happened, except "good" should be replaced by "money and fame hungry". They wanted wealth and fame and they got it, and now they complain that they got a bad deal, shouldn't have accepted that deal than. And let's not forget that by abiding to his demands and/or not bringing his behavior to light they reinforced his feeling of invincibility and encouraged his behavior.
I'm sorry but to other comrades, can we not be satisfied with "it's all a lie" or "Stalin did nothin' wrong." OP is obviously a new guy. If you just say Stalin did nothing wrong, OP may or may not believe it, or if they do believe it, will have insufficient knowledge about the subject matter. On the other hand, it's true that Stalin didn't do many things wrong. He had mistakes, sure, but not many, and usually they were caused by the external conditions i.e. Stalin didn't really have a choice.
Let's talk about dekulakization and why it's not an atrocity. The kulaks were landlords who refused to give their land. Now, Stalin needed to collectivize land to bring up production due to the fact that a famine was beginning to occur. The Kulaks intentionally sabotaged production by burning wheat and whatnot, decreasing, for example, the amount of livestock during the first five year plan. So is it surprising that Stalin would want to get rid of them? Next, bourgeois media likes to spit on the gulags, shame them to death, when even American and most of Europe had forms of labor camps. The Americans kept labor camps in the Philippines and Cuba for example.
But when, under Gorbachev, the archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU were opened up to researchers, it was found that the number of political prisoners in 1939 had been 454,000, not the millions claimed by Conquest. If we add those in prison for non-political offenses, we get a figure of 2.5 million, that is, 2.4% of the adult population. In contrast, there were in the United States in 1996, according to official figures, 5.5 million people in prison, or 2.8% of the adult population.
The final thing is that Stalin did strive for democracy in the Soviet Union. He called for a secret ballot on an equal basis, saying that a peasants' vote would count as much as a workers' vote. It was true that on the ballot, there was only one party - the CPSU. But it isn't true that it was the only thing there. Evidently, other non-party organizations like citizens' groups and workplace organizations had their candidates on the ballot as well.
I've been thinking about the GULAG system recently, or rather, about things like convict labour. I read an article about prison overcrowding in the UK the other day, and about how people are getting themselves arrested because they prefer prison over the outside (failures of capitalism in praxis, ftw). Then I remembered how Stalin built a canal with convict labour, and I thought that it sounded like a brilliant idea.
Dunno, maybe I'm being naive about it, but I often hear people I know complain about the way that convicted criminals don't do anything useful other than eat taxpayer's money.
The police aren't fellow workers. They're the people paid by the government to attack workers.
There have always been crimes and perversions, but the crimes and perversions are far, far worse and more common today than they were thirty, fifty, eighty, a hundred years ago. Pornography has, to my mind and according to the data, been a HUGE factor in the proliferation
Anal sex, much less anal rape, was not something in the realm of our consciousnesses when I was in high school. Now, the boys coerce or pressure girls for anal. The Yale chant of "No means yes and yes means anal" is a creature of the Millennial demographic and Age of Porn.
Porn is not the only factor. Rapid technological change and the predations of late-stage capitalism lead to widespread anomie and the breakdown of community. The teaching of such idiocies as queer theory and transgender normalism, the cultural adoption of the homosexual male sexual practices and norms, a general loosening of standards of honor and decency and goodness, the failure so far of humans to adapt wise sexual mores to the new material reality of The Pill giving women and other humans the ability to control fertility for the first time in history --- these and many other factors play into the remarkable depravity of these times.
Having watched things for several decades, it seems that there has been a huge regression in women's consciousness as a whole. Looking at popular culture with its stripper feminism and its support of porn and prostitution, it seems that rights earlier feminists won are being eroded and the cultural pendulum has swung to a severe hatred of women.
The social media, computers, ubiquitous screens have made modern young stupider than older generation; attention spans are short; the ability to think rationally or critically is impaired; mental illness has become the norm; research shows today's young are 40% less empathetic than two decades ago. . Not good on the individual or species level.
