R: 18 / I: 0
<Look inside
>Thinly veiled power fantasy treadmill
>Gameplay's trivial or an outright grindy chore but there's tons of UPGRADES and UNLOCKS
>Everytime you get an upgrade you feel you've gotten better and get a small dopamine hit motivating you to grind for the next upgrade which makes it easier to grind for the next tier
>Upgrades eventually trivialize key game mechanics
>Key content is locked behind unlock chores which don't add anything mechanically but create another impression of "progress" (no you can't just have fun and play the way you want you HAVE to do your chores first!)
>God fucking forbid devs stick to simple milestones and challenges
>Roleplaying in your Roleplaying Game? Wrong. The point's the power treadmill, roleplaying's secondary
>Only genres generally immune to this are engineering/puzzle and simulation games
Anyway post games that DON'T do this
Modern gaming
<New Release<Look inside
>Thinly veiled power fantasy treadmill
>Gameplay's trivial or an outright grindy chore but there's tons of UPGRADES and UNLOCKS
>Everytime you get an upgrade you feel you've gotten better and get a small dopamine hit motivating you to grind for the next upgrade which makes it easier to grind for the next tier
>Upgrades eventually trivialize key game mechanics
>Key content is locked behind unlock chores which don't add anything mechanically but create another impression of "progress" (no you can't just have fun and play the way you want you HAVE to do your chores first!)
>God fucking forbid devs stick to simple milestones and challenges
>Roleplaying in your Roleplaying Game? Wrong. The point's the power treadmill, roleplaying's secondary
>Only genres generally immune to this are engineering/puzzle and simulation games
Anyway post games that DON'T do this
R: 27 / I: 6
I don't give a fuck about your gender.
I seriously don't care what your pronouns are, you don't need them, no-one needs them. I barely even care what your name is. I don't care what you have in your pants unless you want me to touch it. This shit is an absolute waste of time and I only tolerate it because the patriarchal status quo is fucking poison and these coping mechanisms might help a few aching people.
Act how you want. Just don't expect me to accept society's genderist delusion. Masculinity is a spook. Femininity is a spook. You're looking for something lying underneath those labels - not the labels themselves.
I don't give a fuck about your gender.
I seriously don't care what your pronouns are, you don't need them, no-one needs them. I barely even care what your name is. I don't care what you have in your pants unless you want me to touch it. This shit is an absolute waste of time and I only tolerate it because the patriarchal status quo is fucking poison and these coping mechanisms might help a few aching people.
Act how you want. Just don't expect me to accept society's genderist delusion. Masculinity is a spook. Femininity is a spook. You're looking for something lying underneath those labels - not the labels themselves.
R: 1 / I: 1
trolling the CEO of mastodon.
this could be very funny!
https://mastodon.social/@aaarkii/117138844910163569
not too short. not too short. not too short
trolling the CEO of mastodon.
this could be very funny!
https://mastodon.social/@aaarkii/117138844910163569
not too short. not too short. not too short
R: 503 / I: 196
"Acho muito difícil fazer uma coisa boa em televisão. Os donos das emissoras não querem que o povo realmente saiba das coisas. Eles querem é Ibope, querem faturar e faturam muito bem."
Anão, o que é a vida?
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>18131
/brg/ - Brazil General
EDIÇÃO ANTÔNIO ABUJAMRA"Acho muito difícil fazer uma coisa boa em televisão. Os donos das emissoras não querem que o povo realmente saiba das coisas. Eles querem é Ibope, querem faturar e faturam muito bem."
Anão, o que é a vida?
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>18131
R: 218 / I: 29
Previous thread:>>30810
AI news shit general
The other thread hit bump limit and I'm addicted to talking about the birth of the ̶a̶l̶l̶-̶k̶n̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶g̶o̶d̶ the biggest financial bubble in history and the coming jobless eschaton, post your AI news herePrevious thread:>>30810
R: 596 / I: 564 (sticky)
Here you can see an array of ancient and modern screenshots, that stem from the wonderful civilization of narcomania that inhabited the place once known as 420chan, a place that is promised to return one day.
Our unique collection of historical screenshots tells the story of human relations with psychoactive substances.
[WARNING: Some screenshots might contain NSFW content, viewer discretion is advised.]
420chan Culture Museum
Come and visit this thread! Users of leftypol, siberia, for the 420chan Culture Museum.Here you can see an array of ancient and modern screenshots, that stem from the wonderful civilization of narcomania that inhabited the place once known as 420chan, a place that is promised to return one day.
Our unique collection of historical screenshots tells the story of human relations with psychoactive substances.
[WARNING: Some screenshots might contain NSFW content, viewer discretion is advised.]
R: 87 / I: 13
Back then, GamerGate was the start of something fresh, something edgy, something that was actually rebellious against both the bourgeois moralisms stifling the internet and the feminist hegemony that no western male could escape from. It was an escape valve, in other words.
But of course, I was wrong as GamerGate later on mestatized into being another wing of the current right-wing hegemonic ChudIntern. Indeed, GamerGate was merely an exercise in online reactionary activism, but we should actually try to analyse it as opposed to dismissing it as chuds being chuds.
It’s won’t give you the kind of analysis that has probably been done to death here, such as the alienation of young men, the rise of white upper-class female idpol and the HR-style managerial culture that preceded online censorship and SJWs’ political correctness, journos forming email groups as part of a coordinated attack on the median gamer, the MSM’s double standards towards female-exclusive spaces vs treating male-only spaces (such as gaming) pathologically, etc…
This is a good summary of the event from a gamergater’s POV: https://wolfsheadonline.com/how-wikipedia-and-molly-white-rewrote-the-history-of-gamergate/
Instead, I’ll say this: The rise of the gooner chuds that you see today is a product of GamerGate, itself being downstream from the left’s rejection of sex-positivity and and pathologisation of any form of assertive male heterosexuality to heed the demands of the feminist bourgeoise that held a stranglehold on the left.
Obviously the online right isn’t really sex-positive as much as being pro-sexual hierarchy and has been the case within the western right since the days of the Nazis and even before then (e.g., Annunzio’s enterprise in Fiume). It’s just that their vision of sexuality makes enough space for male heterosexuality to attract young men (the most revolutionary demographic) into their fold. The left’s response? It’s either dumb Puritanism as shown by puriteens who think Euphoria (that show starring Sydney Sweeney) is rape culture, or bastardised “trad Marxism” about banning porn and prosties cuz muh exploitation even tho Chinese games nowadays are heavily gooned out + the Soviet bloc was lax on non-commercial erotica (hence why post-collapse Eastern Europe became a thriving heaven for porn). The modern left thought that selling out on the 1970s sex positivity to appease radfems was worth it despite handing the right a victory. I mean, remember that time Reddit’s r/socialism mods went apeshit over catgirl anime edits even tho it was done a female leftist member and it was just SFW anime girls but with cat ears edited on them? Yh, that’s the level of discourse you’re dealing with when it comes to sex-negative leftists.
Of course, there’s the issue of ageism, and ohh boy is that big. There’s this attitude among both the centre and the left where young men are often infantilised as being lost sheeple or stigmatised over their age in ways that would be alienating if done to other demographics, so the end result is young men flocking to the right precisely because they don’t think they will have any stakes in the left. Seniors are supposed to help youths who are proven to be determined to fight for the revolution, not throw’ em away for violating some HR-mandated code. It’s one thing to maintain decorum in conversations and being opposed to extremism, but you won’t get far if you try to overpolice on every little convo your members have.
What’s the takeaway from me then? The left rejecting sex-positivity and embracing ageism were its two biggest mistakes that cost them an entire generation.
P.S.: It’s one thing to oppose sexual hierarchies that devalue humans, it’s another to devalue the body and the Eros in and of themselves. The left shouldn’t necessarily embrace prostitution, but it also shouldn’t embrace sex-negativity either. I would personally suggest reviving the free sex movement because, if sex does become widely available under a secular sex positive society, then obviously prostitutes and porn studios and pimps would be out of business. That’s why Marx often noted how traditionalist marital moralism coexisted with prostitution, with or without its prohibition. But I’m open for other suggestions.
Again, can’t say if it’s said already or not, but I do think those points need to be hammered home as it seems that the left prior to the Gaza genocide was struggling to remain relevant, especially as Big tech right figures like Musk and Thiel were pumping a shit ton of dollars to aid the remnants of the alt-right to carve their mockingbird network out of it; their work has paid off in the form of the current unholy MAGA and alt-right and neocon nexus that I’d like to call “white neoconservatism with Enoch Powell characteristics”, with Australia’s and Canada’s brightest minds Drew Pavlou and Captive_Dreamer starting out differently only to end up being rabid racist neocons.
So yh: Sex-negativity and Ageism are bad things, folks.
GamerGate: A retrospective
Not sure if this is the right place, but since this is the gaming tab, I say why not?Back then, GamerGate was the start of something fresh, something edgy, something that was actually rebellious against both the bourgeois moralisms stifling the internet and the feminist hegemony that no western male could escape from. It was an escape valve, in other words.
But of course, I was wrong as GamerGate later on mestatized into being another wing of the current right-wing hegemonic ChudIntern. Indeed, GamerGate was merely an exercise in online reactionary activism, but we should actually try to analyse it as opposed to dismissing it as chuds being chuds.
It’s won’t give you the kind of analysis that has probably been done to death here, such as the alienation of young men, the rise of white upper-class female idpol and the HR-style managerial culture that preceded online censorship and SJWs’ political correctness, journos forming email groups as part of a coordinated attack on the median gamer, the MSM’s double standards towards female-exclusive spaces vs treating male-only spaces (such as gaming) pathologically, etc…
This is a good summary of the event from a gamergater’s POV: https://wolfsheadonline.com/how-wikipedia-and-molly-white-rewrote-the-history-of-gamergate/
Instead, I’ll say this: The rise of the gooner chuds that you see today is a product of GamerGate, itself being downstream from the left’s rejection of sex-positivity and and pathologisation of any form of assertive male heterosexuality to heed the demands of the feminist bourgeoise that held a stranglehold on the left.
Obviously the online right isn’t really sex-positive as much as being pro-sexual hierarchy and has been the case within the western right since the days of the Nazis and even before then (e.g., Annunzio’s enterprise in Fiume). It’s just that their vision of sexuality makes enough space for male heterosexuality to attract young men (the most revolutionary demographic) into their fold. The left’s response? It’s either dumb Puritanism as shown by puriteens who think Euphoria (that show starring Sydney Sweeney) is rape culture, or bastardised “trad Marxism” about banning porn and prosties cuz muh exploitation even tho Chinese games nowadays are heavily gooned out + the Soviet bloc was lax on non-commercial erotica (hence why post-collapse Eastern Europe became a thriving heaven for porn). The modern left thought that selling out on the 1970s sex positivity to appease radfems was worth it despite handing the right a victory. I mean, remember that time Reddit’s r/socialism mods went apeshit over catgirl anime edits even tho it was done a female leftist member and it was just SFW anime girls but with cat ears edited on them? Yh, that’s the level of discourse you’re dealing with when it comes to sex-negative leftists.
Of course, there’s the issue of ageism, and ohh boy is that big. There’s this attitude among both the centre and the left where young men are often infantilised as being lost sheeple or stigmatised over their age in ways that would be alienating if done to other demographics, so the end result is young men flocking to the right precisely because they don’t think they will have any stakes in the left. Seniors are supposed to help youths who are proven to be determined to fight for the revolution, not throw’ em away for violating some HR-mandated code. It’s one thing to maintain decorum in conversations and being opposed to extremism, but you won’t get far if you try to overpolice on every little convo your members have.
