R: 59 / I: 23
NSFW Games
A thread for discussion of eroge, pornographic games, spicy visual novels, and such. Do you have any favourites? Are you looking for recommendations? Do you enjoy short and empty bodies? Post it here!
R: 50 / I: 15
Are gacha games another part of why a lot of young men are reactionaries? It seems like gacha gaming in general seems to be something that is supported in a lot of right-wing nations and even in China the gamers who like gacha games tend to be rather right-wing. Is this a chicken or the egg scenario though?
Are gacha games another part of why a lot of young men are reactionaries? It seems like gacha gaming in general seems to be something that is supported in a lot of right-wing nations and even in China the gamers who like gacha games tend to be rather right-wing. Is this a chicken or the egg scenario though?
R: 204 / I: 38
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: 365 / I: 74
"Foi um grande dinossauro terópode que viveu há aproximadamente 95 milhões de anos, durante o período Cretáceo. Seus fósseis foram descobertos na Ilha do Cajual, no Maranhão, região que já revelou outros importantes achados paleontológicos."
"O nome científico da espécie faz uma referência à divindade afro-brasileira Oxalá e aos assentamentos quilombolas maranhenses."
(arte do Victor Sales/@vsalesv)
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>11885
/brg/ - Brazil General
EDIÇÃO OXALAIA QUILOMBENSIS"Foi um grande dinossauro terópode que viveu há aproximadamente 95 milhões de anos, durante o período Cretáceo. Seus fósseis foram descobertos na Ilha do Cajual, no Maranhão, região que já revelou outros importantes achados paleontológicos."
"O nome científico da espécie faz uma referência à divindade afro-brasileira Oxalá e aos assentamentos quilombolas maranhenses."
(arte do Victor Sales/@vsalesv)
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>11885
R: 37 / I: 9
what is with the endless "LGBT are the base of fascism" hate/bait threads? Do they actually believe their own shit? Does it matter?
it's always sneaky snarky bullshit like "gorkyposting" and hazcel schizophrenia, or finding random examples of crossdressing nazis or spamming pictures of ernst rohm.
what is with the endless "LGBT are the base of fascism" hate/bait threads? Do they actually believe their own shit? Does it matter?
it's always sneaky snarky bullshit like "gorkyposting" and hazcel schizophrenia, or finding random examples of crossdressing nazis or spamming pictures of ernst rohm.
R: 97 / I: 64
ITT: lovely anime tits but the thread isnt full anymore
body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty
Big 2d booba #2
Electric boogaloo editionITT: lovely anime tits but the thread isnt full anymore
body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty
R: 4 / I: 0
Band: 구룡 (Kuryong)
Album: 백두의 소환 (Summoning of Paektu)
https://kuryongdprk.bandcamp.com/album/-
North Korean Black metal
This band is apparently from the DPRK but there is doubt about considering the political situation.Band: 구룡 (Kuryong)
Album: 백두의 소환 (Summoning of Paektu)
https://kuryongdprk.bandcamp.com/album/-
R: 12 / I: 6
das body ist too short, das kock too ist too small
/oekaki bunker of anti-belge/
I usually make bad Oekaki on leftypol. I figured to keep a thread here where I archive them all. There was a nice one of Ziohran that I lost smh.das body ist too short, das kock too ist too small
R: 232 / I: 482 (sticky)
PDF/EPUB post outage thread
drop them PDFs, we will rebuild edition
R: 96 / I: 8
Industrial/Noise/EBM
Post em if you got em
R: 2 / I: 0
Instead every shonen that came out after it is just acrobatic wizards with kickboxing skills after acrobatic wizards with kickboxing skills.
Everyone misunderstood dragon ball
I swear on my life there isn’t a single shonen author that understood what made dragon ball different. Ignoring the ki system, the show was genuinely about martial arts and still is. There wasn’t and still isn’t constant use of theatrics, most techniques shown were completely real and borrowed from karate and jest kune do, acrobatic tricks weren’t used routinely they were used when someone was getting dog walked just to demonstrate superiority, and most injuries were fucking real. Even the ki system is partially realistic given that aura creation is analogous to tummo breathing used specifically to heighten one’s internal body heat for preparation for intense activity. Even ultra instinct is a direct reference to a real concept called Mushin that functions exactly like the technique shown in the show.Instead every shonen that came out after it is just acrobatic wizards with kickboxing skills after acrobatic wizards with kickboxing skills.
R: 73 / I: 7
Anyone else really hate the "social theory" of transness?
That is, the idea that being trans is in some way caused by socialization and has no physiological component (ie brain differences, hormonal abnormalities, etc) to it at all. I keep seeing other lefty people, both trans and cis, repeat this. I'm not even going to get into all the evidence that points towards a physiological origin because my real point is that I honestly find the idea just really invalidating and kind of offensive. It's as if they're saying my dysphoria isn't real, that transness is equivalent to being a fashion choice and I just need to get over it or find a more accepting community or whatever instead of transition being a medical necessity.
R: 1 / I: 1
Kind of not relevant but I found it interesting how Evgeny Pashukanis in "The General Theory of Law and Marxism" connected law to commodity fetishism. It seems to me that the nature of market exchange is to place oneself as a subject of the law and as a target of control (but not exploitation) as a worker.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/1924/law/index.htm
But yeah to seems to me like that comparatively little has been written about spooky glowie shit from an Eastern/peripheral perspective.
Psy-war and Mind-fuck General
Any good Marxism-Leninist work on intelligence operations? I've read all the Gramsci and Western Marxism shit on cultural hegemony so don't bother me with that. What's the Che Guevara of glowies posting Pepe memes online and feds grooming autists to be mass shooters in Nazi Discord servers? There's plenty of work documenting fucked Gladio type shit but what's the seminal work from our side on agitprop and so on?Kind of not relevant but I found it interesting how Evgeny Pashukanis in "The General Theory of Law and Marxism" connected law to commodity fetishism. It seems to me that the nature of market exchange is to place oneself as a subject of the law and as a target of control (but not exploitation) as a worker.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/1924/law/index.htm
But yeah to seems to me like that comparatively little has been written about spooky glowie shit from an Eastern/peripheral perspective.
R: 3 / I: 0
Only try hard wannabe cool kids manufacture hatred for LP. People with ears and brains love LP. Defend LP.. Oppose Swifterism-Beyoncerism.
LINKINPARK
Meteora and Hybrid Theory are still the two greatest albums of the 21st Century. RIP Chester.Only try hard wannabe cool kids manufacture hatred for LP. People with ears and brains love LP. Defend LP.. Oppose Swifterism-Beyoncerism.
R: 3 / I: 0
I like my crusty ol' thinkpad, but I want something more modern (read: quieter and more powerful). Suggestions are welcome.
Enjoying windows 10's death
Do you think it's worth it to look for decent secondhand hardware as windows 10 is EOL?I like my crusty ol' thinkpad, but I want something more modern (read: quieter and more powerful). Suggestions are welcome.
R: 72 / I: 12
How come some nintendo fans got so defensive around people criticizing switch hardware but now they're fine with it now that Switch 2 is powerful? I saw it happen once online so I got the perception that they didn't like hearing about the Switch's relatively weak performance compared to PS5 and other consoles.
How come some nintendo fans got so defensive around people criticizing switch hardware but now they're fine with it now that Switch 2 is powerful? I saw it happen once online so I got the perception that they didn't like hearing about the Switch's relatively weak performance compared to PS5 and other consoles.
R: 3 / I: 1
hahahahahaha, what the fuck is this
https://xcancel.com/mattshumer_/status/1981406315693187430#m
this is what's responsible for 90% of GDP growth in the US economy right now
hahahahahaha, what the fuck is this
https://xcancel.com/mattshumer_/status/1981406315693187430#m
this is what's responsible for 90% of GDP growth in the US economy right now
R: 21 / I: 2
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: 0 / I: 0
i specfically love the fact it can be used swinging pounding or stabbing its just so useful i would marry it if i could
bec de corbin
i love the bec de corbin so much honestly its practical and cool if i wasnt broke i would havs multiple in my housei specfically love the fact it can be used swinging pounding or stabbing its just so useful i would marry it if i could
R: 3 / I: 0
Why register? The gobt ask you. If you can't pay city tax, you need to register. If you want to prove your 0 income, to get some heating compensated, they ask you to register. While as you see, you can't register.
Just if you got an impression that modern gobt is somehow humane, I'm not sure.. may be, but as you see, it might be a false imporession, in some cases.
How to get unemployed officially?
You do not become unemployed when you quit. You need to register in the labor office, I thought it is easy, but I got it wrong.. What labor office means by unemployed, it is not someone who is not working. It is someone who is looking for a job! In the office they direct you to a job and IMO you can't decline. Also, is not inability to decline the job given - slavery?Why register? The gobt ask you. If you can't pay city tax, you need to register. If you want to prove your 0 income, to get some heating compensated, they ask you to register. While as you see, you can't register.