Knowing the importance of naming and language, earlier feminists and our foremothers struggled to have adult women referred to as women, instead of as girls, broads, hens, b*tches, c*nts, whores, sluts, etc. These slurs are ugly, they help normalize misogyny and perpetuate sexism. Many of these words should be retired or fade from the language as our consciousness evolves.
But what do young women do? They call themselves sluts and start a campaign called Slutwalk in which they dress like bordello workers and parade around in their underwear, while hordes of male perverts show up to watch, film and photograph. Ugh.
When was the last time men protested or ran a campaign or movement in their underwear???
I would like to have more hope for the god-awful human species, but the objective signs are not positive. C'est la vie.
Gulags where necessary. You can not let the counterrevolutionarys organize and do whatever they like. They will try to take over the state again, crush the revolution and get back to the old status quo that benefited them. So you have to remove them somehow.
And on Kulaks. They choose to be Kulaks. They could've just cooperated.?
Wow. How nice to make fun of vegans instead of using your brains for once second and thinking about the pain animals go through so you can eat them. And no, plants can’t feel pain and they are not sentient. So there is not “chekmate” and this isn’t funny. It just shows how pathetic and insensitive you’all are. Now go eat your disgusting animals products and continue pretending that you do no harm because you’d need a heart of care and feel guilty and you don’t have one. Just do that without bothering those who are doing something to help animals.
I have no idea if this is supposed to be a joke or not. I surely hope so, because it's been giving me the best laughing fit I've had in years.
Leo, I'm over the age of thirty, have two kids, work a job, support my family, and live in a great amazing apartment. I also support stealing from bosses, wrecking capitalist property, robbing banks, attacking the pigs, and countless other illegal acts.
Your article is ridiculous, and I'm happy to be the first person to comment on this waste of pixels on my computer screen.
Can we settle this once and for all? Anarchism, by it's definition, is an illegal ideology. There is a law in the United States, known as the sedition act, that makes it illegal to work, agitate, or organize against the existence of the United States government. If you could somehow that anarchists don't want to attack the existence of the U.S. government, even in purely verbal terms and through literature, then, I'm sorry my friend, you're not an anarchist. You're a social-democrat.
Whether or not you think it's a good idea to attack capitalist property or not, or to engage in clandestine acts, to argue that anarchists should break the law or engage in illegal action is to negate anarchism itself as even an ideology.
Revolution isn't legal. It's not safe or pretty or easy to fit into some comfortable box. I'm sorry you have decided that you want to fit into some secure comfortable life now that you're almost thirty, but for most of us in this country, we don't live a comfortable or secure life. We struggle as it is against precarity and a precarious life. That will be our reality for as long as we can work. It's not like I can retire. When I'm no longer able to work, I can either die, or live illegally.
Dearest Leo, your privilege disgusts me. Because really, that's all this post is, just a privileged brat's rant.
Exactly, they think their hired mercenaries and shiny toys can beat revolutionaries who are motivated not by coin or by greed, but by a cosmic imperative. Those private security guards you toss a bit of wealth at every once in a while, their loyalty ends when their paycheck ends. But our loyalty never ends, we will fight you in every way possible.
It won't be long before every business owner, Liberal, and fascist is checking under their bed for Leftists every night. Hit-and-run attack, hit-and-run attacks, you're not physically removing us, we're physically removing YOU. We are the predator, and you are the prey. We are the artist, the concrete is the canvas, and your blood and guts will make a magnificent paint.
They don't understand that, we are not just an issue that they can throw their money at, we are an inevitability that can only be slowed down, but never stopped. They're going to find out very quickly just how brutal we can be. Step into your luxury car and you will find one of us in the backseat with a bit of piano wire waiting to choke you to death. Look under the suspension and you will find a square of semtex. Look on the rooftops and you will see a sniper. Look at the roads, for they will soon be nothing but rubble and ash, backing up traffic for miles. Look at your factory, and your factory is now rubble.
In the United States, the police are the army of rich and little else.