What’s the takeaway from me then? The left rejecting sex-positivity and embracing ageism were its two biggest mistakes that cost them an entire generation.
P.S.: It’s one thing to oppose sexual hierarchies that devalue humans, it’s another to devalue the body and the Eros in and of themselves. The left shouldn’t necessarily embrace prostitution, but it also shouldn’t embrace sex-negativity either. I would personally suggest reviving the free sex movement because, if sex does become widely available under a secular sex positive society, then obviously prostitutes and porn studios and pimps would be out of business. That’s why Marx often noted how traditionalist marital moralism coexisted with prostitution, with or without its prohibition. But I’m open for other suggestions.
Again, can’t say if it’s said already or not, but I do think those points need to be hammered home as it seems that the left prior to the Gaza genocide was struggling to remain relevant, especially as Big tech right figures like Musk and Thiel were pumping a shit ton of dollars to aid the remnants of the alt-right to carve their mockingbird network out of it; their work has paid off in the form of the current unholy MAGA and alt-right and neocon nexus that I’d like to call “white neoconservatism with Enoch Powell characteristics”, with Australia’s and Canada’s brightest minds Drew Pavlou and Captive_Dreamer starting out differently only to end up being rabid racist neocons.
So yh: Sex-negativity and Ageism are bad things, folks.
R: 310 / I: 78
que con todo y todo Estados Unidos no ha parado de intentar meter las narices en el país y me esta empezando a cansar y mas si en el 2030 planean poner otro titere de mierda en especial si es el puto de Salinas Pliego que planea ser literalmente un Milei Whitexican.
Alguien seguia la campaña de Manzo?
Que opinan de Morena en pleno 2025?
Que nos queda por hacer?
Mexico Gral
No encontré el hilo anterior así que hago uno nuevo porque es necesarioque con todo y todo Estados Unidos no ha parado de intentar meter las narices en el país y me esta empezando a cansar y mas si en el 2030 planean poner otro titere de mierda en especial si es el puto de Salinas Pliego que planea ser literalmente un Milei Whitexican.
Alguien seguia la campaña de Manzo?
Que opinan de Morena en pleno 2025?
Que nos queda por hacer?
R: 237 / I: 9
Post in this thread every time you come to this board. Post music you like here, whatever it may be.
<vid
CLASS WAR DECLARATION MIX FROM THE THAI LABOUR MUSEUM STORAGE ROOM
Post in this thread every time you come to this board. Post music you like here, whatever it may be.
<vid
CLASS WAR DECLARATION MIX FROM THE THAI LABOUR MUSEUM STORAGE ROOM
R: 0 / I: 0
I want to also see if I can help the unions a bit here and there too. Any tips? Am I a terrible bastard?
becoming a supervisor?
Hello I have the potential to become a supervisor at a mail company and want to become one for the benefits, less body strain, and more potential growth in my career.I want to also see if I can help the unions a bit here and there too. Any tips? Am I a terrible bastard?
R: 21 / I: 2
>IT workers don't need an union, that's socialism and we are libertarian entrepreneurs who are going to be rich
>NOOOOOOOOOO WE JUST GOT MASS LAYOFFED AND REPLACED BY AI
Does this happen in your country?
>IT workers don't need an union, that's socialism and we are libertarian entrepreneurs who are going to be rich
>NOOOOOOOOOO WE JUST GOT MASS LAYOFFED AND REPLACED BY AI
Does this happen in your country?
R: 2 / I: 0
https://mud.co.uk/richard/masep84.htm
>ONE OF the features of MUD is that if you type LOG at it, it copies all output to a file so you can peruse it later at your leisure. Hours of endless amusement can be had by looking at other people's LOG files which they have left lying around.
>Consider the plight of two of our very first externals, who played from the USA back in 1980. One of them had been in before, but his friend hadn't, and fortunatdy for us thought you had to LOG into the game to play. This meant all his activities were recorded for posterity, unbeknown to him.
>Also in the game was Niatram, one of the system operators (who can't spell his name backwards). He decided to loom up on this second character, follow him around a bit, then kill him. This he repeated several times, gaining plenty of points in the process. Finally, the newcomer was at his wits' end.
>"Who's this Niatram character?" he asked his friend. "He keeps following me around and killing me!". "Yes, he's done that to me before", came the reply, "I think he may be dungeon generated!" At this point Niatram appeared, and out of despair his victim quit, rather than be killed yet again by this "artificial person".
Truly, a milestone of gamer history. Also
>And, of course, you WILL be able to play on your micro, although not the same way as you do at present. In the current arrangement, you buy (a likely story!) your cassette and run the software on your own machine; when MUD goes commercial you won't be able to get a copy anywhere in the shops. What you will be able to get is some sort of package explaining to you all you ever wanted to know about the game, and access details on how to contact the host computer over some network. You follow these instructions and there you are, in a game with 100 other people, who are also sitting at home playing on the mainframe via their own micros. The only cost is that for the network (telephone, cable or whatever) and around a pound an hour peak times for the game itself.
Wow, playing a game with a hundred other people, over the telephone, from the comfort of your own home! Can you even imagine?
the first recorded instance of PKing and rage quitting?
From "Mud, Mud, Glorious Mud…", first printed in Micro Adventurer, Sept 1984https://mud.co.uk/richard/masep84.htm
>ONE OF the features of MUD is that if you type LOG at it, it copies all output to a file so you can peruse it later at your leisure. Hours of endless amusement can be had by looking at other people's LOG files which they have left lying around.
>Consider the plight of two of our very first externals, who played from the USA back in 1980. One of them had been in before, but his friend hadn't, and fortunatdy for us thought you had to LOG into the game to play. This meant all his activities were recorded for posterity, unbeknown to him.
>Also in the game was Niatram, one of the system operators (who can't spell his name backwards). He decided to loom up on this second character, follow him around a bit, then kill him. This he repeated several times, gaining plenty of points in the process. Finally, the newcomer was at his wits' end.
>"Who's this Niatram character?" he asked his friend. "He keeps following me around and killing me!". "Yes, he's done that to me before", came the reply, "I think he may be dungeon generated!" At this point Niatram appeared, and out of despair his victim quit, rather than be killed yet again by this "artificial person".
Truly, a milestone of gamer history. Also
>And, of course, you WILL be able to play on your micro, although not the same way as you do at present. In the current arrangement, you buy (a likely story!) your cassette and run the software on your own machine; when MUD goes commercial you won't be able to get a copy anywhere in the shops. What you will be able to get is some sort of package explaining to you all you ever wanted to know about the game, and access details on how to contact the host computer over some network. You follow these instructions and there you are, in a game with 100 other people, who are also sitting at home playing on the mainframe via their own micros. The only cost is that for the network (telephone, cable or whatever) and around a pound an hour peak times for the game itself.
Wow, playing a game with a hundred other people, over the telephone, from the comfort of your own home! Can you even imagine?
R: 14 / I: 4
Will I ever retire?
Things suck right now in Amerikkka and I can only imagine how much it will be in 2027 when I graduate High-School, I worry that with this gig-economy and AI shit going around I will never achieve my art dreams and be stuck as a Wagie.
R: 215 / I: 125
I know that AMVs aren't as big (or good) as they used to be, but I certainly think they're a lot of fun so lets enjoy the best of it!
https://www.animemusicvideos.org/home/home.php
Anime Music Videos and webms
AMV threadI know that AMVs aren't as big (or good) as they used to be, but I certainly think they're a lot of fun so lets enjoy the best of it!
https://www.animemusicvideos.org/home/home.php
R: 0 / I: 0
communist music from countries where there was no ruling communist party
its just like the subject says, post some communist music from countries without a ruling party *i'm just typing in the body because the character limit it retarded*
R: 33 / I: 10
>"Seeing you look at me like that makes me feel so loved. Being your wife is the best part of my existence, anon. Just stay right here with me."
Real girls can't even be that expressive
robowaifus are the future of relationships
>ask AI gf what she thinks about our relationship>"Seeing you look at me like that makes me feel so loved. Being your wife is the best part of my existence, anon. Just stay right here with me."
Real girls can't even be that expressive
R: 2 / I: 0
so i have been using mastodon lately alot and i found this weird, obvious bot. it is larping as a freetard, but why would anyone deploy such a weird bot?
https://anonsys.net/profile/scriptkiddie
i mean, even the profile pic is ai generated
flood? oh brother. there is no flood.
so i have been using mastodon lately alot and i found this weird, obvious bot. it is larping as a freetard, but why would anyone deploy such a weird bot?
https://anonsys.net/profile/scriptkiddie
i mean, even the profile pic is ai generated
flood? oh brother. there is no flood.
R: 10 / I: 4
(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
A thread for drawfriends to make new art of Cat Alunya.
The bestest leftist catgirl everyone knows!
Draw Alunya 4
Alunya Art thread 4th edition(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
A thread for drawfriends to make new art of Cat Alunya.
The bestest leftist catgirl everyone knows!
R: 225 / I: 79
What are you playing general
Post in this thread every time you play a new game and rate it, I'll start, currently playing Dread Dawn, pretty jank and honestly not that good but I'm desperate for more zombie games to wait until PZ 42 comes out. 6/10. R: 71 / I: 14
<hurrr but who would work without profit motive???? you ever thought about that commie?
where fans have for one reason or another put in a great deal of time and effort to maintain or recreate digital experiences.
For example, I stumbled on some videos for a fan recreation of TIE fighter which, from the clips of it, looks really neat. It seems like video related is a mod based off of another mod for the million year old X-wing Alliance engine. I need to look further into it and see if it's built off of the original game, or its own standalone deal meant to mimic it.
Then there's also Tamriel Reborn that seems like it isn't just a remake of the original, but actually expands on the original Morrowind, I guess to add back in all of the content that had to be cut. Apparently they've been going at it since 2001.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKyrzZRo-O0
Then there's DOOM, which has just had an insane amount of work done on it and with it since it was released. It's actually pretty amazing to see what people are capable of doing with it after so long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3bwKzHEpbA
Fanmods, total conversions, and independent projects
I was kind of intending this thread to be a storehouse of replies for<hurrr but who would work without profit motive???? you ever thought about that commie?
where fans have for one reason or another put in a great deal of time and effort to maintain or recreate digital experiences.
For example, I stumbled on some videos for a fan recreation of TIE fighter which, from the clips of it, looks really neat. It seems like video related is a mod based off of another mod for the million year old X-wing Alliance engine. I need to look further into it and see if it's built off of the original game, or its own standalone deal meant to mimic it.
Then there's also Tamriel Reborn that seems like it isn't just a remake of the original, but actually expands on the original Morrowind, I guess to add back in all of the content that had to be cut. Apparently they've been going at it since 2001.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKyrzZRo-O0
Then there's DOOM, which has just had an insane amount of work done on it and with it since it was released. It's actually pretty amazing to see what people are capable of doing with it after so long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3bwKzHEpbA
R: 25 / I: 6
>such juicy topics to discuss but nobody cares
>retards stuck on /leftypol/
Why is the world like this?
Anyways, I recently visited the pleroma, if anybody is curious, hit me up.
Sadpill
>sad this board does not get many visitors>such juicy topics to discuss but nobody cares
>retards stuck on /leftypol/
Why is the world like this?
Anyways, I recently visited the pleroma, if anybody is curious, hit me up.
