Imagine unironically supporting bourgeoisie liberal policies like gay marriage and general intersectionality still thinking of yourself as a revolutionary
Imagine unironically supporting bourgeoisie liberal policies like gay marriage...
Other urls found in this thread:
imagine not choosing your battles and focusing for/against any idpol instead of pushing for the organisation of work places and communities
They are a disgusting bunch, and they sabotage any attempt at socialism, yuri bezmenov made it clear, these liberals are just useful idiots, and once the revolution has happened they will be the first to go, they make life absolutely soulless, and they tear down everything natural, and wholesome, they must be stopped.
yep, all LGBT consumerism is going straight to gulag
what is bourgeois about gay marriage
Shut the fuck up. There's no point in being against gay marriage, there's nothing "bourgeoisie" about. Or rather it would be better to just abolish marriage. Just push things off that don't relate to class instead of being an autist about it.
It serves no practical purpose, it is merely done to show off, and mock actual marriage, it encourages others to do it, which is damaging to the entire nation because it will inevitably hurt birth rates, homosexuals have a serious problem with disease, and spreading it which helps nobody, and homosexuals are generally just absolutely insufferable to have around, and this should be obvious from a quick look at the world today, and you can tell homosexuals are an incredibly degenerative element for a society.
Look at who supports it
Hell look at the corporations who slap gay marriage all over their logos
You realise they don't push it because they support it, right? They do it to grab attention, because all the shitlibs will crawl all over such merchandise thinking they are moral for buying it and the brainlets who get triggered by gillete and nike commercials will go on tantrums that will bring free advertising
corporations don't push gay consumerism because they support it and earn a fuckton of money from people with disposable and income and no kids (DINKs)
imagine not being a fucking gay lol dab
You said nothing different than what said, you just changed it so corporations push it because they support it. It doesn't matter if they genuinely support it or not, the point is that they do it MOSTLY because it's a demographic they know they can get money off.
I buy all the latest ellen merch
that's why capitalists do everything they do. Welcome to leftypol
Oh hey another "ML" complaining about stuff in a way that strangely mirrors right wingers while clearly having never read Lenin
"Advantage must be taken of every concrete example of this oppression for the purpose of agitation. […] And inasmuch as political oppression affects all sorts of classes in society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in various spheres of life and activity, in industrial life, civic life, in personal and family life, in religious life, scientific life, etc., etc., is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we do not undertake the organisation of the political exposure of autocracy in all its aspects?" (57)
The tyranny of the Zemstvo chiefs, the flogging of the peasantry, the corruption of the officials, the conduct of the police towards the "common people" in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes, the persecution of the religious sects, the severe discipline in the army, the militarist conduct towards the students and the liberal intelligentsia–all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the 'economic' struggle, do they, in general, represent a less 'widely applicable' method and subject for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is the case." (58)
"Would it not be more logical to say that […] 'There is no need whatever' to regard the economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle?" (59)
"'Economic' concessions (or pseudo-concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most advantageous concessions to make from the governments point-of-view, because by these means it hopes to win the confidence of the masses of the workers. Precisely for this very reason, Social-Democrats must under no circumstances create grounds for the belief (or the misunderstanding) that we attach greater value to economic reforms than to political reforms, or that we regard them as being particularly important, etc." (62)
From What is to be Done.
It serves no practical purpose, it is merely done to show off, and mock actual marriage
So being against dividing the working class is bourgeois but prioritizing """actual""" marriage according to sexual orientation is totally radical bruh? These threads just prove the absolute state of the board and Internet MLs in general.
look how long Lenin lasted lmfao
Also that Lenin quote has nothing to do with idpol as it is now. What special sort of oppression directly caused by capitalism do gays/transsexuals experience? Gays are more frequently petit-bourgeois than the average hetero. You are trying to dress up your liberal argument in Marxist language.
correct, and Lenin was frankly too soft for real revolution. Daddy Stalin is where it's at.
It serves no practical purpose, it is merely done to show off,
It matters no more or less than straight marriages
it encourages others to do it, which is damaging to the entire nation because it will inevitably hurt birth rates
Same sex attraction is not a choice, and gays are not making any babies anyway
homosexuals have a serious problem with disease, and spreading it which helps nobody
So why hurt the monogamous homosexuals who do not spread STD's by not allowing them to get married?
and homosexuals are generally just absolutely insufferable to have around, and this should be obvious from a quick look at the world today, and you can tell homosexuals are an incredibly degenerative element for a society.
So you just hate them because they're annoying, no need for the first half of your post. Why would you judge an entire group of people like that? Do you do the same for blacks because of muh crime statistics or duhgenewate hiphop culture?