As a reaction to the social changes of the 1960s, the oligarchy in the US needed both a police state and a private army to avoid any similar social movements from happening again. Because of these social fears, the normal police officer was turned into the warrior hero - judge, jury and executioner.
Police have never been the friends of the common citizen, but at least there was a balance in most communities. This balance was dangerous to the goals of the oligarchy. And here we are today with a open civil war in many communities.
[Comments under "The Sluts of /r/TrollXCommunism Hate All Cishet Men, EXCEPT FOR THAT SEXY DREAMBOAT HUNK STALIN"]
@PhysicsIsMyMistress
/u/rsfrthrow you know Stalin oppressed minorities, right? Moved them around in bouts of ethnic cleansing?
It wasn't ethnic cleansing he moving people around to mix up all the populations of the Soviet Union to fight racism. Making a few hundred Balts in Turkmenistan is not ethnic cleansing.
(re: Otto Warmbier)
Some privileged white scum dies after a coma and gets treated like a martyr yet the racist US terrorist state murders Charleena Lyles.
A Yankee adventurist is now dead and thinking about it, his 'coma' could've been something else. May he rot in hell whatever happened.
This Yankee scum will be used as propaganda against DPRK yet at home, racist Amerikkka guns down Charleena Lyles with impunity.
I am personally inclined to accept the transwoman over the homosexual, or more accurately, I am more inclined to accept the autogynephile over the homosexual. I think there is a reason the homosexual was integrated into imperialism first, and there seems to be a struggle in the ranks of the bourgeoisie over the integration of autogynephiles.
Even though I am inclined to accept autogynephiles over the homosexuals, I freely admit I think the radical feminists have pegged them pretty accurately. The autogynephile does have the mind of the rapist, or rather, the sexual fantasies of the autogynephile tend toward extreme submission of the female. There is an article where a feminist recounts her experience as a phone sex operator talking to men who we would know recognize as having autogynephilia, and she points out none of these men ever fantasized about becoming a woman and dominating other men with their new vaginas. Their sexual fantasies are always playing the submissive, and clearly “Stefonknee” is no different.
I would say the integration of the autogynephile is basically a confirmation of the rape-culture thesis. Basically the Oppressor Man and his Oppressor Woman force the Homo-Fascist (the white gay male in charge of the LGBTQ alphabet-soup in the West) to integrate the autogynephile because they get-off on autogynephilic sexual fantasies. Not all women, but a lot of them do have rape fantasies. The rape fantasies of women aren’t exactly like the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile. The rape fantasies of some straight women are usually more narcissistic; the man is raping me because he is overcome with lust for me and must possess me now. This fantasy is still focused on the hyper-exaggerated erotic mental state of the male rapist. The submission fantasies of the autogynephile are being in the act of submission itself, having really nothing to do with imagining the erotic mental states of their would-be sexual partners.
In that sense, the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile are closer to straight men than any woman. It is probably easiest for the straight man to sympathize with the autogynephile, especially any straight man who has every constructed an elaborately detailed feminine fantasy object for masturbation purposes. The difference seems to be one of identification with the feminine fantasy object, or in the case of the autogynephile, perhaps even a lack of imagination on the erotic mental states of actual women.
In any case, from my previous experience working with LGBTQ people in student activism, I am inclined to believe anti-transwoman sentiment is because the homosexual male doesn’t want to really integrate this identity into the LGBTQ alpha-bet soup they control. The male homosexual sees the autogynephile as a homosexual with a mental disorder. If this is true, I suspect the real difference between the male homosexual and the autogynephile relates to the onset of the sexual imagery. The homosexual male begins identifying with the feminine fantasy object earlier on, even before the onset of puberty, while the autogynephile is a post-puberty version of the same sort of internal fantasies. The continuity here is best evidenced by the androphilic transwoman, who in another context would develop into a ‘normal’ male homosexual. The male homoseuxal sees this an understands what he could have been forced to become, given another cultural context, and fears the integration of the transwomen because it could lead to the extinction of his identity, given a profound shift in political/cultural values.
