So the book Settlers is a pretty divisive book in leftist circles and even here on this board...

Does anyone have the "first vs third world" chart? That sums up Sakai's (and Roo's) ideology.

Sakaism is an inherently anti third-worldist, ultra first-worldist theory. Unruhe, like the overwhelming majority of the third-worldist movement, reject Sakaism and racialism in their entirety.

I googled the name j sakai a while back to see what he looked like, i assumed he was asian, sounds asian. Anyways cant find any pictures of this dude at all. So going to assume its a white guy posing as an asian.

Also going to assume such a shitty book was written by the CIA to cause even more division in the left

I don't know whether this is true or not, because I'm not a Burger, but I've heard in the past that this book has been handed out as mandatory reading in certain university classes, usually to freshman as part of diversity courses and such, which has always seemed odd to me considering it's written under a pseudonym, and since this stuff is such a profitable cottage industry in a sense, I'd imagine the author could get quite a lot of money in speaking fees and such. For example, I know someone who started going to UCSD last year and had to take a class to fulfill a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion requirement, and they regularly had paid lectures from people involved in the whole NGO, non-profit, activism industries. It seems like a wasted career opportunity since a lot of universities are so quick to part with their money for this stuff. Just seems off to me, but I don't know enough about it.

There's a decent chance it's because, as speculated, "Sakai" is actually some white guy, so he can't reveal his personal information now.

One thing i know about in american history that sort of fucks with this guys hypothesis is something that happened in early colonial america called bacons rebellion where black slaves and white indentured servants teamed up against the colonial government.

Oh yeah, the whole thing completely ignores the existence of white indentured servitude.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion

Attached: 800px-Howard_Pyle_-_The_Burning_of_Jamestown.jpg (800x1203, 234.21K)

He considers Bacon’s rebellion in the book but then decides it was just an evil plot to steal Indian land. He doesn’t really stop to consider what that might mean from his own terms of analysis.

Just like with the Buffalo soldiers racialists tend to handwaive historical facts away when they get complicated. Based on Sakai’s own frame of reference blacks can also be considered “settlers” even if their history isn’t a happy one.

READ BABOONS
BY B. ABOON

Fuck americans of all colour tbh
thecharnelhouse.org/2017/05/15/dont-bother-reading-settlers-by-j-sakai/

I think you are referring to post-colonial theory and critical whiteness theory that gets passed around liberal-friendly diversity circles. A lot of this work is directly inspired by Sakai but it is never Sakai directly. As a person about to graduate from an American university I can say the only stuff that really gets pushed in certain classes like sociology/anthropology is white privileged literature. For example, Peggy McIntosh is shilled by a lot of sociology professors but even then she is a known academic.
pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/white-privilege-essay-mcintosh.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_McIntosh
That's the strange thing though, the author never did talks at universities or interview other than the one in 03' that I posted in the OP. The man is a ghost and somehow he has remained a ghost despite writing multiple books. It's a complete mystery to me but I think they guy knew he was peddling some bullshit so now he doesn't even want to be found out. Some things we'll never know user

But it's not on libgen

Whag the fuck is even this shit?

Are you even trying?

Yeah a ton of it from what they've told me sounds like a lot of post-colonial & critical theory inspired work, I'm relatively familiar with McIntosh and her CIA ties, it's just that with Sakai they're literally a ghost like you said so you can't really trace them back to academia like so many others in the related fields. I could probably get my hands on some of the course material for these things if anyone was interested in dissecting the sort of stuff peddled to petit-bourg & bourg kids

McIntosh has CIA ties? Any source on this?

Didn’t mean to sage

Literature explaining how white people benefit from their whiteness as a social construct. It explains that throughout contemporary history that white supremacy was used in western nations (particularly places like the US) to give white people an advantage over minorities/POCs/black people/muh baboons. It combines a mixture of psychology, sociology, anthropology, history to explain how even today that white people (specifically middle class whites) benefit from not being under the same oppression that blacks faced like Jim Crow/Slavery etc. A more Marxist analysis of whiteness theory uses material conditions to explain how Europeans basically just wanted to secure wealth and prosperity for themselves. My main issue with all of this is that
A) A lot of white workers deal with being in poverty everyday so obviously white privilege doesn't benefit them directly but it benefits white people disproportionately over blacks
B) A lot of these whiteness studies focus too much on superstructure and not the economic base on which society is built on
C) Modern society developed through the development of agriculture and livestock which in turn lead to the ownership of property (including slaves)
D) If not for Europeans then some other "race" would've taken control over their material conditions and means of production to colonize and conquer.
E) White supremacy is an ideologically justification, not an economic theory
scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1051&context=history_theses

Got a link to this? I'm searching but can't find anything
Yes please I'm interested

My bad, I'm retarded I was thinking of someone else, McIntosh is the White Privelege lady from the 80s right?