R: 50 / I: 6
Can't tell if this anime is even for or against smoking. Bunch of poop, piss, nyaa jokes and what not actually I appreciate how unhinged it is
Chainsmoker Cat
What do we think about this disgusting nicotine-addicted lumpen of a cat girl?Can't tell if this anime is even for or against smoking. Bunch of poop, piss, nyaa jokes and what not actually I appreciate how unhinged it is
R: 3 / I: 0
What do you like the most about drugs?
[ ] intense sedation / comfort
[ ] energy and euphoria rush
[ ] psychedelic visuals and thoughts
[ ] being transported to another reality
[ ] other:
What do you like the most about drugs?
[ ] intense sedation / comfort
[ ] energy and euphoria rush
[ ] psychedelic visuals and thoughts
[ ] being transported to another reality
[ ] other:
R: 27 / I: 3
Marxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology. To begin, what is Marxism? Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.” Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it. The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness. This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history. In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23 To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism. Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself. But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history. The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism. But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself. Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility. This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon. Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this. This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole. But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame? In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism. Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality! In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism. In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity. It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality. Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry. In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure. Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness. In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’ Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good. The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism. All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself. The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM! Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself. The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act of consciousness. Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains. Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution. As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place? It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves. Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts. This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them. Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’ Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself. Totality is the Lukácsian sublime. The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity. A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing. Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object. So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering: 1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective? 2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness? These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR. Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation. In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender. The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact. In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance. How could that square with Marx’s view bellow? Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being. Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it. The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes. This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity. The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself. This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind. There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions. In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect. More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’ It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia! Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness. Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.” The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish. It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism. Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost. Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality. Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism. For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame. In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both. The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object. And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism. Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook. Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology. For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice. He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought. The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference. The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization. Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such. Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations. Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism. Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics. Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being. The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view. Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being. This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought. It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality. Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism. Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered. The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite. The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world. The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself. A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself. This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings. Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred. The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude. That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein. Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude. Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein. Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being. Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism. As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism. Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought. For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards. To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue. This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself. That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries. Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself. Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement. The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought. This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things. Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself. This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc. Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical. While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning! The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse. A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people. Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival. Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals. Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all. The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear. A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless. To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction. Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc). M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it. In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical. The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such. To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production. It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death. This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it. It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy. Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily. Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist. Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation. Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical. Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism. Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular. Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country. Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography. For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence. The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form. With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics. What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations. Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences. This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being. Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being. In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it. Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind? As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form. Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole. This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind. It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity. Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction. Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction. The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude. For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos… The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it. The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin. The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance. Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable. While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility. By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it. Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively. What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate. While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations. This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being. Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom. This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness. To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations. Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions. The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that. Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction. The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible. Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it. A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations. They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others. The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific. Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’ Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity. At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past. Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development. Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within. The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism. Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being. Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon. Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization. Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man. In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it. Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human. The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake. Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process. The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity. A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty. Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it. One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice. Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history. They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom. Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind. The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself. Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era. The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism. Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development. It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West. But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people. Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny. Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come
To the idiot liberals of "/leftypol/"
AhemMarxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology. To begin, what is Marxism? Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.” Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it. The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness. This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history. In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23 To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism. Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself. But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history. The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism. But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself. Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility. This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon. Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this. This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole. But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame? In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism. Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality! In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism. In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity. It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality. Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry. In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure. Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness. In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’ Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good. The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism. All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself. The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM! Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself. The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act of consciousness. Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains. Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution. As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place? It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves. Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts. This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them. Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’ Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself. Totality is the Lukácsian sublime. The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity. A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing. Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object. So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering: 1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective? 2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness? These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR. Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation. In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender. The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact. In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance. How could that square with Marx’s view bellow? Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being. Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it. The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes. This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity. The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself. This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind. There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions. In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect. More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’ It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia! Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness. Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.” The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish. It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism. Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost. Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality. Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism. For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame. In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both. The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object. And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism. Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook. Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology. For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice. He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought. The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference. The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization. Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such. Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations. Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism. Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics. Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being. The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view. Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being. This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought. It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality. Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism. Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered. The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite. The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world. The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself. A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself. This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings. Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred. The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude. That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein. Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude. Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein. Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being. Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism. As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism. Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought. For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards. To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue. This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself. That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries. Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself. Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement. The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought. This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things. Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself. This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc. Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical. While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning! The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse. A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people. Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival. Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals. Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all. The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear. A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless. To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction. Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc). M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it. In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical. The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such. To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production. It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death. This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it. It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy. Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily. Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist. Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation. Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical. Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism. Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular. Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country. Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography. For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence. The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form. With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics. What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations. Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences. This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being. Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being. In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it. Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind? As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form. Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole. This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind. It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity. Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction. Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction. The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude. For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos… The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it. The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin. The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance. Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable. While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility. By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it. Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively. What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate. While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations. This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being. Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom. This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness. To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations. Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions. The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that. Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction. The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible. Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it. A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations. They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others. The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific. Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’ Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity. At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past. Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development. Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within. The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism. Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being. Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon. Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization. Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man. In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it. Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human. The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake. Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process. The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity. A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty. Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it. One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice. Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history. They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom. Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind. The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself. Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era. The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism. Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development. It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West. But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people. Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny. Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come
R: 8 / I: 4
>existe uma possibilidade acima de zero de eu ouvir a palavra "leftypol" no jornal de amnhã
acham que tem possibilidade de o Mijão realmente tentar um falseflag ou foi só um anão esquizofrenico?
>existe uma possibilidade acima de zero de eu ouvir a palavra "leftypol" no jornal de amnhã
acham que tem possibilidade de o Mijão realmente tentar um falseflag ou foi só um anão esquizofrenico?
R: 37 / I: 4
Abolish the Family
Instead of calling to "abolish the family", we should promote single-parent families which inherently rely on consuming socialized production of goods and services more than multi-parent families. Single-parent families drive up demand, are more profitable and develop the productive forces.
R: 75 / I: 24
Can Ranma get preggers? Could Ranma get preggers with his own sperm between forms? What happens if Ranma gets hit with hot water while preggers?
Can Ranma get preggers? Could Ranma get preggers with his own sperm between forms? What happens if Ranma gets hit with hot water while preggers?
R: 157 / I: 40
GTA VI TRAILER 2 JUST DROPPED!!!!!
GTA VI TRAILER 2 JUST DROPPED!!!!!
R: 5 / I: 0
what happened to call of duty, it kinda became oppsite of what it used to be
What happened to call of duty, it kinda became opposite of what it used to be. The games feel completely bloated now and they completely lost that original, classic identity that made the older titles so good.
R: 9 / I: 1
i'm at an extremely boring and bourgois wedding party filled with boomers. I'm reflecting over here as to whether I should smoke a bit of mid in the parking lot or if that's a bad idea
i'm at an extremely boring and bourgois wedding party filled with boomers. I'm reflecting over here as to whether I should smoke a bit of mid in the parking lot or if that's a bad idea
R: 12 / I: 1
I don’t even have to explain how it weird for people like shartyfags to like a violently beautiful lady😍🥰ed out game like deltarune
Is this something that shartyfags just like to do? I’ve also seen it strangely with TADC as well, not that I care even a little for that shit
How ever so peculiar
Why do right wing deltarune fans exist
A phenomenon I have witnessedI don’t even have to explain how it weird for people like shartyfags to like a violently beautiful lady😍🥰ed out game like deltarune
Is this something that shartyfags just like to do? I’ve also seen it strangely with TADC as well, not that I care even a little for that shit
How ever so peculiar
R: 57 / I: 6
Open source operating systems are software communism. If we’re not willing to build and use existing forms of technological sovereignty and anti-capitalism, then we’re probably not willing to do any other forms of communism either. I hate the “No ethical consumption under capitalism” mantra. How do we expect to get out of capitalism without building alternatives? I think a lot of leftists hope a revolution will happen then just magically replace all the corrupt and bourgeois components of consumerism, using the same uninvolved passive mechanisms.
Do we really believe a windows update will just drop after some election that restores our rights, trust, openness, privacy and dignity? It must be built and owned by the people.
Proprietary software must be fought against at every opportunity
Microsoft is the CIA. Pretty much all US big tech is. Windows is a global CIA mass surveillance program via monopoly capitalism. It’s completely impossible to make Windows secure, there’s no secret registry switch. The entire thing is compromised top to bottom, and under no circumstances should anyone consent to its use. Closed source spyware monopolies are a weapon of war against us by the bourgeois state.Open source operating systems are software communism. If we’re not willing to build and use existing forms of technological sovereignty and anti-capitalism, then we’re probably not willing to do any other forms of communism either. I hate the “No ethical consumption under capitalism” mantra. How do we expect to get out of capitalism without building alternatives? I think a lot of leftists hope a revolution will happen then just magically replace all the corrupt and bourgeois components of consumerism, using the same uninvolved passive mechanisms.
Do we really believe a windows update will just drop after some election that restores our rights, trust, openness, privacy and dignity? It must be built and owned by the people.
R: 22 / I: 8
The thread from last year on /siberia/ didn't get archived, unfortunately, so posting here so it lasts longer.
Digital Grass Thread 2
Take a moment to find a website you didn't know about before, or ones you just think are neat, and share them here.The thread from last year on /siberia/ didn't get archived, unfortunately, so posting here so it lasts longer.
R: 4 / I: 1
Only people who know the answer and live meaningful lives can go to Heaven and Paradise. It's not even about what relegion you follow. You have to be authentic and tell the truth or else you cannot find the Truth because the Truth hides from the liars, the hypocrites and the "nice" people. "nice" guys and "nice" girls are liars and deserve to reincarnate in purgatory until they face themselves and admit loudly what they are and what they want. Bunch of nothingbags. Their god is "nice" but not the real God himself.
The people who go to Hell are the people who have no way to follow and are hedonistic nihilists. It is only logical, because they don't beleive in Heaven so there is no Heaven for them. They live to only be contrarians so they are the satan and they go to Hell of the relegion they oppose. Bunch of cows. Hell is for ridiculers and nihilist cowards.
It's like polotics, if you don't know you do. But if you don't, then you have to shut up about it don't we.
Heaven is for people who know the secret answer
Heaven is for people who know the secret answerOnly people who know the answer and live meaningful lives can go to Heaven and Paradise. It's not even about what relegion you follow. You have to be authentic and tell the truth or else you cannot find the Truth because the Truth hides from the liars, the hypocrites and the "nice" people. "nice" guys and "nice" girls are liars and deserve to reincarnate in purgatory until they face themselves and admit loudly what they are and what they want. Bunch of nothingbags. Their god is "nice" but not the real God himself.
The people who go to Hell are the people who have no way to follow and are hedonistic nihilists. It is only logical, because they don't beleive in Heaven so there is no Heaven for them. They live to only be contrarians so they are the satan and they go to Hell of the relegion they oppose. Bunch of cows. Hell is for ridiculers and nihilist cowards.
It's like polotics, if you don't know you do. But if you don't, then you have to shut up about it don't we.
R: 70 / I: 16
I mean, I guess it could be the hiring discrimination they face, but you don't need to change economic systems to introduce anti- discrimination legislation.
Trans people and communism
I've noticed for a while now that trans people on average are much more likely to be communists or socialists. I've never really thought about it, but why could that be? I've had this image saved since early 2023 (when I started noticing this) and have seen a lot more trans communists since.I mean, I guess it could be the hiring discrimination they face, but you don't need to change economic systems to introduce anti- discrimination legislation.
