🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅
<Houston, We Have A Problem EditionOr, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Just One More Lane BroThread for hellish discussion of the Dying Burger Reich:
Things are going to continue to happen in the stupidest ways possible that no one really takes seriously, where every single person compulsively reacts with either cynical grifting or useless panic and appealing to a political system of liberal democracy that is entirely dead and irrelevant. things will continue to get gradually worse, more people will lose their jobs and homes, the most destitute and marginalized will be oppressed by state-backed domestic terrorism, but the decay will simply continue and everyone who isn't actively being imprisoned and forced into slavery or outright exterminated will simply ignore it and maintain a cognitive dissonance of believing a civil war is happening while living their lives in a mostly normal fashion. The death of the United States will be slow, painful, and insufferably annoying and stupid.🏈 💵 🌭 🍔
🛠️ Strike Tracker ⚒️https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/🇺🇸 Deeds of the Burger Reich 🇺🇸https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md📺 Glowie News 📺(sponsored by USAID)
• CNN:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html• MSNBC:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html• FOX:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/fox-news-channel.html• Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/live/us🏚️Local News🏚️https://www.50states.com/ce/✊Live Protest Streams✊https://woke.net/🏝️Epstein's Client List DOES NOT EXIST🏝️https://epsteinsblackbook.com/🇮🇱Track Zionazis (apparently ShareBlue backed, gross)🇮🇱https://www.trackaipac.com/📖Read, Burgga, Read!📖
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2sntNn5jQO8vF7ai9x0fna3PVPrevious Thread:
>>2507380Remember to filter mass tor baiters, feds, and trollsNot reporting is bourgeoisViolators will be launched from trebuchet >>2508937https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/1nyaj0c/ice_ramming_a_civilian_car_then_shooting_them/Also, the fire department says that they found the shot woman bleeding on the sidewalk and took her to the hospital, not that she drove herself.
I think it’s also probable it will come out she did not have a firearm in her vehicle.
>>2508973https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movementCalifornia has had various secession/independence movements but it's almost always the NIMBY's and rednecks pushing for it.
Personally I think secession is off the table unless multiple regions do it simultaneously. The United States simply won't allow a new state to pop up on its borders that threatens its geographic security.
>>2508979cuomo
new york will be under martial law and he'll pull assad numbers from all the rigging and voter suppression
>>2509040there's no point in one person showing up with a gun to anything like this, you'd just get mowed down accomplish nothing. even if you had a squad of infantry, assaulting a fortified position like this would be a death sentence.
the point of things like this isnt to kill pigs, it's to train people, to regiment as many as possible and get them prepared, both physically and psychologically, to face the state's repressions. that way, when the time is ripe for armed struggle, it becomes a natural evolution rather than a forced step.
read lenin and joe slovo.
>>2509059>why would I die for communismyou wouldn't
>if I can't have a gfyou clearly care about getting a state mandated comfort woman more than communism, and if you were rewarded this treat, you would want to die even less
>>2509057don't lump me in with that freak (or the other 342 million am*ricans)
>>2508947Words destroyed by amerilards
1 Communist
2 Socialist
3 Racist
4 Fascist
5 Nazi
>>2509059Go away
>>2509062Go on….shoo
>>2509065>>2509066>>2509068Gotta admit I've never been as tempted to become an angry right-wing incel chud as I am right now over my comrades belittling me.
>>2509071nah I'm a 100% khhv but I'm not the typical /r9k/ type that wants to hurt women so I feel out of place on 4chan but also on here because I guess sexhaving is required on the Left.
>>2509074>I've never been as tempted to become an angry right-wing incel chud you already are one. if you're such a pushover that you "become" reactionary at the slightest provocation maybe you were just reactionary all along
obviously anyone wanting a state mandated gf is reactionary
>sexhaving is required on the Left.no it isn't
>>2509098I don't think it's really genetic or bad luck. In fact inceldom is something you'd expect to be filtered out by genetics. The rise in male loneliness is pretty much entirely societal and at least partially due to a failure of society to give men a role beyond being a provider in a society where men are increasingly unable to provide.
