Reminder that if you claim to be left wing, yet embrace religion and/or religious "ethnicity", you're a class traitor.
"Anti-semitism" is a meaningless buzzword, since semite people are just people that speak semitic languages (which also includes arabs and other groups). It has no relation whatsoever with judaism of jews.
"Islamophobia" is also a snarl word. Islam is neither an ethnicity, nor a race, much like judaism. Islam is also the most oppressive religion out of all abrahamic religions and is the most reactionary of them.
If you embrace judaism/islam, you cannot complaing about being called a k¡ke or a goatfucker, because you deserve it for embracing the liberal construct known as religion.
And no. Fuck christians as well. Socialism must be atheist; it's not even debatable. Religion is incompatible with leftist ideology.
To all jewish/muslim/christian "born" leftists, it's up to you to renounce your cancerous religion and become an atheist; otherwise don't complain when people demonize you for embracing the systems that created capitalism and oppresses us all.
Tl;dr: religious-"ethnicity" is a spook and is idpol. "Antisemitism" and "islamophobia" is a liberal buzzword to divide the working class and distract us from class struggle.
I also forgot to add: don't even try to create a false equivalence between being black/asian/latino etc with being a jew/muslim/christian.
Being black doesn't make anyone bad (and race is also a spook). Being a k¡ke/goatfucker/christurd does, because you willingly choose to cheerlead for the systems that created capitalism.
Oh goody it's this thread again.
It's not about being anti-theistic per se. What the working class needs is good epistemology, and it needs to be applied consistently. This will of course lead to the abandoning of superstitions - faith being a terrible epistemology with no 'correction mechanism', which superstitions need - but it's more important to support good epistemology rather than singular true conclusions.
religion doesn't beget class retard You can have your beliefs without following earthly spiritual leaders
I don't employ anyone. I'm prole. Does it hurt to know that the working class is more religious than your bourgeois upper-middle class family?
Religion always serves the exploiters and you are deluding yourself with false explanations of reality
Of course the working class is more religous. Who else would porky want to mislead, himself? Come on now.
who let the chimps out?
Well like a true leftist I hate all organized faiths. But I need enlightenment. How can people say Islam is the most violent of abrahamic religions? Correct me if I'm wrong but Christians have committed at least 2 mass genocides and pioneered and used chattel slavery. That doesn't quite sound peaceful compared to transgressions in the history of Islam or Judaism.
I mean is it possible to call oneself lefty without embracing some form of stoicism? I wasn't implying dying of malnutrition or preventable diseases is normal state of being. I was thinking more of cuck Francis' Christmas sermon although I'm Orthodox
I'm a Christian communist and you can't stop me, OP.
That's why we need direct action against religion. Just remaining silent and not participating is not enough. We need to educate people and demonize all religions. Either we purge the cancer that is religion or we all get fucked in the ass.
and even being on Zig Forums anymore, last 5 or so years you'll get banned for having communistic views.
well, cast them into the gulag of hell
Religion is a feudal remnet.
religion in some form has existed since pretty much all of human history,don't see how its specifically feudal, but it will be in heavy decline in a communist society.
Religious is mental illness
god and religion aren't the same, you illiterate tard
They're right. Religion exists.
>if you claim to be left wing
I recently took part in a wildcat strike. I like to read Marxist history books in my spare time. Does these two make me "left wing"? If you mean communist or anarchist, I think you aren't fully either until you live in a communist or anarchist society. (and then the terms are prolly redundant, anyway.) Of course it might be useful to use the "anarchist" or "communist" in present society so you know who you have enough in common politically with to group up. But "left wing" is is too vague for this. You might end up with Strasserites eek.
Technically, but anti-Semites aren't getting upset about Babylonians, are they?
Liberal or reactionary? Which is it young man?
It's a misconception gods were restricted to local populations, local cult statues and shrines and so on. Gods could extend their territory through conquest *reminder to self; must visit the Mithraeum londonmithraeum.com*
Liberals can most certainly be reactionaries.
Technically, they can't. Liberals believe in "progress", reactionaries believe in turning back the clock to a "better" era. Where it gets confused (probably deliberately) is where you get reactionaries like Sargon of Akkad or Jordan Peterson, who claim to be classical liberals. However, they hanker after a pre-SJW era. Same as you get American conservatives singing the praises of Martin Luther King. They probably wouldn't have while he was alive.
Liberalism is not a proposed system for the future but rather the current system idealized. Regardless of whether or not they call themselves "progressive," liberals are all about turning back the clock to when their favorite flavor of liberalism may or may not have almost worked be it The New Deal, The Great Society, or Andrew Jackson's administration (never mind the slave economy or all the bankers that got ridiculously rich after the BotUS was broken up). Liberalism in all its forms is rooted in nostalgia.
Now, the rainbow liberals love to imagine themselves creating a new society by educating all the people until they all believe in love and tollerance, but that society is fundamentally no different than the current one with the exception that people will no longer use mean words. Because if nobody uses mean words, then everybody will be able to be successful in this system that we already have! Their ideology does not conceive of anything new. Thus, it is reactionary.
I know liberalism isn't a proposed system for the future. But that's not what "progressive" means; It means an improvement through time indeed under the present system.
You might as well say
For an example,I was watching this on YouTube youtu.be/BpR5y6yNq5I The man interviewed is putting forward decriminalisation (liberal) In opposition to the War on Drugs.(reactionary.) We could day his ideas are "progressive" . I believe some jurisdictions in America are decriminalising puff smoking.
My point is only really that progress/ liberalism, and reaction to it, aren't the same thing. One well might be lacking, but the other is worse.
It absolutely is. It means to progress from one place to another, not to, to use your example, park the bus at Stop A and reupholster the seats which is what liberalism does.
The War on Drugs has been prosecuted by liberals as well as supposed reactionaries (liberals who like Little Baby Jesus more than rainbows), not to mention that you have the libertards and ancaps pushing for an end to the War on Drugs at the same time.
Yin and Yang
Both are a part the prevailing system which should be replaced.