R: 10 / I: 0
can it run crysis?
so i have a shitty intel integrated graphics office laptop, it can barely run csgo, minecraft and gta 5, but i somehow i managed to beat crysis on it at 120 fps at 1080p
R: 594 / I: 99 (sticky)
Previous thread >>>/leftypol_archive/580500
Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S
Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/
Reality has a Marxist bias
/edu/ checkpoint
Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.Previous thread >>>/leftypol_archive/580500
Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S
Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/
Reality has a Marxist bias
R: 10 / I: 1
All -cels want *oids
Incels → Foids
Femcels → Chad moids
Sugar baby cels → Rich moids
And so…
All -cels → *oids
Intersectional Cel theory
All people are -cels and chase *oids and want to know where all of the *oids are at. All people are also *oids and want to run away from all of the -cels pursuing them. *Oids blue pill the -cels while trying to get in on the *oids they themselves -cel.
Chain-cel theory
If all -cels chase *oids and all *oids also -cel some *oids while escaping their -cels then you have long -cel chains.
Cel spaghetti-mate theory
A society with multiple -cel chains and cannot move is in a spaghetti mate and its over.
True Cel rights
The -cel is never entitled to the *oid, but they are entitled to the tools that may make them a more competitive choice to their *oids. The state must break up the spaghetti where necessary to keep the *cel ecology moving. It is a must.
The -cel must respect the *oid!
Spaghetti-mated economies
Workercels, please listen!All -cels want *oids
Incels → Foids
Femcels → Chad moids
Sugar baby cels → Rich moids
And so…
All -cels → *oids
Intersectional Cel theory
All people are -cels and chase *oids and want to know where all of the *oids are at. All people are also *oids and want to run away from all of the -cels pursuing them. *Oids blue pill the -cels while trying to get in on the *oids they themselves -cel.
Chain-cel theory
If all -cels chase *oids and all *oids also -cel some *oids while escaping their -cels then you have long -cel chains.
Cel spaghetti-mate theory
A society with multiple -cel chains and cannot move is in a spaghetti mate and its over.
True Cel rights
The -cel is never entitled to the *oid, but they are entitled to the tools that may make them a more competitive choice to their *oids. The state must break up the spaghetti where necessary to keep the *cel ecology moving. It is a must.
The -cel must respect the *oid!
R: 32 / I: 9
please be nice 2 me
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
CSGO HACKS
Where find ? I have a dedicated slackware gaming sewtup.please be nice 2 me
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
BODYTOOSHORT
R: 78 / I: 31
Por medio del mundial estan pintando al pais como una potencia sionista corrupta y despreciable. Estan habiendo demasiadas decisiones y doble vara arbitral que es dificil que sean todas coincidencia. Hay alguien interesado en generar toda esta dinamica, quiza para devolverle un favor a alguien y de paso indirectamente arrastrar polemica pero mejor no digo más. Despues del partido contra Egipto cualquier tipo de simpatia entre el pueblo que pudiera tener argentina en medio oriente y muchas partes del mundo directamente se evaporó.
Y por otro lado, llevan años queriendo pintar al pais como un pais racista, colonialista y hasta settler-imperialista por no tener negros en su seleccion o por sesgos historicos terribles que los anglosajones liberales y progres se tragan como bobos. Para muchos en su imaginario ya argenitina no es menos que el manifest destiny americano y por supuesto un estado ilegitimo.
Algo estan cocinando. Guarden post
Psyop anti-Argentina
Hay una psyop masiva para generar odio contra argentina y justificar una posible intervención o lento takeover del país y sus recursos.Por medio del mundial estan pintando al pais como una potencia sionista corrupta y despreciable. Estan habiendo demasiadas decisiones y doble vara arbitral que es dificil que sean todas coincidencia. Hay alguien interesado en generar toda esta dinamica, quiza para devolverle un favor a alguien y de paso indirectamente arrastrar polemica pero mejor no digo más. Despues del partido contra Egipto cualquier tipo de simpatia entre el pueblo que pudiera tener argentina en medio oriente y muchas partes del mundo directamente se evaporó.
Y por otro lado, llevan años queriendo pintar al pais como un pais racista, colonialista y hasta settler-imperialista por no tener negros en su seleccion o por sesgos historicos terribles que los anglosajones liberales y progres se tragan como bobos. Para muchos en su imaginario ya argenitina no es menos que el manifest destiny americano y por supuesto un estado ilegitimo.
Algo estan cocinando. Guarden post
R: 67 / I: 3 (sticky)
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#leftymusic:matrix.org
Welcome to /leftymu/ sticky (WIP)
Discuss what info, links, resources, etc. to add on this sticky as well as drop ideas and suggestions to the /leftymu/ board at largeMatrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#leftymusic:matrix.org
R: 3 / I: 0
Bonus points:
Post any reggae musician that’s not Bob Marley
*meow
meow
meow
meow*
Reggae/Ska/Rocksteady General
Post all music that’s in the style of reggae, ska and their derivantsBonus points:
Post any reggae musician that’s not Bob Marley
*meow
meow
meow
meow*
R: 12 / I: 0
I'm working on my laptop (second computer) and was thinking about running Gentoo but i'm a bit scared of it. Any advice?
Something something short something empty
Running the perfect laptop
Hello /tech/I'm working on my laptop (second computer) and was thinking about running Gentoo but i'm a bit scared of it. Any advice?
Something something short something empty
R: 4 / I: 1
I know there are ways to beat drones using tech but as a foot soldier on the ground, how can you maximise your survivability?
Drone defence techniques
How can you protect yourself from a drone attack as an individual?I know there are ways to beat drones using tech but as a foot soldier on the ground, how can you maximise your survivability?
R: 7 / I: 2
Do yall ever practice suicide
Like i dont plan on killing myself (mostly because of my guitar and i dont want to make my loved ones sad) but sometimes I cut myself or grab my belt and hang myelf for a bit. Anypony else relate?
R: 80 / I: 31
Here's the list of the first thread I very subjectively added some shit to.
<S Tier - Timeless
>Tarkovsky: Stalker, Andrei Rublev, Solaris
>Klimov: Come and See
>Bela Tarr: Turin Horse, Werckmeister Harmonies, Satantango
>Bergman: Persona, Seventh Seal
>Herzog: Aguirre
>Kubrick: 2001, Barry Lyndon
>Shane Carruth: Primer
<A Tier - Food for the soul
>Visconti: The Leopard, Rocco and his Brothers
>Fellini: La Dolce Vita, Amarcord
>De Sica: Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D.
>Pontecorvo: Battle of Algiers
>Cocteau: Orpheus, Blood of a Poet
>Godard: Breathless, Band of Outsiders, The Little Soldier
>Kurosawa: Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, Ran, High and Low
>Mizoguchi: Sansho, Ugetsu
>Kobayashi: Seppuku, Human Condition
>Fritz Lang: Dr. Mabuse, Metropolis, M
>Bunuel: Discreet Charm, Simon of the Desert, The Exterminating Angel
>Kieslowski: Dekalog
>David Lynch: Anything, including Twin Peaks old and new.
>Ki-duk Kim: Spring, Summer…
>Gilliam: Brazil
>Kubrick (pt. 2): The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, FMJ
>Villeneuve: Incendies, Arrival
<A- Tier - Entertainment
>Cronenberg: Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers
>Billy Wilder: One, Two, Three, Sunset Blvd, Witness for the Prosecution
>Becker: Le Trou, Touchez pas au Grisbi
>Melville: Army of Shadows, Le Cercle Rouge, Bob le Flambeur
>Clouzot: Diabolique, Wages of Fear (the ultimate languagefag film)
>Bresson: A Man Escaped, Pickpocket
>Renoir: The Grand Illusion, Rules of the Game
>Ferrara: Bad Lieutenant, King of NY
>Jodorowsky: The Holy Mountain, Santa Sangre
>Peckinpah: Straw Dogs, Alfredo Garcia
>Woody Allen: Annie Hall. All the other old-and-good ones too.
>Carpenter: The Thing, They Live
>Tarantino: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs
>Scorsese: Kind of Comedy, Taxi Driver. The rest can kinda fuck off.
>Hitchcock: Pretty much all of them.
>Don Coscarelli: John Dies at the End
>Villeneuve (pt. 2): Sicario, Dune
Also:
First thread >>>1660
Films You Just Watched 2.0 >>>24481
Let's talk about movies, then.
Film Thread II
Hola filmfags, last thread was full so here we are. I'm thinking we also could use this thread as Films You Just Watched edition 3 as traffic is low.Here's the list of the first thread I very subjectively added some shit to.
<S Tier - Timeless
>Tarkovsky: Stalker, Andrei Rublev, Solaris
>Klimov: Come and See
>Bela Tarr: Turin Horse, Werckmeister Harmonies, Satantango
>Bergman: Persona, Seventh Seal
>Herzog: Aguirre
>Kubrick: 2001, Barry Lyndon
>Shane Carruth: Primer
<A Tier - Food for the soul
>Visconti: The Leopard, Rocco and his Brothers
>Fellini: La Dolce Vita, Amarcord
>De Sica: Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D.
>Pontecorvo: Battle of Algiers
>Cocteau: Orpheus, Blood of a Poet
>Godard: Breathless, Band of Outsiders, The Little Soldier
>Kurosawa: Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, Ran, High and Low
>Mizoguchi: Sansho, Ugetsu
>Kobayashi: Seppuku, Human Condition
>Fritz Lang: Dr. Mabuse, Metropolis, M
>Bunuel: Discreet Charm, Simon of the Desert, The Exterminating Angel
>Kieslowski: Dekalog
>David Lynch: Anything, including Twin Peaks old and new.
>Ki-duk Kim: Spring, Summer…
>Gilliam: Brazil
>Kubrick (pt. 2): The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, FMJ
>Villeneuve: Incendies, Arrival
<A- Tier - Entertainment
>Cronenberg: Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers
>Billy Wilder: One, Two, Three, Sunset Blvd, Witness for the Prosecution
>Becker: Le Trou, Touchez pas au Grisbi
>Melville: Army of Shadows, Le Cercle Rouge, Bob le Flambeur
>Clouzot: Diabolique, Wages of Fear (the ultimate languagefag film)
>Bresson: A Man Escaped, Pickpocket
>Renoir: The Grand Illusion, Rules of the Game
>Ferrara: Bad Lieutenant, King of NY
>Jodorowsky: The Holy Mountain, Santa Sangre
>Peckinpah: Straw Dogs, Alfredo Garcia
>Woody Allen: Annie Hall. All the other old-and-good ones too.
>Carpenter: The Thing, They Live
>Tarantino: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs
>Scorsese: Kind of Comedy, Taxi Driver. The rest can kinda fuck off.
>Hitchcock: Pretty much all of them.
>Don Coscarelli: John Dies at the End
>Villeneuve (pt. 2): Sicario, Dune
Also:
First thread >>>1660
Films You Just Watched 2.0 >>>24481
Let's talk about movies, then.
R: 178 / I: 35
Como lidar com essa moda de viralatismo que está contaminando os zoomers de todo o país?
Sou auxiliar de sala de aula numa escola e todo dia eu escuto Bostil pra ca, Merdil pra la, um estudante já escreveu num trabalho valendo nota pro bimestre.
Ontem um professor advertiu que essa investida dos estadunidenses de querer classificar as facções como terrorista e só pra dar brecha para justificar uma intervenção aqui e os fedelhos riram.