Lastly, the androphilic transwomen actually desires straight men, seeing ‘normal’ homosexuals as too effeminate to desire sexual encounters with. While they are really homosexuals, they don’t actually desire other homosexuals. In some way, this leads to a divergence of how the two types of homosexual construct their sexuality. The androphillic (homosexual) transwomen desires straight men, while the homosexual can either desire masculine men or they can fetishize other homosexuals (this seems to be the most common). The most extreme form of the fetishizing other homosexuals can be seen in the bug-chasing fantasy. The homosexual with the bug-chasing fantasy fetishes the male homosexual with aids as the ultimate male-slut, and begins to resemble the straight male slut/virgin binary that is more commonly known about.
Myself, I believe Marxist-Leninists must return to an anti-homosexual view, a view that has been held by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, etc. If this means an alliance with the transwoman, autogynephile and/or androphilic, so be it. However, we should not be under any illusions about the nature of their identities. Ideally, in the imperialist oppressor nations, after a revolution, the LGTBQ pyramid will be restructed, with the male homosexuals at the very bottom. The queer-theorist autogynephiles will be near the top of the hierarchy, followed by the female bisexual, then the male bisexual. Some politically acceptable form of lesbianism will police it, but will be directly answerable to the party.
It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/23/469667/california-ex-gay-bill/
A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts. It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer:
"Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.
Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy."
Against this, if a gay christian teen wants to pursue this, then that's their choice, not the governments. If California is ok with snake oils like healing crystals(as somebody already pointed out), then I see no reason to not allow people to pursue other kinds of snake oils(like pray the gay away).
but it's not their choice, it's a choice parents are making for them. that's why the law is specifically aimed at legal minors.
Like I said, if gay christian teenagers want to pursue pray-the-gay-away places let them. If the teenager makes the choice, why can't they pursue it
Because ex-gay-therapy does not work.
Because there is no way to prove that it is the teenager's choice and not their parents forcing them to do it.
Because it is inherrently harmful to the teenager's metal health.
If they want it, they can wait until their 18 to undertake it. There's a laundry list of treatments, "Treatments", procedures, and other such things you can't legally do as a teenager
You didn't read my post did you? I said the "therapy" was a snake oil. As for consent, how do I know that a teenager likes the a certain kind of music, or likes a certain kind of fashion and it isn't their parents forcing them? Simple, I ask them if that is what they want. If a kid can operate a machine that can kill multiple(a car), they can choose to go to a pray-the-gay-away place.
I'll be honest and say that I don't know how you would make sure its their choice.
Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?
Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?
Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.
So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?
As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?
My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?
Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?
Ok Escapist community, this is a two part question, the first on justification for cultural imperialism and the second on the different views of morality.
First issue:
Now I just finished reading an article on Malawi law that bands homosexuals and one particular section of the article made me feel uneasy. It stated that,
"On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would use foreign aid to encourage countries to decriminalise homosexuality. UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a similar view in October, saying that gay rights were a human right."
The article later went on to state that "Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, where they are often viewed as un-Christian and un-Islamic" and the President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, called homosexuality "evil and very bad before the eyes of God".
I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, because while I don't think it should considered a criminal act, I am also uncomfortable with the reactions I see from the Western political leaders, the reason being is that their attempts to manipulate the laws in Malawai on homosexuality come off as a subtle form of cultural imperialism. What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?
Here a few other articles about other African countries against homosexuality and how the West is responding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15558769
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15992099
Second Issue:
When I read the article on Malawai, it made me think of another question on morality, does Moral Universalism exist, or does Moral Relativism exist? I bring this up because, I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed and that it is wrong to do otherwise, and I think that if I was to believe in Moral Universalism, then I would also feel that it is wrong for those African countries to have such a law. However, if I subscribe to the idea that Moral Relativism exist, then while I might not agree with such laws, I guess I would feel that those laws were just a reflection of the morals of the various African cultures and not automatically "wrong". Tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel about the African laws if I followed the idea of Moral Nihilism.Articles such as these give me the impression that Western leaders believe in the idea of Moral Universalism, but what about you? People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?
NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.
People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.