Nice idpol retard
liberalism is when you don't hate the gays
How is dividing the people into straight, and bent not another divide, and conquer tactic? Fags don’t produce children, but they will occasionally adopt a child or two, and corrupt them into being fags as well thus continuing the cycle. The basis of all society, and civilisation starts with the family, a strong, healthy, and productive family will produce the next generation, and this wholesome environment is more likely to bring children up to be good people, and productive members of society. homosexual marriage is just a mockery, and parody of a real family, they promote hedonism, fun, and they attack the family structure that has existed for thousands of years, and this structure has been the basis of all civilisation, thus an attack against the family is an attack against civilisation itself.
Idpol is a right wing term invented to complain about leftist discourse. You do realize Lenin is arguing against people who are saying the exact same shit you are? The point of Leninism is to unite the broadest masses of working class people, INCLUDING THE PETIT BOURGEOISIE, in order to carry out the revolution. The fact that a gay petty-bourgeois may suffer some discrimination or some other things that make their life less than ideal for them is supposed to be a way to bring them into the political struggle.
These shitty "anti-idpol" posts are just replicating right wing talking points in pseudo-left language and it shows how susceptible people on this board are to shitty Internet fads. The obsession with talking about only economic reforms is something Lenin explicitly argues against.
directly caused by capitalism
Wtf does this even mean?
muh family values, muh civilisation
corrupt them into fags
Stopped reading there, had me going at first.
Straight marriage actually produces new generations, and if you understand how nations continue to exist then you would realise how straight marriage is more valuable. My point is that they don’t produce any children you fucking idiot, how can a nation exist if the men are to busy fucking each other in the ass instead of producing the next generation, and bringing them up in a good environment. The stuff about homosexuals spreading disease is merely calling all of them out rather than gay marriage, and even tho they have relationships, that doesn’t mean they don’t have other fuck buddies. I generally don’t like them for the reasons I have already mentioned, they are a corrosive force, and they offer absolutely nothing to a society.
Let me word it differently then, they encourage them either directly or indirectly to become homosexuals by bringing them up in such a homosexual environment, and children can be very easily influenced at such a young age, and most children end up very similar to their parents or adoptive parents.
Not all married people have kids and not everyone who has kids does so in marriage, the privileging of straight marriage over gay marriage is pure ideology.
This is only a problem if
1. the premise that people can be indoctrinated into being gay is true
2. being gay is bad
3. this happens on a scale large enough to cause a demographic problem, which we have no information indicating this
I don’t know about your upbringing, but having one of your two dads fuck you in the ass is probably not a great environment for a child, and it certainly isn’t my idea of good family values.
Gay guys are not gonna start impregnating women the moment you don't allow them to marry you fucking retard. Why can't you just accept gays exist?
but having one of your two dads fuck you in the ass
So, "all homosexuals are pedophiles" is your only argument.
This is literally just your belief, find some evidence for this claim, then make posts
What the fuck are you talking about you illiterate spastic, my point is they don’t have children if their married or not, and the point of marriage was usually to have children in the first place, thus homosexual marriage is not productive in any meaningful way, and serves as nothing more than a status symbol.
the point of marriage was usually to have children in the first place
nothing to do with property rights or inheritance
OMEGALOL Brainlet confirmed
Holy shit what is happening to the quality of this board
Are /pol/ larpers the only ones left?
It develops out of the pairing family, as previously shown, in the transitional period between the upper and middle stages of barbarism; its decisive victory is one of the signs that civilization is beginning. It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs. It is distinguished from pairing marriage by the much greater strength of the marriage tie, which can no longer be dissolved at either partner’s wish. As a rule, it is now only the man who can dissolve it, and put away his wife. The right of conjugal infidelity also remains secured to him, at any rate by custom (the Code Napoleon explicitly accords it to the husband as long as he does not bring his concubine into the house), and as social life develops he exercises his right more and more; should the wife recall the old form of sexual life and attempt to revive it, she is punished more severely than ever.
Not all children are born to a married couple, but it is preferable, and I should mention that marriage isn’t necessary in this case, merely a close relationship between a man, and a woman, they don’t even have to be married, but they do have to be together, and they must both take care of the child for it to develop properly without to much influence from one side. A child born to a single parent can result in a bad upbringing due to not just material constraints, but things like having no parent to take care of the child as a mother would normally do while the father is working. I’ll try, and respond to your other points, but I’m arguing with several other people at the same time.
Do you think people gave a shit about property or rights several thousand years ago? From the earliest days of humankind, the point of a man, and a woman was to produce children, marriage was created for many reasons, but mainly it was just a more solid way of identifying a paring.
