Exh idpolling

My Ethnicity race views

I believe that people who judge other people by their outward appearances are shallow and ignorant and have much to answer for in their next life

Human rights/God-given rights/natural rights are an intellectually vacuous concept, and borderline religious in presentation in spite of rights being championed by the in theory but not in practice secular liberal tradition. 

What we refer to as 'rights' are just highly valued and legally privileged liberties doled out by the state. Anything could become a right, or lose its status as a right, if the collective nation or an adequate authoritarian government so desires it. It's not that I believe that these 'rights' shouldn't be valued, its just that I am opposed to the concept that such rights exist outside of the state and civilization.

Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”

These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism. 

Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”

In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence. 

However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters

I support equality but being OCD about having everyone and their dog be 110 percent equalequitable rubs me the wrong way

“Equality isn't possible because it's not built into nature. Every form of equality we enforce is man-made, therefore every attempt is a failure to force nature to be unnatural. Our 'theories' are damaging us and we should return to celebrated individualism.”

“ Equality doesn't exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys.” See here for more

Sadly, humans on Earth are said to be at least a bit biased by nature, and Fordism like soma/Transhumanism might be a good way to fix this by implanting things into humans to remove their biases so our planet can officially and finally be cured of their bigotry forever . Blame nature change nature 

Moreover, if that Anti racist baby book can literally fully stop whites in particular at near birth from being racist forever (like an Anti racism vaxx), I would rationalize the Anti racist baby book being required reading for newborn babies. This way there would be less division in our world

Think of the two above examples (and other examples throughout my blog like using a economically egalitarianism and creating a society without hierarchies, patriarchies, classes, government, reprogramming bigots etc) as ‘social engineering’ (to instill a resistance to/immunity from being discriminatory against really any identity groups on Earth) in people at a very early age so there would be no reason to need to have wokeness, identity politics, hate crime laws, affirmative action etc since through these changes no one would want to do that stuff ever

I am Anti hierarchies, Anti power-subordination and Anti patriarchies. I also disavow classism and the existence of classes . I support Natural Rights, as echoed by our founding fathers who said that "All people are created equal" (also see here). I reject caste systems

I support Horizontalism as an alternative to hierarchies . 

I support Anarchist affinity groups but I do NOT support corporate affinity groups or government affinity groups at all. When we abolish corporations and the state we will thus abolish corporate and government affinity groups. See this for more

States play a big role in the oppression of people if all identities. The birth certificate defines our gender,  age etc while legal guardianship traps us in the patriarchal family structure which includes, for better or worse,  marriage

Hierarchies are intrinsically dangerous to people who are marginalized. Anarchism spectrum ideologies (like Anarcho Libertarianism) are good because they take down hierarchies.  It is all about individual freedom and self determination

I am against Rectification. “True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less”. C.S. Lewis

The Left Authoritarians wrongly use Rectification to force people via public shaming to believe and say false things and lies, seemingly against their will and that is wrong. You catch more flies with honey than you do with hate .

The Left Authoritarians also wrongly brainwash people using Rectification into believing those false things and lies, and that is also wrong. You catch more flies with honey than you do with hate

This provides some good insight into the issues of approval seeking. This blurb from Anarchisms FAQ of expands on this

However to quote Vladimir Lenin “ Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”. and expand or go beyond that line of thinking

Aspects of these views of rights can be found throughout this blog

Abolishing identity categories (like via Gender abolishment, Queer Anarchism, Queer Theory, Queer neutrality/queer anti-identitarianism, Gay Shame movement, Anarcha Feminism, Gender Acceleration, etc) is better than idpol and Intersectionality and fixes the problems that idpol was created to fix in a natural, non essentialist way

I have major issues with modern Intersectionality, some of which is expressed here

I echo the wall of text on the death of Ross Perot, and the real intersection of boomer capital / race politics from this post that I made here

A understated problem of Intersectionality is that Intersectionality causes people to focus less on their main identity (BIPOC, LGBTQ, woman) because they have to focus on multiple identifies along with it (like poc Transgender woman instead like poc woman , Transgender woman or poc)  . So Intersectionality waters down idpol 

Intersectionality is contrary to Marxism, because Intersectionality is contrary to historical-dialectical materialism (historical-dialectical materialism is a core tenant of Marxism) 

Intersectionality is a metaphor that is clumsily conceptualized in an attempt to describe how people can be discriminated against for various things at one time, in an attempt to argue that discrimination laws should account for this.

It has zero to do with what should be our main concern as a Socialist, which is exploitation. 

Our concern ideally should really be the material needs of the masses, not the interpersonal implicit biases that could informally live within our subconsciouses that we are either tasked with purging like some sort of sinful inclination, or nurse in the interest of fetishized "marginalized groups," which is what the majority of intersectionalists actually advocate for basically.

Better to just downplay or even ditch this intersectionality oppression ontology altogether and instead fight for the workers (at least in theory or pragmatically).

The liberation of women and minorities was already part of the socialist corpus of theory over a hundred and more years ago. If you read those dusty old books you will find that it is something which was clearly accounted for. For example, Vladimir Lenin in his works wrote not only about women but also he wrote about national minorities who were in Russia.

So what in the world is so new about "intersectionality"? I find no new insight there. 

I instead find, the way intersectionality functions is merely to make race and gender as important as, if not more important than, class. Furthermore, the theory has a obvious influence from post-modernism which enjoys to playing around with the notions of identity. 

The final result being, the-same-old-capitalism, but now with more women CEOs, and "inclusive" of people who are androgynous and non-white. So it's a type of Benetton poster capitalism, a United Colours of Capitalism.  As a radical/socialist feminist. I echo Germaine Greer's comment on a company introducing quotas for women in the board room: "equality for what? Equality for women to be as craven, as sociopathic and as pig-headed as some men? What equality is that?"

Whenever you push someone on this point they literally do not have an answer. Their response is always something like describing intersectionality as just the act of building a coalition that isn't comprised only of white men (which implies that you want the coalition to be only made up of white men, which would obviously not be sufficient). 

The truth is that coalition building has existed consistently for many thousand years is fully ignored. To echo the Old Left ‘s example that these guys are so intent to denounce, that kind of multiracial, cross-gender support was a critical part of their ideology 

Like there was Russian Slavs who worked closely with Latinos in Cuba and in other parts of Latin America, these Cubans sent military aid to the Angolan blacks who were fighting against European colonialism, with the Chinese fighting on the other side of the world aiding in revolutions across diverse Asian populations, at the same time that women were introduced to more equality that was oftentimes not matched by the West.

There is nothing state of the art or cutting edge about the theory of "intersectionality", it seeks only to be an ideological cudgel that the Liberal 2.0ers and Liberal 2.0er-adjacents use to beat the Left wing with.

However, Intersectionality does have some good elements to it, like when used in this context

Um, actually I do support (and am at one with) at least one particular intersectional group space: non binary climate change activists of color  (shhhhhh...don't tell anyone about this, it is our secret)  . I support Transgender pride

Intersectionality has become a sneaky substitute for the traditional left notion of solidarity developed in the process of ongoing collective struggle against the class enemy. Intersectionality is bad because it buries and negates class struggle. 

The Liberalism 2.0 inner party (journalists and academics) try to unite the outer parties (various base voters of different cultures and races-ethnicites) by re-framing the conflict as external to keep cohesion.

In project management people are trained and have a way to prevent scope creep, how do social movement prevent this scope creep while avoiding to be cast as hater.

Intersectionality claims that all the disparate groups have one common cause and one common enemy. 

While it may ostensibly unite them, it makes them very incapable of solving tensions among the groups, or addressing any cause that isn't the common enemy. That's how we get hot takes like "black-on-Asian crime is due to internalized white supremacy."

Though some say the opposite in that intersectionality leads to them creating a straightforward ranking system - the more "minority modifiers" they have, the more support they should get. There's no system beyond that.

Intersectionality says that types of oppression like sexism and racism have a multiplying effect which results in a unique and even more extreme type of oppression. 

The only framework that is used to relate to the different types of oppression is an immaterial hierarchy of social dominance. 

Standpoint theory makes things exponentially worse since it presumes that only people who are experiencing discrimination can understand it. 

Therefore to undo systems of oppression they have to listen to the most oppressed people, even if it is just the 0.5 percent. However, who is the most oppressed is an unresolved question within Intersectionality 

So originally Intersectionality was specifically used to describe the experience of African American women, whose experience of racism during the 1980s was different from African American men, and whose experience of misogyny was different than white women’s experience of misogyny . Through “adding those experiences together” it was clear it didn’t make sense to accurately describe their experiences.

The word intersectionality originally was used by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in her discussion of a civil rights lawsuit filed by a black woman who alleged that she had been discriminated against as a black person AND as a woman. 