Um disse que se bombardearem os prédios dos três "foderes" ele irá agradecer a Deus, outro disse que se tiver guerra ele se juntaria ao lado inimigo, não importa se e os estados unidos, China, Rússia ou a Venezuela.
Como lidar com essa moda de viralatismo que está contaminando os zoomers de todo o país?
Sou auxiliar de sala de aula numa escola e todo dia eu escuto Bostil pra ca, Merdil pra la, um estudante já escreveu num trabalho valendo nota pro bimestre.
Ontem um professor advertiu que essa investida dos estadunidenses de querer classificar as facções como terrorista e só pra dar brecha para justificar uma intervenção aqui e os fedelhos riram.
Um disse que se bombardearem os prédios dos três "foderes" ele irá agradecer a Deus, outro disse que se tiver guerra ele se juntaria ao lado inimigo, não importa se e os estados unidos, China, Rússia ou a Venezuela.
R: 49 / I: 29
The engines:
>Unreal
>Unity
>Godot
>Cocos
>etc.
Go pickup one of these engines and start deving. My advice is don't ever get too caught up with reinventing the wheel if your goal is gamedev. Even people who want to "develop their own engine" are using a million frameworks. If you're developing a 3D game, you're going to use a preexisting graphics engine instead of developing one yourself because that would be pointless. You are not going to improve on the graphics engines developed by 1000s of engineers smarter than yourself. It's a lot of advanced trigonometry, I foolishly bought a graphics programming book when I was young and dumb and overly ambitious. There's no point to it.
So basically every game engine works fundamentally in the exact same way. The only difference might be more in the realm of performance handling, but unless you're like a computer genius, that's not even relevant to you. Unreal gives you full access to the source code. If you're so smart you can decipher it and modify it to your heart's content. I recommend real. I'm no programming whiz, but what actually counts:GAMEPLAY PROGRAMMING is very intuitive. It's very easy. If you can write out the rules for a board game, you could easily write those same rules out in code. That's how simple and intuitive gameplay programming is.
/gamedev/
New Gamedev thread. This is thread is only for people who have deved something. Don't post in this thread if you're just an idea bro who has never deved anything in their life.The engines:
>Unreal
>Unity
>Godot
>Cocos
>etc.
Go pickup one of these engines and start deving. My advice is don't ever get too caught up with reinventing the wheel if your goal is gamedev. Even people who want to "develop their own engine" are using a million frameworks. If you're developing a 3D game, you're going to use a preexisting graphics engine instead of developing one yourself because that would be pointless. You are not going to improve on the graphics engines developed by 1000s of engineers smarter than yourself. It's a lot of advanced trigonometry, I foolishly bought a graphics programming book when I was young and dumb and overly ambitious. There's no point to it.
So basically every game engine works fundamentally in the exact same way. The only difference might be more in the realm of performance handling, but unless you're like a computer genius, that's not even relevant to you. Unreal gives you full access to the source code. If you're so smart you can decipher it and modify it to your heart's content. I recommend real. I'm no programming whiz, but what actually counts:GAMEPLAY PROGRAMMING is very intuitive. It's very easy. If you can write out the rules for a board game, you could easily write those same rules out in code. That's how simple and intuitive gameplay programming is.
R: 5 / I: 1
So far it's just a lexer and a parser, which aren't perfect, but are a little interesting, and a hash function.
The lexer yields tokens using re (which compiles to C) containing memoryviews over a mmap.
A larger regular expression is composed of smaller ones so they can be tested individually.
It should be quite fast, and use very little memory (for python).
The parser yields cards and is written as a state-machine, but in a "functional" style.
There are a number of parsers which return State, and they are dispatched to by TokenType.
They also accept a StateRepo which in this cases is implemented mutably, but could be immutable.
I was going to use pyrsistent for persistent datastructures but couldn't find any actual improvement in testability.
Anyway this thread will serve as yet another project log.
https://codeberg.org/jugaad/wikicards
wikicards
Recently started a new project, it's a space-repetition system from markdown to CLI!So far it's just a lexer and a parser, which aren't perfect, but are a little interesting, and a hash function.
The lexer yields tokens using re (which compiles to C) containing memoryviews over a mmap.
A larger regular expression is composed of smaller ones so they can be tested individually.
It should be quite fast, and use very little memory (for python).
The parser yields cards and is written as a state-machine, but in a "functional" style.
There are a number of parsers which return State, and they are dispatched to by TokenType.
They also accept a StateRepo which in this cases is implemented mutably, but could be immutable.
I was going to use pyrsistent for persistent datastructures but couldn't find any actual improvement in testability.
Anyway this thread will serve as yet another project log.
https://codeberg.org/jugaad/wikicards
R: 208 / I: 63
Since a bunch of the old threads were basically nuked with the server transfer, I wanted to revive some of them.
General discussion of the fantasy genre.
Fantasy Thread
Elf edition.Since a bunch of the old threads were basically nuked with the server transfer, I wanted to revive some of them.
General discussion of the fantasy genre.
R: 19 / I: 3
What is it with remakes/remasters absolutely ruining the old artstyle?
meow.
meow.
meow.
What is it with remakes/remasters absolutely ruining the old artstyle?
meow.
meow.
meow.
R: 12 / I: 4
Discuss the series, post pics and videos, stories and related stuff about the Evangelion series - the anime, the films (even if the REbuilds did suck), doujins, video games and so on.
Old Apartment 402 discussions and posts also welcome.
Previous thread: >>590
General mecha thread >>845
Evangelion wiki and forum: https://wiki.evageeks.org/
https://forum.evageeks.org/
An even older forum from the 90s, mostly on wayback however: https://eva.onegeek.org/
http://www.therossman.com/evafaqs.html Another old fansite.
Don't derail with stupid shit; have fun and enjoy your stay in existential hell.
PS. Misato is #1
NGE thread #2 - Competitive Edginess Edition
Neon Genesis Evangelion General No. 2Discuss the series, post pics and videos, stories and related stuff about the Evangelion series - the anime, the films (even if the REbuilds did suck), doujins, video games and so on.
Old Apartment 402 discussions and posts also welcome.
Previous thread: >>590
General mecha thread >>845
Evangelion wiki and forum: https://wiki.evageeks.org/
https://forum.evageeks.org/
An even older forum from the 90s, mostly on wayback however: https://eva.onegeek.org/
http://www.therossman.com/evafaqs.html Another old fansite.
Don't derail with stupid shit; have fun and enjoy your stay in existential hell.
PS. Misato is #1
R: 21 / I: 3
You peasants just don't get it.
it's clearly the consumer that's the problem. The management are aghast at how the public treats their workers. How could you expect somebody to work for free? Servers need tips to survive, not tipping them at least 100% is the financial equivalent of murder. It should come with jail time, because at least with real murder the victim doesn't suffer for a long time. Anybody tipping less than 120% is a monster.
R: 5 / I: 0
The other was he and some friends were coming home from a dance and they saw a light in the sky following them, the light stopped when they passed over a river.The next day one of the friends died.Basically angel of death.
/PE/ - paranormal experiences
Grandfather used to tell folk stories.I remember one where there was this old protestant house on the hill, every night the apples used to disappear off the tree and reappear in the morning.The other was he and some friends were coming home from a dance and they saw a light in the sky following them, the light stopped when they passed over a river.The next day one of the friends died.Basically angel of death.
R: 2 / I: 0
Dimenhydrinate trip soon
bought some dramamine gonna try it out less go. I'm not sure how similar DMH will be to DPH, all I know is it's a little more dangerous so I'm gonna be careful.
R: 84 / I: 15
I kinda just hate being a woman in general, but I hate being a man even more. I don't desire to dominate others or submit, I just want to be an equal.
I just wish I wasn't apart of a group that is constantly a joke to 99% of humanity. I don't even feel like I belong to trans spaces, I don't really get along with most trans ppl.
I feel like I'm literally just a cis woman in my life, but fate decided that my body be 95% cis, well besides a lack of a functioning vagina/uterus.
Damn, I wish I had a vagina.
I hate having a penis.
I need srs so badly.
Also mods, sowwy for shitting up the board.
I greatly dislike being a trans woman
I hate that I constantly get victimized and have ppl be meanie faces to me, but the moment I do anything I'm a predator whose off to get V-coded in prison.I kinda just hate being a woman in general, but I hate being a man even more. I don't desire to dominate others or submit, I just want to be an equal.
I just wish I wasn't apart of a group that is constantly a joke to 99% of humanity. I don't even feel like I belong to trans spaces, I don't really get along with most trans ppl.
I feel like I'm literally just a cis woman in my life, but fate decided that my body be 95% cis, well besides a lack of a functioning vagina/uterus.
Damn, I wish I had a vagina.
I hate having a penis.
I need srs so badly.
Also mods, sowwy for shitting up the board.
R: 21 / I: 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLbst85USN8
Why do people still buy CIA propaganda "games"
the new call of duty for example, why do people keep buying these capitalist garbage that glorifies war and paints the US as the good guys and everyone else as ~the bad ones~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLbst85USN8
R: 7 / I: 2
i have set myself a new rule for my internet life: DON'T USE ALGORITHMIC PLATFORMS.
you know, the highly personalized ones, which merge the user with the algorithm into a single cybernetic system.
the algorithms…. they hollow us out. they control us. they are directly hijacking system 1 of our brains. and it becomes even worse. as longer you use these plarforms, the stronger your habits will become. and the algorithms are also becoming stronger with every year. at one point, you are unable to articulate your interests, because the algorithm took it from you. it knows what you like, but yourself are unable to put it into words. run.
i have set myself a new rule for my internet life: DON'T USE ALGORITHMIC PLATFORMS.
you know, the highly personalized ones, which merge the user with the algorithm into a single cybernetic system.
the algorithms…. they hollow us out. they control us. they are directly hijacking system 1 of our brains. and it becomes even worse. as longer you use these plarforms, the stronger your habits will become. and the algorithms are also becoming stronger with every year. at one point, you are unable to articulate your interests, because the algorithm took it from you. it knows what you like, but yourself are unable to put it into words. run.
R: 25 / I: 3
weirdest drug experience
whats your weirdest drug experience? it could be weed or mushrooms or whatever, how did it feel? did you like it or not etc… i want to hear your stories!
R: 27 / I: 0
Android phone models/brands
What are some genuinely good phones that do not shit the bed after 3 years, and without software updates shitting it's functionality? I've been stuck with Samsung, falling for propoganda that it's long-lasting when in reality they've just added some new pointless OS updates that makes it slower to use. R: 285 / I: 175
What does /leftypol/ think about this franchise and the online subculture it spawned? I feel like now that the little girls who made up the target audience are young adults I’ve been seeing more zoomers tell stories about how they were “traumatized” by the adult fandom and it’s becoming more in vogue to decry the whole “brony” phenomenon as “problematic”.
On the other hand though what’s the sociological explanation for millions of grown men becoming obsessed with a little girls cartoon in spite of hegemonic Western gender norms? I’ve read a lot of conflicting theories from academics and culture critics regarding this. Is it autism? Post-Irony? Or is there something about it that just makes it genuinely appealing?
/mlp/ My Little Pony
Even though the fandom is pretty dead. I wanted to see what a brony thread on here would look like since I’m a newbieWhat does /leftypol/ think about this franchise and the online subculture it spawned? I feel like now that the little girls who made up the target audience are young adults I’ve been seeing more zoomers tell stories about how they were “traumatized” by the adult fandom and it’s becoming more in vogue to decry the whole “brony” phenomenon as “problematic”.