Just if you got an impression that modern gobt is somehow humane, I'm not sure.. may be, but as you see, it might be a false imporession, in some cases.
R: 0 / I: 0
dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
16bit - In The Death Car EP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rTU9FxmA0U&list=RD3rTU9FxmA0U&start_radio=1dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
dubstep winter baby
R: 7 / I: 2
Does anybody else not understand why they find guys attractive? I recently came across a video that said "straight men just dont understand what women and gay men find attractive in males" and it made me realize that I couldnt even identify what it is about men that im even attracted too.
I definitley know when i find another guy attractive, but I usually couldnt explain why. My tastes in men arent even very coherent, I like feminine men, but I also like buff hairy dudes, and I also like incels. My attraction to men makes no logical sense
Does anybody else not understand why they find guys attractive? I recently came across a video that said "straight men just dont understand what women and gay men find attractive in males" and it made me realize that I couldnt even identify what it is about men that im even attracted too.
I definitley know when i find another guy attractive, but I usually couldnt explain why. My tastes in men arent even very coherent, I like feminine men, but I also like buff hairy dudes, and I also like incels. My attraction to men makes no logical sense
R: 64 / I: 10
No se si hayan muchos compañeros chilenos por estos lares y menos que quieran hablar de la telenovela que es nuestra política, pero no creo que haga daño tener un hilo para hablar de ello, o realmente de cualquier otra weá que tenga relacion con nuestro país.
/cl/ - Chile General
El mejor thread de ChileNo se si hayan muchos compañeros chilenos por estos lares y menos que quieran hablar de la telenovela que es nuestra política, pero no creo que haga daño tener un hilo para hablar de ello, o realmente de cualquier otra weá que tenga relacion con nuestro país.
R: 12 / I: 1
>and also beacuse i need to show some retro gamw to my lil cousin
retrogame
i need good psp and ps1 games recommendations, i haven't played much ps1 games tho so. yeah>and also beacuse i need to show some retro gamw to my lil cousin
R: 10 / I: 0
Is a self-driving car really an invention that society needs? We already have a machine that was fundamentally designed for a human operator, there is no entity in the universe more well-suited to the task of driving an automobile than a human being, but now we want to try to retrofit every car with some software that replaces the human driver and will never be as good as a human driver and for what? Is driving really such a laborious and horrible ordeal for humans to endure, having to sit in a comfortable air-conditioned chair and listen to music for a while? Is it really worth wiping out an entire category of jobs that humans depend on to survive, just to replace them with software that is not nearly as well suited to the task and will likely kill people with no accountability?
Is a self-driving car really an invention that society needs? We already have a machine that was fundamentally designed for a human operator, there is no entity in the universe more well-suited to the task of driving an automobile than a human being, but now we want to try to retrofit every car with some software that replaces the human driver and will never be as good as a human driver and for what? Is driving really such a laborious and horrible ordeal for humans to endure, having to sit in a comfortable air-conditioned chair and listen to music for a while? Is it really worth wiping out an entire category of jobs that humans depend on to survive, just to replace them with software that is not nearly as well suited to the task and will likely kill people with no accountability?
R: 4 / I: 0
tl;dr my question is, is there something like this official xcb tutorial but for whatever the wayland equivalent of xcb is?
https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7-RC1/doc/libxcb/tutorial/index.html
I'm getting filtered by wayland
I'm writing a tech demo of an idea I had about alternative GUI programming techniques. so far I had been using xcb and everything is going fine and the idea is working but I was thinking about adding wayland support before releasing the code. I know wayland has a compatibility layer with x11 but considering I'm not doing anything crazy, mostly just drawing rectangles and text, and handling events, I thought "how hard could it be to add native support with a few ifdefs here and there". however, it doesn't seem like there is much documentation on how to write applications for wayland, and most places just tell you to use gtk or kde or some other high-level frameworktl;dr my question is, is there something like this official xcb tutorial but for whatever the wayland equivalent of xcb is?
https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7-RC1/doc/libxcb/tutorial/index.html
R: 92 / I: 6
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: 15 / I: 0
this makes me feel sad. i wish life felt like this music
this makes me feel sad. i wish life felt like this music
R: 22 / I: 0
Do the thoughts of dysphoria ever go away? I still don't know what triggers it. It's like every time I think I'm attracted to men I feel like my brain somehow flips in the other direction. Maybe I'm not bi and just a dyke? I'm in a complicated relationship with a man which doesn't make things better. I don't consider myself ftm, just a dysphoric woman.
Do the thoughts of dysphoria ever go away? I still don't know what triggers it. It's like every time I think I'm attracted to men I feel like my brain somehow flips in the other direction. Maybe I'm not bi and just a dyke? I'm in a complicated relationship with a man which doesn't make things better. I don't consider myself ftm, just a dysphoric woman.
R: 259 / I: 57
The practice and principles of Permaculture are one of the most important tools for not only creating a sustainable socialism, but also for repairing the damage done to the global ecosystem by capitalism, and lessening your individual reliance on the current capitalist system.Permacultural practice and socialism are two very powerful allies, and learning about permaculture should be necessity for modern socialists and communists.
Permaculture v2
Old thread (v1): https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/7136.htmlThe practice and principles of Permaculture are one of the most important tools for not only creating a sustainable socialism, but also for repairing the damage done to the global ecosystem by capitalism, and lessening your individual reliance on the current capitalist system.Permacultural practice and socialism are two very powerful allies, and learning about permaculture should be necessity for modern socialists and communists.
R: 56 / I: 9
/dead/ reads
what are you reading right now?
R: 503 / I: 211
Made a new thread since the other one is full. You know the drill folks, gather here to discuss and/or complain about Hearts of Iron 4 and all the alt history mods that make the game relevant. From green natpops to sicko mode Savinkov we've got a lot of exciting stuff coming in the next Kaiserreich update, one which will make the LKMT look like pre-rework Germany by comparison. But dont worry TNOomers, you're getting some new content too! After a year and a half and three focus trees that only last for four years, we finally have something new and that's…
…three years of fucking Antarctica
HoI4 + HoI4 modding thread
Operation Deep Sneed editionMade a new thread since the other one is full. You know the drill folks, gather here to discuss and/or complain about Hearts of Iron 4 and all the alt history mods that make the game relevant. From green natpops to sicko mode Savinkov we've got a lot of exciting stuff coming in the next Kaiserreich update, one which will make the LKMT look like pre-rework Germany by comparison. But dont worry TNOomers, you're getting some new content too! After a year and a half and three focus trees that only last for four years, we finally have something new and that's…
…three years of fucking Antarctica
R: 40 / I: 14
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: 0 / I: 0
I drew myself as a white Chad-girl, and MAGA as a pig on a bottle. Am I based now?
The body was too short or empty or however or however or however or however or however
I drew myself as a white Chad-girl, and MAGA as a pig on a bottle. Am I based now?
The body was too short or empty or however or however or however or however or however
R: 40 / I: 15
Which was an easily verifiable lie that I realized literally as I closed the door behind me. Ah, yes, since I quit "at my own request", I have to work for three days, so called "otrabotka" (two weeks if you were taken without probation), which I will not do (devilish?), because after signing my resignation letter I am no longer an employee and can not be forced to work.
Also new thing I learned opening the labor code for the first time.
-there is no concept of working after dismissal, but there is a concept of notification before dismissal, so it should be 3 days or 2 weeks before the fact.
Thanks for reading my stupid rant.
/PROLE VENT/
Was tricked to sign a letter of resignation from my job at the russian post office. Despite the fact that I was on probation and my employment contract was fixed-term (although informally after its termination they almost always offer a full-time position) my…I don't know - supervisor? the main bitch of the workplace? didn't like me because of a couple of fuckups like a cash shortage, which I was really guilty of and paid for out of my own pocket (the statement of financial responsibility was signed by me on the first day of employment), and she decided to lie that the employee I was replacing was about to go to work.Which was an easily verifiable lie that I realized literally as I closed the door behind me. Ah, yes, since I quit "at my own request", I have to work for three days, so called "otrabotka" (two weeks if you were taken without probation), which I will not do (devilish?), because after signing my resignation letter I am no longer an employee and can not be forced to work.
Also new thing I learned opening the labor code for the first time.
-there is no concept of working after dismissal, but there is a concept of notification before dismissal, so it should be 3 days or 2 weeks before the fact.
Thanks for reading my stupid rant.
