Anti-Malthusianism Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:06:18 No. 689141 [Last 50 Posts]
How do we realistically fight against this Malthusian mindset which seems to have engulfed so many people in the West?
This shit is asinine, and it looks like things are only going to get worse. Even the pope (who is arguably a crypto-socialist) has made remarks about the growing number of people under 40 who are deliberately choosing to have pets rather than children. Personally, I don't care if anyone wants to have kids or not, but this "stop breeding, the world is only going to get worse" mentality is seriously fucking people up and needs to end if we're going to have the will to fight for socialist revolution.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:09:10 No. 689149
Okay but, the world is actually getting worse, so what's your solution? People should just have kids on a wing and a prayer that they might somehow have a good life?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:10:37 No. 689153
The world going to shit is only one possibility.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:13:16 No. 689160
>>689153 >Only one possibility
Unless you have the fucking wish granting dragon balls with you it’s the only possibility in the near future
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:13:34 No. 689162
Maupinites are always like "Malthusian this" "Malthusian that" how about you use your Malth to soothe my cock
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:14:47 No. 689165
Calm the fuck down, nobody who actually matters is telling you to have less kids
Ironically the only country that instituted a limit on how many kids a family should have is China
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:17:46 No. 689174
>>689165 >Ironically the only country that instituted a limit on how many kids a family should have is China
They no longer have the One-Child Policy because it caused disastrous effects on their country's demographics.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:18:35 No. 689176
Human beings are a cancer on this planet.
We should transition to socialism to minimise the cruelty we inflict on each other. We should stop breeding to stop the cruelty we inflict on other species and the environment. You're a piece of shit if you can't see this.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:18:45 No. 689177
Well it's the track we're currently on, don't you think it's pretty irresponsible to have kids in this hellworld?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:19:54 No. 689179
How do you have a successful socialist society with scarcity? Lower birthrates kill the productive forces.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:20:28 No. 689181
Yet Stalin banned abortion.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:21:48 No. 689183
And most countries are trending towards crashing populations alongside crashing sperm counts in males
At any rate, just think it’s funny that, for all the increasing fearmongering on this board about muh malthusian, muh Great Culling; at the end of the day the only country to institute a one-child limit was a country half this board supports, literally no liberal government has remotely proposed this measure, libleft media outlets are fucking toothless, and the actual great culling will be the millions killed due to knock on effects from climate change and not some conscious plot
Scarcity is inevitable at our current trajectory, you can’t just magic new resources into existence, you can’t just magic crops and animals into existence, you can’t just wish away toxic chemicals and plastics in your bloodstream or pray hard enough to make the air healthy to breathe once again
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:21:51 No. 689184
This is your brain on neoliberalism
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:22:26 No. 689185
What's that got to do with anything?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:23:21 No. 689187
>>689149 >>689160 >>689162 >>689171 >>689176
Why are you even a socialist if you hold this degree of pessimism?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:23:22 No. 689188
It's evidence that birth control is socialist, since Stalin wasn't
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:23:59 No. 689190
Found the Trot with the brain rot.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:24:45 No. 689191
If I were an optimist I'd be a reformist.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:24:47 No. 689192
I didn't say things can never get better, hopefully they will someday, but it doesn't look like it will be any time soon, and it doesn't look like having more kids will help in any way. If anything, less warm bodies might be beneficial in extracting concessions from the bourgeoisie.
S 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:24:51 No. 689193
I have no problem with reducing the amount of people born each year. Stopping people from having too many kids doesn't hurt them at all and isn't harming their freedom.
Honestly having children is the most depressing thing. Your free will is gone the moment the baby is born. You are just following bestial instincts, not your higher mind.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:25:00 No. 689194
Because being a socialist doesn’t mean I have to fucking lie to myself like some piece of shit coward?
Naive optimism is a disgusting trait, it’s perfectly valid in a child but pathetic in an adult, grow up
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:25:41 No. 689195
>>689171 >William Z. Foster all advocated the birth strike.
Is that why there was so much abortion in the CPUSA?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:25:55 No. 689196
Found the tankie that needs a spankie
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:26:32 No. 689198
The opposite. Reformists are always the people who believe actual socialism "can never happen."
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:29:06 No. 689201
Or people who believe capitalism still has something to offer
Pathetic that you think there’s absolutely no middle ground between being some naive optimistic retard that genuinely can’t even consider a future where you don’t get exactly what you want and an absolute cynical doomer that believes there isn’t even the slightest hope
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:29:22 No. 689202
That's actually what the batshit Medium post argues. I'm not kidding.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:30:33 No. 689203
>>689201 >Or people who believe capitalism still has something to offer
I've never seen a socdem say this. More like, they just accept the idea that capitalism is going to be around forever or that socialism "will inevitably look exactly like capitalism."
You anprims make a cult out of your own negativity and desire for collapse. Pathetic.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:31:28 No. 689206
Weird take. They think they can reform their way to socialism, is that not naive optimism?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:33:20 No. 689211
Abortion was banned in the USSR when higher birthrates and a larger labor force were necessary during a crucial period of industrialization. It's just something irrelevant to bring up today.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:34:06 No. 689213
>>689203 >You anprims
Kill yourself bucko
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:42:16 No. 689220
I think it's completely fine but trying to base it around "saving the world" or whatever is just massive
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:43:18 No. 689223
They're optimistic about that (more like opportunistic), but they've swallowed the propaganda about how all revolutions do more harm than good (except the American one obviously) so they believe letting the people have power will just turn them into beasts and they will destroy everything.
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:45:53 No. 689225
People choosing not to have children, for any reason, is completely fine. There's nothing to freak out about. "Malthusianism" is just a buzzword of yours in this context.
There is a problem with this sort of rhetoric:
because it's legitimately anti-life. People are not a cancer, and children are a wonder unto the world.