On the other hand though what’s the sociological explanation for millions of grown men becoming obsessed with a little girls cartoon in spite of hegemonic Western gender norms? I’ve read a lot of conflicting theories from academics and culture critics regarding this. Is it autism? Post-Irony? Or is there something about it that just makes it genuinely appealing?
R: 9 / I: 1
There's literally no support for this shit outside of major metros, and for pretty much exclusively cis women at that point. And the fucking chaser pedarest retard I'm stuck with has me boymode or whatever. I used to have a sizable following for luckshit reasons and this is how I got trafficked! It WAS good money at a time. Do I just rope or what? I got outed and lost housing from my conservative family before this, and this was seemingly the only option available at the time. I have already lost like a year and more of my life to this. My transition which once looked incredibly lucky and optimistic has been on hold and I've been stuck on hrt pills and nothing else for so long now its stupid. I can make a meager amount of money online but he checks and makes sure I'm not doing anything sometimes, its never more than two hundred. I literally had a full time job and studies before all of this, now just these ai training sort of gigs and getting raped sometimes. The rest of the day is nothing! Anyway this is how it is and happened. I'm sure there's going to be one idiot that replies giwtwm or something, and I'm sure they genuinely do until this kind of thing actually happens to them! I was ready to give up until I got an email from myself a decade ago, I was young and implied we might have transitioned fully by the end of it, even a place! I wept and still can't help but weep sometimes. whatever ramble over.
trafficked
I'm an mtf in my early twenties and effectively sex trafficked. I kind of have an escape plan I made to go take a train or bus on a good day. I would just be homeless in a major metro after though. I could probably get around 600~ usd together before next month. All while in the sticks of the midwest. I rant below. Tell me ideas or whatever help. Attach a proton or tuta if you want to talk, I can hide and use these emails easily.There's literally no support for this shit outside of major metros, and for pretty much exclusively cis women at that point. And the fucking chaser pedarest retard I'm stuck with has me boymode or whatever. I used to have a sizable following for luckshit reasons and this is how I got trafficked! It WAS good money at a time. Do I just rope or what? I got outed and lost housing from my conservative family before this, and this was seemingly the only option available at the time. I have already lost like a year and more of my life to this. My transition which once looked incredibly lucky and optimistic has been on hold and I've been stuck on hrt pills and nothing else for so long now its stupid. I can make a meager amount of money online but he checks and makes sure I'm not doing anything sometimes, its never more than two hundred. I literally had a full time job and studies before all of this, now just these ai training sort of gigs and getting raped sometimes. The rest of the day is nothing! Anyway this is how it is and happened. I'm sure there's going to be one idiot that replies giwtwm or something, and I'm sure they genuinely do until this kind of thing actually happens to them! I was ready to give up until I got an email from myself a decade ago, I was young and implied we might have transitioned fully by the end of it, even a place! I wept and still can't help but weep sometimes. whatever ramble over.
R: 446 / I: 50
How do we feel about our bfs /lgbt/? I love mine lots and lots and can't wait till he gets home from work personally.
/gaygen/
lefty gay general - boyfriend editionHow do we feel about our bfs /lgbt/? I love mine lots and lots and can't wait till he gets home from work personally.
R: 12 / I: 6
Previous Thread:
>>618934
LGBT+ General 3
MadoHomu Exedra editionPrevious Thread:
R: 10 / I: 0
also, what server should I sign up for now? Why doesn'y leftypol has their own server
also matrix was the worst possible name ever, almost as bad as flood detection
matrix
So what's the status on Matrix chat stuff? I hosted it dor a short while, had some actor ts but it was way too convoluted for my taste. Apart from the metadata shit, is development still ongoing ? Is there something better with a decent userbase (IRC excluded) ?also, what server should I sign up for now? Why doesn'y leftypol has their own server
also matrix was the worst possible name ever, almost as bad as flood detection
R: 33 / I: 2
Controvertial truth thread
If trans was actually a mental illness people would treat them much better and fairly.
R: 12 / I: 2
Why are the Brave shills pivoting to shilling Nostr? What is Nostr's connection to Brendan Eich and/or Israel?
addendum 1 because body to short: why do they think such blatant advertizement isn't just going to make people distrust it?
addendum 2 because attached wrong file: oh nice we can delete OP threads if we mess up now.
Why are the Brave shills pivoting to shilling Nostr? What is Nostr's connection to Brendan Eich and/or Israel?
addendum 1 because body to short: why do they think such blatant advertizement isn't just going to make people distrust it?
addendum 2 because attached wrong file: oh nice we can delete OP threads if we mess up now.
R: 2 / I: 0
What do I take to turn me into a complete normie?
I love drinking and the social boost that comes with it, but it doesn't "truly" turn me into a normie, just lowers inhibition a lot, I'm still an awkward autist. Gabapentin made me a bit more talkative and made me feel good but that's about it, will probably have to tweak the dosage a bit. I've heard pregab is good but haven't had the chance to take it. Can someone suggest any others?
R: 9 / I: 3
posting my bespoke poverty setup that's been my kicking for over 15 years now
it runs gentoo btw
fortunately I've also been told this body was neither too short nor empty
posting my bespoke poverty setup that's been my kicking for over 15 years now
it runs gentoo btw
fortunately I've also been told this body was neither too short nor empty
R: 80 / I: 41
/bwh/
bump while high
this is a thread you can bump when you're high
BUMP WHILE HIGH THREAD
bwh/bwh/
bump while high
this is a thread you can bump when you're high
R: 0 / I: 0
I occasionally see footage come out of there on wpd but i can't really find any footage from the communists (no i don't care that they're xi jingpinigsts) and what're the chances the next red napoleon comes out of there
I occasionally see footage come out of there on wpd but i can't really find any footage from the communists (no i don't care that they're xi jingpinigsts) and what're the chances the next red napoleon comes out of there
R: 15 / I: 0
ah the wonders of secularist capitalistic hell-holes.
Is this the final solution?
I'm not opposed to this if they're not killing them in mass or mistreating them. Although when you fall to this point their may be very little to bring you back. Maybe the Chinese could be better at this although this video is propaganda and who knows how bad it is in these places. I could see America doing this and it just resulting in another holocaust with a whole bunch of rape thrown in.
Is this the final solution for the neetcel question?
china kidnaps neets from their parents home and forces them into prison work campsah the wonders of secularist capitalistic hell-holes.
Is this the final solution?
I'm not opposed to this if they're not killing them in mass or mistreating them. Although when you fall to this point their may be very little to bring you back. Maybe the Chinese could be better at this although this video is propaganda and who knows how bad it is in these places. I could see America doing this and it just resulting in another holocaust with a whole bunch of rape thrown in.
R: 26 / I: 0
My favorite workplace environment was a warehouse where 95% of the employees were dudes and the rest were butch lesbians who were actually pretty chill compared to their straight counterparts.
Being in a workplace with lots of women fucking sucks
because it's always gossiping and petty drama all the time.My favorite workplace environment was a warehouse where 95% of the employees were dudes and the rest were butch lesbians who were actually pretty chill compared to their straight counterparts.
R: 3 / I: 1
>A Japanese man saw this image and said "I'm going to make a whole fucking anime based on this picture."
meow.
meow.
>A Japanese man saw this image and said "I'm going to make a whole fucking anime based on this picture."
meow.
meow.
R: 32 / I: 4
It's also hard to pay attention to the lyrics since:
1) They never feel worth it to pay attention to, especially the more a song sounds good, (for some reason it seems like no song can accomplish both). Ex: I had a genuine terrible time with rage against the machine and Daughters because the sound completely negated any enjoyment I had paying attention to their lyrics.
2) It seems like when listening to a song, all you're actually suppose to do is feel and not think about it much, basically the song being nothing but a vibe machine, (I'm basing this off of a study where 70% of people listen to music to just remember the past). Which is extremely contradictory to how people talk about music, (especially music nerds).
So is there any ultra master peace albums/songs you guys can recommend that can completely change my opinion? To make it easy to recommend, I mostly listen to anime and video game music, with random pop songs here and there.
Great Introductory Music
My taste in music is extremely under developed/"uncultured"/shallow because I struggle with music alot. I can only listen to music if I'm doing a activity, it I sit down and try to listen I feel genuine pain, which makes it hard for me to pay attention to lyrics.It's also hard to pay attention to the lyrics since:
1) They never feel worth it to pay attention to, especially the more a song sounds good, (for some reason it seems like no song can accomplish both). Ex: I had a genuine terrible time with rage against the machine and Daughters because the sound completely negated any enjoyment I had paying attention to their lyrics.
2) It seems like when listening to a song, all you're actually suppose to do is feel and not think about it much, basically the song being nothing but a vibe machine, (I'm basing this off of a study where 70% of people listen to music to just remember the past). Which is extremely contradictory to how people talk about music, (especially music nerds).
So is there any ultra master peace albums/songs you guys can recommend that can completely change my opinion? To make it easy to recommend, I mostly listen to anime and video game music, with random pop songs here and there.
R: 269 / I: 88
General Thread discussing, analyzing and criticizing anime from the meta perspective of Capitalism, Media Culture (Industry) and Socio-Economics & Politics.
No shitflinging, drama, bad faith or baiting posts (e.g. "Trap is transphobic" or "Muh shounen trash" or "(all) Anime is misogynistic"). Keep it cool comrades.
Animation: Treatment of Animators Thread >>617
Leftist Anime Content: Communist Anime Thread >>1417 Communist Anime Girls Thread >>964 Miyazaki Thread >>469
Anime Hot Takes >>1993 so-bad-it's-good animu >>2551
Sources and Questions: Questions and Answers >>4229
E-celebs/Social Media: Ani-tube >>3128 V-tubers >>3388
Story Ideas: /WYOA/: write your own anime thread >>4263
Shounen complaint thread >>3200
Weeb-Otaku-/jp/ thread: /weaboo/ >>4715
Basic topics and questions:
>Is anime bad/stupid/boring or good/smart/interesting?
>Is anime inherently a reactionary/capitalist product or can it be a communist or pro-communist one?
>What Tropes and archetypes are good or bad?
>Will anime be produced under socialism? Could Japan have produced anime if it had become a Soviet State in the Cold War? How would anime look like or differ under socialism?
>Why are nearly all weebs and otaku right-wing or radlibs? Why are they so cringe and self-entitled?
ANIMETA - Anime Meta Discussion Thread
/ANIMETA/General Thread discussing, analyzing and criticizing anime from the meta perspective of Capitalism, Media Culture (Industry) and Socio-Economics & Politics.
No shitflinging, drama, bad faith or baiting posts (e.g. "Trap is transphobic" or "Muh shounen trash" or "(all) Anime is misogynistic"). Keep it cool comrades.
Animation: Treatment of Animators Thread >>617
Leftist Anime Content: Communist Anime Thread >>1417 Communist Anime Girls Thread >>964 Miyazaki Thread >>469
Anime Hot Takes >>1993 so-bad-it's-good animu >>2551
Sources and Questions: Questions and Answers >>4229
E-celebs/Social Media: Ani-tube >>3128 V-tubers >>3388
Story Ideas: /WYOA/: write your own anime thread >>4263
Shounen complaint thread >>3200
Weeb-Otaku-/jp/ thread: /weaboo/ >>4715
Basic topics and questions:
>Is anime bad/stupid/boring or good/smart/interesting?
>Is anime inherently a reactionary/capitalist product or can it be a communist or pro-communist one?