R: 310 / I: 193
(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
Draw Alunya 3
Alunya Art thread(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
R: 0 / I: 0
I dont mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
Cuz when you shitpost oh so queer
I kinda lose my grind
It's not the effort thats so rare
>It's not the greextexts, to be fair
I don't mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
I don't mind you lurking 'bout
And typing schizophrenically
It doesn't matter where you been
As long as you use cock.li, yeah
You always knew to post so well, and
You rage autistically, I can tell
I don't mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
That post was just what I needed (Just what I needed)
I needed something to seethe
That post was just what I needed (Just what I needed)
I needed something to sneed
I dont mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
Cuz when you shitpost oh so queer
I kinda lose my grind
It's not the effort thats so rare
>It's not the greextexts, to be fair
I don't mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
I don't mind you lurking 'bout
And typing schizophrenically
It doesn't matter where you been
As long as you use cock.li, yeah
You always knew to post so well, and
You rage autistically, I can tell
I don't mind you posting here
And wasting all my life
That post was just what I needed (Just what I needed)
I needed something to seethe
That post was just what I needed (Just what I needed)
I needed something to sneed
R: 543 / I: 250
Roosterteeth productions
what do you think about RWBY as an anime
R: 20 / I: 2
¿Qué piensan los anónimos de /latam/ sobre Nayib Bukake?
¿Qué piensan los anónimos de /latam/ sobre Nayib Bukake?
R: 8 / I: 0
I'm talking about genuine outsider music, the kinds of shit that barely anybody knows about.
Weird obscure outsider albums
What is the weirdest, most obscure, bizarre, album you have ever heard?I'm talking about genuine outsider music, the kinds of shit that barely anybody knows about.
R: 7 / I: 0
Making education free for everybody
How do we arrive to that point? Most courses can be found completely online and free of costs, and they are far better explained than most universities. There must be a way to give equal to everyone.
R: 2 / I: 3
Me he dado a la tarea de narrar textos teóricos que yo considero básicos.
No quiero ser un influencer ni quiero hacer una carrera de esto. Sencillamente trato de hacer lo mío para incentivar la conciencia de clase.
Acá en YouTube:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSYLY_2_R5yGb21rFaXZSKyTnDXaABEnq&feature=shared
Y acá en Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/7uY3WMjyqmLNhmFLgN7Sr4
También están en varias plataformas de podcast con el nombre de elPerroAsalariado.
Hay que hacer más, pero sí se puede, camaradas.
Narraciones en Español
Camaradas, buenas.Me he dado a la tarea de narrar textos teóricos que yo considero básicos.
No quiero ser un influencer ni quiero hacer una carrera de esto. Sencillamente trato de hacer lo mío para incentivar la conciencia de clase.
Acá en YouTube:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSYLY_2_R5yGb21rFaXZSKyTnDXaABEnq&feature=shared
Y acá en Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/7uY3WMjyqmLNhmFLgN7Sr4
También están en varias plataformas de podcast con el nombre de elPerroAsalariado.
Hay que hacer más, pero sí se puede, camaradas.
R: 2 / I: 1
MMORPG
God almighty comes before you and asks for help creating the perfect MMORPG. Your idea will magically sustain an active and loyal playerbase, no matter how niche or unconventional it may be. What does this game look like?
R: 233 / I: 48
What are you studying right now? What is your favorite field of mathematics and why?
Personally, I really like the book "Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler. It is on Libgen if you are interested and I attached a pdf.
/math/ general
All good communists study math.What are you studying right now? What is your favorite field of mathematics and why?
Personally, I really like the book "Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler. It is on Libgen if you are interested and I attached a pdf.
R: 69 / I: 7
well anons do you think Viruses are living organisms or just complex biochemicals? Which viral origin hypothesis do you like the best?
Points against
>Viruses are not capable of independent replication and have to use the cell machinery of there host to do so, even bacteria that have never been grown outside of a cell culture still retain cell machinery of their own.
>Viruses are dormant until they come into contact with a host and do not have a full range of metabolic processes
>If viruses are alive then wouldn't DNA, Plasmids, Prions and even some minerals be alive as well?
Points for
>if recent research indicating that viruses and hosts evolved from a common ancestor than how exactly would viruses evolve back into non-life?
>giant viruses have large genomes and cell machinery
>the metabolism first argument that excludes viruses from life would make plastids a form of life
<the sauce: https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html
tbh I find the viral origin debate more interesting but lean towards viruses being alive, that being said I would look at the origin theories before making a decision on if they are alive or not. The Theories(copy and pasted from here: https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html )
>The Progressive Hypothesis
"According to this hypothesis, viruses originated through a progressive process. Mobile genetic elements, pieces of genetic material capable of moving within a genome, gained the ability to exit one cell and enter another"
"We can speculate that the acquisition of a few structural proteins could allow the element to exit a cell and enter a new cell, thereby becoming an infectious agent. Indeed, the genetic structures of retroviruses and viral-like retrotransposons show remarkable similarities. "
>The Regressive Hypothesis
"In contrast to the progressive process just described, viruses may have originated via a regressive, or reductive, process. Microbiologists generally agree that certain bacteria that are obligate intracellular parasites, like Chlamydia and Rickettsia species, evolved from free-living ancestors. Indeed, genomic studies indicate that the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and Rickettsia prowazekii may share a common, free-living ancestor (Andersson et al. 1998). It follows, then, that existing viruses may have evolved from more complex, possibly free-living organisms that lost genetic information over time, as they adopted a parasitic approach to replication."
>The Virus First Hypothesis
"The progressive and regressive hypotheses both assume that cells existed before viruses. What if viruses existed first? Recently, several investigators proposed that viruses may have been the first replicating entities. Koonin and Martin (2005) postulated that viruses existed in a precellular world as self-replicating units. Over time these units, they argue, became more organized and more complex. Eventually, enzymes for the synthesis of membranes and cell walls evolved, resulting in the formation of cells. Viruses, then, may have existed before bacteria, archaea, or eukaryotes (Figure 4; Prangishvili et al. 2006)."
I think two other things were noting are that we also have subviral agents like viroids and obelisks to consider as well as the domain level classification in Viruses being Realm and the fact that unlike the Domain which share a common ancestor each Viral Realm is thought to be an independent evolution unrelated to the others so you basically have to answer the question 8 times. Also link to the Virus Explorer just for fun: https://media.hhmi.org/biointeractive/click/virus-explorer/
well anons do you think Viruses are living organisms or just complex biochemicals? Which viral origin hypothesis do you like the best?
Points against
>Viruses are not capable of independent replication and have to use the cell machinery of there host to do so, even bacteria that have never been grown outside of a cell culture still retain cell machinery of their own.
>Viruses are dormant until they come into contact with a host and do not have a full range of metabolic processes
>If viruses are alive then wouldn't DNA, Plasmids, Prions and even some minerals be alive as well?
Points for
>if recent research indicating that viruses and hosts evolved from a common ancestor than how exactly would viruses evolve back into non-life?
>giant viruses have large genomes and cell machinery
>the metabolism first argument that excludes viruses from life would make plastids a form of life
<the sauce: https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html
tbh I find the viral origin debate more interesting but lean towards viruses being alive, that being said I would look at the origin theories before making a decision on if they are alive or not. The Theories(copy and pasted from here: https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html )
>The Progressive Hypothesis
"According to this hypothesis, viruses originated through a progressive process. Mobile genetic elements, pieces of genetic material capable of moving within a genome, gained the ability to exit one cell and enter another"
"We can speculate that the acquisition of a few structural proteins could allow the element to exit a cell and enter a new cell, thereby becoming an infectious agent. Indeed, the genetic structures of retroviruses and viral-like retrotransposons show remarkable similarities. "
>The Regressive Hypothesis
"In contrast to the progressive process just described, viruses may have originated via a regressive, or reductive, process. Microbiologists generally agree that certain bacteria that are obligate intracellular parasites, like Chlamydia and Rickettsia species, evolved from free-living ancestors. Indeed, genomic studies indicate that the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and Rickettsia prowazekii may share a common, free-living ancestor (Andersson et al. 1998). It follows, then, that existing viruses may have evolved from more complex, possibly free-living organisms that lost genetic information over time, as they adopted a parasitic approach to replication."
>The Virus First Hypothesis
"The progressive and regressive hypotheses both assume that cells existed before viruses. What if viruses existed first? Recently, several investigators proposed that viruses may have been the first replicating entities. Koonin and Martin (2005) postulated that viruses existed in a precellular world as self-replicating units. Over time these units, they argue, became more organized and more complex. Eventually, enzymes for the synthesis of membranes and cell walls evolved, resulting in the formation of cells. Viruses, then, may have existed before bacteria, archaea, or eukaryotes (Figure 4; Prangishvili et al. 2006)."