The Pope, of course, agrees with you. He is a religious figure and via "be fruitful and multiply" would see his Church's following increase. It's incentivized.
Many people have children before they are equipped to do so. We should equip people to do so earlier in life, and the way to best do this involves implementing socialism. Children born to younger parents (i.e. comparing a mother in 20s vs. 40s) do have better health.
Children should not be born as political weapons. This is the corruption of the right-wing which alienates their children from them, and creates rebellion — they who treat others as inhuman will find themselves treated inhuman.
Creation was an act of love in the beginning and to not continue to follow in that principle is not good. Create children because you love, not because you spite or realpolitik. If it is a mix of self-love and external love that is okay too. I may create children to have young family to watch over me when I can no longer watch over them. Hopefully by then society will heal and we can all watch over each other in this way.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:46:58 No. 689227
This is a really, really bizarre take. They think the world is too good to encourage violence - this is optimism.
I'm not some freak who thinks violence is a good thing, I think it is a necessary means to an end to stop greater suffering. This is not an optimistic take.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:47:26 No. 689228
This sort of pessimism is also entirely unrelated to the “pessimism” of the posters that anarchist was calling out, so why mention it at all?
Do you just have a set number of ideologies you try pinning on people that disagree with you personally? Do you need to invent beliefs for your opponents to make an argument?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:48:26 No. 689230
>>689225 > children are a wonder unto the world.
Psychotic. Children are just under developed humans who grow into monsters. Stop romanticising humanity.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:50:36 No. 689238
Just point out that getting vasectomies isn’t going to fix anything.
Why is that so hard?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:51:49 No. 689240
Social democrats like to posture as bright eyed and optimistic but any of them who have any power have accepted realpolitik deep down and know that any real change would upset the order which they have found a place within, and mess up their long term career goals, so of course they turn into zealous defenders of the established order, perhaps with minor changes. Any reforms must be barely noticeable, but will be enough to ensure their 'legacy' and reassure them that they are a good person, it's just that it's a twisted, cynical world of politics they find themselves within.
Heartache is powerful, but democracy is *subtle*. Incrementally, you begin to notice a change in the weather. When it snows, the flakes are softer when they stick to your worry-worn forehead. When it rains, the rain is warmer. Democracy is coming to the Administrative Region. The ideals of Dolorian humanism are reinstating themselves. How can they not? These are the ideals of the Coalition and the Moralist International. Those guys are signal blue. And they're not only good – they're also powerful. What will it be like, once their nuanced plans have been realized?
The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change – not even incremental change. It is *control*. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth."
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 02:53:40 No. 689242
I'm not that anon, chill, I just wanted to dunk on social democrats.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:07:58 No. 689256
This has to be a bot
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:11:54 No. 689260
It isn't so much that people are actually convinced there is an ecological crisis, but that the ecological story is a convenient pretext to justify what has always been a political decision - that the world was to be made so unlivable that people would "choose" not to have children, and would come to revile life. The Malthusian belief is a thinking of the upper and upper-middle class who see their position as precarious, but from the outset it was always premised on the belief that too many people would cause revolution, not that there was a "natural" population limit. It took the neo-Malthusians in the 20th century to get into this insane ecological thinking that this was the only possible natural order, as if the system of technocratic rule were the most perfect government and the system was never ever wrong, despite all the evidence showing clear malice towards everyone who wasn't in the ruling clique.
It's also rather silly because it's always been understood that controlling the women is the key. If a woman wants a baby, she'll go to a sperm bank, or find a donor (and they're willing to mate with some real pieces of shit if that is what is available). Men snipping their tubes or becoming incel/volcel has basically no effect on population growth in of itself. There has been, throughout history, a significant part of the male population that never mates, men who take multiple wives either in polygamy or multiple monogamous relationships, the latter being quite normal now. Women don't want to bother with unproven men, would rather be with men who've already sired children with another woman if that man is willing to have more kids. Certainly there are men who don't mind this arrangement. That's more normal than you would think, especially for middle class and up who have the means to do so.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:12:18 No. 689261
There’s no evidence of this except for a few ex-communist memoirs written during McCarthyism.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:20:06 No. 689271
THERE IS NO RESOURCE CRISIS, YOU DUMB FUCK.
There never was. If there were a genuine "natural" crisis, the behavior of governments and firms would be very different. There wouldn't be this dance where the rulers figure out what they can get away with - it would be no bullshit, "you are on a ration of so much stuff until further notice" situation. That's what happened when there was a genuine oil crisis in the 70s - people had to line up and only received so much gas at the pump, and there were long lines. That crisis, I should remind you, was never natural, but entirely political, but there was still a situation where the gas ration was imposed. It was one of the first shocks to tell Americans that their own illusions about a free country were going away.
This new shit is a bunch of middle class shitwads cackling to themselves about how they can make everyone else miserable, and telling us poors to internalize their shitty behavior. None of it is honest, and none of it is towards any goal except making people suffer. I can think of so many things that would be axed if any of this were a serious concern, like not giving huge concessions to companies for making chocolates and making far more effective use of water supplies. But, the powers that be don't see the water shortage as a real one, but a political one. The whole point is to defend the concessions offered to PorkyCorp and tell the common people that they are not allowed to have any water, so that their standard of living drops even further. But hey, there's lots and lots of chocolates! Yay capitalism! This was not a problem until neoliberals saw they had ground down the people into accepting literally anything, and that's what the current heist is about - taking what wasn't taken back in 2008. It's a giant scam and you're an enabler.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:21:11 No. 689272
Eugene, do you believe climate change exists?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:21:23 No. 689273
Tell it to this guy
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:28:16 No. 689279
Question: have any males on here gotten the snip? (MtF transition doesn’t count.)