Absurdly the court rejected her claim, saying that the plaintiff needed to choose whether she alleged discrimination on the basis of gender or of race, but not both. Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality to cover these instances of multiple and overlapping oppressions. 

As a legal theory it hasn’t gained a whole lot of traction. But in the worlds of politics and the nonprofit industrial complex intersectionality has become a pervasive buzzword.

For instance, African American men face racism by wrongly being considered “thuggish” or “bad workers,” and white women experience misogyny by wrongly being considered “weak” or “domestic,” , yet nobody considered African American women “thuggish” and they weren’t given the relevant “benefit” of benevolent sexism to be considered “above” or “too delicate for” working and therefore better served as homemakers.

Instead, African American women were wrongly seen as too sexual, too emotional, but also angry and strong (which are actually good traits). 

These contradictions between how blackness in the “prototypical” male was seen and femaleness in the “prototypical” white made it so that just adding black and female together wouldn’t show the full picture.

The common enemy is and should be capitalism, even if they don't recognize it as such. 

Intersectionality was originally in line with Marxist beliefs, but it was ripped away from it over time and the ideology was co-opted by Liberal 2.0ers.

Maybe a mix of class reductionism + intersectionality can salvage this deluded modern form of Intersectionality

By the fruits you shall know them.

Diversity might have some advantages, but cohesion is not one of those advantages.

All politics boil down to out-group versus. in-group and through this grouping lense, the in-group are the oppressed (like, perception rules all, you just got to appear marginalized to be counted as the in-group).

There is a lot of power plays by various groups and individuals to vie for the highest positions and because of their foundations, this is about being the biggest victim. Some people call this the ‘oppression olympics’ , and it is easy to see why.

The fracturing become very obvious when harm is done to an internal group and it can't be blamed on the outgroup. Like if African Americans attack Asians, or when poorer BIPOC harass white women, etc.

Naturally the opposition tries its darnest to use these contradictions to split the enemy's base. Liberal 2.0ers attempt to combat this by keeping a cover on internal infighting by giving them a common enemy in the white majority.

This chases a lot of white people completely into reactionary politics (like the Right Wing)

Nobody likes to be blamed for things that they didn't do, but everyone has their own scapegoat. (even white American Liberal 2.0ers and men to a lesser degree). 

Even when the collective identity is taken into account,  they clearly pin a lot of things on these groups that other ('their own') groups do just as much or more.

It is why you see absurd claims that the two sex categories we have are some European invention, as if the majority of the world, save some minor cultures, haven't done the same division since forever.

But 'whiteness' (whites themselves being the creator and original carriers of this ‘sin’) serves as a metaphorical ‘evil force’ in the Liberalism 2.0 and to some extent Leftist worldview and so everything seen as bad must originate from it. It's like Christians seeing the hand of Satan in every misfortune (“foosball is of the devil Bobby”).

Idpol,i.e “identity politics” originated with black Queer Marxist lesbian feminists along with the Combahee River Collective (1974 - 1980). When I write about idpol or “identity politics”, I know that “representation politics” is the official, formal term for it 

I feel there are better ways to stop the capitalist recuperation that plagues marginalized communities without emphasizing idpol and without using overkill idpol

Disruption of the ossification of the human. 

Intersectionality is at least now, basically another word for idpol. The purpose of idpol is to divide everyone. It does more harm than good, it changes nothing, and idpol makes the Left completely impotent, because the ideology of idpol says you have to do it all the time to the exclusion of all other values.

The fact that large corporations are now pushing this is very suspect to say the least.

With traditional idpol you can just have various blocs that act discretely. But at the very least there's coherence. 

With at least modern Liberalism 2.0 intersectionality, it's literally just too many variables to account for and the inevitable progressive stack that will rub people the wrong way. 

You cannot tell the majority of Hispanics that they have to be discreet and be defined by the concerns of Trans Latinx bodies

The average African American is not going to be silenced so that an immigrant Lesbian African American woman can speak over them. 

The Asian community is not going to accept racial affirmative action if it screws them over, and they aren't going to be defined by half black Asians because most Asians aren't half black.

Modern, Liberalism 2.0 Intersectionality is a warped take on the existing good ideal concept of solidarity, except that intersectionality only pays lip service to class struggle and that is an issue for me.

Primary politics in the US are poisoned because you have to cater everything to the least representative factions of the two major parties and the MSM, which includes genuine ethnonarcisists and flighty PMC attention seekers among the Democrats and the freaky televangelicals and race nationalists among Republicans.

The irony is that the Liberalism 2.0 and or Progressive stack basically imposed a hierarchical structure on occupy: the most marginalized are allowed to speak first and dominate the discussion. 

Then, possibly, if there's time left over, others who are less marginalized may speak. Albeit a structure with none of the benefits of hierarchies in the first place: clear accountability, clear points of communication during action or times of confusion, and better delegation of specific responsibilities or expertise

It's merely a limit of one's ability to know that their long term personal aims really align with the interests of a collective political front that is centered around a class politics. 

An obfuscation that breeds an intrinsic fear of 'collective' as an idea, they believe that everyone will just evolve into a yes man/woman cyborg or some b.s like that.

The intersectionalists fail to grasp that their schtick increases the individual to a level of supreme political being, and that their individual problems are supreme political problems. 

It's not surprising that such concepts were in largely created by and are now being taught by the petite bourgeoisie. Only more capitalist funhouse mirrors. 

And there are numerous examples of this, heightened diversity standards in the entertainment industry get rewarded by intersectional neo-leftists by way of classical capitalist consumption. They advocate for more women in STEM but without realizing that they are not advocating for an employment equity but instead are advocating for an even spread of capitalist exploitation to all peoples of all identities. 

They advocate for immigrants believing that they are morally righteous when unbeknownst to them, even if their lives are tangibly better off here, they just become the lowest of the proletariat.

There is some type of weird injustice here, neoliberals being like the cowboys of the capitalists, herding more and more naive and helpless and oppressed people (migrants, transgender women, non binary people and other marginalized people) in to the iron grasp of the claws of capitalism. Black Ariels become the victories of a rainbow variant of capitalism.

For getting what I am saying, I will reference Baudrillard and Debord. In a prism that this is a simulation or a side show. We have simulated activism and results. Is it any shock that social representation is among the biggest criticisms within these scenes? In this way they make equality into a commodity, and their brand of equality is only a simulation. A Black Ariel, as a metaphor, thus is a simulation of equality, transgender women in STEM also being a simulation of equality also

Baudrillard's argument would be that for the neoliberals this simulation of equality is hyperreal, more real than real, because they're entrenched deeply in the simulacra. Their leftism itself being a simulation of a leftist politics.

As for the chuds, their rhetoric always has been rooted in individualism, there isn't truly any need to touch on that. 

They make use of individualism essentially in much the same way, though individualism is impossible in a capitalist system, since there are too much economic forces that pressure an agent to get in line, to conform, and it is the owner of a big part of your life leaving you unable to develop a craft or skill (no matter what its economic ramification) to the extent that you would develop those sorts of things if you were not put in a position to need to fight for your economic survival.

Though I do see some positives in Intersectionality. Intersectionality shows how people shouldn’t be neatly categorized by only broad labels like race-ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex/gender, religion since a lot of people have unique intersects of identities/modifers thus making Intersectionality individualistic in a way since the more identities/modifers someone has the more unique and thus individualistic they are

Intersectionality shows how these unique mixes of identifies/modifers shows that there are even more diversity in the world due to these mixes of identifies/modifers which also makes it harder for haters to neatly define intersectional people to be bigoted toward since if they can’t neatly or broadly define them they can’t be bigoted toward them

This can help us transition to a post categorizing/labeling society where there will be no need for categorizing/labeling.

I support Jose Munoz's disidentification and his deconstruction of the positivism at the heart of identity politics . Also see this post here by me 

I do see ‘positives’ in idpol (I am not a fan of idpol tbh), but I am against overkill idpol.  I feel overkill Identity Politics seeks to divide us and conquer us and separate us into these little categories. It's not for me.  
Idpol in some ways can be seen as economic and class focused so that is another plus with idpol

Idpol advocates for rights, equality, and justice for specific groups like women, BIPOC, and gay and trans people. 

I am against Lauren Kelly (The Hill)’s identity politics.