I think two other things were noting are that we also have subviral agents like viroids and obelisks to consider as well as the domain level classification in Viruses being Realm and the fact that unlike the Domain which share a common ancestor each Viral Realm is thought to be an independent evolution unrelated to the others so you basically have to answer the question 8 times. Also link to the Virus Explorer just for fun: https://media.hhmi.org/biointeractive/click/virus-explorer/
R: 6 / I: 0
Time Signature Music
Post music that does interesting time signature stuff
R: 7 / I: 3
Eu não sou um artista muito bom e também não tenho muito tempo então fiz dois desenhos bem rapidinho só pra botar minha ideia (o da direita especificamente digital pra mostrar melhor como imagino as cores). As principais coisas são as antenas, mandíbulas e sobrancelhas mais grossas (além do "abdome" grande característico das formigas huehueheuh), não tenho uma ideia muito boa de roupa então só botei uma coisa genérica, nada de nome também. Fiz isso mais pra fomentar o debate inspirando outras pessoas e colocar minhas ideias em jogo, sintam-se livres para contribuir na criação da /brg/-tan!
ideia de mascote
Olá anões, recentemente me lembrei da discussão que teve em algum fio do /brg/ sobre mascotes e após participar de um ato tive uma ideia baseada no clássico canto do "pisa ligeiro pisa ligeiro quem não pode com a formiga não atiça o formigueiro". Como podem imaginar, pensei em uma formiga, mais especificamente a nossa querida e infame formiga-de-fogo, e ainda mais especificamente a vermelha por combinar mais, mas não importa muito.Eu não sou um artista muito bom e também não tenho muito tempo então fiz dois desenhos bem rapidinho só pra botar minha ideia (o da direita especificamente digital pra mostrar melhor como imagino as cores). As principais coisas são as antenas, mandíbulas e sobrancelhas mais grossas (além do "abdome" grande característico das formigas huehueheuh), não tenho uma ideia muito boa de roupa então só botei uma coisa genérica, nada de nome também. Fiz isso mais pra fomentar o debate inspirando outras pessoas e colocar minhas ideias em jogo, sintam-se livres para contribuir na criação da /brg/-tan!
R: 4 / I: 0
Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to attract these folks towards anarchism, rather than their power being used to further the goals of fascists?
The post-left has, compared to leftism, the unique property of amorality. This allows people with unorthodox desires and behaviors to contribute to the destruction of the state, society and civilization without necessitating the furtherance of authoritarian ideals.
Consider this. What if you could convince the sadist to accept his desires as a part of himself (his ownness, property, values, etc.), separate from an identity as a fascist prick? Instead of dominating minorities for the sake of some higher ideal, he would be free to pursue his desires as an individual.
For the sadist in question, the benefit is a more fulfilling domination of his victims. By taking them for himself, his domination is truly his; not in service to some ideologue, but true subjugation under his own power and will.
For everyone else, the benefit is simply another person to fight against the oppressive weight of contemporary capitalism and the state. That is, if you're willing to fight along side him.
So, if you knew that such a person was willing to fight against the oppressive structures you oppose, would you fight with him as a comrade? Would knowing that he is driven by a desire to rape, torture and kill prevent you from siding with him? If so, is it due to disgust, or perhaps a lingering sense of morality?
This is something that I think is important to consider, but naturally isn't often found in anarchist discussion. I suspect that such sadists account for a not-insignificant portion of genuine fascists. If they see anarchism as a way for them to be free with their desires, this may become a legitimate strategy for sowing chaos against the neoliberal/capitalist order.
I'd love to hear what you guys think!
Converting sadists with the power of SENSELESS VIOLENCE!
You know the kind of guy: he gets into right-wing politics so he has an excuse to rape, torture and kill members of some out-group. He gets off to the power he holds over his victims, all while claiming to serve a higher purpose.Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to attract these folks towards anarchism, rather than their power being used to further the goals of fascists?
The post-left has, compared to leftism, the unique property of amorality. This allows people with unorthodox desires and behaviors to contribute to the destruction of the state, society and civilization without necessitating the furtherance of authoritarian ideals.
Consider this. What if you could convince the sadist to accept his desires as a part of himself (his ownness, property, values, etc.), separate from an identity as a fascist prick? Instead of dominating minorities for the sake of some higher ideal, he would be free to pursue his desires as an individual.
For the sadist in question, the benefit is a more fulfilling domination of his victims. By taking them for himself, his domination is truly his; not in service to some ideologue, but true subjugation under his own power and will.
For everyone else, the benefit is simply another person to fight against the oppressive weight of contemporary capitalism and the state. That is, if you're willing to fight along side him.
So, if you knew that such a person was willing to fight against the oppressive structures you oppose, would you fight with him as a comrade? Would knowing that he is driven by a desire to rape, torture and kill prevent you from siding with him? If so, is it due to disgust, or perhaps a lingering sense of morality?
This is something that I think is important to consider, but naturally isn't often found in anarchist discussion. I suspect that such sadists account for a not-insignificant portion of genuine fascists. If they see anarchism as a way for them to be free with their desires, this may become a legitimate strategy for sowing chaos against the neoliberal/capitalist order.
I'd love to hear what you guys think!
R: 34 / I: 6
Can Mexicans be White supremacists?
< POLICE: "They're saying you're a white supremacist?"
>NICK FUENTES: "I'm not a white supremacist. I'm Mexican. My last name is Fuentes."
<body was too short or empty
Nick is short but calling him empty is mean
Can Mexicans be White supremacists?
< POLICE: "They're saying you're a white supremacist?"
>NICK FUENTES: "I'm not a white supremacist. I'm Mexican. My last name is Fuentes."
<body was too short or empty
Nick is short but calling him empty is mean
R: 3 / I: 0
Post Documentaries,Textbooks,Manuals, Online Courses, Lectures or any other Media related to intelligence work.
Foundational Materials on Espionage
Effective intelligence work is a discipline built on structured methodologies, not the dramatic depictions depicted in popular fiction. Its core function is to reduce uncertainty for decision-makers by providing timely, verified, and relevant information.Post Documentaries,Textbooks,Manuals, Online Courses, Lectures or any other Media related to intelligence work.
R: 141 / I: 23
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: 0 / I: 0
Post Documentaries,Textbooks,Manuals, Online Courses, Lectures or any other Media related to intelligence work.
Foundational Materials on Espionage
Effective intelligence work is a discipline built on structured methodologies, not the dramatic depictions depicted in popular fiction. Its core function is to reduce uncertainty for decision-makers by providing timely, verified, and relevant information.Post Documentaries,Textbooks,Manuals, Online Courses, Lectures or any other Media related to intelligence work.
R: 52 / I: 7
this manga feels kinds like the author is racist and is making a strawman literal cartoon representation of foreigners for his sociopathic main characters to murder and cannibalize. i've only read the first two chapters though.
https://www.mangaread.org/manga/drama-queen/chapter-1/
>Aliens have settled among humans in Japan after saving Earth. One day, Kitami tells Nomamoto—a factory worker under a harsh alien supervisor—that his own family was wiped out by aliens. The two fast become friends, but one day Kitami does the unimaginable.
this manga feels kinds like the author is racist and is making a strawman literal cartoon representation of foreigners for his sociopathic main characters to murder and cannibalize. i've only read the first two chapters though.
https://www.mangaread.org/manga/drama-queen/chapter-1/
>Aliens have settled among humans in Japan after saving Earth. One day, Kitami tells Nomamoto—a factory worker under a harsh alien supervisor—that his own family was wiped out by aliens. The two fast become friends, but one day Kitami does the unimaginable.
R: 2 / I: 1
Those pieces of arts, aka games I consumed, had me loads of pressure of awe spreading through my chest—
It is amazing how an art piece could bring the one to such intense heights… it was almost unbelievable how overwhelmed one gets!! 0_o
So, post about indie games here you played recently and so on!!
Indie Games Thread 1.0
ITT we talk about indie games which could pierce through your skin and fill you with emotions, feeling being pulled uncontrollably to gaze in awe for more and more throughout the story!Those pieces of arts, aka games I consumed, had me loads of pressure of awe spreading through my chest—
It is amazing how an art piece could bring the one to such intense heights… it was almost unbelievable how overwhelmed one gets!! 0_o
So, post about indie games here you played recently and so on!!
R: 10 / I: 3
Bayonets on rifles appreciation thread -
The first one is the type 56
The second one was the type 56
different guns btw the PLA was on sumthing else
Bayonets on rifles appreciation thread -
The first one is the type 56
The second one was the type 56
different guns btw the PLA was on sumthing else
R: 9 / I: 2
i was under the impression they were mostly dogshit as for making a 3D printed weapon that wouldn't blow up in your hand after 6-18 shots you'd need machined parts that could effectively seal the gasses and even so it'd probably just do you good for like 50 shots at best
but i just heard the FGC-9 actually requires no machined parts and you can essentially buy these online disguised as anything else just like estrogen goes disguised as skin care products from online pharmacies
as well as apparently airsoft springs can work for the magazines if you can't get glock ready parts?
how stable could this design actually be?
also why did Russia and Cuckraine started carrying 3D printers to print AP mines and shit? knowing how long 3D models can take wasn't it easier to just carry literally any kind of molds?
did they stop doing that? or did they just hope they could rely on the redditwaffen division?