I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.
and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.
would you feel the same way if the African countries were banning bestiality or pedophilia and the West was denying them aid because of the creation of such laws? Wouldn't people who are attracted to children or animals also be an "entire sub-culture of your own society"? Wouldn't those laws be a form of persecution?
“I know my body better than some doctor”
No you literally do not. You did not attend 12+ years of medical school, you did not spend hundreds of thousands in tuition and have student loans for the rest of your life to get a medical degree. You do not, in fact, know more about your body than “some doctor”. Surprise!
Okay. yeah, that doctor has a lot of training. 12 whole years. Maybe they know The Generic Human Body better than you. In fact, they probably do.
But The Generic Human Body, the one used in basically all education and medical testing, is an abled, cis, white adult man.
If you are not an abled, cis, white, adult man, there is an extremely good chance you know your body - the individual one you’ve lived with for your entire life - better than the doctor in question.
While we’re at it: When I was a teenager, I wound up in psychiatric and psychological care. I was being seen by two professionals, who combined had been trainning longer than I had been alive - never mind their actual experience.
They misdiagnosed me. Horribly. They thought I was bipolar; I was depressed. It almost killed me, and did in fact culminate in getting my stomach pumped, spending a week in psychiatric ICU on suicide watch, and permanent aggravation of my sensory processing disorder - the SPD that came with the extremely blatant autism that these Learned Professionals completely missed.
(Funfact: The drug that aggravated my SPD? I was in the trial group for it. I’ve recently gathered - with my tiny-ass reach here on tumblr - a dozen testimonials from other people with SPD who had reactions to this drug. It’s still not listed as a possible side effect or contraindication.)
kill neo-nazis, kill twerfs, kill pedophiles, kill rapists, kill fascists, kill cops, kill all the fuckers who make a hobby or a living out of hating and hurting other human beings and holding them down by the throat to protect their precious little status quo
ACAB
I see the police as a reactionary force fighting for the interests of the bourgeouise. However, i know a policeman personally and i dont dislike/hate him. How should i deal in social situations when het talks about his work etc? Do any of you have experiences with this or advice?
I dont talk to cops. I dont associate with the enemy of my own volition.
The only time I spend time with people who I may not agree with is at my judo club.
But let me tell you if a cop joined the club it would be my personal mission to smash him into the mats.
Reminds me of a story. I nearby Club shares its space with a RCMP. The RCMP used to train with the teen class until they realized that the Teens where wrecking them!
Cops are fat and lazy and easy to beat up if they dont have their gun and the law to back them up.
In this context I would love if the cops joined the club. It would let me beat the shit out of them without getting shot.
Historically speaking, not all communists and communist-led governments have been anti-"LGBT". What many of them have been is anti-homosexual male. Albania is a good example of a country that was hostile to the homosexual male, but not hostile to the lesbian.
In the 'American' context, the (white) homosexual male rules over the LGBTQ community. It is the white homosexual male who sets the political agenda of the group, and this has been clear to radical queer critics of the 'gay rights' movement. This is why the trans-woman has been marginalized for so long, and 'gay marriage' has been pushed to the forefront. The white homosexual male in 'America' wants bourgeois respectability, and only tolerates the other identities in the alphabet-soup as is politically necessary.
As the user /u/__Zeik__ has said, it is actually quite normal for communists to be anti-gay. If you wanted to go down the "revisionist" road, you could make a strong argument being pro-gay is form of revisionism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all anti-homosexual. Engels most explicitly so, and Lenin indirectly. Almost all communist-led governments have been anti-homosexual, with basically the exception of modern day Cuba (though they were historically anti-homosexual too). Even most communist parties that have significant mass-support are anti-homosexual, such as the KKE in Greece.
Beyond all that, the greatest attacks on the male homosexual identity came from queer theorists. Queer Theory is basically a body of work that deconstructs the idea that the male homosexual is born that way. This work should be seriously studied by Marxist-Leninists. People are not born homosexuals, they are turned into them somehow. In fact, there was no such thing as a homosexual until fairly recently in history.