This sort of activism presupposes that these group categories exist and are a useful basis for political organizing. This is admirable and base yet despite this premise there are still many issues with the idpol spectrum, in particular Buzzfeed-overkill idpol and even with idpol itself to a much much lesser extent. Because even the best ideologies should not be shielded from healthy critique, and even if idpol is the best thing since sliced bread, it has to be critiqued

However “Identity politics (idpol) is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature

I do not partake in idpol (and I somewhat am not a fan of idpol) and I am against overkill idpol because to have my views on idpol/overkill idpol is rational and supported by good argument. Not partaking in idpol/rejecting overkill idpol was the default for the left-wing back when the left was working class, popular and useful to boot

I critique idpol insofar as because idpol preserves victimization-enabled identities and social roles (i.e. affirming rather than negating gender, class, etc.) and idpol also inflicts guilt-induced paralysis, amongst others . So I critique idpol for those reasons mostly

Because idpol not dealt with.  Certain idpol like buzzfeed idpol , overkill ipdol and maybe more radlib idpol are treated as a "mistake" by Liberal 2.0  in some way like the issue with such idpol is with the strategy with which it implements to achieve its aims moreso than the aims themselves, as if the fundamental core of its analysis is right but its means of reaching that place are not. The criticism of that idpol by Liberal 2.0ers is more often than not limited to their "excesses" as if the problem wasn't actually with the root of their worldview.

The "stop fighting the culture war" slogans actually are great expression of this. You'll see if you pay even the slightest attention, that this is mainly used to discipline "conservatives" (actually, anyone that isn't overtly progressivist) and when it is used to discipline progressives it is just because of the way they are fighting that is being criticized, not though what they are fighting for (radlib idpol)

As an example, if you believe that a furry showing up to a strike in a fursuit is a cringe thing that alienates red blooded human beings this is "fighting the culture war" but if you believe that furry liberation is the the whole reason for unions then this too is "fighting the culture war" yet furries should still 100 percent feel comfy to wear their fursuits to such things, since obviously they should, they only need to be class first. 

The whole idea of normalcy is absolutely absent in the mindsets of the Liberal 2.0 though now to sneer "why do you even give a damn bro/broette" as the working class are scolded its their responsibility to fight for the "rights" of ever growing more obscure groups of decedent goofballs as if these should be a precondition to some left wing economic system (i.e socialism for example) somehow.

Yet caring about this renders someone a "right winger with strange hangups" while at the same time the furries "have their hearts in the correct place" in the views of the "anti-idpol" leftist who has seemingly never spoke to any working class person outside of situations where the workers know they got to be on their best behavior as to not cause offense to their superiors.

An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do” Adolph Reed 

“I don’t ascribe in any way to these ideas that identity politics (idpol) is bad for us. I think I can take someone who is deeply concerned about patriarchy and I can make them understand how patriarchy intersects with capitalism much more than I can take someone who’s mad because GM took their job away and make them understand socialism”
-- Sean McElwee, leftism's infant terrible.

“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery." -- C. L. R. James

Now BuzzFeed idpol is shallow nevertheless and should not be trusted

Liberal 2.0ers don’t seem to comprehend the problems, but at least they are still trying to unify the working class even if they do not quite think about it like that

I believe that a lot of mainstream idpol lacks focus on class and class dynamics, and thus can use more emphasis on that. (class warfare makes things happen)

I really like  MLK Jr and his views on idpol .One such quote by MLK Jr which is critical of divisivness  "God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race, the creation of a society where every man will respect the dignity and worth of personality", more here   

I support Frederick Douglas . He had good takes on black communal self-help though African Americans cannot fight for equality alone, nobody can so some balance is needed as can be seen throughout my blog 

My thoughts on "taking responsibility for privilege". Ironically one of the larger issues with idpol is that it doesn’t truly go far enough; to take ‘responsibility for privilege’ and ‘lean out’ isn’t a call to action, but instead is a call to inaction. It means that men should have no role in dismantling the patriarchy, but instead should perform meaningless atonement and performatively praise women in the abstract.

Materialist feminists, (such as Shulamith Firestone and Christine Delphi) understand that patriarchy is binded to family structure, reproduction, and social institutions including marriage, and that these are concrete measures that a person can take toward changing these forms. 

Measures that don’t require policing of language, or generic denunciations, but that instead require a broad movement with a social totality vision , with liberation for all

My views on the circle of grievance. Woke language is very imprecise, demanding repercussions , reparations , action and appreciation that is hollow. 

The call to act replaces the act, and enables a simulated politics which are not defined by power but defined by endless verbal warfare that doesn’t have conclusion or resolution. 

With the battle never won, every new crisis precipitates more and more demands on its participants, until at last we have nothing remaining but the endless war versus this modern lie kingdom, an imagined and evil place opposed to the good and the beautiful.

The congregation concedes its failures but are chastised for their wrong contrition and are called upon to do more, to have repercussions placed upon them, to see a truth that is not possible and too mutable to ever find. Ultimately as we reach one revelation, the next, higher step replaces it, demanding more. And on and on this goes around , this circle of grievance that thinks of itself as an incline

I reject overkill idpol and buzzfeed idpol since they are weaponized tribal collectivism and plural individualism that is antithetical to most forms of individualism 

I affirm that the rights to self-ownership and for security in a person’s life, liberty, and their property are natural rights which are inherent in all individual humans and are not contingent on any other characteristic. 

I reject the State persecuting or conferring privileges on any person or group that is based on actual or perceived membership in any id group. 

I am against any effort by the State or non-state actors to implement or force abstract equality/equity notions by any action that is in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. 

I further am against any effort by the State and its Cathedral, or any other allies to promote political tribalism, which merely serves to pit individuals in opposition to each other and to distract from the crimes committed by the State and its allies. 

I affirm all individuals’ right to associate voluntarily that is based upon any criteria they choose and to perform collectively in order to achieve their desired ends, as long as they are not in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

The CPUSA reflects some of my thoughts on idpol. I also expand on idpol in this post, and essentialism in this post

I echo this blog post and its criticism of American thought, . American thought is a bigger part of what idpol and intersectionality are part of, and we must defeat that toxic way of thinking. American Thought is also not consistent with true Marxism and should be rejected

There shouldn’t be CEOs or corporations since in a socialistic, egalitarian society there shouldn’t be rich people, capitalism, classes or hierarchies, i.e workers should own the means of production . Thus there shouldn’t be a need to have diversity at the CEO level (since CEOs and corporations should not exist)

I respect Fred Hampton’s commitment to solidarity even if he was using idpol.  Currently existing, modern idpol, quite separate from the idealized version that people rave about, is inherently anti-solidaristic. 

It's a way for toxic people to scold others who weren’t born using ‘correct’ pronouns. It is about siloing groups who compete in a zero-sum race for oppression cred at the same time as individuals are being subsumed into each alleged monolithic identity,  irrespective of the differences between them. It is paying lip service to the struggles of other people while being monomaniacally absorbed in idpol person’ own concerns.

Adolph Reed quotes Mao's aphorism that "politics is about uniting the many to defeat the few." From one standpoint you could say that having a Black panthers contributes to balkanizing the Left, but Fred Hampton's solidarity commitment is obvious and stands in stark contrast to toxic people who's only motive seems to be to eject people out of the movement like latter day inquisitors. 

Hampton organized with the young activists who prominently displayed the confederate flag as a symbol of their movement. He didn't call them neofascist bigots who should just go join the klan already.

This is reminiscent of the 19th century national liberation movements in Europe. 

There was a reactionary Italian priest who was known for opposing the 1848 revolution in Italy and the risorgimento more broadly. After he became well known across Europe for being a reactionary he went to the US for some Catholic PR or something like that. 

At a stop in the Eastern Midwest he was mobbed and chased out of the town he was in by the largely German migrants (48ers) of that area for his notorious politics. 

A lot of these migrants were refugees of the failed revolutions in Germany. They had zero connection to Italian nationalism, but they saw their own liberation struggles reflected in the experience of the Italians and they stood in solidarity with them. 

"We don't hate the mothafucking white people. We hate the oppressors, whether he be white, black, brown, or yellow." Fred Hampton

Fred Hampton was an awesome person that just knew how to fix the US, assist the people and solve injustice. He was a true once in a generation type of person.

The fact is ,Fred Hampton and MLK weren’t murdered for being black, they were murdered for being socialists and for starting to unite working class people. With Fred Hampton leading the way, I’m sure the Black panthers would have been able to curb the destruction of the black communities in the 1970s and 1980s. After all, Hampton was getting the Chicago gangs to become legit and to join the black panthers

Fred Hampton was only 21 years old when he was murdered, imagine how much good that he might have done throughout an entire lifetime. He was a true protegy for proletariat solidarity ,proven by his "class reductionist" message and the great results that came from that.

It is amazing the simplicity of what he preached, and the power of the discourse, especially in comparison to the modern langage/discourse on race-ethnicity that's so odd and that has so much racist connotations (whiteness, fragility, privilege, etc.).