3D printed weapons
How garbage are 3D printed weapons?i was under the impression they were mostly dogshit as for making a 3D printed weapon that wouldn't blow up in your hand after 6-18 shots you'd need machined parts that could effectively seal the gasses and even so it'd probably just do you good for like 50 shots at best
but i just heard the FGC-9 actually requires no machined parts and you can essentially buy these online disguised as anything else just like estrogen goes disguised as skin care products from online pharmacies
as well as apparently airsoft springs can work for the magazines if you can't get glock ready parts?
how stable could this design actually be?
also why did Russia and Cuckraine started carrying 3D printers to print AP mines and shit? knowing how long 3D models can take wasn't it easier to just carry literally any kind of molds?
did they stop doing that? or did they just hope they could rely on the redditwaffen division?
R: 13 / I: 1
do i suck at chess & do u want to clap my bussy at chess????????!??!?
do i suck at chess & do u want to clap my bussy at chess????????!??!?
R: 48 / I: 9
the idea that transness is inherently bourgeois comes from a very simple assumption: an imaginary of the working class as not having desires, cultures, history, etc, only austere base needs, completely alien to any "bourgeois excesses"
despite the supposed third-worldist bent many of you claim to have, this exactly how social workers and managers have framed and attempted to reconstruct the working class, as docile, administerable subjects, and a crucial part of how the labour aristocracy was developed
this goes in tandem with the historically paternalist position in regards to sex workers, any political agency denied a priori, they can only exist as passive objects to be administered by the state until they are integrated into "proper" circuits of social reproduction
the idea that transness is inherently bourgeois comes from a very simple assumption: an imaginary of the working class as not having desires, cultures, history, etc, only austere base needs, completely alien to any "bourgeois excesses"
despite the supposed third-worldist bent many of you claim to have, this exactly how social workers and managers have framed and attempted to reconstruct the working class, as docile, administerable subjects, and a crucial part of how the labour aristocracy was developed
this goes in tandem with the historically paternalist position in regards to sex workers, any political agency denied a priori, they can only exist as passive objects to be administered by the state until they are integrated into "proper" circuits of social reproduction
R: 25 / I: 2
>Argue about dvd commentaries, Post your thesis on King of the Hill, Reminisce about a tv show you used to watch but don't quite remember it's title. Just about anything related to shows. Post your highscore on those Ben 10 CN flash games. Anything goes.
OLD THREAD
>>3012
/tv/ thread #2
🎭📽🎬📼📺>Argue about dvd commentaries, Post your thesis on King of the Hill, Reminisce about a tv show you used to watch but don't quite remember it's title. Just about anything related to shows. Post your highscore on those Ben 10 CN flash games. Anything goes.
OLD THREAD
>>3012
R: 10 / I: 0
Being TERF is a fetish. How else one can explain that toilet obsession? There is literally no other consistent theory explaining their behavior. Every other attempt on explaining why they are so fixated on sex and genitals of trans people does not produce consistent explanation.
Being TERF is a fetish. How else one can explain that toilet obsession? There is literally no other consistent theory explaining their behavior. Every other attempt on explaining why they are so fixated on sex and genitals of trans people does not produce consistent explanation.
R: 10 / I: 0
why do leftists always make banger songs?
why do leftists always make banger songs?
R: 201 / I: 17
Users of all levels are welcome to ask questions about GNU/Linux and share their experiences.
* Please be civil, notice the "Friendly" in every Friendly GNU/Linux Thread *
Before asking for help, please check our list of resources.
If you would like to try out GNU/Linux you can do one of the following:
0) Install a GNU/Linux distribution of your choice in a Virtual Machine.
1) Use a live image and to boot directly into the GNU/Linux distribution without installing anything.
2) Dual boot the GNU/Linux distribution of your choice along with Windows or macOS.
3) Go balls deep and replace everything with GNU/Linux.
Resources: Please spend at least a minute to check a web search engine with your question.
*Many free software projects have active mailing lists.
$ man %command%
$ info %command%
$ %command% -h/–help
$ help %builtin/keyword%
Don't know what to look for?
$ apropos %something%
Check the Wikis (most troubleshoots work for all distros):
https://wiki.archlinux.org
https://wiki.gentoo.org
/g/'s Wiki on GNU/Linux:
https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Category:GNU/Linux
>What distro should I choose?
https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Babbies_First_Linux
>What are some cool programs?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/list_of_applications
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page
https://suckless.org/rocks/
>What are some cool terminal commands?
https://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/browse
https://cheat.sh/
>Where can I learn the command line?
https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashGuide
https://www.grymoire.com/Unix/
>Where can I learn more about Free Software?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
>How to break out of the botnet?
https://prism-break.org/en/categories/gnu-linux
/fglt/ - Friendly GNU/Linux Thread (leftypol edition)
(Copypasted from a previous 4chin /g/ thread as a foundation to making these generals on leftypol)Users of all levels are welcome to ask questions about GNU/Linux and share their experiences.
* Please be civil, notice the "Friendly" in every Friendly GNU/Linux Thread *
Before asking for help, please check our list of resources.
If you would like to try out GNU/Linux you can do one of the following:
0) Install a GNU/Linux distribution of your choice in a Virtual Machine.
1) Use a live image and to boot directly into the GNU/Linux distribution without installing anything.
2) Dual boot the GNU/Linux distribution of your choice along with Windows or macOS.
3) Go balls deep and replace everything with GNU/Linux.
Resources: Please spend at least a minute to check a web search engine with your question.
*Many free software projects have active mailing lists.
$ man %command%
$ info %command%
$ %command% -h/–help
$ help %builtin/keyword%
Don't know what to look for?
$ apropos %something%
Check the Wikis (most troubleshoots work for all distros):
https://wiki.archlinux.org
https://wiki.gentoo.org
/g/'s Wiki on GNU/Linux:
https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Category:GNU/Linux
>What distro should I choose?
https://igwiki.lyci.de/wiki/Babbies_First_Linux
>What are some cool programs?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/list_of_applications
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page
https://suckless.org/rocks/
>What are some cool terminal commands?
https://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/browse
https://cheat.sh/
>Where can I learn the command line?
https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashGuide
https://www.grymoire.com/Unix/
>Where can I learn more about Free Software?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
>How to break out of the botnet?
https://prism-break.org/en/categories/gnu-linux
R: 3 / I: 0
You will be unemployed anyways so why would one study some shitty engineering course just to hope you will get hired to construct missles to kill children in the middle east. Better to be unemployed and at least know that you are the most communist of all communists.
Studying polsci/marxism in China
Any anons here know how it is to study marxism/polsci in China? May be personal stories or just general articles on it. I heard it is quite interesting but can vary much.You will be unemployed anyways so why would one study some shitty engineering course just to hope you will get hired to construct missles to kill children in the middle east. Better to be unemployed and at least know that you are the most communist of all communists.
R: 4 / I: 0
>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE
>Im in a country that has free university, including med school\ doctor's college, I wouldn't lose any money if I ended up failing
>I tell myself a lot, that only saving others is good enough reason to keep myself alive
Please give me an honest assessment of this conundrum. I AM willing to go through the pain that is med school, AND a career as a doctor- I talked to several people in either field, so I know what it will be like.
Mostly suicidal, want to enter med school
I will be very concise, since I know a long, boring post will make you just lose interest.>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE
>Im in a country that has free university, including med school\ doctor's college, I wouldn't lose any money if I ended up failing
>I tell myself a lot, that only saving others is good enough reason to keep myself alive
Please give me an honest assessment of this conundrum. I AM willing to go through the pain that is med school, AND a career as a doctor- I talked to several people in either field, so I know what it will be like.
R: 209 / I: 118
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: 36 / I: 5
Literature Thread
This board needs a literature thread i think. So itt write about books you are currently reading. Feel free to post opinions, pictures and discussions about books.
R: 1 / I: 0
First post by the way…
Im an English teacher
Not yet, because I'm still studying and all that stuff. What things does I need to avoid and what does I need to apply it on my classes, according to /edu/?First post by the way…
R: 23 / I: 2
People,let's make a good thread about the political ideology of Democratic People's Republic of Korea - Juche.
Share your thoughts,pdfs,videos,documentaries or other educational materials for the community of this site.
/juche/
"The Juche idea is a man-centered world outlook. It is a revolutionary, scientific, and political theory that accurately illumines the way for realizing the independence of the masses." - Kim Jong IlPeople,let's make a good thread about the political ideology of Democratic People's Republic of Korea - Juche.
Share your thoughts,pdfs,videos,documentaries or other educational materials for the community of this site.