Like, when women out-earn men at this point it's impossible to also maintain the romantic standard that the man has to provide for his wife. Women aren't changing their romantic taste to fit a more egalitarian concept of masculinity and men are unwilling to "put themselves out there" if they think women might reject them for being failsons(which they will). Capitalism breeds hyper-competitiveness in everything, and romance is no exception. The Left should be more active in discussing this, instead of seething that incels "want to take away women's autonomy" when most of them just want a normal romance.
>>2509086>you just described pretty much every single person on planet earth.no i described you, and you are now projecting yourself onto all of humanity to shield yourself from criticism
>humans are inherently reactionarymuh human nature
> and if you spit on them they will vote for fascists just to get back at you even if it hurts them in the long run<fascism<vote> optics matters and being a dick to people who aren't your enemy can come back to haunt you even if it makes you feel badass in the presentlook at all the philosophy you're doing because you got made fun of for announcing your desire to get a state mandated comfort woman (who is programmed to love you)
>Democrats are learning this rn with how much they alienated every demographic that isn't a wealthy white woman working in HR and now everyone wants to see them fail.Democrats are reactionary
>>2509115>all I want is a girlfriend1 Go to gym
2 Quit whinging
3 Care less
Desperation is a major gf repellant
>>2509124doesn't excuse the fact that you still deny the progressive forces at play
right now>women's deeper integration and assimilation into the capitalist system as a good or progressive developmentyes, it is progressive over the previous state of things
>>2509157It's really interesting how China manages to promote family values and Communism simultaneously while the West completely rejects any notion of the family as having any significance at all even though all evidence points to family being the #1 predictor of a child's ability to succeed in life.
Then again China also has a huge male loneliness epidemic so I don't think it makes a difference if you're living under a market economy anyway.
>>2509164>>What is Engels?!Lol
>>2509165>I'm just posing questions arbitrarily guiseLmao, even
>>2509167You fit brah? You a brocialist chad via labour?
>>2509160not his first tbh, surprised how his grotesquely low-effort posting is still tolerated
>>2509169>family valuesempty signifier tbh, could mean anything from reactionary "kinder kuche kirche" to "it's nice to spend time with your children and listen to them"
>>2509169> China manages to promote family values and Communism simultaneouslyCorrect
>Then again China also has a huge male loneliness epidemic Mainly caused by the 1 child policy which skewed the sex ratios in China
>>2509173>his grotesquely low-effort Labour fetishism. Pathetic.
>is still tolerated>passive aggressive requests to cancelLow T
>I need specific linguistic definitions of non-comodified kin relations or I will insinuate reactionary impulses arbitrarily because reasonsLmfao
>>2509174>Mainly caused by the 1 child policy which skewed the sex ratios in ChinaNot at all true. It's mainly caused by the pressure to succeed and Chinese women just not being willing to sacrifice earning potential to be a housewife unless their husband is successful himself. Pretty much exactly the same as the West.
One Child Policy didn't actually result in a decline in female babies. It just resulted in a lot of unregistered female children suddenly popping up the moment they started applying for university and got a government ID.
>>2509173>empty signifier tbh, could mean anything from reactionary "kinder kuche kirche" to "it's nice to spend time with your children and listen to them"Sure I guess, I don't think any particular family values are important beyond the idea of promoting a family unit, any kind of family unit, for children to give them a stable home life. I don't care if its two gay dudes or two lesbians or an unmarried couple but people should have kids and they should live under the same roof and they should give children a nurturing environment to thrive and western individualism has lost sight of the fact humans need socialization and companionship and aren't automatons.