Upsetting because, as is the case in most revolutionary movements (Victor Serge talks about something like that in his memoir in regards to the 1917 revolution), the best die first

MLK was a leftist that trained at CPUSA's communism schools. He advocated for left wing economics loudly and he criticized capitalism a lot.

His entire legacy has been white washed by proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers in order to deradicalize him and turn him into a harmless icon and a tool for their ends. See here for more. Also see this article which expands on this

The New Left even worked with AnCap and Paleoconservative Murray Rothbard in the 1960s , including to end the Vietnam War. See this. The New Left even brought Murray left a bit including on the USSR. That is what class solidarity is all about

Some ideas on how to break free from idpol can be found here

More good articles on the issues of idpol can be found here

Identity needs identification in order to exist. Class is a material reality. Class exists whether or not you identify with it and whether or not you even know it exists. If you do not posses capital and you work with capital another person possesses and take home less than the entire economic value of whatever you produce , then you are in fact a proletarian. 

It has no bearing whether you never heard the term proletarian or even if you are a citizen of a society where the notion of class never was discovered and nobody has any knowledge of what a proletarian or a class is. You are still a proletarian.

This is the reason that we go on and on about "class consciousness" instead of "class identity". You can be aware or you can be not aware of the class you are a part of but what you identify as is of no importance to your class membership.

Some leftists claim that leftists who say things like "LGBTQ problems are bourgeois decadence are also included as not being left wing" but my reply is what is a "wing?"Socialists etc do class analysis not based on arbitrary American media-lens analysis of wings.

Anyway a big reason that I am generally fine and a-ok with regular idpol is the following: Idpol may not be rooted in materialist analyses but how people feel about themselves is ultimately a part of them. People have vices they can't control and they shouldn't be marginalized because of it

Every minority issue has merit. If we want left wing socioeconomics, we also have to think about all the minority individuals that are down and out and oppressed. There are too many intersectionalities between being an oppressed minority and being working class. Race issues, gender issues, LGBTQ issues, they all end up circling back to working class issues anyway due to the fact many working class people are members of some minority, and that their experience as a minority working class member is doubly awful due to the dual nature of alienation they face both economically and socially.  So that is a big reason why I am generally fine and a-ok with regular idpol 

I agree with this article on the moral piousness of Liberalism 2.0 in the class struggle

On whether idpol is truly good or bad for the working class:

Possibly, depending on how the Left or Liberal 2.0ers responds. The  ore accuate answer, which is beyond the scope of this answer, is that there is not a lot of ground for optimism. 

This is because, the link between the working class and the Left and or proto Liberal 2.0ers was destroyed under neoliberalism, and it was in fact the post-Marxist left which invented this idpol in the first place.

Idpol can be seen as alright because it makes the elite look like absolutely weak and messed up clowns in the eyes of the common man/common woman. 

By some margin, the working class is either hostile or grudgingly indifferent towards idpol and everything that's associated with it. 

Idpol is the ideology of wealthy white America (or to Liberal 2.0ers at least the "right type of white people"). Furthermore, it doesn't just make them look foolish - it actually leads to the moral degeneration of the ruling class because they get high on their own supply. 

Good luck applying the woke theories that you learned at Bowdoin to the task of containing China or putting down a popular uprising, cretins -- you can't even handle "twitter abuse" for heaven’s sake!

The very idea of Hillary Clinton attempting to run to Bernie's left on "racial and gender justice" sounds like something out of a comedy film. This farce has since turned macabre. 

At the same time, idpol is bad because it involves the ruling class conscripting minorities as a human shield. 

This is how you get 45: people gravitated toward him because he "owned the Liberal 2.0ers." And to own these Liberal 2.0ers you have get more unpc or even extreme, because the Liberal 2.0ers have made ostentatious anti-bigotry their number one plank.

 This is also how you get Joe Biden, with voters religiously supporting trash Democrats to "own the racists." The ruling class is fine with both scenarios - they are victorious either way.

This is the political payload of idpol: to bait the working class into supporting the class enemy while also cementing an alliance between the ruling class, the Liberal 2.0 upper middle class, and members of "diverse communities."

This situation presents an easy opportunity for the Left to gain mainstream support by combining popular economic demands with a rejection of unpopular idpol. Picture this: in a climate where politics is dominated by crazy cultural stances, a Marxist party becomes politically "moderate" by rejecting woke nonsense. 

Obviously, there's no such party at this moment. The left hasn't been too keen to score this open goal. But perhaps before this window of opportunity shuts, someone could yet be able to rise up and say: "there is such a party!"

The word inclusive (not the way I use it)  when used by Liberal 2.0era is a code word for toxic wokeness or pushing extremist idpol nonsense

I am not a supporter of wokeness, but generally in a agree to disagree sort of way. 

I support diversity and my views on political correctness have nothing to do with diversity.

While I like to deemphasize ipdol and I am against overkill/buzzfeed idpol, I support justice for marginalized groups

I echo this quote by Professor Eddie Gaude Jr of Princeton as it reflects my views on justice/idpol :

That's not what I was doing though, Joe. What I was trying to do was to say there's a way in which we can understand identity politics as just simply kind of group-based. I want to suggest that identity politics isn't -- the question of equal pay for women. That's not an identity politics question, that's a justice question. And so calling it an identity politics question is to turn one's attention away from the issue of justice, or the question of fair treatment under the law, for black men and for white, black women. That's not an identity politics question, that's just a justice question."

I agree with this video by Ana Kasperian titled "Wokeness Is Hurting Democrats"

Wokeness is a said to be needed due to our country becoming more diverse so there’s that

I am against Wikipedia type of wokeness which I call toxic wokeness

Wokeness and idpol are still a lot better than right wing ‘wokeness and idpol’ (racism). 

All criticism I make in this blog of wokeness and idpol, I criticize right wing ‘wokeness and idpol’ (racism) 10 times more 

The overtly woke left who criticize Breadtubers are inhumane for doing so

“Wokeness is a bourgeoisie moral revolution” - Wesley Yang

Here is a good analysis of wokeness and just how evil and repugnant of an ideology wokeness is

You cannot be woke and anti imperialist. You can be anti racist , an advocate of social justice and equality but you can’t join the mobs like ones CNN is fermenting around liberal causes if you oppose their wars. Wokeism is pro Imperialist    

I believe that BIPOC+ in the US can be prejudiced against whites (even though it is without being in the majority , societal backing etc) that doesn’t make it any less wrong) and I am against that anti white prejudiced

Wokeness is not about whites hating themselves. If that were true there wouldn’t be hundreds of white Breadtubers who not only are NON self loathing but who are in fact arrogant. This study though provides balance to this viewpoint

Wokeness does not mean African Americans are always victims no matter what. If that were true, then Liberal 2.0 SJWs wouldn’t be getting away with harassing Dr Ben Carson, Candace Owens and Kanye West like they often do. However a good possible counterpoint to this is the fact that some engage in heretical behavior that draws condemnation, does not negate the former since they are separate things

Wokeness is not about causing endless strife. Republicans generally make no solid effort to build bridges and instead just outrage monger over our first world exaggerated issues (though most of GOP cultural complaints come down to them resisting changes imposed by Democrats especially by Liberal 2.0ers and non Liberal 2.0 progressives)

But to play devil’s advocate, on wokeness causing strife and not building bridges, in 2009 some well meaning liberal Feminists did want no part of building bridges (literally) as they siphoned billions of dollars aimed at construction in former President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan

In 2009, women’s groups were appalled at the former President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan for being not being liberal feminist enough for them. To them, grids and dams stimulus funding were non feminist.  

Woke op eds immediately appeared in major newspapers with woke titles like “Where are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” 

A group of notable feminist economists created a petition which quickly ballooned to more than 600 signatures, and that petition called on then president elect Barack Obama to add projects within the health, child care, education, and social services fields to “institute apprenticeships” to train women for “at least a third” of the infrastructure jobs 

At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging then President Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” The moment these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group known as WEAVE–Women’s Equality Adds Value to the Economy.

A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, “We all talked about ‘shovel-ready’ since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that’s not the case.”  Read more here 

Wokeness is a strong commitment to identity politics, which uses its own distinct jargon, and which downplays economic analysis. This includes engaging in performative in-group rituals that uses its own distinct jargon.

Though wokeness can also be seen as a aesthetically progressive (or actually Liberal 2.0) tendency among professionals of the Neoliberal era, that combines elements of Liberal and radical feminism with subaltern racialism. Though.originally wokeness was a collective black thought which literally meant not being a zombie, or asleep to the struggle. White Liberal 2.0ers, gen z and politicians have again changed the term for there own benefit.

Wokeness is largely equivalent with Liberalism 2.0. The particular boundaries of wokeness vary for individuals and groups.

Wokeness is supposed to be ambiguous and fluid, just like gender, since we are talking about social and cultural warfare, and so there are sides wokeness wants people to take and tribes to become part of.