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:30:41 No. 689286
>>689141 >neolibs are now sterilizing themselves
Why are we opposed to this exactly?
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:32:18 No. 689289
do you not remember being young?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:33:18 No. 689292
If only I could forcibly sterilise Haz and co. With a chainsaw.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:35:18 No. 689294
As opposed to what, misanthropizing it?
Go jump off a bridge, then.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:36:17 No. 689297
I'm 100% certain either Maupin has had one done or he's completely asexual.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:37:23 No. 689298
I feel like Maupin is just completely disgusted by sex, he doesn't want to think about SLIME and other disgusting bodily fluids
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:39:09 No. 689301
I think it's bloody weird how he makes a huge deal about birth control being a eugenics conspiracy (as if women have zero agency) yet he has no children, not even step children.
Then again, he seems to have a very, very low view of women in general.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:42:53 No. 689304
I'd say he just has a very low opinion of human beings in general, I mean why procreate when we're all disgusting sinful beings that carry Adam and Eves shame in our souls?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:07:39 No. 689324
>>689301 >yet he has no children, not even step children.
Because when you're involved in the shit he does (working for the state news service of an "enemy" country) you don't want kids. Not only do kids get in the way of your work, but they're also a huge liability when the feds show up.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:09:47 No. 689326
I don't think he has a low view of women at all. Where do you get that impression from? Dude's married, has videos bashing incels, etc.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:20:29 No. 689331
So it's okay for him to not have kids but he's gone judge everyone else for doing the same? What a load of shit, 'family values' freaks truly never change.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:36:34 No. 689339
Most misogynists are married.
Ask yourself why he's always pushing the idea that birth control is a conspiracy theory and that "real socialists" want people to have unlimited numbers of kids (see:
). Does he not believe women have a sexuality, or want to have the ability to have sex freely without worrying about unwanted pregnancies?
Why does he bash single motherhood as being a problem?
Why does he push the idea that the patriarchal family should be promoted under socialism because it acts as a "stabilizing" force?
Why are there more transwomen in CPI than cis women? I'm not a TERF of course but this fact is kind of telling.
His views on women and feminist issues are so fucking backwards it's not even funny.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:41:44 No. 689344
I think the problem is his position is a relatively unique one. From what I understand, he isn't advocating that others in similarly unique or compromised positions ought to have children; simply that the majority of people, who are well-adjusted enough, i.e. those who are 'abled' can and should.
Oh, so you're coming at it from the uniquely American, and in some parts European, perspective. Well, I think with that in mind unfortunately we simply won't agree.
You and those on similar ends of the ideological aisle have this tendency of perceiving all pro-natalism, all pro-family sentiments as 'repressively patriarchal' etc. It's just stock white, liberationist feminism. For the majority of the world outside of your perspective, both historically and presently, however, there is nothing inherently misogynistic, either in content or connotation, about these positions. Likewise, one does not need to be a card-carrying feminist to avoid being misogynistic; such a standard of qualification is ironically only held by feminists intent on foreclosing the discourse.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:44:52 No. 689346
I should add, you may not be white or American yourself. But you do hold onto their perspective(s).
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:48:41 No. 689348
You don't "fight" anything. You just want to argue and to discuss on the internet. If I were a god, descended from the heavens, and I could show you that simply by going outside and vandalising your neighbour's car you'd set off a chain of causal events that would end the apparent "Malthusian mindset" you would not do it. You would reject it. You may consciously imagine the revelation is a hallucination, you may unconsciously go back to something more exciting on the internet, but you would never take action, even relatively trivial action.
That paranoia about "Malthusians" is just reheated LaRouchite vomit projected onto the infinite noise generator of the internet is almost irrelevant when compared to this. There is no action. There is scarcely even discussion of hypothetical action against the imagined enemy, because the real point is to have an internet fight. To generate more random noise that others may then imagine to be signal and use as a prompt for future internet fights.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:52:36 No. 689350
Yes, it was fucking awful. Children are pricks. The worst part of becoming an adult was realising they don't stop.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:54:19 No. 689352
>>689344 >>689346 >You and those on similar ends of the ideological aisle have this tendency of perceiving all pro-natalism, all pro-family sentiments as 'repressively patriarchal' etc. It's just stock white, liberationist feminism.
Caleb is an American working in a distinctly American context. Why do feminist movements outside of America mean anything to his praxis? He's working for American women, not Peruvian or Nicaraguan women.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 04:55:33 No. 689354
>>689352 >Caleb is an American 'working' in a distinctly American context
oh, we can fucking tell
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:00:10 No. 689358
He and his dudes actually do fieldwork, as big of clowns as they are.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:02:08 No. 689361
>>689348 >There is no action. There is scarcely even discussion of hypothetical action against the imagined enemy, because the real point is to have an internet fight. To generate more random noise that others may then imagine to be signal and use as a prompt for future internet fights.
Makes perfect sense when you realize LaRoucheites were always some of the biggest glowies.
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:15:55 No. 689370
>>689350 >Children are pricks
Only if adults raise them this way. We come into the world with an innocence. Children are often much more caring to one another than adults.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:16:14 No. 689371
Yes and I remember young kids being huge assholes.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:17:07 No. 689372
Rosa-killer being extremely based again.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:32:18 No. 689378
Ah ok, so we'll send them into the woods to raise themselves.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:33:47 No. 689380
Right, but my point is that the perspective he's advocating for isn't uncommon in terms of its precedence, and, as such, isn't tied to misogyny inherently.
He isn't going to try and appeal to American feminists, precisely because they have this unique issue with the concept of family. He IS going to try and appeal to Americans at large, however, and in doing so, he isn't deriving a misogynistic basis, but rather, one which is common throughout the world.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:36:48 No. 689382
>>689380 >He IS going to try and appeal to Americans at large,
What makes you think all Americans desire a patriarchal family structure?