I'll try and see if I can get hold of some of the course material, but I might only be able to get the stuff people I know have taken as opposed to all the "approved" DEI Requirement courses

Trash.

Here's a list of all the courses from UCSD, I'll try and find as many as I can.

Your probably thinking of Steinem

Most of the far left forgot this book even existed until social justice liberal edgelords started using "READ SETTLERS" as a trump card in Internet arguments. It's generally regarded as one of the worst pieces of radical literature.

Nazi trash.

Attached: trashman.jpg (352x450, 30.64K)

Please do I'm interested

Why is California always ground zero for this time of shit? I hate to regurgitate Zig Forums memes but Cali seems like a liberal hell hole. No wonder we have a bunch of hipsters who moved from California yet they still explain about how so progressive they are over in the West Coast.

Yea it's probably Steinem

I'm curious of why this book gained popularity for some reason despite the author being a ghost and his works mostly relegated to niche post-colonial groups. I've never seen a black person talk about this book it's usually a bunch of crackers talking about this shit

Doesn't change the fact Roo fetishizes the third world. How much longer before he concerts to Shia Islam and defects to Iran on the basis Imam Ali was a "proto-socialist"?

Am I talking to the former LLCO guy?

Ok well the material for UCSD ETHN 3 is over 300mb in total so with my shitty internet it'll take a while for me to upload. I would tell you to look on Course Hero for more stuff from these courses because a lot of students upload their lectures/notes there but it's all behind paywalls and VERY expensive. I'll ask around to see if I can get materials from more than 1 course; I might be able to convince some people to audit some courses and get access that way, but there will be a limit to how many of those they can do without araising suspicion so let me know if there are any on the list of approved courses .pdf that you're particularly interested in.
From what I've heard it's mostly UCLA, UCSD & Berkeley that are notorious for this stuff because those are the most prestigious and richest schools with the most wealthy patrons & students

Attached: Thinking.gif (480x264, 1.88M)

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

bait

Attached: 246.jpeg (259x194, 6.27K)

READ BABOONS, FASH

Its shit. Basically this

thecharnelhouse.org/2017/05/15/dont-bother-reading-settlers-by-j-sakai/

Kev­in “Rashid” John­son of the New Afrik­an Black Pan­ther Party of­fers a scath­ing cri­tique of Set­tlers, and by ex­ten­sion the en­tire school of thought in­spired by him, in a long post ded­ic­ated to the ques­tion of race and class:

Cent­ral to the cre­ation of the Maoist In­ter­na­tion­al Move­ment/“vul­gar labor ar­is­to­cracy” line was J. Sakai’s Set­tlers, an anti-Marx­ist ana­lys­is of race (which re­places race for class as the prin­cip­al form of op­pres­sion in America). Set­tlers cites epis­odes from the ex­tens­ive his­tory of “white” ra­cial op­pres­sion of people of col­or in Amer­ica and the re­l­at­ive priv­ileged status that “whites” at all so­cial-eco­nom­ic levels have en­joyed at the ex­pense of peoples of col­or, and which has al­lowed even work­ing class and poor whites to be­tray the in­terests of their coun­ter­parts of col­or. The main theme of Set­tlers is “white” ra­cial treach­ery, be­tray­al, bru­tal­ity and priv­ilege that claims to know no class dis­tinc­tion. The con­clu­sion be­ing that these factors com­bine to cre­ate a uni­form class of “white­ness” that has no pro­let­ari­an sec­tor. We con­trast Sakai’s nar­row work with the broad­er and ex­haust­ive works of Marx­ist pro­let­ari­an in­tel­lec­tu­al Theodore Al­len, par­tic­u­larly his two volume study The In­ven­tion of the White Race. Ap­ply­ing a polit­ic­al eco­nom­ic ana­lys­is he demon­strates that race and ra­cism were/are cre­ated and ma­nip­u­lated by the rul­ing class as a tool to di­vide the work­ing class against it­self, only to the be­ne­fit of the rul­ing class.