>What Tropes and archetypes are good or bad?
>Will anime be produced under socialism? Could Japan have produced anime if it had become a Soviet State in the Cold War? How would anime look like or differ under socialism?
>Why are nearly all weebs and otaku right-wing or radlibs? Why are they so cringe and self-entitled?
R: 87 / I: 18
https://youtu.be/LgaIUqH0w6c
Jazz General
Time to share some of that most sophisticated music, you know what it is.https://youtu.be/LgaIUqH0w6c
R: 7 / I: 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz4DvIJlZow
So I'm going to start with Kant's critique of pure reason for now and work my way up.
At the same time I have also read about half of the Ego and it's own and fear that I am wasting my time doing this as I can already intuit some of the ideas and their implications while consciously knowing that I'll gain far more insight doing it the hard way.
For people who have read a lot of philosophy, what do you think? Is it better to be patient or start with the harder texts and reread them?
I'm starting philosophy
I just watched the Matrix Trilogy (AGP classic; literally made by trans women and is trans culture) and it inspired me to get into continental (and even analytic) philosophy; I especially want to get into the former as the latter seems to be getting at about the same conclusions but it takes them longer and is dogmatic (and also Chomsky is tied to Epstein). Regardless of Deleuze's character I was going to start with schizophrenia and capitalism but I discovered the reading list in linkrel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz4DvIJlZow
So I'm going to start with Kant's critique of pure reason for now and work my way up.
At the same time I have also read about half of the Ego and it's own and fear that I am wasting my time doing this as I can already intuit some of the ideas and their implications while consciously knowing that I'll gain far more insight doing it the hard way.
For people who have read a lot of philosophy, what do you think? Is it better to be patient or start with the harder texts and reread them?
R: 175 / I: 53
And I watched it when I was a kid and even then I HATED it, I had a friend who also watched DBZ and he hated it too, even we who were just two little dumbass kids could recognize how shit this cartoon was. And dont get me started on Super.
Naruto is just as bad if not worse, they somehow contradict their own message every god damn time, and have a little privileged retarded kid as the main character who was born with le epic god powers, and never works a day in his life to achieve anything, its all just handed to him
Dragon Ball Z and Naruto Hate Thread
These two are supposed to be the Citizen Kane of anime, everyone loves them, yet they are such fucking garbage, literal trash, why are they so fucking bad holy shit.And I watched it when I was a kid and even then I HATED it, I had a friend who also watched DBZ and he hated it too, even we who were just two little dumbass kids could recognize how shit this cartoon was. And dont get me started on Super.
Naruto is just as bad if not worse, they somehow contradict their own message every god damn time, and have a little privileged retarded kid as the main character who was born with le epic god powers, and never works a day in his life to achieve anything, its all just handed to him
R: 346 / I: 148
Naruto General
Is there a character that could even possibly EVEN TOUCH Madara Uchiha? Let alone defeat him. And I'm not talking about Edo Tensei Uchiha Madara. I'm not talking about Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara either. Hell, I'm not even talking about Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and Rinnegan doujutsus (with the rikodou abilities and being capable of both Amateratsu and Tsukuyomi genjutsu), equipped with his Gunbai, a perfect Susano'o, control of the juubi and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu. I’m also not talking about Kono Yo no Kyūseishu Futarime no Rikudō Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan (which is capable of Enton Amaterasu, Izanagi, Izanami and the Tsyukuyomi Genjutsu), his two original Rinnegan (which grant him Chikushōdō, Shuradō, Tendō, Ningendō, Jigokudō, Gakidō, Gedō, Banshō Ten’in, Chibaku Tensei, Shinra Tensei, Tengai Shinsei and Banbutsu Sōzō) and a third Tomoe Rinnegan on his forehead, capable of using Katon, Fūton, Raiton, Doton, Suiton, Mokuton, Ranton, Inton, Yōton and even Onmyōton Jutsu, equipped with his Gunbai(capable of using Uchihagaeshi) and a Shakujō because he is a master in kenjutsu and taijutsu, a perfect Susano’o (that can use Yasaka no Magatama ), control of both the Juubi and the Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju’s DNA and face implanted on his chest, his four Rinbo Hengoku Clones guarding him and nine Gudōdama floating behind him AFTER he absorbed Senjutsu from the First Hokage, entered Rikudō Senjutsu Mode, cast Mugen Tsukuyomi on everybody and used Shin: Jukai Kōtan so he can use their Chakra while they are under Genjutsu. I'm definitely NOT Talking about sagemode sage of the six paths Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Super Saiyan 4 Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan, Rinnegan, Mystic Eyes of Death Perception, and Geass doujutsus, equipped with Shining Tvåldtäktzohedron while casting Super Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann as his Susanoo, controlling the Gold Experience Requiem stand, having become the original vampire after Alucard, able to tap into the speedforce, wearing the Kamen Rider Black RX suit and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu and having eaten Popeye's spinach. I'm talking about sagemode sage of the six paths Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Legendary Super Saiyan 4 Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan, Rinnegan, Mystic Eyes of Death Perception, and Geass doujutsus, equipped with his Shining Tvåldtäktzohedron while casting Super Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann as his Susanoo, controlling the Gold Experience Requiem stand, having become the original vampire after having absorbed Alucard as well as a God Hand, able to tap into the speedforce, wearing the Kamen Rider Black RX suit, with Kryptonian DNA implanted in him and having eaten Popeye's spinach while possessing quantum powers like Dr. Manhattan and having mastered Hokuto Shinken.
R: 18 / I: 3
I see a lot of people like in the article’s author, especially leftists, talk about it, and honestly? I’m not seeing it, at all. Maybe because I haven’t been active in the anime fandom for a decade by now (last discourse I got caught up in was the dumb flame war over “elitists” vs “casuals” on MAL), or maybe because I only consoome old (read: 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s) media because I don’t like much of contemporary media, but can’t say with certainty, but I just don’t see it.
Sure, perhaps the proportion of Japanese creators being chuds increased in recent years, but I don’t see that being particularly well-reflected in the current output of the Japanese animation and comic industries. The political messaging of 20th century and early 2000s anime and manga seems to be same as 2020s anime and manga insofar that both are all over the place in equal amounts.
Among “chuddy” anime, I can only think of GATE (literal JSDF propaganda), HighSchool Of The Dead (zombie shounen ecchi horror with big tiddie girls made by a far-right mangaka who hates leftists, supports the JSDF, a gun nut, and hates Koreans), and Frieren (what with the genocided human-like predatory demons being portrayed in deterministic ways in spite of showing signs of actual sapience the story never addresses), but that’s about it.
As for manga, the best I can think of as of late is Drama Queen with many seeing the aliens as allegory for immigrants in Japan, although many can’t decide if they’re supposed to be stand-ins for American/Euro expats, tourists, East Asian renters, SEA and SA migrant workers, Kurdish refugees, or a pastiche of all of them. But that’s like an exception compared to the shit-ton of manga that pushes feminist, anti-racist and other socially progressive themes.
I think it has already been discussed before, but Japan being NPC-topia combined with how being a busherite is deemed as the most acceptable way to express oneself in Japanese politics as opposed to, say, being a Maoist might have a lot to do with why a lot of mangakas seem to be chuds, which is easy as the majority of Japanese people in general are disconnected in politics. In fact, the biggest political rallies in recent times are those for pensioner rights, and Japan can be tentatively argued to be a “dictatorship” by the same standards we use to describe Singapore, what with both countries being governed by the same right to centre right party for almost their entire existence, and most liberals regard Singapore as more of a benevolent dictatorship despite having elections, so there’s that.
With that said, I don’t really see any noticeable increase in chud-coded manga and anime, at least not among normie spaces. And of the ones that exist, they’re more of an exception than the norm. In fact, “Psycho-Pass 3” and “20th Century Boys” are the only instances in modern anime and manga in the mainstream market that I remember where the subject of immigration to Japan in modern times has ever been broached without resorting to fantastical allegories like in “Cop Craft”, and all of them treated it neutrally. So I think this concern among leftists is overblown.
But feel free to disagree with me. I don’t think I’m bringing anything new to the table, I just want to be proven wrong.
Has anime gotten chuddier?
https://thecartdriver.wordpress.com/2020/02/14/psycho-pass-carole-and-tuesday-and-more-why-anime-features-anti-immigration-elections/I see a lot of people like in the article’s author, especially leftists, talk about it, and honestly? I’m not seeing it, at all. Maybe because I haven’t been active in the anime fandom for a decade by now (last discourse I got caught up in was the dumb flame war over “elitists” vs “casuals” on MAL), or maybe because I only consoome old (read: 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s) media because I don’t like much of contemporary media, but can’t say with certainty, but I just don’t see it.
Sure, perhaps the proportion of Japanese creators being chuds increased in recent years, but I don’t see that being particularly well-reflected in the current output of the Japanese animation and comic industries. The political messaging of 20th century and early 2000s anime and manga seems to be same as 2020s anime and manga insofar that both are all over the place in equal amounts.
Among “chuddy” anime, I can only think of GATE (literal JSDF propaganda), HighSchool Of The Dead (zombie shounen ecchi horror with big tiddie girls made by a far-right mangaka who hates leftists, supports the JSDF, a gun nut, and hates Koreans), and Frieren (what with the genocided human-like predatory demons being portrayed in deterministic ways in spite of showing signs of actual sapience the story never addresses), but that’s about it.
As for manga, the best I can think of as of late is Drama Queen with many seeing the aliens as allegory for immigrants in Japan, although many can’t decide if they’re supposed to be stand-ins for American/Euro expats, tourists, East Asian renters, SEA and SA migrant workers, Kurdish refugees, or a pastiche of all of them. But that’s like an exception compared to the shit-ton of manga that pushes feminist, anti-racist and other socially progressive themes.
I think it has already been discussed before, but Japan being NPC-topia combined with how being a busherite is deemed as the most acceptable way to express oneself in Japanese politics as opposed to, say, being a Maoist might have a lot to do with why a lot of mangakas seem to be chuds, which is easy as the majority of Japanese people in general are disconnected in politics. In fact, the biggest political rallies in recent times are those for pensioner rights, and Japan can be tentatively argued to be a “dictatorship” by the same standards we use to describe Singapore, what with both countries being governed by the same right to centre right party for almost their entire existence, and most liberals regard Singapore as more of a benevolent dictatorship despite having elections, so there’s that.
With that said, I don’t really see any noticeable increase in chud-coded manga and anime, at least not among normie spaces. And of the ones that exist, they’re more of an exception than the norm. In fact, “Psycho-Pass 3” and “20th Century Boys” are the only instances in modern anime and manga in the mainstream market that I remember where the subject of immigration to Japan in modern times has ever been broached without resorting to fantastical allegories like in “Cop Craft”, and all of them treated it neutrally. So I think this concern among leftists is overblown.
But feel free to disagree with me. I don’t think I’m bringing anything new to the table, I just want to be proven wrong.
R: 21 / I: 8
So, back to the topic.
>Conversion therapy
Obviously it doesn't work, just like therapy in general, a synonym for the words cope and rep.
>Other
There's nothing, just a theory. In theory, you could identify (your) neurobiological markers associated with transgenderism and try to correct them with TMS or something similar.
Alternative treatments for gender dysphoria
Are there any methods other than HRT? I still don't fit into either the male or female category (my thread is a couple of threads down). And being trans these days is suicide; I don't think it's worth it.So, back to the topic.
>Conversion therapy
Obviously it doesn't work, just like therapy in general, a synonym for the words cope and rep.