Rather than reaching out to the "broad masses of Americans" Maupin is only interested in appealing to reactionary Middle American types, to the point where his entire socialist program is centered around Joe from rural Indiana.
The nuclear family structure that Caleb loves so much is dying out. Single parenthood has become the new norm. Less and less Americans are going to church. Why build your entire socialist program on something this outdated?
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:56:34 No. 689390
no just don't be bad parents in a capitalist society.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 05:57:46 No. 689391
Single parenthood, is, for one thing, still not the norm, and for another, if were to manifest as the new norm, then this wouldn't be reflective of people whimsically desiring that status. Single parenthood is largely an indication of downwards economic mobility; when it comes to the actual experience, it is generally not something romanticized, and is usually reflective of destitution. That people are 'free' to abandon their relationships when they have fallings-out doesn't make the consequences desirable, so much as unfortunately necessary, and hence, not really free regardless. Most single-parents hate their position.
Anyways, it's true that the caricaturized nuclear family is in decline, but again, this isn't something being idealistically lauded by people who aren't already feminists. To pretend that the norm is, by contrast, individualistic feminism, is very divorced from the majority attitude still maintained by most Americans. True, most people don't desire the exact rigidity of the 50's nuclear family, but the antonym to this isn't what's sought after either. The notion of a cohesive family in some capacity, as desirable, is still what predominantly reigns–the only difference now is that there is less rigidity in terms of the roles prescribed, i.e. that women can have careers and so on. As an aside, Caleb also isn't against women having careers. So, organically speaking, whichever factors may have disintegrated the 50's as it were (if not just time itself), don't translate into a radical sentiment of family-dissolution, the trajectory still retains the fundamental identity of the family, only as an increasingly modernized adaptation. That there may be some gulf (even in this growth, it is still not representative of the majority) between the materially measurable stability of the family unit vs. what people actually value isn't proof of hypocrisy so much as proof of strife.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:05:40 No. 689394
What a cheap comment to make. Parents usually can’t afford to be good parents even if they want to.
You are overly romanticizing childbearing like some mid 20s yuppie who isn’t even in a relationship.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:12:07 No. 689399
>>689230 >Children are just under developed humans who grow into monsters. Stop romanticising humanity.
except that by proper education and parenting they can grow into sufficient and beneficial-for-society adults. kill yourself with your take.
ngl but i would seriously watch you livestream yourself drinking molten fucking candlewax, fuckwad
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:12:43 No. 689401
>>689350 >Children are pricks
you will never be a good parent and your future is doomed to be a gloomy one
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:13:25 No. 689403
Fighting malthusianism is secondary to fighting capitalism
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:15:00 No. 689404
i'm early 20s, not a "yuppie", and in a relationship. what do you mean afford? there's a reason i said we have to leave capitalism to have good childhoods created.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:15:08 No. 689405 >>689188 >birth control is socialist
fuck you, liberal
birth control is entirely capitalist
they want lesser workforce and lesser shit so that they can satisfy their greed
infighting again? ah come on
King Lear 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:16:56 No. 689406
Why do people take Caleb Maupin and his Schizo rants seriously? He is literally a deranged Fascist of the Dengist/Duginist variety who disguises himself as a “Socialist with American Characteristics”, LOL. His supporters overlap more with the faux “Anti-Imperialist” MAGAtards who endorse a Orientalist version of Qanon (ie. the “Eurasianist”
Sinophiles at the “Unz Review”, “Moon of Alabama”, and “the Saker”) then they do with authentic Socialists. This is one of the many reasons why people must reject all forms of Crypto-Fascist Revisionism and embrace the highest stage of Marxism that is currently waging Armed Revolution in the 21st century, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:17:08 No. 689407
Malthusianism IS capitalism
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:18:05 No. 689408
It's really not, capitalism was the most successful system at making more humans.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:18:26 No. 689409
Pressing X to doubt. Your perceptions of childcare is too saccharine to be attributed to simple naivety.
Rear children or be natalist all you want, just don’t lie to yourself and others that children are mini-angels.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:19:15 No. 689410
Ending Malthusianism would end capitalism? I think the other way around because I'm not an idealist
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:19:46 No. 689411
dog you talk like an inverse haz
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:20:54 No. 689412
He's right though. Maupin is one crazy burger
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:21:07 No. 689414
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:22:21 No. 689415
Oh no. Phoneposting has limited your ability to form complex coherent thoughts.
Otherwise you'd be able to theorize that competing coalitions of porkies have different interests, and therefore a more complex relationship with population dynamics.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:23:44 No. 689416
>>689414 >technology is an objective category existing outside of the relations of production
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:52:06 No. 689425
many are, i don't understand what you all have alluded to.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:56:24 No. 689426
>>689183 >crashing sperm counts in males
Only because of chemicals in the water.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 07:01:21 No. 689429
Deranged fascist misanthropy.
Anyone complaining about overpopulation can do the world a favor and off themselves at any time.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 07:02:25 No. 689430
That's fine. The world is burning, we need to ration. Scale down this and conserve that and individually compensate for the capitalist mode of production's voracity and wastefulness. Sure. Fine.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 07:33:44 No. 689437
>>689171 >11 minute read
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:38:39 No. 689490
But that doesn't mean that birth control is inherently socialist. Sure, if porkies want more people so that they can exploit more workforce is a valid argument, then so is the inverse…
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:42:50 No. 689491
Birth control is healthcare, everyone deserves healthcare, that's pretty basic socialism stuff
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:46:05 No. 689497
I literally didn’t read
All I need from you is to die screaming
Now go back to the mental ward they rightfully locked you up in
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:47:55 No. 689498
Can I ask you something?