Some male homosexuals will deny this, and assert male homosexuals has always existed. This isn't true at all. It is true men have had sex with other men (and boys) for a very long time, but this doesn't mean anything. Even in today's world, the psychological and erotic motivations for men to have sex with other men are different. A good example is the bug-chaser, the homosexual that has an erotic fantasy about getting infected with HIV. In the erotic imagination of the bug-chaser, the object of desire is not the typical homosexual erotic fantasy object of a hyper-masculine male, it is a degenerate male homosexual with HIV, usually close to death and emaciated (and decidedly not masculine). That they have eroticized the male homosexual, rather than a mental image of a hyper-masculine man, has led many bug-chasers to say they're the 'true' homosexual. To a lesser degree, you see this in the bear/twink dynamic that exists in the male homosexual community. The bear is supposed to eroticize the effeminate homosexual, and the twink is just looking for the hyper-masculine male. The androphilic transwoman, the type of person who Western homosexuals will say countries like Iran are forcing to have a sex change, takes this the furthest, and refuses to even have any homosexual male partners, preferring to obtain sex exclusively from heterosexual men.
These are the types of people who rule the LGBTQ community in the West, and they are completely allied with imperialism and Zionism. The imperialists put them in charge, as opposed to bisexual men and women, or lesbians, or trans people, because the white male homosexual is the most opportunistic of the lot. The closeness of the male homosexual to the bourgeoisie is well known historically, and even in the earliest days of the development of the European labor aristocracy, you can see them maneuvering themselves into influential positions. This is partly why Marx and Engels hated them so much, and why the Bolsheviks associated them with fascism. They just looked at the rampant homosexuality in the early days of the Nazis, and put two and two together.
In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place.
As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise—ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.
Time for some takedowns:
[121: He very explicitly stated that people should not be free to practice their religion. He never mentioned removing special protection for religious practices that violate human rights.]
The people and groups and followers of them I mentioned certainly don't deserve to practice their religion. I've said it myself--the scariest people in any video of Steven Anderson's sermons isn't Pastor Steve, it's the congregation cheering and shouting "Amen!" at his statements.
[Mister Spak: Do you realize that makes you like the Wahabi?]
I'm right, and they're wrong. That's the difference. Basic philosophy--the ends justify the means. Very little can be done in the name of justice that leads to justice that is actually wrong.
[Doubting Thomas: Here's the major problem, TTT, if you legislate freedom of religion away, then the government is going to be in charge of your religious beliefs.]
Sounds good to me. Ideas like the French Cult of Reason or the Soviet concept (sadly never put in place) of God-Building sound like an ideal state religion.
[Anon-e-moose: And it's precisely because of their homophobia that DOMA was declared unconstitutional, Prop.8 was repealed, culminating in the 26th June SCOTUS decision. Thus fundies don't have a legal leg to stand on, re. LGBT people, any more.
And it's precisely because of their fundieness.
No WBC here in the UK. Section 5 of the Public Order Act may have something to do with that. And - in both 2012 London & more recently in 2016 Rio - why didn't the devout Muslim Mo Farah, after winning the 5,000 & 10,000 Metres in both Olympics, parade round the stadium with an IS flag...?]
But you took away their freedom. Since western society has such a huge basis in "no tolerance for intolerance", as evidenced by prohibitions on hate speech, etc., it's incredible that people haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion and started intolerated the hives of it like the individuals mentioned above.
[Psycho Tits (1): That's really dumb, TTT, and I'll tell you why in simple, blunt terms: When you fuck with fundamental freedoms such as religion (or speech or assembly, both of which are so tightly allied with freedom of conscience that to attack one is to attack all three) then that fuckery of yours WILL--count on this -- find its way back to you and it will devour your freedom along with the freedoms of the people you hate.]
[Psycho Tits (2): For fuck's sake, NeoMatrix - freedom of religion shouldn't - and really can't (ask the Soviets) - be "legislated away" at all. And if there ever comes a time when religion is 'too weak to resist,' why would you hit a minority - religious believers - with punitive actions when they pose no threat?]