To be honest, I do not like the term wokeness due to it being an euphemism for SJW, and using euphemisms is equivalent to cowardice, so I don't like using the term except as noted in this blog

I usually instead try to use more specific terms for what others call wokeness.

The obsession with compartmentalization is contrary to the Marxist concepts of dialectal materialism. People should stop labelling everything and instead start considering that these conflicting "woke" opinions are coming from a fellow person, with similar mental compositions.

It is amazing how few enemies people will* make when they presume them to be similar to themselves and not obfuscated by twenty layers of political and/or social presupposition

Woke opinions are born of a desire for a person to remove himself/herself  of the inherently human, but uncomfortable fact that our self identity of a race-ethnicity, gender or sexuality births this idea of an anti-identity , not through intentional segregation but instead through creating a personal spectrum relating these antithetical concepts of identity.

Some people say that ignorance to a person’s own personal biases are just as bad as a person 'openly' embracing their personal biases

 Because "liberalism", "conservatism", "capitalism", "socialism", "communism", "anarchism", "fascism" and "feminism" have also been used with exaggerated definitions to browbeat people, they too, of course, are meaningless nonsense words.

Woke people correctly identify that badness of racism, sexism, etc, but they actually do not understand what essentialism is. As a result of this ignorance, they begin to see essentialism itself as an essential quality of certain kinds of people... and the rest is history.

Like they despise essentialism so much (while understanding its universal nature so little) that they have become rabid essentialists themselves.

Beginning in the 2010s, wokeness came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of anti blackness (Afro Pessimism) and reparations for African Americans.

Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by BLM 'activists' seeking to raise awareness about police shootings with more focus on police shootings on African Americans. 

After seeing use on Black Twitter (which was a great place to start it), the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by whites, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation (how shocking!!! /s). Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.  I was one of those whites who used the word woke back then throughout the 2010s in such a positive manner.

So I guess that conservative media has picked up on this word woke in recent years and uses it as a catchphrase to immediately dismiss liberal 2.0 (and some left) ideas - much like leftists and especially Liberal 2.0ers use conservative/alt right/nazi labels to immediately dismiss anyone disagreeing with them. But it does not really change that there is a contemporary set of ideas that originated, or became mainstream, only in about the last decade or less. And that is what I am talking about.

If it makes people who are offended by me using woke in a negative manner happier, When I write or say 'woke' in a negative manner, in your head just replace the word 'woke' with progressive liberal 2.0er . To me the meaning is the same, but maybe to you reading this it would be more understandable. Or I could list out specific issues as I mention similarly elsewhere in this post etcIt is just much faster to use a catchword.

Wokeness can be seen as some kind of Rorschach test in a verbal form

A very few mainstream liberal 2.0ers and leftists used the term "woke". It went from being mostly used in regards to black politics, to being a construction of classic liberal, right libertarian and to a larger extent conservative politics.

Woke is a demonization erasing the nuances and complexities of liberal 2.0 progressive positions. It's a shorthand term designed to characterize a feeling instead of engaging in thought ("ah ha! Yes wokeness I know that one"). As if it's the smart way to respond to "the woke left". (the left is not woke, what the US calls left is really Liberal 2.0, leftists are nowhere as near woke as Liberal 2.0ers are)

But most Liberal 2.0ers who lean left like progressives can describe their positions, what they believe and why, in great detail. Very few of whom were thankfully ever  in the "all whites are racist" - "all heterosexuality is rape" libtard camp.

Conservative media focused there (like Libs of Tik Tok, Fox News, Dailywire-caller etc) and reconstructed radicalism as the term "woke" because it helped energize the most people to their position at the time.

But in Truth, the majority of leftists and progressives (but not the majority of Liberal 2.0ers) like me are rightfully FAR more concerned with workers rights, poverty wages, corporate domination and housing affordability than we are with idpol.

"Woke" is a joke, and can only be reaffirmed as a concept by the most extreme examples. My favorite was that big fake-titty teacher. I love that there was a story about that teacher sky diving and that the teacher became a minor celebrity among conservative media for a bit. Conservativism needs those strange stories of "wokeness" so bad, that it risks creating Instagram level celebrities.

Anyways, laughing at those people is sort of fun. But can't be maintained. Substance like materialism, values expressed that will actually improve people's lives will eventually be needed. But conservatives fail to produce time and time again. They're happy with their defensive position, and fail to create a better future.

Substance is ultimately lacking when you're just waiting around for the next big tittied teacher or leftwing pedophile to come along. It gets sad and disappointing.

To some "woke" is all that is bad, to others ”woke” is everything that is good

I like that wokeness alerts attention to injustices in society. But that is balanced out a bit by this article (which I agree with btw), “Defining my Oppression, the Neoliberalism of defining my oppression” by Chi Chi Shi

There are a lot of things that people refer to as "woke" that i disagree with. Overkill idpol or even many aspects of non overkill idpol as a whole for instance are risky or even dangerous as idpol divides us further in an already divisive country and world

But there are a lot of things about human rights, like rights for marginalized people, that some people who often disagree with would call "woke" that I however agree with. So wokeness is in the eye of the beholder

The wokeness I am particularly against is woke things like postmodern intellectuals and overly-sensitive student activists. I am not against gender equality, LGBTQ acceptance, and civil rights 

When I critique wokeness, I am not using my critique of wokeness as an anti black dogwhistle since I am pro black. I do however want us to defeat dogwhistle politics, see here for how and why.

Wokeness also can be seen by many to be virtue signaling that is done by the Liberal 2.0 ,and Liberal Left in general

Wokeness isn’t some powerful force ,the entities that promote wokeness are the powerful ones. Wokeism "by chance" coincides with a material ideology for people who are in power. For the rest of us not in power,  wokeness is just some illusory rhetoric. I expand on thie connection in this section of my blog

This makes it sort of like a religion, of course verything is a religion in that sense

There is however, such a thing as ‘Woke food’ . Food delivery app Postmates celebrated Pride month in 2022 with a new menu category to help users avoid unwelcome poop during backdoor fun

The video promotion by Postmates features a BDSM-clad eggplant representing the "top", and a little peach representing the "bottom" navigating through dietary choices. 

The video is a colorful and over the top presentation of how the food categories curated by the food delivery app will help the "bottom" avoid poop making an unwelcome appearance during intimate relations.

Half of the LGBTQ identifying users in the replies on the Twitter post of the video are not thrilled to say the very least about Pride month being reduced to (and represented by) intercourse and poop. However, others seem very supportive.

Also, Postmates made a follow up post here: https://twitter.com/Postmates/status/1534971339953491968 and the comments are very negative. I guess they flew too close to the sun

I feel that Postmates is cool and base for doing an unpc thing like they did with their Eat with pride bottom poop campaign but I am not a fan or even a supporter really of that campaign since they still used a very woke (yes you can be unpc and woke at the same time) type of Pride campaign and thus are a perfect example of the Liberal 2.0 threat we are facing in our society by that type of Pride campaign 

This article .and this article expand on this in both ways. My views on this are much much closer to the former article than the latter article.  

This type of Pride campaign was meant to show Postmates love for the LGBTQ community in a passionate and warm way and I commend Postmates for that attempt (though it could also be Postmates like all companies [i.e Amazon] pretending to be woke in order to hide their greedy capitalistic, monopolistic [if they want to be monopolistic they should use a Guild Socialism model to do so] and by extension inhumane treatment of their workers). 

But Postmates used a Liberal 2.0 type of Pride campaign that ended up being extremely unintentionally homophobic so that is a terrible result and does more harm than good for the LGBTQ community . Tech companies should not be stereotyping the LGBTQ community even if they are doing so in a ‘pro’ LGBTQ sort of way

Postmates should have used Left wing (non woke) types of methods for that Pride campaign instead of Liberal 2.0 methods. If they did it like that I would have been fine with that pride campaign 

Oh to show Postmates checked all of their Intersectionality boxes, they made a donation to a charity that was founded by an African American women to support Trans people who are food insecure or mentally handicapped.

However I indiscriminately don’t care for companies promoting any holidays or special occasions at all because doing so alienates people in one way or another who don’t celebrate or partake in them . See this section of my blog for more

Even though I am against public kink by straights and LGBTQ people (like at Pride events), if kink at Pride being overly sexual means that LGBTQ can't be commercialized like with the Postmates campaign (which are counterproductive or backfire) then maybe there is a silver lining with kink at Pride events but only for LGBTQ people only.