Do you genuinely think if capitalism were to go production would continue to be massively scaled up alongside waste? Why? If you genuinely think we wouldn’t need to go on to actually tackle our problems you’re as cynical as the porkies you pretend to hate.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 10:01:36 No. 689508
Don't bother trying to argue with productivists, it's a black hole of madness
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 10:08:51 No. 689511
But I thought communism was characterized by the immense accumulation of commodities?! I must have misread something…
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 10:18:07 No. 689514
too low tbh, I'm thinking the human population will be less than a billion before the end of the century just due to climate impacts
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 10:20:24 No. 689516
I think it might drop a few billion by 2200, I just didn’t want to sound alarmist to the point of being unbelievable
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 10:31:13 No. 689522
eh, you only need the temperature to increase just slightly and suddenly the food is gone and the power is out
personally I'm betting we go nuclear before the end over resources
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:32:01 No. 689535
Is abortion also capitalist?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:32:57 No. 689536
I think those problems may be hard to tackle inside of capitalism without concessions. Climate change, """overpopulation""" , disease , pollution, environmental problems should not be a priority over socialism but a reason to hasten towards it.
The people like the OP seem to hold all these calamities over the workers and demand concessions in the name of capital. Consume this instead of that, tighten your belts. Adopt the trend of "eco-" this and "eco-"that. Spend more or that because it's better for the environment. Vote them, not the other one, the lesser evil or we are all fucked by climate change.
Begging that for once they put aside the profit motive and take preventive measures strikes me as the truly defeatist position. As well as putting emphasis on individualist measures, like it's the consumer's fault, responsibility or even musing the consumer has the capability of having an impact on mitigating these impending disasters. The owners make all the important choices.
No. I'm doing whatever the fuck I want, consuming whatever the fuck I want and being as eco-unfriendly as I want. So stop having children if you fancy, I may not be breeding but I'll very well make up for whatever measure of eco-firendliness you achieve by your lifestyle choices with my completely irresponsible consumption. And you can do nothing to stop me.
For every chastisement and privation and conscientious choice in consumption there will be (more than)one of me to undo it.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:34:33 No. 689537
>>689176 >Human beings are a cancer on this planet.
Western Capitalists are a cancer on this planet, stop blaming everyone for a problem a minority creates
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:37:11 No. 689538
What a shithead. Obviously capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction but that doesn't mean you have to drive a Hummer just as a 'fuck you' to everyone else.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:43:20 No. 689540
I didn’t read past the first few words
Please get your heart attack and just die, obese burgershart
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 11:44:46 No. 689541
And what about obese burger subhumans like
Are they not also cancer cells shaped like “humans”?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:01:46 No. 689556
At the end of the day your choices of an electric or hybrid car or fuel types are dwarfed by the owners of those industries not deciding to inves on those technologies decades ago. And because of this , it's a false choice. You will drive gas when they profit from killing for gas and you will drive electric when they profit more from killing for minerals.
And it truly doesn't matter if they phase out cars in cities or reform cattle farming because you have no input on it. The best you can do if be an extra profitable consumer, a good conscientous vooter and pat yourself on the back.
And look the other way when I leave the tractor running and one gas tank later, your lifestlye carbon footprint reductions have been for nothing.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:04:15 No. 689561
I get your burgershart consooooooomer mindset (alongside all that burger grease undoubtedly) is really fucking with your ability to….think
But why exactly are you, in one breath, ranting about how the real problem is porky, and in the next breath ranting about how you fully intend, through your actions, to undo any beneficial actions another person tries to take?
Maybe you Americans are just a race of subhuman orc-like creatures and should be driven into cave and nuked? Would that be the solution?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:08:03 No. 689568
not that that isn't funny but you are a lard yourself.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:09:39 No. 689571
And my repentance will be to get nuked in the cave alongside the other orcs
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:20:06 No. 689579
>>689561 >you fully intend, through your actions, to undo any beneficial actions another person tries to take?
What good are those choices if they can be unmade so easily?
Woops I delayed replacing the exhaust, I guess someone else's consumer environmentalism was for nothing again.
Is that how environmental problems are to be solved, with good will and everyone except capitalists pinky promising to do their part and spend their wages in the least harmful choices provided by Porky?
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:26:38 No. 689584
The American flavor of the great replacement narrative is so dead in the water after Hispanic birth rates collapsed hard that it's not even funny. It's more worth speaking about ideological and religious birth rates at this point. Mormons and Haredim have a lotta babbies.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:31:27 No. 689591
Well I'm only one person and you're only one person so of course anything I do you could cancel out. What do you expect?
It's stupid to just say 'well the capitalists are the problem, I don't have to do anything' because neither of us have the power to overthrow the capitalists, so shouldn't we do what we can do?
I don't want to totally endorse the other poster just shitting on Americlaps but you do have a very nihilistic 'ugly American' attitude.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:33:17 No. 689594
Yeah, no. NTA, but our individual actions are meaningless compared to the people who are driving most of climate change, and saying that we have no power to do a heckin’ revolution glows like chernobyl puppy shit
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:38:37 No. 689598
Funny how you solely lay the blame at porky while being extremely pro-productivism yourself and also while consooming and wasting more than an entire indian village as a single individual
I know it’s extremely easy to just blame everything on porky but when you plan on being exactly like them why bother with that cope?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:38:59 No. 689599
Oh fuck off, you know what I mean, you can recycle your glass bottles tomorrow, you can't do a revolution tomorrow.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:40:36 No. 689602
I guarantee you this nigha will turn around and say actually you can and then if this conversation continues any longer someone (other than eugenics retard who thankfully fucked off) will claim that the study of ecology is actually fascist because something something beef tastes good and Hitler liked dogs
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:12:10 No. 689615
The consumption rate that will go up as the Indians develop further (which, I would argue is unlikely without a DotP)? Stilk doesn’t change the fact that wasteful industrial practices for profit-seeking are the main cause and the most effective solution
No, the revolution won’t happen tomorrow but this whole individual choices thing is a distraction that doesn’t address the root cause of the problem.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:42:35 No. 689624
Is being an oblivious retard a requirement for being a socialist? Explains why I grew out of socialism.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:45:32 No. 689625
Maupin is spot on with this take
>Am I the only one who unironically thinks it's going to be so beautiful after the revolution when we have all those children?