>>2509176>Not at all true.Incorrect
>One Child Policy didn't actually result in a decline in female babiesYes it did
>>2509171>I'm just posing questions arbitrarily guiseJ posed no questions. I posted a passage from Engels without commentary. If you would like my commentary (as a person with a family) it is this: Family is increasingly difficult to maintain in a hyper-capitalist hyper-individualist alienated imperialist society that elevates sociopathy, like the USA. To the extent that people have functional families at all, it is usually because they have (at the very least) petty bourgeois property or some kind of religious superstructure like a church community to fall back on. But capitalism is, was, and will continue to destroy these things, just as Marx and Engels said. And like Engels says, only reactionary socialists try to restore patriarchal and feudal relations, because it is impossible.
As someone with a family, I noticed that I had fewer children than my parents, and my parents had fewer than their parents, and so on. In the imperial core you see low fertility rates due to a lot of things: Abortion, Birth Control, Contraceptives, Sex Education, Short Relationships, Decline in Marriage, Increased Divorce Rates, but also the constant pressure to give everything to your "career" if you're petty bourgeois, or to spend your whole life slaving for subsistence wages if you're a prole. When people do have kids, they have fewer, and treat them more like an individual. Better to make one person who "makes it" than to make several who do not. Better to make one kid and give them a good life than to make 10 with bad lives. We no longer live in Peasant times where everyone grows up working on a farm and it was normal for a woman to give birth to 5-10 children without anesthesia, potentially dying in childbirth. We live in different times. Women understandably don't want to go back to those times even though capitalism is also bad in a completely different way. I want what's best for my family but I also see family, at least the family in its current form, as a sort of historically contingent thing that might go away eventually under socialism or communism. Make sense?
>>2509180>Family is increasingly difficult to maintain in a hyper-capitalist hyper-individualist alienated imperialist society that elevates sociopathy, like the USA. Correct
>But capitalism is, was, and will continue to destroy these things, just as Marx and Engels saidCorrect
>only reactionary socialists try to restore patriarchal and feudal relationsNot all pre capitalist non-commodified kin/social relations were patriarchal and feudal
>a woman to give birth to 5-10 children without anesthesiaNoone is suggesting that - least of all me
>I also see family, at least the family in its current form, as a sort of historically contingent thing that might go away eventually under socialism or communism. Make sense?No
Family is a vital part of being human and socialising new humans regardless of the economic system
>>2509183>insults people and hints at canceling them for no apparent reason>reeeeeee how dare you insult me!Holy fucking kek.
>i would argue it's rather unproductive to only campaign for family value promotionNoone was suggesting that retardo
>>2509185>Family is a vital part of being human and socialising new humans regardless of the economic systemthat's why I clarified
<at least the family in its current formBut I disagree that family is a "vital part of being a human being" rather than being historically contingent. Humans have been around for 200,000 years, more if you count hominids, and the family is a much more recent social innovation. Note I do not treat the family as the same thing as the tribe or the clan. A person might for example feel more kinship with their unrelated political comrades than with their own blood-ties.