It worked to a pretty big degree. The Russian Church was brought to its knees. The biggest flaw was not constructing a new religion to replace it. Religion is a great brainwashing tool, but it is true that many religious people have their actions checked and modified by their beliefs. Hence a system like the Russian God-Building would encourage positive beliefs even if the majority of people never thought of it.
[Salami: The problem with removing freedom of religion is that it eliminates the protections keeping minority religious groups from being systemically oppressed. Imagine if some fundie turned the repeal on Muslims or Jews, deciding that they aren't worthy of being tolerated anymore and passing laws that keep them from having a good quality of life. Or outlawed sane Christians and only tolerated the most intolerant of views. I don't think anybody here would like that very much, but it could very well be possible if the government doesn't go out of its way to set limits on actions against religions.]
That's why you don't define the action itself as evil. If I shoot a guy trying to a rape a woman, that would be pretty good, obviously different than if I shot the woman and thanked the rapist for cornering her. Persecuting Jews (besides some Jews like the Haredi) or whatever sane Muslims are out there (I know they exist) is therefore different than persecuting religious nuts. Even if the same techniques are being used.
[SpukiKitty: Haredis, Barabbans, Wahabbis, Hindutva, Saffrons....They're ALL THE SAME....Evil authoritarian jerks who use religion as a tool of Fascist control rather than a path of spiritual growth and humanitarian love. Screw them and send them to Inferno for a long (but finite) period of Pineapple-Butt purgatorial punishment purification!
The folks who want to ban religion/spiritual faith completely (like NeoMatrix) are just as stupid. Are you willing to ban my egalitarian, pro-freedom, pro-gender-equality, pro-LGBTAQ, pro-democracy, pro-sexuality NeoPaganism, too?
Look! Spiritual faith HELPS many people cope with life. It has helped me! You may say "It's a crutch" but I say, "Some people NEED crutches. Crutches are not evil!"
I believe that life continues after death. I see that as absolute truth! The spiritual is REAL & PLAUSIBLE to ME!
I respect an Atheist's right NOT to believe! I am all for an Atheist's right to be fully welcomed and respected in society! I feel that when Religion & Government mix, BOTH become perverted into something horrible! Religion is only bad when it gets Frummy and is combined with Government. Keep it out of Government and reject the Frums and Faith is great.
Anti-Theists, while well-meaning, are misguided and they're just as irritating as the Religious nuts! They're Frums on behalf of Atheism. Should they take over the government they would be just as bad as the Religionists!]
Ugh, American progressivism. Trump only exists because they spend all their time race baiting and engaging in identity politics instead of focusing on the issues.
The idea is phase religion out sooner or later--let it rot. But there are ideas for those who need religion as a crutch--Cult of Reason, God-Building, other such ideas. I've praised the Soviet anti-religious campaign before (the Russian church had spent centuries asking for it), but Lenin's emphasis on atheism (in opposition to worship of man) was pretty stupid, and they should've taken the church infrastructure and turned it to the worship of humanity. I'm not an atheist nor an anti-theist (I can't hate something that doesn't exist)--if there was position I would be, it would be the worship of humanity's possibility. But I suppose I have a bit of crusader spirit and am willing to unleash it on the injust in the best way I can--through words.
[Hasan Prishtina: Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania 1976, Article 55 banned religious freedom, just as Time to Turn wants. Ask the Albanian people how that legislated haters away and everything was peace and light thereafter. Ask them also why they got rid of this article the moment they could and why they hate authoritarian socialists.]
Now a few generations under that, what might happen? Seems like an interesting possibility. Lots of good ol' Abrahamic religions in Albania...
Allen Frances confessed how there is no definition of a mental disorder, and how it’s bullshit, but that’s not entirely true. There is a definition?—?that mental illness is a position in a pecking order. And pecking orders are not bullshit, but are hard-wired into the social organisation of all mammals.
Our brains make extrapolation about its social status based on feedback from the group, and expands our shrinks the self through adjusting serotonin levels. Esteem. This self-mirroring behavior facilitates the spread of memes within cultures, and makes it possible to spread information fast.