A more simple example of woke food would be avocado toast

There is also woke medicine. This type of wokeness is wrong since it falsely states that what they see as ‘pervasive racism’ is some health crises which directly linked it with the pandemic and that just enflamed both the racial unrest and pandemic issues at the same time in a clusterf*ck sort of way by creating this false equivalency (which I touch on in this section of my blog a bit)

The fact that 1,000 epidemiologists, doctors, social workers, medical students, and other health experts had signed the letter shows that in some ways even our medical field is woke. 

Though at least that woke medicine tactic of tying in the pandemic to the racial unrest protests and riots as mentioned above, helped shift the attention (in an organic way) away from the pandemic for awhile to other things (like the racial unrest protests and riots) which helped people who normally wouldn’t make that attention shift make that attention shift and thus preventing them from worrying about the pandemic like they were before , so maybe that brand of woke medicine has some positive ‘off label’ effects if you view it through that lens

Woke medicine also involves woke medical people like that infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, being classist and cruel by wrongly stating that teachers should not be included as essential workers to reduce health inequities because in his twisted mind , teachers have college degrees, are often white and are middle class. 

I fully support including teachers as ‘essential’ workers since education and educating students is one of the most essential jobs a person can have. I support Autonomy (Marxism) and Anarcho Syndicalism so I also feel that woke Harvard professor is a counter revolutionary due to him being Anti worker as mentioned above . 

Autonomy (Marxism) includes a wider definition of working class (i.e by including non wage earners) than other pro worker ideologies so I am naturally against not listing teachers as essential workers 

Penalizing a whole employment field because most of then have a college degree (when college degrees are shoved down our throats by Liberal 2.0ers) is mind bogglingly stupid, evil, irrational and counterproductive to the max

Other woke medicine exists like the woke so called ‘expert’ in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrongly said that he thinks that in his mind it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older people in part due to essential workers being disproportionately minorities and that older populations tend to be whiter. 

He believes old peoples’ lives don’t matter as much as the lives of essential workers and that is not only woke but also ageist and Scrooge type of cruel. 

A more concrete example of woke medicine would be elderberry tincture and testosterone

Gas prices are not woke, they are high due to corporate price gouging more than anything else.

Here are some more woke takes by me here (so this page doesn’t become a big old word salad)

My take on Disney’s recent woke push can be found here

Though sanctions against Russia, souring relations with some countries in the Middle East, along with some domestic certainly can lead to some people believing that gas is woke. Gas prices likely would have grown (though not as much) under Republicans, seeing how they'd have probably enacted many of the same policies as Democrats (especially corporate and neocon)

I recognize that, while various oppressed groups experience their dispossession in ways that are specific to their oppression and that the analysis of these specificities is necessary in order to gain a full understanding of how domination functions, nevertheless, dispossession is fundamentally the theft of the capacity of each of us as individuals to create our lives on our own terms in free association with others. 

The id pol writers like Ta’Neshi Coates and Margaret Atwood are bourgeois hacks

How can woke people tell BIPOC kids that the White American man/woman will always keep them down that the odds are stacked against them and that they will always be victims while at the same time also trying to inspire them to reach for the stars, that they can be whatever they want to be and that they do not have to feel trapped in their circumstances?

I support solidarity (empathy properly gives people an excuse to fight for others rights) and liberation which will lead to a classless society without hierarchy, without male patriarchy/patriarchy , without Heterosexism, without white ethnocentricity ,without Cissexism etc. 

This would create a truly egalitarian world and is a natural progression. If we have to use Left Wing Nationalism to get there then we would use Left Wing Nationalism to do so

Basically a reboot where everyone is equal from the get go, but without using wokeness (or at worst not Wikipedia type of wokeness), overkill idpol (or ideally any idpol), intersectionality . 

All of the bigoted isms (sexism, racism, heterosexism, nativism, National Chauvinism etc) are clearly repugnant as history has taught us. We have to recognize the state’s role in creating, perpetuating and exploiting these unfair mechanisms while we need to eliminate these state props for prejudices which can make society more free and less unjust toward marginalized people.  See here for more

This would be done via non-aggressive solidaristic action (while respecting just possessory claims)

Governments invariably threaten individual liberty and by extension rugged individualism self reliance

Governments ruling over people is a extension of when monarchies ruled over people. Adding ‘democratic elections’ does nothing to lessen that, its basically elective monarchies. 

We have to eliminate the state and the government because the state and the government are the ultimate form of hierarchies (they have dominion over us) and I want all hierarchies to be abolished 

Economic egalitarianism (as noted below) will help bring this about 

Once we eliminate poverty, give support and opportunities so that all citizens will be and feel happy, safe with access to higher education and different resources will make population more tolerant and acceptable. 

Because a lot of bigots like xenophobes come from fear of losing current normality and become even more vulnerable (financial vulnerability is number one) . 

Countries with a high level of living are more tolerant and accepting of every member of their society. I don’t see how two of those positions can contradict.  

Everyone is doing that can, we can care for class interests, sex, nature, rights and put effort from voting to overthrowing the state. As communists say” from everyone from their powers to everyone for their need”

This way people won’t be divided by classes or hierarchies since the sources of those classes and hierarchies (Capitalism,  the state props and state itself) will be destroyed

On a related and more pragmatic note,  let’s face it, the majority of working class people in the world are conservatives. That’s just the truth. How do we win people over to left wing economics? By us providing a viable economic program as an alternative to capitalism (and not by us labeling half of the US as “fascists” and throwing them under the bus). 

How do we engage with them is the question at hand, and Left Libertarian-Libertarian Socialists like us don’t really have knowledge on how to do that. At the end of the day, people only want an economic system that works for them and a state that respects their personal beliefs, as opposed to imposing alien ones.

A socialist-communist state will have to bite the bullet and accommodate and respect such traditions and values to a certain degree (in fact, every socialist state in history have done so). Otherwise any revolution will be doomed. Any mass socialist movement will have to deal with the fact that most of the workers and PoC it’s trying to help are religious and lean socially conservative.

If people are a worker willing to take on the bourgeoise, then you are a comrade. Simple as that. A workers party will be filled up with various social elements, backgrounds, cultures, viewpoints – the one thing uniting us will be our class. Any person who is socially backwards can be educated with patience and understanding of the why in why they believe what they do.

Mao: "As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward."

Mao: "The masses in any given place are generally composed of three parts, the relatively active, the intermediate and the relatively backward. The leaders must therefore be skilled in uniting the small number of active elements around the leadership and must rely on them to raise the level of the intermediate elements and to win over the backward elements."

Lenin: "We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."

I hope the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) embraces some political views that I support so they can be deradicalized. I pity them but if they support the political views I support, they would be liberated and emancipated from their hate, bigotry and hostilities.

In a world with economic egalitarianism, no hierarchies (and likely Horizontalism in their place), no identity categories or blurred identity categories, no male patriarchy/patriarchy, no heterosexism, no cissexism, no white ethnocentricity, no racialization, no state and no state props (like mentioned here), possible gender abolition, possible transhumanism (maybe including soma), better family planning, better education, no Liberalism 2.0 (including no neoliberalism), neofascists (and maybe also after other deradicalization methods mentioned throughout this blog to go along with this) the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) will no longer be able to be bigots or haters. 

When left to our own devices, people will somehow, magically, 'do the right thing’

Seeing all identities as equalized and normalized will prevent bigotry since no one will be able to see differences that would lead them to be bigoted in the first place, see this meme for more

Plus, this world as mentioned above would help more people get economic opportunities  and give their lives positive meaning (see Kibbutz for one example).  

Thus people won’t end up like this former liberal in such a utopia. We can use either of these methods to achieve this utopia. This is because on the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, people will have stopped identifying essentially in terms of our social identities.

Here and here are some paths we can take to get to this egalitarian, hierarchyless, classless, stateless society that is free of Liberalism 2.0 and that embraces the 4pt (since we need the 4pt to defeat Liberalism 2.0) . 

We can also use left acceleration as I mentioned here (economic section)

If after this there is still god forbid, division , hostility and resentment after the above changes ,then I would support Pan Secessionism . 

Pan Secessionism would be a unique way to unite persons if the above changes won’t work, see this for more.  .Maybe there would be a human rights model in such a Pan Secessionist society based on this line of thinking on human rights

There would be no deification of “progress” in a universalist context in this Pan Secessionist society

There is a case to be made that targets of hostility, resentment and especially violence would way more easily be able to relocate to escape such hostility, resentment and especially violence in a more localist world (though obviously as mentioned above they ideally should not need to do that)

These include radical localized autonomous zones . As a kid and teen in the 1980s and 1990s, (and to a extremely much lesser extent in in 2007, and in the late 2010s early 2020s) I lived in a radically localized mindset and it was refreshing, liberating and individualistic. It was like I was in my own video game.