Sakai’s work is geared more to the in­cite­ment of vis­cer­al re­ac­tions to the hor­rors of the prac­tice of white su­prem­acy and driv­ing home the sub­ject­ive theme of in­her­ent treach­er­ous­ness of “whites.” This to the end of in­cit­ing people of col­or to look upon all “whites” as a col­lect­ive op­press­or class and to erase the class lines that ex­ist between and sep­ar­ate rul­ing class and work­ing class “whites.” Sakai’s non-ma­ter­i­al­ist study read­ily ap­peals to the af­fect­ive mind. Al­len’s work by con­trast ma­ter­i­ally ex­am­ines the meth­ods and his­tory be­hind the rul­ing class’s schemes that cre­ated race and ra­cism, and in­cited work­ers and oth­er strata against each oth­er in the name of ra­cial su­prem­acy and counter-ra­cial nar­rat­ives which have per­petu­ated on­go­ing ra­cial ali­en­a­tion, com­pet­i­tion, sub­or­din­a­tion and so on. This has served to sup­press and di­vert the col­lect­ive out­rage of the over­all op­pressed masses in­to chan­nels that have pro­tec­ted and ad­vanced the wealth, power and in­terests of the rul­ing class. Al­len also ex­am­ines how the concept of “white­ness” has been used and serves to blind “whites” to the suf­fer­ings im­posed by “white­ness” on ra­cial­ized “oth­ers” and he fur­ther demon­strates that ul­ti­mately “whites” do not be­ne­fit from ra­cism or the sense of ra­cial priv­ilege and en­ti­tle­ment. Al­len’s work is geared more to the ma­ter­i­al­ist mind that is in­ter­ested in un­der­stand­ing the ori­gins, roots, and pur­pose of race and ra­cism and how to counter its di­vis­ive and of­ten cata­stroph­ic im­pact on op­pressed peoples of all col­ors and es­pe­cially the pro­let­ari­at.

Whoa, where the fuck does he praise Hitler? Sakai's wrong but I never saw that before

Attached: DVh-zB9XcAAiJQi.jpeg (1024x822, 104.15K)

It's not just Soros, don't forget the Ford Foundation.

Yes, AFAIK this is a campaign that came from rhizzone.net/ which is an SA goon hangout.

When did SA devolved into social justice liberalism, anyway? I remember a lot of the earliest idpol nonsense was coming from goonland.

IDK, but SA was also teeming with agents. One of their members, a mod iirc, was shot in the Benghazi attack. Benghazi was a major gun running hub, sending arms to Al Qaeda in Syria.

Not this poster, but here are some links detailing who the guy was and the incident:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Smith_(diplomat)

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧diplomat🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Because the orient and Africa were so great before imperialism am I right?

Quiet you filthy rorke

I mean that can we stop crying over the spilled milk already. Western imperialism brought social conditions for revolution with modern market capitalism at least. Its what Marx would have wanted

Fanon is only marginally better than Sakai at best.

Why is goon/weird twitter/chapo humor always so gay, annoying, and transparently insecure like this? You can tell these cunts re-read their posts before submitting them, making sure they've deleted enough punctuation to convey proper snark.

If you have work that hard on appearing cool, you automatically become uncool.

I'm late to this thread but damn has it been a great read. I haven't seen such a thread of substance on either here or 4ch since 2014

moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2010/11/j-sakais-settlers-meta-review.html
you're all cowards

Funnily enough, that's the review that inspired me to make this thread. I think Sakai had made a point but eventually that point got stuck up its' rhetorical ass. It also doesn't answer the question of who the fuck is J. Sakai

Reminder that every brainlet ML on Twitter shilled Settlers until Phil Greaves and Red Kahina said it was bad, at which point they all started to call it fascist

Probably because they never actually read it.

oh is that why I stopped seeing it get spammed as a meme then?

something awful was a influential web 1.0 web forum, it used to be really funny and cool, moot, the creator of 4chan used to post there, eventually the site deevolved into a sjw torture chamber and echo chamber of mentally ill trannies and cat ladies, all the actual funny people left or were banned, sa became irrelevant.

the posting culture of something awful cultivates this smug, passive aggressive, elitist, insular, self hating, culture. People with a superiority complex.

Something awful is a hug box filled with the most extreme sjw's on the planet, most likely the origin of the sjw in the first place, also if you are a tin foiler, you would find it interesting that one of their mods, vile rat worked for the state department and was killed in the Benghazi incident, and faggots like brown moses are pretty much shills for the neocon war machine

Something awful is the root origin of every poisonous culture on the internet, and only ancient fags remember it.

Its birthed the chans, and the social justice morons.
They also invented lets plays and recording videogames before youtube was even a thing.

The rhizzone was a subforum on SA that started out as ron paul liberterian tards and somehow warped into hard left psychosis and meme's. Sort of a proto lefty pol but shittier.