Depending how things turn out, and how bad the situation gets before a revolution happens, the post-revolution period might be hard times. The capitalists might have done damage on their way out. However people living through difficult times after revolution often feel happy and fulfilled, because their future is full of possibility, and that makes it a good time to have children.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:48:47 No. 689628
not based, but i'm glad you exist because it advances my agenda.
having such people around is good because they help to frame the problem correctly: don't go around saying "please don't drive a hummer", make it so nobody wants to drive a hummer, if not impossible for people to drive a hummer.
there is a big distinction out there in environmentalism, animal-rights thinking, etc, between a theological view that values the individual's choice to take salvation and a ruthless central planner's view which values only outcomes. one, a worldview which subtly desires that "the wrong choices" exist because it's necessary to have sin as god's test, another a worldview which wishes only to eliminate sin - with free choice a trivial price to pay in achieving that end. i, naturally, align myself with the latter on all matters of consumption. man cannot live by 15 varieties of bread alone.
the deeply funny thing is that much of the anger from those who fear their consumption choices being restricted is aimed at the former because they're more numerous, even though they have no hope of effecting change. >>689561
the beneficial actions one person tries to take are not beneficial at all on the aggregate level. they merely feel beneficial.
imagine you are living next to a lake which is being pumped dry for business use. resolving to drink less water, even if your house's water supply also comes from that lake, will do nothing whatsoever to help. your contribution will be entirely wiped out by statistical noise. if you want to drink less water for it's own sake (stupid, you should be drinking MORE water. everyone forgets to drink enough.) then that's great, but when you tell yourself you're helping with the major issue - and worse, when you dedicate what's left of your energies to trying to get others to also drink less water - you miss the real answer to how to save the lake: the business must be cast into the fire.
the issue with "do what we can do" is that you can't do anything. A terrible, terrible truth.
("do something" is also sadly an impulse which can abuse man's love of
. The waste management hierarchy is "reduce, reuse, recycle" for a reason, but reducing is a non-action and recycling is an action, so of course every coke bottle is recyclable - madness to drink it from a cup, insanity to drink it from a reusable bottle.
debates about the exact economic efficiency of the latter aside.
this is the difficulty with these conversations: they are signalling mayhem. if you don't like individualist-environmentalism, it can be read as a sign that you don't like environmentalism, and if you do like environmentalism it can be read as a sign that you like individualist-environmentalism. there's always a shorthand, a shibboleth, and we're always looking out for them.
these discussions are always hypotheticals, argument for argument's sake or discussion for discussion's sake - whoever wins the world remains the same. with that in mind, there's an irony to it because the 'middle way' aligns very well with the stereotype of soviet socialism.
but then, plenty of people want to signal that they're not going to implode like the USSR did either, and those who don't deeply resent that they can't play the Stalin role of rapid industrialization man.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:50:58 No. 689630
>>689625 >"Might" have done damage
You people are delusional, we're facing the worst extinction event in 66 million years and you faggots are burrowing further and further into your own assholes about muh cute little babies in Communist 2055 🤣
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:53:34 No. 689633
careful, they are gonna call you an alarmist
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:07:22 No. 689646
>>689141 >>689149 >Okay but, the world is actually getting worse,
For labour aristocrats in the 1st world sure
But the East is rising and life is far more optimistic there which is why China is the most optimistic country on the planet
>>689171 >Daily reminder the old IWW, Emma Goldman, and William Z. Foster all advocated the birth strike.
Emma Goldman was an exceptional retard
When communists in Russia emerged from 4 years of World war, 2 years of civil war that tore Russia apart, forced to sign the most punitive border arrangements ever in Russias history (thanks to Trotsky at Brest-litov) then a famine in 1920
Emma Goldman visits Russia and writes "There Is No Communism in Russia"
I mean how fucking braindead retarded do you have to be?
Bill Haywoods response was beautiful in
The only saving grave of the opportunist rat Goldman was that she became quickly aware how the bourgeois media were using her article to enact anticommunism so she refused to do interviews or comment further
So let's be real if Goldman advocated a birth strike it's because she was a retard who did the anticommunists work for them
The only surprising thing is William Z Foster advocating for it. But then with such an incredible body of work it's not surprising he'd fuck up at least something
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:10:01 No. 689647
Reminder the every single individual outside of China could fucking die and Dengoids would be pleased as pie
In fact, almost everyone within China could also die and dengoids would be happy so long as the CPC continues to exist
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:15:51 No. 689655
This doesn’t address any of the points that anon made but pivots into impotent seething about le dengoids.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:23:33 No. 689669
>>689649 >reddit tier
No it isn't. People are feeling depressed because the weight of a ruling class is pressing down on them, it's got nothing to do with environmental problems, those are all easy fixes once the weight of class society has been lifted. Once we can divert all the resources the ruling classes are wasting on their super luxury, their wars and their domination schemes, towards climate change, shit will get fixed quick.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:28:50 No. 689675
Also forgot to mention Goldmans touring of Russia in the ruins of world war and civil war when communists have only just smashed the State and are trying to build a proletarian State
-sanctioned by every major capitalist country in the world
-no one even recognising the Soviet government so completely locked out of trade (US didn't recognise Soviet Union until 1933)
>>689647 >Reminder the every single individual outside of China could fucking die
Not just China. The entire of Eurasia is rising (and along with it Africa due to China which is the vast, vast majority of humanity).