It was great as a kid or teen for me not going beyond NJ or knowing any news story save for a handful (i.e fall of the Berlin wall)

Through this Pan Secessionism , some people might build Bioregional/Libertarian Municipal communities or maybe there would be autonomous enclaves for laborers to promote workers rights (I feel every worker deserves a place that appreciates and rewards their hard work and that works for the benefit of the working class), some people might build Faith based communities. It is the freedom for people to build their own communities 

I would provisionally condone or look into supporting Left Communitarian Multiculturalism (with a touch of One Nation Labour) forming in some of the areas within North America. 

I would also hope that 4pt expands in this pan Secessionism world , complete with pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves with this expansion of 4pt thought

In these future worlds in these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves, there will be new traditions (next wave), new values and new theology while countering and fighting against worldly sophistication and I would be ok with that or I would take a passive wait and see approach with all of that

Like maybe Americans would rediscover Pre postmodernity that would be understood not as the past, but as the a-temporal structure of principles and values. Sort of like in religion God/Trinity always existed, exists now and will always exist.

This new world would be skeptical of the idea of progress (including that progress of history leads to liberty and enlightenment) which is the idea that the current order of things is the result of an ongoing improvement process that we can take further, possibly even to its apotheosis, if we put in the effort.

This world would see our current trajectory, which the rulers and their loyal reformist and “revolutionary” opposition label “progress”,  as inherently harmful to individual freedom, free association, healthy relations, the totality of life and even Earth itself. Postmodernity’s biggest weakness is decadence

This world would bring this trajectory to an end so that new ways of living and relating would be developed if we are to achieve full autonomy and freedom. This would not necessarily lead to absolutely rejecting technology and civilization, nor would this rejection constitute the bottom line of a break with the Left.

However this partial rejection of some aspects of progress definitely would mean a willingness to seriously and critically analyze and question civilization and technology, and in particular industrialism.  Basically it would not be conservative/traditional since history doesn't repeat

People who are not willing to raise these types of questions most likely themselves continue to hold to the myth of progress.

This world would be neither left nor right; the modern world would be replaced with an ever improving image—with its own form (maybe individualism or Futurism or English Canada Post Nationalism?)

This a-temporal structure of principles and values would belong to the different philosophical Universe (where exist Eternity, God, angels, souls, devil, end of time and resurrection of dead).  Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs

There would be a form of cultural egalitarianism in these pre post moderntity enclaves, that would appreciate the positiveness of humanity’s cultural diversity, but would deem it impossible to make a moral judgment regarding any culture that has existed at any time in history, including the present.

There would be intellectual expansion of non Liberal 2.0ers

In these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves the only form of exclusion in this would be voluntary exclusion .

This is because a 4pt society would naturally be anti racist, free of Liberalism 2.0 and also because the greater pan Secessionism of the US that a 4pt society would be part of would in its own way have stop the hatred that fuels involuntary exclusion

So, even if God forbid hierarchies reformed they would only be based on things people who are excluded can control i.e their actions or interests and NOT based on their identity or class (there would be no classes and lines between identities would be blurred i.e on the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, people will have stopped identifying essentially in terms of our social identities.) in any way shape or form

Basically like on Survivor and Big Brother when some alliances and alliance members are marginalized by other alliances and members of those other alliances strictly due to things that have nothing to do with their identity/classes

I wouldn’t lose sleep over non identity and non class ,marginalized groups and voluntary exclusion in these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves since it would not be based on identity or classes but 100 percent based on controllable factors that have zero to do with identity.  

Because eventually we would end even that type of discrimination that is based on controllable factors (non identity and non class factor). 

Since in this world we would have already abolished discrimination based on identity and class, abolishing discrimination based on controllable factors (non identity and non class factor) would create a literal heaven on Earth world where love would come first , with no divisions, hatred, discrimination since people would have no reason to be negative toward other people for any reason voluntary or involuntary

The concept of past (as as something that does not exist any more) with pejorative connotation is essentially a pre postmodern/non western political modernity concept that is based in its turn on the dimension negation of Eternity and time absolutization of the time (like becoming). 

Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity is not the past. The Pre-postmodernity is society, culture, political system etc that might be constructed on the fundamental belief in the Eternity. 

The postmodernity denies that , thus its chrono-centric epistemology.  In the context of postmodernity we are dealing with the subject of Cartesian. 

Its true normative interpretation is a liberal one --the individual. So we might deconstruct this concept of individual making appeal to the pre-postmodernity/non western political modernity understanding of human being and its essence.  https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/fourth-political-theory-shortest-presentation

Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity would be a society based on the natural-rights philosophy that informed or was expressed in the moral codes (like the DOI)

This society would be based on eternal and permanent principle of justice rooted in the nature of things, accessible in principle by reason to humans in all places and at all times with self-evident truths that would be rooted in the laws of mother nature

There would be a common ground of nature and reason, on which all humans could debate with one another in moral terms everyone would understand. This would be based on rational persuasion 

This Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity society would look back and draw on our history to move forward. 

There would be another alternative to the Liberalism 2.0 in this pan secessionist society(since there will eventually be a backlash against Liberalism 2.0) . 

This backlash is because a lot of institutions and ways of life that were adaptive at the peak of the current global political economy will become very very maladaptive in the subsequent decades and centuries. 

The theme of these enclaves would make it clear that the fundamental premise of liberalism is not an inexorable march toward progress. These enclaves would basically be non democratic or even post democratic (since it would reject the idea that the progressing of history leads to abolishing absolutism to reign in democracy)

Thus these would be post liberal enclaves. The post liberal enclaves would be more leftist than I write below for various reasons (including moving the right as whole leftward to be as politically diverse as the left) ,what I write below are just the ‘bare minimums’ for said post liberal enclaves

So in this pan Secessionist society, there would also be a techno singular managed , post statist democracy (for everyone) enclaves of post liberalism, similar to the pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves above (maybe even overlapping with) that will be aided by advanced technology, and also aided by local technocrat conglomerate webs being run similar to the way Steve Sisolak wants tech companies to run have a role in society (using Social Corporatism fused with LLC solidarism and co-ops, with national directors that Mark Zuckerberg would idealize representing these enclaves).  

These post liberal enclaves would be more exciting than mainstream conservatism and would be reinvigorated by an embrace of localist values, conscious SBNR values, and an active role for the post state adjacent in promoting everything from coupling to environmental conservation. 

Mainstream conservatism will be seen just as useless in addressing issues that lead to pan secessionism as Liberalism 2.0 is now, within these post liberal enclaves. This is because Mainstream conservatism is snared between the Scylla and Charybdis of corporate capitalism and the pie-in-the-sky promises of the contemporary religious right.

Basically technological determination where technology becomes uncontrollable and irreversible. There would be elements of friendly Auth Left ideas within these post liberal enclaves

Since by allowing a tech company like political model as mentioned above to have a vital role in local governance, economic development and advances in technology would accelerate. Plus this would allow tech companies themselves to get involved officially in the political sphere instead so they can be regulated better

Since there would be a conglomerate (using the above model) of city states (maybe similar to the modern City of London) within these post liberal enclaves there would be a one worker one share system with techno enlightened despotism, Anarcho Post Capitalist hometeading fused with post enlightenment technology , cultural left wing civil nationalism,  fused with Post left Anarchism variant of enlightened egalitarianism, Neoclassical post libertarianism and post Kantian Speculative realism and Tolkien political aims

The economic system in these post liberal enclaves would also include a hyper version of modern NZ economics and Syrzia alter Neoliberalism along with crypto currency

There would be crackdowns to prevent any Tech businesses from developing a monoculture of political correctness, overkill idpol , postmodernity and Leninism 4.0, since tech would have a more vital role within these post liberal enclaves than in our society. This would include going after private equity executives and others who uphold these ideologies 

In these post liberal enclaves, whatever informal voluntary security squads that exist in these enclaves would prevent companies like Google from allowing non US superpower countries like China into researching things like their AI work 

There would also be crackdowns on anti liberal policies at colleges and universities by the councils in these post liberal enclaves

There would be anti-interventionism and skepticism towards state control of information

In these post liberal enclaves, there would be a bit of religious egalitarianism, fringe ideas from Liberal democracy. There would be a Classical Marxist element with some ideas mentioned here

These post liberal enclaves would also be welcoming to back-to-the-landers and even the disaffected members of the US intellectual class

I would however strongly want beside that type of egalitarianism to have Marxist alter egalitarianism be adhered to and implemented in these post liberal enclaves within this Pan Secessionism world 

Alter egalitarianism is about not caring about egalitarianism in the greater equality between classes sense since it is abstract and bourgeois. It would be empathy domestic

Alter egalitarianism says that classlessness (and hierarchylessness) is not the subordination of our society to universal interests like the universal notion of equality. 