The original rhizzone subforum on SA got shut down because they threatened to kill george bush and the owner of SA got a visit from some G men

Since then they split into multiple new websites and off forums and for some reason the rhizzone forum sees it as its duty to promote this garbage book and anything j.sakai writes.

They legitimately have bought a website called "read settlers.com"

If these people arent feds they are morons. Or just goons. The most vile and ancient cancer on the internet.

rhizzone.net/forum/3/

That was definitely part of it. I guess some of them just moved onto their next meme ideology of their own accord.

To be divisive, there would have to be two opposing opinions as to the work and its theory; however, one of the few great conciliatory moments of this board is that everyone came together to say, basically, "this book is shit and not at all communist"

Posted without comment.

Attached: settlers lain.jpg (1200x853, 122.63K)

Thank god for Phil, since RK has gone Trotskyoid.

that's not suspicious at all…

that said rhizzone does have a few good things, like their pages about the DPRK.

I used to browse ebaums world before I finally migrated to 4chan

picture response without comment

Attached: nice meme.gif (420x300, 3.2M)

Lmao Kahina is one bad day from going full MLM at this point
Phil is unironically the greatest British communist theorist of all time though

Sakai called Mein Kampf a rip roaring read
kersplebedeb.com/posts/the-shock-of-recognition/

Wouldn't really call him a theorist, more of a good propagandist/counter-propagandist who adheres strictly to correct theory. It's not really possible to develop theory on twitter.

what's wrong with Red Kahina?

most MLs I've seen on Twitter are unironic Dengists

they claim to be against revisionism yet they bash Hoxha endlessly, pretend the Sino-Soviet split never happened and if they do talk about it they blame China and Albania, act like Ruhollah Khomeini was a socialist revolutionary and forget that the USSR supported Iraq in the 1980s anyway, love Tito, hate the Chinese Gang of Four and have the same views on markets as Bukharin

She had a huge falling out with Phil Greaves over China and now she and a small clique spend all their time criticizing China and arguing against another clique of extremely pro-China MLs. I wouldn't even care if she shittalked China occasionally but it's literally her entire twitter presence for the past few weeks.

Makes you think

lol like who, the CPUSA?

...

I don't really see them doing this tbh, only Maoists and Hoxhaists talk about "revisionism".
Hoxha burned every bridge possible, most communists outside Albania are going to be highly critical of him.
Not at all true.
I see more people laying blame at the feet of both the USSR and China, but there's a reason almost every socialist state sided with the USSR and not China
Only Phil Greaves does this.
Who forgets this?
Definitely not lmao
Most MLs consider them ultra-leftist although I don't think they should be written off.
He, this one might be true.

Pretty sure he says Iran is in the communist "movement" aka the historical movement, meaning it is moving the world towards communism by fighting imperialism. That's actually very standard Marxism, though a slightly uncommon way of using the terms.

Maybe because Hoxha isn't the ultimate authority on revisionism, and his writings are in fact pretty frequently awful.

It's especially weird because several months ago, she frequently said China is the only thing standing between the USA and world domination, now she says China is imperialist. I can barely detect any of her old insightful analysis in her latest tirades.

I would also call it vulgar anti-imperialism, since by that same logic Imperial Germany or Japan were both part of the communist movement since they fought the dominant imperialist forces of their day.

...

No, you'd be retarded, the USA hadn't been fully established as "dominant" by then. In the Western fronts, WWII was an inter-imperialist war. Moreover, Britain and the USA deliberately built up fascist Germany and Italy to coax them into attacking the USSR. Mussolini was an MI6 agent and the Nazi party received millions of dollars from Britain and the US. When Britain and the US in particular started fighting Germany, the purpose was to salvage the Third Reich and convert it into NATO.

They definitely weren't. France, Britain, and even the Netherlands held more colonial territory than they did at the start of their expansion.

But Britain and France were in 1914.

So are the wars currently being fought by Iran. Iran is a capitalist country and as such necessarily develops imperialist tendencies and aims. Even if at the current juncture they are fighting in Syria and Yemen to counter Saudi-Israeli-US aggression, they are certain to begin imperialist exploitation in these countries if they win.

Stfu tin foil hat conspiratard, he wasn't an MI6 agent he only was an MI5 agent

I can never get those straight, fucking Anglos and their cryptic agencies.

...

Hoxha is good, better than posting Xinhua articles and Parenti all day long

Lay off Parenti you lily-livered, weasel-assed collaborator.