First of, there existed many societies that bring their children up communally (or with the help of the entire family branch living together) so a traditional marriage isn't some sort of be all end all for bringing up children. And even if it was, why the arbitrary rule for it to be a heterosexual marriage? Wouldn't you argument work with a gay one too?
What about things like adoption or artificial insemination?
it is preferable
due to not just material constraints
goes on to list a material constraint
Again this is an argument about gay vs straight marriage, your post has nothing to do with my point. Are you implying more gay marriage = more broken homes?
Marriage and property have always existed hand in hand and the fact that you don't recognize an Engels quote makes me think you're just a regular /pol/ invader
God, I fucking hate nazbols and /pol/ larpers. Go suck your father's penis and leave us in peace!
Im a liberal because I want to focus on organising within economic spheres than wasting my time being anti idpol or pro idpol or fucking whatever. Both are a barrier to organisation. Everybody shut up and attack capitalism
Fuck off back to /marx/ namefag liberal scum
I think you're lost pardner, here ya go
I wouldn’t call it indoctrination, it’s the same idea as a child being brought up in a straight environment, they see what’s around them, and they just assume that is the norm, and when in a homosexual environment, it is very likely they will become homosexual themselves because they see what’s around them, and they simply mimic this, but homosexuality is not the norm, and I believe it is bad because it has no positive effect for a nation, but several bad effects as I’ve already mentioned in previous posts. I doubt a study about the effects of homosexuals on the demographics of any nation exist or would even be aloud to exist, but homosexuality is most common, and active in the western world, and the populations of practically all western nations are falling, I doubt this is due mainly to homosexuals, but it isn’t unreasonable to assume they are causing part of this decrease.
can’t even link a fucking board right
I bet you post on Chapo over with le based God Ismail, radlib
I have explained this already, but these children would be brought up in a homosexual environment, and they would most likely become homosexual themselves as most children mimic their parents or adoptive parents.
Maybe the anti-idpolers are the real idpolers
If you are going to focus on economic liberation you have to counter idpol.
I believe it is bad because it has no positive effect for a nation, but several bad effects as I’ve already mentioned in previous posts
Your feelings mean nothing
I doubt this is due mainly to homosexuals
Ok so to be clear your argument is this:
Being raised by gay people makes you gay and therefore lowers the birthrate for western nations which is bad.
I swear I've seen this before somewhere?
I don't even have a reddit account, maybe it's time to take a break from computer time, you're obviously seething
Look at this homosexual desperately trying to defend his lust for cock.
RADLIBS GET OUT, WE DESIRE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EQUALITY GET THIS BOURGEOIS SCHLOCK OUT
How far can this board fall?
Why are such a fucking liberal?
nah, you don't you just have to go organise communities and workplaces. When people have a common goal that benefits them objectively they stop the bullshit. I know this, from actually organising people. I'll tell you who does very little actually organising 1) people who make critisms of idpol central to their shit.
look at, for example the CPGB-ML in britain. Absolutely shit, made a bing hoo ha about being anti idpol. Its a crank position when taken too far. Just organise people
Do you have a single fact to back that up? And what is the point of having children according to you? If a lesbian couple raise a productive member of society, why does it matter if they turn out gay as well? Furthermore, not every single child raised in a "homosexual environment" turns out to be gay, meaning that even homosexuals having children through artificial insemination or surrogacy is still fine.
A traditional marriage would usually have other family members taking care of children as well such as grandparents, cousins, etc, it’s not like it absolutely has to be two people, forget about marriage for a second, my point is the best environment for a child is to have a mother, and a father bringing the child up together, and that doesn’t mean other family members or friends can’t help. Perhaps I’m getting a different idea of what your talking about. The reason I dislike homosexuals bringing up children is because the children will inevitably become homos themselves, and I’ve already explained my points as to why.
The only reason you can vote today is because political equality was forced from porky, lib
Fuck off faggot
I suppose they’re are many reasons why someone would choose to have children, Perhaps to continue a persons legacy, perhaps to keep a nation alive, perhaps because you forget to wear a condom, perhaps because you think it will bring meaning to your life or perhaps you imagine you will fail as a living organism if you do not reproduce as that is the biological goal that most people are subconsciously set with. Not every single child born in a straight environment will become straight, but it is far more likely, just as a child in a homosexual environment will probably turn out as a homosexual, and since a homosexual upbringing has no benefits over a heterosexual upbringing, but several negatives it should not be allowed due to this.
but homosexuality is not the norm, and I believe it is bad because it has no positive effect for a nation, but several bad effects as I’ve already mentioned in previous posts.