The guise of psychological authority is just a way to gain an advantage in the competition for authority. It’s a strategy to remain at the top of the hierarchy, to secure one’s position in the pecking order, while making sure those at the bottom continue to take all the punches. It’s politics. It’s cheating.
Diagnoses are the contemporary equivalent of racial biology. It’s used to legitimize ideas that would otherwise have been contested, provides the authority necessary for statism to emerge, and has no real science or empirical evidence to back it up.
100 years ago, hysteria was used to legitimize enslavement of females. 50 years ago, homosexuality was pathologized to ostrasize and dis-empower gays. 20 years ago, ADHD and bipolarity and schizophrenia and autism was used to legitimize wage slavery or the enslavement of children into a coercive education system. These superstitions are merely a strategy to legitimize coercion and to gain an advantage in the competition for power. And, 100 years ago, people accepted hysteria as a story. 50 years ago, people accepted the story that homosexuality was a mental illness. 20 years ago, people accepted the story that their children suffered from ADHD or autism, or that their friends were schizophrenic and lived in an alternate reality. And so on.
These diagnoses are not science, they are local tradition, a form of superstition and a pre-requisite for statism. Without them there could be no statism?—?the pecking order would collapse?—?which is why we need to stand up for the fact that they are myths.
As I have stated elsewhere on this blog, acceptance of faggotry is absolutely required on the Amerikan "Left," whether within the mainstream "Left" or on the fringes of it. Even groups which allegedly don't take a pro-faggot line, such as the Ray O. Light group, are not open about their views on homosexuality. My guess is some old people in control of the ROL group don't want to change the line on this question, while any younger people they recruit probably do, and they would just rather not talk about it than struggle on the question, possibly splitting their already tiny party in the process.
For those interested in the history of the communist movement's attitude towards faggots, it should be noted that it has always universally been negative. Engels was especially visceral in his opposition to faggotry. The German group Neue-Einheit has a webpage titled Unequivocal statements by Friedrich Engels which compiles all the remarks Engels made on the subject. Of particular interest to anyone interested in the theory of the Labor Aristocracy (and the Labor Bureaucracy) are Engels' remarks about the faggot Hasselmann. Basically what we have here is an instance of homosexuals becoming the leaders of the early German Labor Bureaucracy, and being extreme opponents of Marx and Engels. This episode in the radical careers of Marx and Engels should have special importance to anyone who might want to critically review Miriam Frank's Out in the Union: A Labor History of Queer America to figure out exactly when the Amerikan Labor Aristocracy embraced faggotry wholeheartedly.
[...]
Given that all First-World "Maoists" groups will claim that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the greatest revolutionary advance in history (or some such garbage), and given that nearly all First-World radiKKKalism requires the acceptance of faggotry, we have an interesting contradiction on our hands. At this point, it seems to me First-World "Maoists" would simply dismiss the issue out of hand, because primary sources are lacking. This will eventually change, and people will see that it is undoubtedly true that faggots were persecuted under the GPCR, and that the CPC has never viewed faggots in anything but a negative light. This opens up the possibly of splitting First-World "Maoism" into two camps: those who, like MIM, refuse to give up the GPCR as symbolizing the greatest revolutionary advance ever, and those who love faggots more than the GPCR as a symbol. More importantly, it opens up the possibility of splitting Third-World Maoists who still adhere to all this dogmatic nonsense from the First-World "Maoists" who won't step away from faggot-worship.
And for those willing to listen, it is also an opportunity to spread the queer-theoretical attacks on homo-nationalism and the homosexual identity that can be found in the works of people like Joseph Massad and Jasbir Puar. This is important for getting people to realize First-World faggots are not only just as parasitic as their straight counterparts, but that imperialism will increasingly rely on faggotry as a rallying call for First-World radiKKKalism to get behind imperialist military campaigns. And the sooner the Third-World realizes that the imperialists and the faggots are joined at the hip, the better off the Third-World will be.