Life is getting better for them everyday
> Dengoids would be pleased as pie
Not a dengoid. I welcome the rise of China whether capitalist or socialist and my opinion on China being capitalist or socialist is irrelevant anyway
>In fact, almost everyone within China could also die and dengoids would be happy so long as the CPC continues to exist
For the record I think China is capitalist…But meh I don't care.
Eurasia is rising (vast majority of humanity)
So you can cope and seethe, cut your dicks off, talk about malthusianism and other mentally ill behaviour
At this point it's like asking a cows opinion on population growth.
Kim Il Sung made the point in his excellent The Historical Lessons of Building Socialism in his analysis of why the Socialist world suffered such a horrendous setback in 1991
<The cultural revolution is aimed at liberating the people from the fetters of outmoded culture and developing a socialist culture which serves the people so that all the people can lead a modern,socialist life. In a society of exploitation the popular masses are not provided with adequate conditions and possibilities for the rapid development of culture. This has meant that their cultural level has remained generally low. The reactionary bourgeois culture which the privileged minority uses for exploiting and subordinating the working masses and for their own decadent purposes is as harmful as drugs. It eats away at the mentality of the people and prevents them from enjoying a healthy, modern life. To eliminate the remnants of the outmoded culture which have existed for many years in the life and customs of the people and to develop a fresh culture along socialist lines are a fight over fundamental principles between capitalism and socialism. <Only when the revolution continues in the field of culture after the establishment of the socialist system can we liberate the people from their cultural backwardness and from the fetters of inhuman, outmoded culture and ensure that they possess great creative ability and enjoy the advantages of a genuine socialist, modern life. Developing socialist culture constitutes an important condition for preventing ideological and cultural poisoning by the imperialists. In invading and dominating other countries, the imperialists resort to the strategy of spreading their reactionary bourgeois culture in order to destroy the local national culture and paralyze the spirit of national independence and revolutionary ardour of the local people. When socialist culture is brought into full bloom and when the people enjoy a modern socialist way of life, with the socialist culture
overpowering the capitalist culture, the people will be free from the false idealization of the corrupt bourgeois culture and the imperialists’ ideological and cultural poisoning will fail.
The ideology of all societies is dominated by the ruling class of that society
It is no surprise therefore that the culture in the degenerate West is permeated with an absolutely vile culture where Malthusianism flourishes (because for the imperialists they are correct - they have no future)
The rest of us will be building socialism
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:29:09 No. 689676
>>689669 >it's got nothing to do with environmental problems >those are all easy fixes >shit will get fixed quick
lmao you're a funny clown
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:38:06 No. 689690
>>689647 >Reminder the every single individual outside of China could fucking die and Dengoids would be pleased as pie In fact, almost everyone within China could also die and dengoids would be happy so long as the CPC continues to exist
Ideological struggle with Malthusians is that they are ruling class members or their henchmen, that push the line that the masses are the source of our problems, that the masses must suffer, and that the suffering is an immutable fact of life. The CPC is doing the opposite they are broadcasting that the problems can be fixed and that the mission is to create a world where everybody can have a nice life. Of course people will find hope if a hyper-powerful institution like the CPC says that, especially because they are known for having a line of "realistic and tempered expectations".
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:40:21 No. 689694
Sorry maupinoid, I will literally never read an argument that starts with "malthusians"
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:41:16 No. 689696
>>689675 >Believes China is a capitalist state <Still aggressively pro-China
Even lower than a dengoid, opinion discarded
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 15:32:39 No. 689769
>>689171 >Daily reminder the old IWW, Emma Goldman, and William Z. Foster all advocated the birth strike.
>The agenda was to have working-class women drastically reduce the number of births via contraception and abortion. The lower birthrates would dry up the pool of labor, which would then ensure imminent crisis for capitalism and imperialism. This applied the syndicalist call for a massive general strike to the realm of childbearing.
>Tragically, through promotion of contraception and abortion as tools of revolt, the syndicalists greatly succeeded in reducing the French urban birthrate by the 1910s to the point where new births were almost equal to the number of deaths.
>In this view, the sanctity of human life became reduced to an economic factor, the natural outcome of the socialist materialistic philosophy. In the best tradition of the anarchist mentality there is no indication of morality, just recipe for mass destruction.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:31:37 No. 689941
Someone whose ideology literally proclaims to kill 7 billion plus humans and tells us to die of easily preventable disease and famine afterwards is calling me crazy. The sad thing is, this is the standard for sanity in this cursed world.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:36:30 No. 689946
Predicting a future based on current trends and geological evidence =/= thinking this future is good
I think this future is a nightmare, but just because it sucks doesn’t mean it isn’t real
Have you been taking your clozapine lately?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:45:23 No. 689951
I fucking hate Caleb and what he's doing, but the bad faith attacks against his position are such screaming strawmen that it hurts the cause (and serves to keep a fake debate going on in left circles, or at least in the fed-infested CPUSA). Criticizing Malthusianism does not make someone a white nationalist or Duginist or whatever other faggotry the bad faith arguments are presenting. Caleb presents his anti-eugenics in bad faith, in a way that steers people back into a eugenicist thought process, but it isn't white nationalist by any reasonable definition of white nationalism. Eco-tards cannot comprehend a meaningful argument against eugenics, because such a thing is completely inadmissible in their world-system and they want to keep it that way (and shout down anyone who does present the real history of eugenics and why it must be fought). Maupin offers a false answer by claiming it is just the fault of recent nefarious actors, and then promising he'll totes fix it while actually misdirecting from any meaningful site from which eugenics is practiced. That's why Maupin does the Chinese billionaires thing (aside from being paid to do it by RT); he keeps the frame of the discussion within this ecological view that communism is impossible without superabundance, but the conditions of abundance were reached long ago. The current system has to find ways to burn excess production just to keep it out of the hands of proles, and has to be very creative at doing so, even in the current arrangement where capitalists loathe to engage in any productive enterprise. It just goes to show how many of the problems facing society are trivial to solve, if the question was merely one of arranging productive labor and natural constraints. The "natural limit" of human population is somewhere in the hundreds of billions with just current technology. You'd have to build a whole lot of new cities and make use of more farmland, but the limits to population are far more political than anything else.