where's your proof? how is a naturally arising form of sexuality that exists in nature not normal? gays have obvious social roles that have been talked about many times by marxists and studied by the scientific community. gays are part of the extended family unit, see ,
which is the original familial state in opposition to the nuclear family that was an artifice of class society.
your ignorance of research does not immunize you against being critiqued as ignorant. your personal, uneducated hot takes aren't even mildly well baked. you not only start your argument with a total inversion and obviously conflicting piece of assertion- that sexuality is learned- and then proceed to ignore that argument to argue that homosexuality is bad. the two are mutually exclusive: if homosexuality is just one in a handful of states that can be socialized, they are necessarily all equal and arbitrary, not truly distinct. any negative of this state can just as easily be caused by any other variable role in the same taxonomy. in other words: if sexuality is some performative aspect of society, then the details of its behavior are just as much artifice and arbitrary. lowering birthrates are not caused by people being homosexual, in any case. it is purely caused by people being incapable of having the resources to take care of children.
to sum up: it is either inborn, biological and therefore not "arbitrary" in a behavioral sense, or it is learned and equal with any other such states.
I doubt a study about the effects of homosexuals on the demographics of any nation exist
they do, newfag…
would even be aloud to exist
typos and lack of education are reactionary. this whole post of yours is a specious rhetorical argument meant to annoy
but homosexuality is most common, and active in the western world, and the populations of practically all western nations are falling, I doubt this is due mainly to homosexuals, but it isn’t unreasonable to assume they are causing part of this decrease.
what is this giant run on rambling sentence supposed to convey? that you're a newfag from /pol/? that you have serious emotional and mental voids, needs that aren't being fulfilled?
it's taken on faith that we must agree already with you because you have no evidence that the "western nations" whatever you claim them to be are "falling." if we accept that, then without proof, we are also supposed to agree that "it isn't unreasonable" to blame gays. it's strange because this isn't any sort of dialectical analysis, historical, materialist, or even hegelian. really strange that you're peddling this garbage on a board about marxism. what is reasonable is to look at how shitposters who have never been involved in political action come here to try and poison the well and drift the board off into /pol/ reactionary recidivism by promoting lame fashie bigotry.
this board is falling apart i swear to god we need to have a mod based dictatorship of the proletariat yesterday
ah i quoted the retard i meant to quote the post he was quoting, children didnt usually have "mom" and "dad" they were raised by a village of people. even if they knew who their mother was, it really doesnt matter as much as having a wide variety of figures who can teach a wide skillset and whose wisdom isnt narrow and constrained like the nuclear family. current families are very abusive just because a kid is indoctrinated into whatever the parents tell them. it isn't a good sample size to just be raised by two people who are barely equipped to take care of children in addition to laboring
Maybe the anti-idpolers are the real idpolers
Both idpolers and "anti-idpolers" are real idpolers. Being opposed to idpol means not giving a fuck about gay rights either way. Fighting against them makes you just as much an idpoler as the people who are fighting for it.
Within leftist orgs it is best to avoid the conversation altogether and try to shift priorities. If people really want to struggle for gay rights, you should allow this just to not create unnecessary conflict, but simultaneously ensure that the objective of overthrowing capitalism remains central.
We also need to accept that class is the real idpol
Homosexuality appears in nature occasionally as well, but that doesn’t make it normal or a good thing just as cannibalism, and infanticide are also found in nature, but that doesn’t make them right. Your post is mostly just asking questions I’ve already answered already or merely saying I’m wrong while giving no reason why or a convoluted one, several insults scattered around, calling out typos, and generally one massive block of text, if you expect a response matching your comment you are unfortunately mistaken, because unlike you I don’t have time to argue all fucking day as I actually work, and have to take care of three children, and I post in my spare time, I’ll give you a rundown of my reasoning, and then I’ll go to bed. Homosexuality is just an anomaly found in many species of mammal, it is not the norm because if it was mammals would probably have died out by now. I would generally have no problem with homosexuals, and for some of them I still have no problem just so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves, and refrain from spreading them, but they seem to have gotten very bold in recent years, and have begun encouraging their behaviour everywhere, they adopt children, and essentially convert them to their sexuality, they push their behaviour in schools, TV, products, and the internet, they spread disease due to their unhealthy lifestyle, they are just a sign of the times, we are living in the late stages of Rome, hedonism is rampant, and they are nothing, but a symptom of the decreasing morality of the world, they are practically nonexistent in times of hardship, and want, but they appear in great numbers when luxury, and plenty are around, you defend them either because you are one or because you actually like what is happening to the world, you place no value on the future or the people of that future, people like you are pushing the world to destruction, and collapse, homosexual marriage is just rubbing salt in another wound, it means nothing if it’s accepted or not, a homosexual adopting is just them increasing their ranks, and I’ll keep them, and their influence away from my children, you can continue to suck their dick all you want, but I’m gonna wait this collapse out. I’m going to bed, because 6 comes early, and i want to fuck my wife before I get to sleep, but I doubt you would know the feeling.