R: 281 / I: 1145 (sticky)
MEME TEMPLATES 2: RESURRECTION
site got nuked edition
R: 106 / I: 37
HILO LATINOAMERICANO
EDICION MURO PROPIO
Terminamos el año con una victoria mas de los socialdemocratas en Uruguay y con Pepe Mujica en modo espectro alentando a los jovenes a militar
¡A Darle con Todo!
Para luego buscarlo en el catálogo:
Latinoamérica, Latin America, LATAM, /lat/, latinoamérica, latino américa, hispanoamerica, /ñ/
HILO LATINOAMERICANO
EDICION MURO PROPIO
Terminamos el año con una victoria mas de los socialdemocratas en Uruguay y con Pepe Mujica en modo espectro alentando a los jovenes a militar
¡A Darle con Todo!
Para luego buscarlo en el catálogo:
Latinoamérica, Latin America, LATAM, /lat/, latinoamérica, latino américa, hispanoamerica, /ñ/
R: 35 / I: 5
Bolivia
El MAS implosionó y ahora 2 turboliberales lideran las intenciones de voto. El sindicalismo es un cáncer y el viejo demente de evo lo deben castrar químicamente
R: 4 / I: 0
>fight scene that ends after one or two moves are used
>exposition dumping instead of a flashback scene
>x minutes before some big disaster hits (those minutes last multiple episodes)
>main character saving all the side characters at the last minute when they’re losing
>forced romantic subplots that go absolutely no where (god I fucking hate these in particular man)
>women being useless to the plot
>monologuing and chatting when there’s a disaster/fight going on
>skinny ngas with glasses being comedically OP
>will they won’t they drama for several hundred fucking chapters
>chosen one schtick (man I miss when the power of friendship and teamwork was more commonly used by lazy writers)
>mandatory tiddy and panty pics at the end of each arc
Add to this list of annoying tropes
>cool powerful villain/side character doing nothing for the majority of the plot>fight scene that ends after one or two moves are used
>exposition dumping instead of a flashback scene
>x minutes before some big disaster hits (those minutes last multiple episodes)
>main character saving all the side characters at the last minute when they’re losing
>forced romantic subplots that go absolutely no where (god I fucking hate these in particular man)
>women being useless to the plot
>monologuing and chatting when there’s a disaster/fight going on
>skinny ngas with glasses being comedically OP
>will they won’t they drama for several hundred fucking chapters
>chosen one schtick (man I miss when the power of friendship and teamwork was more commonly used by lazy writers)
>mandatory tiddy and panty pics at the end of each arc
R: 8 / I: 0
>Noooo they can‘t make the game anymore because so many years have gone by they will never live up to the expectations! Noooo
Really? Are people that braindead that they believe the more years go by the gooder a game has to be? Honestly who gives a shit, I just want to see the story continue.
>Noooo they can‘t make the game anymore because so many years have gone by they will never live up to the expectations! Noooo
Really? Are people that braindead that they believe the more years go by the gooder a game has to be? Honestly who gives a shit, I just want to see the story continue.
R: 1 / I: 0
Can't wait for peak to drop
Idk if this is anime but I cannot wait for it, should be releasing this year or maybe early in the next (thats what twitter says). With this, Hathaway's Flash 2, and Madoka Walpurgis, we're eating good.
R: 320 / I: 120
also please spam Charlie pics
Hazbin Hotel
How do you feel about it (and its creator)?also please spam Charlie pics
R: 16 / I: 1
WAHHHH I just wanna be a faggy little deerboy but I’m trapped in this dumb big boy body and it’s so annoying. i just want to be a cute little bisexual dear who beautiful women of all genders fawn (heh) over but instead I have this!!!! I thought I was trans for so long but I think I’m just nb and annoyed by my boy body but doing girl stuf and transitioning made the confusion worse. AHHH!!!!!
Im built too boyish for my outside to match my inside AHHH
WAHHHH I just wanna be a faggy little deerboy but I’m trapped in this dumb big boy body and it’s so annoying. i just want to be a cute little bisexual dear who beautiful women of all genders fawn (heh) over but instead I have this!!!! I thought I was trans for so long but I think I’m just nb and annoyed by my boy body but doing girl stuf and transitioning made the confusion worse. AHHH!!!!!
Im built too boyish for my outside to match my inside AHHH
R: 12 / I: 2
The "nerds in hip-hop" discussion is ridiculous because they all end up abstracting "nerd" to reflect various types of intelligent and/or intellectual expression they don't like. So it almost always funnels down to a "rap is for ignorant incoherent blacks always on weed and crack" logic. If it then circles back to its original premise of "white nerds and execs took the culture out of the game" then that's a nothingburger convo, taming down the aspects of services that don't match bourgeois tastes is inevitable, since all art is made for bourgeois audiences anyways.
Hip-hop is already far too globalized, subsequently curated and promoted to cater to middle-class tastes and sensibilities world over; it's too far gone. These days any conversation that takes hip-hop back to its social roots is hardly insightful yap about how art is consumed in bourgeois society, or other uninsightful, unnuanced, corny social commentary that often devolves into leftie hotep type racism or the milquetoast rightoid kind, especially since these tend to be the only types that fixate on the question, obviously without inquiry.
The "nerds in hip-hop" discussion is ridiculous because they all end up abstracting "nerd" to reflect various types of intelligent and/or intellectual expression they don't like. So it almost always funnels down to a "rap is for ignorant incoherent blacks always on weed and crack" logic. If it then circles back to its original premise of "white nerds and execs took the culture out of the game" then that's a nothingburger convo, taming down the aspects of services that don't match bourgeois tastes is inevitable, since all art is made for bourgeois audiences anyways.
Hip-hop is already far too globalized, subsequently curated and promoted to cater to middle-class tastes and sensibilities world over; it's too far gone. These days any conversation that takes hip-hop back to its social roots is hardly insightful yap about how art is consumed in bourgeois society, or other uninsightful, unnuanced, corny social commentary that often devolves into leftie hotep type racism or the milquetoast rightoid kind, especially since these tend to be the only types that fixate on the question, obviously without inquiry.
R: 244 / I: 58
To start of the part 5 of Astartes fan film and the promise for more.
https://youtu.be/eoCcpMW8fSs
Warhammer Thread
Since Star Wars got a thread why can’t this? Discuss anything you like of the universe. lore, art, diy modeling or even Marxist critique of the setting and gw parasitic relationship with it.To start of the part 5 of Astartes fan film and the promise for more.
https://youtu.be/eoCcpMW8fSs
R: 480 / I: 68 (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: 3 / I: 0
Picrel is the apple, pomegranate, and (I think) cherry trees I have been working on. As well I managed to harvest a lot of sunflower seeds, corn, beans, pumpkin, and birdhouse gourd this year, despite the small plot.
My mom tore down one of my setups cuz "Muh HOA" "Muh Property value" but fortunately I met a couple at a local unitarian church who were willing to spare some land.
How has your year been?
/perma/
Why not a thread for Permaculture/DIY/squatting? It's basically the only thing that most of us can do as neither revolution nor reform (fascism) seem to work, and yet it's too late to live normally.Picrel is the apple, pomegranate, and (I think) cherry trees I have been working on. As well I managed to harvest a lot of sunflower seeds, corn, beans, pumpkin, and birdhouse gourd this year, despite the small plot.
My mom tore down one of my setups cuz "Muh HOA" "Muh Property value" but fortunately I met a couple at a local unitarian church who were willing to spare some land.
How has your year been?
R: 4 / I: 0
they should call them AIPUs and market them as that.
AI GPUs
they're making "AI GPUs" now. it's not a GPU at that point it's an AIPU. we don't call CPUs "central GPUs".they should call them AIPUs and market them as that.
R: 143 / I: 30
Dialectics
What the fuck are they? Every time a Marxist attempts to explain them it's like a Haskell programmer attempting to explain Monads.
R: 14 / I: 6
un día más agradecido a Dios por no haberme hecho peruanoㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
un día más agradecido a Dios por no haberme hecho peruanoㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
R: 302 / I: 48
Previous thread: >>27559
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: >>27559
R: 0 / I: 0
Kill scabs. Behead scabs. Roundhouse kick a scab into the concrete. Slam dunk a scab baby into the trashcan. Crucify filthy bootlickers. Defecate in a scabs food. Launch scabs into the sun. Stir fry scabs in a wok. Toss scabs into active volcanoes. Urinate into a scabs gas tank. Judo throw scabs into a wood chipper. Twist scabs heads off. Report scabs to the IRS. Karate chop scabs in half. Curb stomp pregnant black scabs. Trap scabs in quicksand. Crush scabs in the trash compactor. Liquefy scabs in a vat of acid. Eat scabs. Dissect scabs. Exterminate scabs in the gas chamber. Stomp scab skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate scabs in the oven. Lobotomize scabs. Mandatory abortions for scabs. Grind scab fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown scabs in fried chicken grease. Vaporize scabs with a ray gun. Kick old scabs down the stairs. Feed scabs to alligators. Slice scabs with a katana.