What do Marx and Engels say about the origin of the family?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
>Here we see that animal societies are, after all, of some value for drawing conclusions about human societies; but the value is only negative. So far as our evidence goes, the higher vertebrates know only two forms of family – polygyny or separate couples; each form allows only one adult male, only one husband. The jealousy of the male, which both consolidates and isolates the family, sets the animal family in opposition to the herd. The jealousy of the males prevents the herd, the higher social form, from coming into existence, or weakens its cohesion, or breaks it up during the mating period; at best, it attests its development. This alone is sufficient proof that animal families and primitive human society are incompatible, and that when primitive men were working their way up from the animal creation, they either had no family at all or a form that does not occur among animals. In small numbers, an animal so defenseless as evolving man might struggle along even in conditions of isolation, with no higher social grouping than the single male and female pair, such as Westermarck, following the reports of hunters, attributes to the gorillas and the chimpanzees. For man's development beyond the level of the animals, for the achievement of the greatest advance nature can show, something more was needed: the power of defense lacking to the individual had to be made good by the united strength and co-operation of the herd. To explain the transition to humanity from conditions such as those in which the anthropoid apes live today would be quite impossible; it looks much more as if these apes had strayed off the line of evolution and were gradually dying out or at least degenerating. That alone is sufficient ground for rejecting all attempts based on parallels drawn between forms of family and those of primitive man. Mutual toleration among the adult males, freedom from jealousy, was the first condition for the formation of those larger, permanent groups in which alone animals could become men. And what, in fact, do we find to be the oldest and most primitive form of family whose historical existence we can indisputably prove and which in one or two parts of the world we can still study today? Group marriage, the form of family in which whole groups of men and whole groups of women mutually possess one another, and which leaves little room for jealousy. And at a later stage of development we find the exceptional form of polyandry, which positively revolts every jealous instinct and is therefore unknown among animals. But as all known forms of group marriage are accompanied by such peculiarly complicated regulations that they necessarily point to earlier and simpler forms of sexual relations, and therefore in the last resort to a period of promiscuous intercourse corresponding to the transition from the animal to the human, the references to animal marriages only bring us back to the very point from which we were to be led away for good and all. >>2509192>family is a much more recent social innovationComplete nonsense
>when primitive men were working their way up from the animal creation, they either had no family at all or a form that does not occur among animals. Were they there? What evidence do they cite? This is just assertion based on speculation.
>>2509200No, you're getting actual black hundreds organized
by the state and not
for the state. Buckle up buckaroo, 1880s are so back
>>2509199>Were they there?Anon… come on. Is that also what you say when people talk about the fossil record or the cosmic microwave background?
>What evidence do they cite? anthropology at the time which was admittedly a way less developed field than it is now. Nonetheless, a lot progress was being made at the time. Keep in mind, again, I am talking about the idea of a cosanguinous family. A small unit living under a single household tied by blood. Not the more vague idea of a "community" or a "tribe." Humans even when hunter gatherers traveled in groups, but the relations of these groups were more fluid and varied, and the idea of a standardized patriarchal family came much later. Am I making sense?
>>2509208>Is that also what you say when people talk about the fossil record or the cosmic microwave background?Both of those are supported by evidence
>anthropology at the time which was admittedly a way less developed field than it is now.Precisely
> Am I making sense?Yes but my point stands. Family is essential - whether in nuclear or, better yet, extended forms - for a healthy society of well adjusted people
>>2509202Not even. That retard needs to read Stalin.
>but anon they're trollingand I'm having fun too. Go to ismail if you want quality discussion.
>>2509210If true then I'm sorry
>>2509211>no…no you!>>2509212Modern developments in anthropology prove these assertions to be incorrect
>>2509213>Both of those are supported by evidenceyes of course, but a person could easily say "were you there?" as a counter. So it was a weak counter argument to say that in response to Marx/Engels on anthropology (they were going by what was known at the time).
>Family is essential - whether in nuclear or, better yet, extended forms - for a healthy society of well adjusted peopleOK so it's clear that we're having a language thing here. By family you mean something much wider than what I was talking about. We probably don't even disagree. I was more talking about the form of the family that arrives with class society.
>>2509232> (they were going by what was known at the time).Subsequently shown to be wrong. That's all I'm saying.
>I was more talking about the form of the family that arrives with class society.Fair enough. But SOME midwits conflate ALL form of family with capitalist oppression eg radlibs and bourg pomo feminists
>>2509233Nice
>>2509263>because it is?Incorrect
>Subsuming more people into capitalist exploitation is good guiseNo
>>2509109>women out-earn men at this pointI've yet to see a statistics report where this is the general case and I hereby challenge you to link me one
Spoiler:
it's yet another incel phantasm >>2509307>neofeudal managerialism I don't buy this Djilas inspired Varoufakis meme, comrade.
t. ML
>>2509327Peak material analysis.
>>2509328Your loss comrade.
Unique IPs: 42