The point of posting Xinhua articles isn't the same as posting Marxist theorists. The Xinhua retweet gang frequently post Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

explains their views then
they spread lies about Hoxha, calling him a racist Albanian ethnonationalist and an idiot for his military defence plan, also frankly it wasn't Hoxha who burnt bridges with other socialist states (as if a tiny country would go out of its way to split for the sake of it)
and given his popularity and influence that says a lot
most of them. they're more than happy to call Hussein a US puppet which he was, but you'll never see any mention of the weapons the USSR gave him, only stuff like how the USSR was the first to recognize the IRI so it must be awesome (it was also the first to recognize Israel as if that means anything). never any mention of the anticommunist purges in Iran
the ones I've asked all seem to like him, seemingly ignorant of his split with the USSR and cosying up to the USA, and some have even said Albania should've been annexed into Yugoslavia

any time I've encountered someone that tells me this, they end up having reductionist arguments based on ethnicity.

"Their" as in Maoists and Hoxhaists or as in Twitter MLs?
He had some highly suspect opinions on nationality.
He literally said Albania was the only socialist state
It wasn't for the sake of it, it was because Hoxha believed Albania was the only socialist state
I've seen them talk about how the USSR was wrong to recognize Israel. As for the other examples it's more that they don't bring it up, I doubt they'd outright deny it.
I have definitely seen them criticize Tito but frankly I feel like it's such common knowledge that Tito was the least principled ML leader (at least in his time) that no one feels the need to bring it up.
That's bizarre if true.

What the fuck am I reading?

Attached: 01ec3e790523b6269bbac66394515fcf8fb9762dbe8cc9157ebf53263253a988.gif (500x500, 993.68K)

I remember some obscure org peddling Sakai garbage started acting like deranged hyenas when Ross Wolfe posted a critique of the book on his blog. It ended up with them demanding not only a retraction of the critique but also "mon­et­ary re­par­a­tions to the mul­tiple Black and in­di­gen­ous people who have had to de­fend their his­tory from the de­valu­ation of a White per­son for their labor". You can't make this shit up.

Attached: b8052c9bd617cd2d4eddaf44af7721915d4d8fb54745ec370982d1aeea42687a.gif (245x248, 927.97K)

To provide just one ex­ample of Sakai’s shoddy his­tor­ic­al re­search, he writes on page 53 of Set­tlers: “The pro-im­per­i­al­ist labor ar­is­to­cracy — which in 1914 Len­in estim­ated at roughly 20% of the Ger­man work­ing class — were the lead­ers of the Ger­man trade-uni­ons, the ‘so­cial­ist’ party, etc.” Un­sur­pris­ingly, no men­tion is made of what text Len­in sup­posedly made this es­tim­a­tion in (much less a cita­tion). I have scoured through all of Len­in’s writ­ings and have yet to find any­where he claims twenty per­cent of the Ger­man work­ing class be­longed to the “labor ar­is­to­cracy.” Neither in 1914 nor in any oth­er year.
The comments under the article by assblasted "Maoists":

rhizzone.net/forum/topic/14186/?page=2#post-347211

Lenin actually did say the thing. Wolfe is a dipshit trot anyway, you tell from a mile away with his nonsense about how the labor aristocracy don't real.

>rhizzone.net/forum/topic/14186/?page=2#post-347211
That thread links to: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm Lenin:
>That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”.
Indeed he does: mlwerke.de/me/me22/me22_316.htm (In German. Look at the paragraph starting with "Eine dauernde Hebung…" and the one after that.) But Engels doesn't give a percentage and only repeatedly states it to be a minority.
>The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year…
Okay, but what's the size of the bribed group, really?
>It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.
So, with the reduction of England's edge and more countries engaging in imperialism, the size of the bribe a worker in the imperialist world gets is bound to shrink. Hmmm… can't recall a Maoist-Third-Worldist ever saying that. Now to the "proof" of Lenin saying what is claimed to be said by him in Settlers:
This quote doesn't say that 1/5 were labor aristocrats. Cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows. Labor aristocrats are organized, but not everybody organized is a labor aristocrat.

What was this ban for?

Not humoring BO's vulgar anti-imperialism, as always.

Thinking that Iran is going to become an imperialist power anytime soon is pretty braindead

like what?

Attached: 1518612460779.jpg (639x625, 41.22K)

In context he's talking about how the organized clearly don't represent the masses and instead represent a privileged strata. That's how Hobsbaum interprets it, but I guess you know better.

The other stuff you said doesn't contradict MTW at all, and Sakai isn't MTW anyway…

Fuck off back to Rhizzone