Kill scabs. Behead scabs. Roundhouse kick a scab into the concrete. Slam dunk a scab baby into the trashcan. Crucify filthy bootlickers. Defecate in a scabs food. Launch scabs into the sun. Stir fry scabs in a wok. Toss scabs into active volcanoes. Urinate into a scabs gas tank. Judo throw scabs into a wood chipper. Twist scabs heads off. Report scabs to the IRS. Karate chop scabs in half. Curb stomp pregnant black scabs. Trap scabs in quicksand. Crush scabs in the trash compactor. Liquefy scabs in a vat of acid. Eat scabs. Dissect scabs. Exterminate scabs in the gas chamber. Stomp scab skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate scabs in the oven. Lobotomize scabs. Mandatory abortions for scabs. Grind scab fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown scabs in fried chicken grease. Vaporize scabs with a ray gun. Kick old scabs down the stairs. Feed scabs to alligators. Slice scabs with a katana.
R: 17 / I: 1
That OCR software is ABBYY FineReader 15, said to be the best when I pirated it right before the big machine learning breakthroughs. Is "AI" able to work magic for optical character recognition now?
Attached is a book-length article I'd like to transcribe. It's mostly too fuzzy for FineReader 15 to handle. I was originally going to call on /leftypol/ to help me transcribe it by hand, but I thought I'd ask /tech/ first to see if a machine can do it after all.
TL;DR: help me transcribe this plz.
OCR technology
I'm a volunteer for Marxists.org. Finding forgotten gold articles from 100 years ago and sharing them with the modern world is my jam. The problem is that they're often microfilm scans that are a pain in the ass to read, so I have to transcribe them - which rarely goes smoothly with my OCR software. A lot of the time I have to resort to typing everything out by sight, which as you can imagine takes forever.That OCR software is ABBYY FineReader 15, said to be the best when I pirated it right before the big machine learning breakthroughs. Is "AI" able to work magic for optical character recognition now?
Attached is a book-length article I'd like to transcribe. It's mostly too fuzzy for FineReader 15 to handle. I was originally going to call on /leftypol/ to help me transcribe it by hand, but I thought I'd ask /tech/ first to see if a machine can do it after all.
TL;DR: help me transcribe this plz.
R: 21 / I: 0
Written in C, so no.
>OpenVPN
Insecure (and written in C).
>Tailscore
Proprietary trash. Again, written in a lower level language.
When the fuck will somebody use Python to script a VPN protocol out of for a full tunnel client w/ access to iptables w/ default setting at "strict"? Plus run it on custom STUN servers, uses 10.8.0.53 instead of 8.8.8.8 (Google)/1.1.1.1 Cloudflare)/9.9.9.9 (Quad9) and blocks any connections to them for a fine-grained DNS control, and fully self-hosted w/ local only control. Everything else is too insecure. Oh, and also
>Tailscale leverages Google's OAuth2 for user authentication, allowing users to log in to Tailscale using their Google accounts
Lmao. The absolute state.
WHEN THE FUCK WILL THERE BE A NON-SHIT VPN?
>WireGuardWritten in C, so no.
>OpenVPN
Insecure (and written in C).
>Tailscore
Proprietary trash. Again, written in a lower level language.
When the fuck will somebody use Python to script a VPN protocol out of for a full tunnel client w/ access to iptables w/ default setting at "strict"? Plus run it on custom STUN servers, uses 10.8.0.53 instead of 8.8.8.8 (Google)/1.1.1.1 Cloudflare)/9.9.9.9 (Quad9) and blocks any connections to them for a fine-grained DNS control, and fully self-hosted w/ local only control. Everything else is too insecure. Oh, and also
>Tailscale leverages Google's OAuth2 for user authentication, allowing users to log in to Tailscale using their Google accounts
Lmao. The absolute state.
R: 4 / I: 2
I very much enjoy this manga because I love stories that show different strenghts and talents and how they interact with eachother, bluelock does that aspect very well, on the whole 'collectivism is for weaklings' thing I don't agree very much.
blue lock
is it fascist? is it ancap?I very much enjoy this manga because I love stories that show different strenghts and talents and how they interact with eachother, bluelock does that aspect very well, on the whole 'collectivism is for weaklings' thing I don't agree very much.
R: 218 / I: 46
Shingeki no Kyojin
Is Attack on Titan fash?
R: 21 / I: 4
a Nazi teenager enjoying the best quality of life in the western hemisphere recording an album with a playmobile cassette deck or whatever, about how miserable existence is
a Nazi teenager enjoying the best quality of life in the western hemisphere recording an album with a playmobile cassette deck or whatever, about how miserable existence is
R: 277 / I: 52
Previous Thread:
>>618934
LGBT+ General 3
MadoHomu Exedra editionPrevious Thread:
R: 0 / I: 0
I work part-time in a small town, repackaging near rotten fruit so it can be sold for 2x the price, the lady who's a higher-up at the store I work at constantly micromanages me even though I never do anything wrong,
she always makes my already nauseating job of picking through moldy berries even harder by not even checking the ones which are clearly off and throwing them right in with the good ones i spent so much time on then goes and throws away perfectly good bread.
who fucking came up with the idea of having a boss or some higher-up who shoves orders down your throat, this shit is really getting in the way of productivity.
I work part-time in a small town, repackaging near rotten fruit so it can be sold for 2x the price, the lady who's a higher-up at the store I work at constantly micromanages me even though I never do anything wrong,
she always makes my already nauseating job of picking through moldy berries even harder by not even checking the ones which are clearly off and throwing them right in with the good ones i spent so much time on then goes and throws away perfectly good bread.
who fucking came up with the idea of having a boss or some higher-up who shoves orders down your throat, this shit is really getting in the way of productivity.
R: 9 / I: 3
Let us explore a potent but seemingly unexplored (or at least underground) counter-strategy. A safe, simple, long-term strategy of stochastic opportunistic biowarfare.
This is not biowarfare in the conventional sense of directly poisoning enemies, so if you want to culture your own mold and plant it in a chud's HVAC then this isn't for you.
Instead, we intent so seize an opportunity to accelerate the self-poisoning of (overwhelmingly) reactionaries. I want you to envision a land of raw meat and dairy, tallow and ghee, supplement cocktails and Ivermectin doping. Oh, that's the world the reactionary grifters are already implementing… if these obviously dangerous diets and medication are so normal among the anti-communists, perhaps we can kick this up a notch. It's easy to poison someone with seemingly-innocuous things: beef liver, brazil nuts, water intoxication. It's very easy to demonize treatments like vaccines and healthier alternatives to traditional habits. It's simple to trick reactionaries into rejecting things seen as progressive, like soy, veganism and seed oils, and jumping up to mirror it with ridiculous excessive meat over-consumption. Simply tell them that warnings and regulations are liberal disinformation and a significant amount of these idiots will want to believe it.
The best part is, you can make money from slowly poisoning reactionaries. Millions of well-funded capitalists are investing millions and billions into selling unhealthy products, they want as many sold as possible. Look at how the dairy industry in the USA has managed to normalize cow's milk as an essential nutritional component. Look at how propagandist streamers and podcasters are throwing supplement pill ads at their audience. These capitalist companies don't care about long-term effects, they're fatally bound to the short-term lines and how far they go up. And for those in the USA, bourgeois deregulation will make more and more of these tactics completely legal.
We can help dismantle the right and make them pay for it. What's not to love?
Stochastic Opportunistic Biowarfare
For those who aren't lawyers, injury is generally illegal. Because of this, obstruction or neutralization of class enemies and class traitors is often restricted to adventurism or fantasy, maybe even intimidation if you and others are organized well enough (congratulations!)Let us explore a potent but seemingly unexplored (or at least underground) counter-strategy. A safe, simple, long-term strategy of stochastic opportunistic biowarfare.
This is not biowarfare in the conventional sense of directly poisoning enemies, so if you want to culture your own mold and plant it in a chud's HVAC then this isn't for you.
Instead, we intent so seize an opportunity to accelerate the self-poisoning of (overwhelmingly) reactionaries. I want you to envision a land of raw meat and dairy, tallow and ghee, supplement cocktails and Ivermectin doping. Oh, that's the world the reactionary grifters are already implementing… if these obviously dangerous diets and medication are so normal among the anti-communists, perhaps we can kick this up a notch. It's easy to poison someone with seemingly-innocuous things: beef liver, brazil nuts, water intoxication. It's very easy to demonize treatments like vaccines and healthier alternatives to traditional habits. It's simple to trick reactionaries into rejecting things seen as progressive, like soy, veganism and seed oils, and jumping up to mirror it with ridiculous excessive meat over-consumption. Simply tell them that warnings and regulations are liberal disinformation and a significant amount of these idiots will want to believe it.