I probably should have broke that post up a little.
If me and my gay ass partner can provide good shelter and parenting for an orphaned/abandoned child why not just let us get "married" and pay taxes as a family unit?
this is supposedly the evolutionary function of homosexuality.
Being gay has certain benefits to the community, feeding mouths without making mouths for example. An extra paid of fighting hands without a family to feed.
For a gay person personally, they don't have children and therefore have time for other exploits, society needs these sorts of people.
Ah yes, the head of the London Association of Revolutionary Policemen has arrived to set us all straight.
marriage itself is pretty bourgeois
mock actual marriage
today i learned we won't have drinking water under socialism because LoOk aT wHo sUppOrtS iT!!!
think more, posture less. we won't have gay marriage because we'll abolish marriage, but you framed that absence terribly
frankfurt school was rabidly anti-USSR and criticised the Soviet power. The Soviets denounced Trotskyists and his New Left faggots.
both racism and sexism have been used by CIA to undermine economically-left positions and create scapegoats.
Even in the 19th century, Marx had to purge the American section of the Internationale because they couldn't resist being hijacked by idpol.
CIA popularized liberal identitarianism to completely displace leftist politics in the USA and abroad
liberalfags get the gulag
Marx and Engels were anti-fag
Only CIA Sharts of America love fags.
Neoliberalism was a CIA project used to destroy pro-Worker Socialism and replace it with Anti-Worker, Pro-Homo SJWism of the "New Left"
members of the Frankfurt School–Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer–worked for the CIA
Worked on domestic and foreign propaganda agency
received a Rockefeller Foundation grant (Rockefeller Foundation was closely tied to CIA) to deconstruct Soviet Marxism
CIA funded french eurocoms
CIA/Rockefeller pursue to destroy pro-Worker Socialism and replace it with anti-Worker imposter """Socialism"""
why is it always these faggots from Shartland larp as Socialists to peddle their prolapsed sex?
t. butthurt glow in the dark fag
The ringleaders are the WASPs: Bush, Rockefeller and the rest of Old Blue Blood eugenicists
The eugenicist WASPs hired Frankfurt School to cull the population and destroy societies
It's literally Rockefeller, Bush, CIA.
All the New Left policies have their origins in eugenic efforts of the WASP ruling elite like Rockefeller, who outlined in the Jaffe Memo, their eugenicist, anti-Worker policies:
Encourage increased homosexuality
Encourage women to work
Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave
Reduce/eliminate social benefits
Destroy Worker rights/Unions
stop typing like a /pol/ schizo
This post reeks of reactionary closet homo incellery.
thank you,Alex Jones,very cool !
having one of your two dads fuck you in the ass is probably not a great environment for a child, and it certainly isn’t my idea of good family values.
On a sidenote bourgies like to fuck each other in the ass since the private schooling days. I dont quite remember the context of the conversation of the boomer colleague he did mention one time about a bunch of barristers whipping out their cocks in the lift. Anecdotal, sure, some of the decadent parties the bourgies have it seems true to me. Maybe gay marriage is a way not having to carry the burden of being flaming homosexuals and god knows what else.
be New Left Sharter of Amerifart
too weak a faggot to muster a proper Socialist rebellion against your faggot overlords
cant fight the crapitalists and win like the anti-fag Stalinists of Europe and Russia
drop pants and take it up the ass
Sharter screams in joy as the bourgeoisie rape your prolapsed asshole
Thank CIA for fighting for your faggot rights and creating your New Left "Cultural Marxism"
laugh at USSR for fighting for Worker's rights when all they had to do was drop their pants to Big CIA cock
be Sharter Socialist of United Amerifart and Anglohomolands
cares about "anal" sex issues at the same time without letting them supplant his homo consciousness
never actually had a Socialist revolution
keeps failing to overthrow his globohomo overlords
wonders why his revolution of faggots failed
b-but let me tell you Eastern Euros about how to be a """Communist""
be anti-fag Stalinist
kill millions of faggots and crappies
destroy new left
destroy cultural marxists
create the greatest Super Power on the planet
some faggot in Shartland demands to teach you about a proper Communist revolution
u faggots are the reason why you could never have a Socialist revolution against your gay masters
like 4 threads in a week bitching about muh gays
seems like it
either that or a couple of very autistic people can't let it go