It is about creating conditions which enables individuals to pursue their desires and interests . Alter egalitarianism says we need more concrete principles like opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economical logistics. 

These post liberal enclaves would reject Whig historiography

There might be elements of illiberalism in a technical sense which would be skeptical of the political project of enlightenment liberalism, like of autonomous individuals trying to self-actualize and maximize their own interests.

These post liberal enclaves would be structured around addressing criticisms of wide-eyed optimism of Rousseau and similar Enlightenment thinkers, (when for a lot of people throughout most of history, the world had been distinctly inimical to optimism) and a healthy dissensus.

Like a cyberpunk , Post Libertarian/New Age Jacobitan political society. Other aspects may include a fusion of Left Wing meritocracy, rationalism, this type of social vanguard, fitness and peak health, some wariness of economic libertarian free trade (including these post liberal enclaves implementing high tariffs against China and trying to keep businesses from expanding to China) etc

I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions  

I support social, peaceful, voluntary cooperation. While I feel that force might justly be used only in response to aggression, peaceful and voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression. 

I feel that associations of all kinds should be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants. This should and would allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice—of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible.

I egalitarianally support equality of authority, since I feel there is no natural right to rule, that non-consensual authority is presumptively illegitimate and state authority is non-consensual.

I believe that the commitment to the type of moral equality which underlies belief in equality of authority should also entail the rejection of subordination and exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation, workplace status, or other irrelevant characteristics.

While I feel that people’s decisions to avoid associating with others because of such characteristics should not be interfered with aggressively, I also feel that such decisions can often still be subjected to moral critique and should be opposed using non-aggressive means. More on non aggressive resistance here

This might be a good strategy in our struggle against wokeness:

"A antidote to wokeness isn’t to fight wokeness directly. It can’t be done, that’s a losing battle. The true solution is to gradually rebuild a vision for a shared American identity that is so deep and so powerful that it dilutes wokeism to irrelevance, one that no longer leaves us susceptible to being divided by corporate elites for their own gain".from here https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/woke-inc-corporate-america-society-vivek-ramaswamy (click that link to read more)

Stupidpol

The stupidpol subreddit is good in that it introduces right wingers (who might be open minded to left wing socioeconomic issues but are turned away by idpol to socialism).

Though to be fair, if one hangs around the World Wide Web for long enough he/she will come to observe that apparently every single thing is a sign of right wing creep and nothing short of full surrender will ever remove it. /s It’s a power play. Nothing more, nothing less

Even though that left wing anti idpol subreddit isn’t the most ideal subreddit since there is quite an amount of liberals, chuds and reactionaries on that left wing anti idpol subreddit, generally that left wing anti idpol subreddit is still socialist and they do bring up an important point about how socialists nowadays aren't as focused on economics (which socialists UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT)

I agreed with a lot of economic leftist ideas through that left wing anti idpol subreddit. Moreover, that left wing anti idpol subreddit shows that there is so much more to leftism than idpol and intersectionality. 

I don't agree fully with that left wing anti idpol subreddit in disregarding idpol issues like LGBT and minority rights since as can be seen throughout my blog I feel that it is important to respect and uphold those rights. Though, I do wholly agree with OP's assessment of idpol in his/her first paragraph.

I also feel that that left wing anti idpol subreddit , since they criticize idpol should start also criticizing racism too. They shouldn’t just circlejerk about some idiot wokie on Twitter. also 

Maybe up until like a year ago that left wing anti idpol subreddit was okay, but currently it seems to have lost its way, there are better subreddits to see an actual, serious left wing outlook of the world today.

That left wing anti idpol subreddit is totally getting worse since they have been getting a lot more right wingers lately, but overall I feel like that the benefits of that left wing anti idpol subreddit outweigh the negatives, of course the mods aren't doing enough to prevent it from becoming a rightoid raging baiting subreddit

Though most right wingers that post very reactionary things on that left wing anti idpol subreddit get downvoted into mass oblivion with their answers hidden.(thank lord)

Those right wingers who do not flair up get noticed by mods who will then proceed to warn them. a lot of reactionary answers basically get deleted. So it's not all that doom and gloom. The issue is that all of these "populist" right wing chuds tailor their post to appeal to Left wingers (they go unnoticed) or the chuds are being too comfy and being like "yeah i don't agree with you guys but you're a ok”

Though if that left wing anti idpol subreddit can deradicalize their rightoid guests and teach them to embrace Socialism, maybe that is an uber silver lining. 

So the stupidpol subreddit really could have been an outstanding subreddit if they focused on things like police departments showing off how many African American women they have and saying they're progressive, however instead that left wing anti pol subreddit is filled with merely socialist versions of ‘that racist grandma/great aunt at Thanksgiving dinner’

Shitliberalssay

A subreddit called “shit liberals say” sounds like a great sub in concept even though the actual sub is bad since it considers "liberal" anything that's not bootlicking the CCP, Vladimir Putin (and especially his bourgeois oligarch neoliberal inner circle) and the DPRK

I think one way to make the shitliberalssay sub better is for that sub to not be so tankiesh and to also call out all the NIMBYs and the like...

Liberal 2.0 odds n ends

Liberal 2.0ers in their own words betraying their wokeness

“A leftist government doesn't exist because being on the left has nothing to do with governments.” Gilles Deleuze

“It’s all about identity on our side now They want to show, ‘He does not support me. I support you, refugee. I support you, immigrant in my neighborhood. I want to defend you.’ Women who are rejecting Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are saying ― they’re saying this is power for them. ‘Donald Trump doesn’t take me seriously? Well, I’m showing you my value and my power.’ And I think it’s like our own version of identity politics on the left that’s more empowering.” Jennifer Palmieri (Clinton aide)

A Reddit mod declared that it is ok to have anti white and anti male subreddits, here is my takes and reaction to that

Being against CRT and wokeness does not make someone a white supremacist, I am against the CRT and wokeness as are the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AND EUROPEANS

I am thinking what Tulsi Gabbard said here is base?  “I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms," At worst what she said wasn’t wrong or offensive. See more of my thoughts on this quote by her here

I think its cute that Kane & Lynch 2 the Dog Days of Summer tweeted this screenshot tweet. This shows maybe he is hopefully willing to reprogram ignorant anti diversity people (maybe like movie goers who fit that bill) to be pro diversity and enlightened on inclusion and equality like him.  We need more lifting each other up and less tearing each other down 

Though the movie reviewer in the video he was dissing in said tweet was not complaining about diversity in movies but instead was rightfully complaining about consumerism like in the movie industry which is true. 

This is a fine article on Liberal 2.0ers embracing inequality (take it with a grain of salt though)

I love this AMA by Ryan Grim here and I echo the ideas expressed in it by Ryan and his questioners 

In particular I love the question and answer here: 

"I will add my own question. How do you think we can keep left movements from being hijacked by these types of inward focused debates? How can we keep environmental or labor groups from being forced to spend time on the latest culture war fad? Did any organizations that you looked at succeed at sidelining the people who cause internal strife?

User avatar

level 2

RyanGrim--Boomer

·9 mo. ago

 Special Guest: Ryan Grim

Good place to end here. I think many groups and leaders know how to do it, but it takes courage and will. And everybody has to do it together: donors, leaders, deputy managers, and factions of staff all have to unite, have to hold hands and jump together and say no more with the bullshit. And managers should immediately recognize their unions and negotiate good contracts, and staff should empower the unions to shutdown BS rather than elevate and amplify it.

And we HAVE to stop this racist stuff of saying that performance reviews or being on time are qualities of white culture or white supremacy. That's evil stuff. And if people try to make those arguments, they should be told by their colleagues that it's BS and to knock it off."  (RYAN I AGREE 100000 PERCENT AND I WILL MAKE SURE THIS TYPE OF WOKENESS IN PARTICULAR IS ABOLISHED FOREVER)

I agree with what Glenn Greenwald said below about the transphobia at the Daily Wire and at CPAC 2023 and about Christina Buttons:

"Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : If you find yourself spending your time trying to control the personal, intimate choices of adults -- either through the force of law or moralistic judgment - it's likely a sign that you have some deep unhappiness and unsettled discomfort within yourself. Mind your own business. Mar 07, 2023 

Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : There had been a Culture War consensus for 20 years or so grounded in the principle that consenting adults have the right to do what they want without the state or society intervening. Parts of the moralistic left and right (more the latter) have been eagerly abandoning this. Mar 07, 2023 

Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : The attempt to depict people as sub-human monsters due to any political disagreements benefits outlets that thrive and depend on hateful polarization, but it's so often (not always, but often) a wild caricature. Read this reflective resignation letter from @buttonslives: https://t.co/Zbk5F92cNO Mar 07, 2023 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SupCap

Exh far out dude

Exh Crimmee