The best part is, you can make money from slowly poisoning reactionaries. Millions of well-funded capitalists are investing millions and billions into selling unhealthy products, they want as many sold as possible. Look at how the dairy industry in the USA has managed to normalize cow's milk as an essential nutritional component. Look at how propagandist streamers and podcasters are throwing supplement pill ads at their audience. These capitalist companies don't care about long-term effects, they're fatally bound to the short-term lines and how far they go up. And for those in the USA, bourgeois deregulation will make more and more of these tactics completely legal.
We can help dismantle the right and make them pay for it. What's not to love?
R: 12 / I: 21
Porktober
Post your rare porkies. How many original porkies can you make this Porktober?
R: 47 / I: 3
Post about your bi panic and shit here.
/bigen/
Starting the first bi thread since nobody else has yet.Post about your bi panic and shit here.
R: 26 / I: 5
If that cowardly and weak shit isn’t dishonourable enough, just look at the shit going on after the introduction of gunpowder.
Mass casualties among soldiers due to exposure to disease, self inflicted psychological trauma, and tripping related accidents from the napoleonic era to the world wars; reliance on the threat (not the use) of WMDs (of course against defensless civilians because who would approach their opponents up close) to win wars; military leaders somehow getting even weaker and more disconnected from their soldiers as military sophistication improved; the list of things you can make fun of just keep going on.
Vietnam against France was probably the only time where things improved a bit with how easy it was to respect soldiers. It was by this point where stress inoculation as a concept was introduced to military training which meant you had soldiers fighting the way you’d initially imagine against armed and readied opponents instead of picking fights with literal children and adults on the brink of starvation. Does this mean that all wars afterwards suddenly became way more honorable and not over glorified duck measuring contests for who could appear the most intimidating—hell no. Stress inoculation plus Mao and Vietnam’s popularization of guerrilla tactics created a platform for where that annoying shit would die.
Humans are irritatingly weak
Going through historical records over what actually happened in most wars (both recent and ancient) is making me frustrated over how insultingly weak, passive aggressive, incompetent, and cowardly the vast majority of people and men in general are. Apparently something like 80%+ of all pre gunpowder age battles revolved entirely around intimidating the opponent and only attacking once the enemy was fleeing and had their backs exposed. If that shit wasn’t dishonourable enough, some armours including Persian helmets or Viking berserker armour were specifically designed to make Persians appear taller and Vikings more scrappy to deter opponents rather than anything rooted in battlefield function. The same could be said about most ornamented armour which only tells me that nearly every motherfucker in history have spent generations dicksucking themselves off with meaningless trophies and amateur displays of strength before running and freaking out the moment actual battles occur. In terms of actual fighting, if it wasn’t against already surrendering fleeing opponents, civilian casualties—especially against unarmed, weakened, and defensless civilians—were usually the most common targets of both conquerors and pre socialist revolutionaries effectively rendering any actual fights between warriors as almost nonexistent in preindustrial warfare.If that cowardly and weak shit isn’t dishonourable enough, just look at the shit going on after the introduction of gunpowder.
Mass casualties among soldiers due to exposure to disease, self inflicted psychological trauma, and tripping related accidents from the napoleonic era to the world wars; reliance on the threat (not the use) of WMDs (of course against defensless civilians because who would approach their opponents up close) to win wars; military leaders somehow getting even weaker and more disconnected from their soldiers as military sophistication improved; the list of things you can make fun of just keep going on.
Vietnam against France was probably the only time where things improved a bit with how easy it was to respect soldiers. It was by this point where stress inoculation as a concept was introduced to military training which meant you had soldiers fighting the way you’d initially imagine against armed and readied opponents instead of picking fights with literal children and adults on the brink of starvation. Does this mean that all wars afterwards suddenly became way more honorable and not over glorified duck measuring contests for who could appear the most intimidating—hell no. Stress inoculation plus Mao and Vietnam’s popularization of guerrilla tactics created a platform for where that annoying shit would die.
R: 8 / I: 0
Rest in Peace !!
Tomonobu Itagaki, the legendary creator of the Dead or Alive series, and creative mind behind the 2004 version of Ninja Gaiden, has passed away at the age of 58.
The news was shared on his personal Facebook page, and independently confirmed by members of the development community. The cause of death was not given.
The elegaic Facebook post was written by Itagaki to be shared in the event of his death. An English translation was later shared by his compatriot and rival Katsuhiro Harada:
Words I Leave Behind
The flame of my life is finally about to go out.
If this message has been posted, it means that the time has come. I am no longer in this world.
(This final post has been entrusted to someone dear to me.)
My life was a series of battles. And I kept on winning.
I know I caused trouble for many along the way.
But I followed my convictions and fought to the very end.
I have no regrets.
Only one thing weighs on me — I’m deeply sorry to all my fans that I couldn’t bring you a new work. I truly am.
That’s just how it is.
So it goes.
Banobu Itagaki
Rest in Peace !!
Tomonobu Itagaki, the legendary creator of the Dead or Alive series, and creative mind behind the 2004 version of Ninja Gaiden, has passed away at the age of 58.
The news was shared on his personal Facebook page, and independently confirmed by members of the development community. The cause of death was not given.
The elegaic Facebook post was written by Itagaki to be shared in the event of his death. An English translation was later shared by his compatriot and rival Katsuhiro Harada:
Words I Leave Behind
The flame of my life is finally about to go out.
If this message has been posted, it means that the time has come. I am no longer in this world.
(This final post has been entrusted to someone dear to me.)
My life was a series of battles. And I kept on winning.
I know I caused trouble for many along the way.
But I followed my convictions and fought to the very end.
I have no regrets.
Only one thing weighs on me — I’m deeply sorry to all my fans that I couldn’t bring you a new work. I truly am.
That’s just how it is.
So it goes.
Banobu Itagaki
R: 5 / I: 0
Does anyone know what game this is? I have no more information than this screenshot, sorry. Apparently it's like a modern Far Cry 2, don't know anything else about it.
Does anyone know what game this is? I have no more information than this screenshot, sorry. Apparently it's like a modern Far Cry 2, don't know anything else about it.
R: 4 / I: 0
Is experimental music inherently leftist music? If so, what makes it so? Can anyone name a right-wing experimental musician? No, Zappa doesn't count. (I suppose Italian futurists would count, but that was over a century ago)
Is experimental music inherently leftist music? If so, what makes it so? Can anyone name a right-wing experimental musician? No, Zappa doesn't count. (I suppose Italian futurists would count, but that was over a century ago)
R: 412 / I: 134
I'll start with my own recommendation:
Rie Himemiya from Phase Connect [EN] Gen 2 Phase Alias. A Vsinger with great covers and original songs such as Love Potion #520 and ゲテモノ (Bizarre Food) / Utsu-P ♡ to give you two examples.
Her streams as of now center around variety gaming such as her recent playthrough of Pokémon HG/SS as her first Pokémon game although she is mostly focused on Limbus Company and Library of Ruina as well as community projects like Date Ideas for Valentines season or making a love song out of Schizophrenic Maros.
However I do recommend her older VODs as well such as Sandtrix or Gayraoke for her humor and great chat interaction. If you want something more recent check out her 100 songs for 100k Christmas Special from last year. Remember to do your reps and backreading
https://www.youtube.com/@HimemiyaRie/streams
https://nitter.net/HimemiyaRie
https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/artist/6tKYFARX2bMPlQwglwXNoB
When it comes to membership content, for Tier 1 you get members exclusive covers, static and animated wallpapers, exclusive community posts and access to her art archive.
Vtuber General
ITT We discuss about our favorite Vtubers, corpo and indie alike. Liveposting, (Spoilered) Porn and Rateposting are all encouraged.I'll start with my own recommendation:
Rie Himemiya from Phase Connect [EN] Gen 2 Phase Alias. A Vsinger with great covers and original songs such as Love Potion #520 and ゲテモノ (Bizarre Food) / Utsu-P ♡ to give you two examples.
Her streams as of now center around variety gaming such as her recent playthrough of Pokémon HG/SS as her first Pokémon game although she is mostly focused on Limbus Company and Library of Ruina as well as community projects like Date Ideas for Valentines season or making a love song out of Schizophrenic Maros.
However I do recommend her older VODs as well such as Sandtrix or Gayraoke for her humor and great chat interaction. If you want something more recent check out her 100 songs for 100k Christmas Special from last year. Remember to do your reps and backreading
https://www.youtube.com/@HimemiyaRie/streams
https://nitter.net/HimemiyaRie
https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/artist/6tKYFARX2bMPlQwglwXNoB
When it comes to membership content, for Tier 1 you get members exclusive covers, static and animated wallpapers, exclusive community posts and access to her art archive.