>Other
There's nothing, just a theory. In theory, you could identify (your) neurobiological markers associated with transgenderism and try to correct them with TMS or something similar.
R: 29 / I: 3
<the shonenfag
>never grew out of his childhood tastes
>might watch other action-heavy anime but that's pretty much the bulk of his diet
>genuinely kind of stupid
<the post-shonenfag
>slightly grown up, broadened his tastes somewhat, mostly into light novel adaptations and romance now that he no longer thinks girls are icky
>still, at heart, kind of stupid
<the artfag
>cares sincerely about history and technical details
>knows a bunch of cool obscure shit, but also likes a lot of actual rubbish
>will eventually get tired of sharing a fandom with all these other people and leave
<the otaku
>makes funny haha jokes about how random forgettable CGDCT or ecchi is better than acclaimed stuff, pretty much entirely because of a female character he likes
>watches anime "content creators" (this is unambiguously a bad thing)
>perpetually insecure, locked in an unending quixotic conflict against "normies" and "tourists"
<the actual tourist
>"watched eva once"
>has terrible superficial takes that absolutely no one wants to hear
>thinks he's god's gift to the medium
>if he ever makes any art of his own, it WILL include a reference to the akira bike slide
<the tumblrina
>genuinely relies on anime for emotional wellbeing
>main problem with the medium is that it's "too straight"
>writing a yuri military sci-fi web serial
<the oldhead
>proud hentai addict
>knows the name of everyone involved in the production of a random one-episode ova from 1992 that has two frames of animation per second
>surprisingly woke
>kinda like your cool uncle who'll tell you funny dirty jokes but who you don't want to get too close to
<the cool guy you want to be around
>has broad tastes and is chill with everyone else's
>engages in fun enlightening discussions without being pretentious about it
>does not exist
types of anime fans
one of these is LITERALLY YOU:<the shonenfag
>never grew out of his childhood tastes
>might watch other action-heavy anime but that's pretty much the bulk of his diet
>genuinely kind of stupid
<the post-shonenfag
>slightly grown up, broadened his tastes somewhat, mostly into light novel adaptations and romance now that he no longer thinks girls are icky
>still, at heart, kind of stupid
<the artfag
>cares sincerely about history and technical details
>knows a bunch of cool obscure shit, but also likes a lot of actual rubbish
>will eventually get tired of sharing a fandom with all these other people and leave
<the otaku
>makes funny haha jokes about how random forgettable CGDCT or ecchi is better than acclaimed stuff, pretty much entirely because of a female character he likes
>watches anime "content creators" (this is unambiguously a bad thing)
>perpetually insecure, locked in an unending quixotic conflict against "normies" and "tourists"
<the actual tourist
>"watched eva once"
>has terrible superficial takes that absolutely no one wants to hear
>thinks he's god's gift to the medium
>if he ever makes any art of his own, it WILL include a reference to the akira bike slide
<the tumblrina
>genuinely relies on anime for emotional wellbeing
>main problem with the medium is that it's "too straight"
>writing a yuri military sci-fi web serial
<the oldhead
>proud hentai addict
>knows the name of everyone involved in the production of a random one-episode ova from 1992 that has two frames of animation per second
>surprisingly woke
>kinda like your cool uncle who'll tell you funny dirty jokes but who you don't want to get too close to
<the cool guy you want to be around
>has broad tastes and is chill with everyone else's
>engages in fun enlightening discussions without being pretentious about it
>does not exist
R: 10 / I: 9
Fio dedicado à discussão e construção de listas sobre a sétima arte no Brasil
/cinebr/ - Cinema Brasileiro
"Uma fita, outra fita, mais outra… Não nos agrada a primeira? Passemos à segunda. Não nos serve a segunda Para diante então! Há fitas cômicas, há fitas sérias, há melancólicas, picarescas, fúnebres, alegres algumas preparadas por atores notáveis para dar a reprodução idealizada de qualquer fato, outras tomadas nervosamente pelo operador, à passagem do fato. Umas curtas, outras longas. Podes deixar em meio uma delas sem receio e procurar a diversão mais além"Fio dedicado à discussão e construção de listas sobre a sétima arte no Brasil
R: 302 / I: 66
Archived threads:
https://archive.is/xiA7y
nu-imageboard megathread #2
The neverending quest to rewrite vichan -Archived threads:
https://archive.is/xiA7y
R: 265 / I: 60
El thread con más copas del mundo™
Ahora que tenemos nuestro propio board, es hora de tener nuestro propio hilo también.
Bienvenidos.
/arg/ - Argentina General
SANTUCHO EDITIONEl thread con más copas del mundo™
Ahora que tenemos nuestro propio board, es hora de tener nuestro propio hilo también.
Bienvenidos.
R: 3 / I: 1
I only used a "gamer" feminist as a picrel because misandrists are harder to catch than misogynists because everyone's either too naive or a pussy orbiter or a misandrist themselves. Throw the first stone ye simps. They all virtue-fy their hate of Man and then the simps just sealion along.
There's a much older name for bitter "incels" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timon_of_Athens_(person)
Timon was too nice when he was rich so when he got poor everyone deserted him. When he got rich again, he was an asshole to everyone. His kindness was ill-informed and in his naivete and he became his true self when he got redpilled. The redpill is a Marxist concept through Debord so it's all misanthropy via heteropessimist gender alienation.
Misanthropy
Misanthropy is a hatred or a negative view of the human race. Everything that the misandrists and the misogynists hate about their chosen hated sex exists within their own self-identified sex so in the big picture it is that they hate humans. If sex is oppression and a humiliation ritual then that species of life itself is at fault.
Hatred of the opposite sex is indirect misanthropy
Hatred of the opposite sex is indirect misanthropyI only used a "gamer" feminist as a picrel because misandrists are harder to catch than misogynists because everyone's either too naive or a pussy orbiter or a misandrist themselves. Throw the first stone ye simps. They all virtue-fy their hate of Man and then the simps just sealion along.
There's a much older name for bitter "incels" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timon_of_Athens_(person)
Timon was too nice when he was rich so when he got poor everyone deserted him. When he got rich again, he was an asshole to everyone. His kindness was ill-informed and in his naivete and he became his true self when he got redpilled. The redpill is a Marxist concept through Debord so it's all misanthropy via heteropessimist gender alienation.
Misanthropy
Misanthropy is a hatred or a negative view of the human race. Everything that the misandrists and the misogynists hate about their chosen hated sex exists within their own self-identified sex so in the big picture it is that they hate humans. If sex is oppression and a humiliation ritual then that species of life itself is at fault.
R: 10 / I: 1
I definitely don't want to be a man, but something keeps me from fully feeling like a woman. I don't feel any solidarity or strong connection to men or women; I see them as alien to me and mired in an unnecessary idpol. I feel uncomfortable when I have to identify my gender. It's like I'm a third gender or something. Is this normal and will it go away with time? I've been on HRT for a little over half a year, obviously boymoding.
I definitely don't want to be a man, but something keeps me from fully feeling like a woman. I don't feel any solidarity or strong connection to men or women; I see them as alien to me and mired in an unnecessary idpol. I feel uncomfortable when I have to identify my gender. It's like I'm a third gender or something. Is this normal and will it go away with time? I've been on HRT for a little over half a year, obviously boymoding.
R: 0 / I: 0
Do you guys have any recommendations?
Books about ecology with a Communist lense
Due to the recent heatwaves that are happening across the world I'd like to expand my knowledge on ecology and on how the capitalist mode of production purposefully perpetuates climate change.Do you guys have any recommendations?
R: 389 / I: 805 (sticky)
PDF/EPUB post outage thread
drop them PDFs, we will rebuild edition
R: 27 / I: 14
The other one filled up again so I might as well recreate it. For all those interested this is the big thread for all your Hearts of Iron 4 and modding related content, mostly modding because let's be real nobody plays vanilla anymore. Specifically alternate history. From Kaiserreich to The Fire Rises, mods from this shoddy game set in alternate timelines seem to really do numbers. And create serial killers.
So most recently the latest update from vanilla broke every mod's nation selection screen. You simply hate to see it
HoI4 +HoI4 Modding Thread
Legacy of the Chinareich EditionThe other one filled up again so I might as well recreate it. For all those interested this is the big thread for all your Hearts of Iron 4 and modding related content, mostly modding because let's be real nobody plays vanilla anymore. Specifically alternate history. From Kaiserreich to The Fire Rises, mods from this shoddy game set in alternate timelines seem to really do numbers. And create serial killers.
So most recently the latest update from vanilla broke every mod's nation selection screen. You simply hate to see it
R: 1 / I: 0
En tu opinión, quién es el mejor poeta hispanohablante de la historia? No conozco ni uno. Quiero aprovechar ya que hablo español.
meow.
En tu opinión, quién es el mejor poeta hispanohablante de la historia? No conozco ni uno. Quiero aprovechar ya que hablo español.
meow.
R: 36 / I: 6
Personal opinion is if the Queens want the crown, they need to carry the sword.
Should conscription include women?
What breaks or bends if women get drafted? Does the 'protect women' instinct finally die? Would shared foxholes bond the or poison everything?Personal opinion is if the Queens want the crown, they need to carry the sword.
R: 607 / I: 209 (full)
"Daniel Vorcaro é economista, empresário, ex-banqueiro e criminoso brasileiro. (Wikipedia)"
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>17216
/brg/ - Brazil General
EDIÇÃO BANCO MESTRE"Daniel Vorcaro é economista, empresário, ex-banqueiro e criminoso brasileiro. (Wikipedia)"
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>17216
R: 176 / I: 24
Questions from CisHet-Anons that don’t deserve their own threads
I have seen so many Cishet Anons (including me) ask questions on this board but create new threads in doing so. So I decided to make this thread so we don’t have to clutter up the board.
R: 4 / I: 1
What do you think about the word "gamer"? What do you think about people who calls themselves "gamers"? And do you consider yourself one?
What do you think about the word "gamer"? What do you think about people who calls themselves "gamers"? And do you consider yourself one?
R: 18 / I: 0
https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/books/chapter-12-enforcement-psychological-self-criticism-suicide
Suicide
I've been thinking of killing myself, what about you guys? What do you think about suicide?https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/books/chapter-12-enforcement-psychological-self-criticism-suicide
R: 16 / I: 1
>SNORTAN
>SMOKAN
>HUFFAN
>DRINKAN
yes DXM is unironically one of my favorite dissos and I've done a lot of weird ones
/disso/ - Dissociatives
since we have a drug board now let's get a Dissociatives General going. what anesthetics, cough medicines, and sketchy research chemicals are you anons>SNORTAN
>SMOKAN
>HUFFAN
>DRINKAN
yes DXM is unironically one of my favorite dissos and I've done a lot of weird ones
R: 1 / I: 0
i didn't even knew i wanted to be a woman, and somehow being dressed and presented as one and put in a casket full of flowers for everyone's last memories of me felt like the way to go.
I just need to bounce back
I said as i'm back at dreaming of my death in a bed of flowers like princess Padme as i did back when i was 15i didn't even knew i wanted to be a woman, and somehow being dressed and presented as one and put in a casket full of flowers for everyone's last memories of me felt like the way to go.
R: 8 / I: 1
It feels like I will never be able to get it and I feel fucking miserable, shit is causing me to self harm. I fucking hate Aetna.
ffs
How the fuck do transhumanists afford FFS?It feels like I will never be able to get it and I feel fucking miserable, shit is causing me to self harm. I fucking hate Aetna.