People here still want to rescue this belief that capitalists want population growth, when capitalism has been antagonistic to the number of workers increasing. Capitalism by its nature is intensely competitive, king-of-the-mountain type thinking about human society. It doesn't even want there to be more capitalists, as the conditions tend towards monopoly and dispossession of those in the middle. When Marx envisioned a society divided starkly between bourgeoisie and proletariat, he wasn't imagining a world where the former were all petty shopkeepers much as the bourgeois was in his time. The bourgeois would have been, in line with the tendencies Marx believed to exist in capitalism, united in a large monopoly or oligarchy. The elimination of the middle class would mean outright corporate rule, with the corporation effectively being both state and king. It had been well understood that democratic republicanism was premised on a significant middle class that had a real stake in not being ruled by such a corporation. The fascist strategy was to co-opt that middle class by a number of creative strategies, offering them an ideology and world-system that spoke to the basest instincts of the middle class and told them to sacrifice the weak to get ahead.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:45:27 No. 689952
m8 after reading your blog, I can make a lot more sense of your terminology, but a lot of people here still don't know shit what you are trying to say and are still the same fuckwits as ever. Try a bit more how should I say "marxist" language so the kids understand what you are saying. I can guarantee you that most people here don't know what you mean by "technocracy" and "ecology"
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:47:00 No. 689956
>>689946 >Have you been taking your clozapine lately? >ad-hominem
You don't actually have an argument, do you?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:48:13 No. 689958
No I don’t have an argument when someone attaches onto me a belief I don’t actually hold
Recognizing the threat of climate change =/= advocating the effects of it, that sort of claim is so fucking retarded it hurts
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:50:55 No. 689961
>>689497 >I literally didn’t read
You wouldn't have an argument anyway
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:56:02 No. 689967
What's your twitter?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:56:04 No. 689968
I don't think there is a Marxist equivalent to "technocracy" in the sense I am describing. I would think its meaning could be inferred if someone understood history. The best term that has some mainstream currency, and perhaps a better descriptor, would be "scientific dictatorship", although it is not strictly necessary that the institutions of science have to constitute a legal dictatorship, or what amounts to such (and after 1947, the US was what amounted to a scientific dictatorship, with the thought leaders of the time campaigning vigorously against an "excess of democracy" and creating many of the technocratic tropes we know).
Ecology is pretty easy to get, since it derives from the same root as economy and concerns a similar subject matter. This view that ecology was "apolitical" never made sense - from the moment ecology enters the lexicon, this concept was politically very important, as this was the same time eugenics movements were rising and popularized. Eugenics couldn't make sense unless the ecosystem in which a population operates is totally controlled, and in doing so, the population itself is totally controlled. There's no form of eugenics which could abide the race escaping the purview of eugenicist institutions, because that would invalidate the very concept of "race betterment". Even if this eugenics was only applied to the elite for themselves, it would still require a conspiracy of elites to go along with it, and such a conspiracy on its own would not mean anything. Elites have always selectively bred and seen their marriages as political, yet for all of their eugenics, they haven't demonstrated any significant merit, and have to terrorize and degrade the common people just to appear as if the eugenicist theory is true. We would all be better off if the predatory eugenicist institutions were not making our daily lives miserable, but if that happened, the mystique of elitism would crumble, because the elite - even in our time - are visibly weak and depraved.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:58:32 No. 689969
You are literally an anprim. You gave away the game right there, in that you already conceived in your mind a lifestyle of deliberate population reduction. (This, again, is primarily a political decision rather than a "natural" one, and like all primitivists you misunderstand what technology even is. You buy into the mystique of technology, when in reality all of our advanced technology is far less removed from the past than the myth requires us to believe.)
Yet again the anarchists are flagrantly dishonest. It is a defining feature of their stupid ideology, after all.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:59:43 No. 689972
Eugene basically never has anything really to say, just a very circular long winded rant about how climate change is too scary to be real, Nazi Germany had scientists, and liberals did eugenics before. He never has an actual counter to the scientific studies conducted regarding climate change nor our data regarding past climate change effects, he doesn’t even have any real counters regarding the extreme weather events we’re seeing now in this century aside from ranting about how the scientists are simply fascists. He even argues or at least did before that capitalism effectively does not exist and the actions of the ruling class are reducible to them believing in genocide above all other things, honestly it isn’t much different from radlibs arguing that America’s actions are reducible to racism before anything else.
Now, I get teenage leftists get very impressed by long strings of text and are easily manipulable if you frame all of your opponents as Nazis, but it isn’t especially persuasive to me
You don’t need to read someone’s long winded verbal diarrhea to know they have nothing of value to say, the main reason Eugene writes walls of texts is so no one actually reads it
And needless to say, I’m pretty sure he’s admitted he has been institutionalized before, so the things he says are indeed highly suspect
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:00:03 No. 689973
I’m literally not an anprim you schizophrenic moron
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:00:40 No. 689974
>>689968 >Ecology is pretty easy to get, since it derives from the same root as economy and concerns a similar subject matter
Yeah, I get your point, but most tards on here will think about study of nature and saving the environement when you talk ecology. So you being against "ecology" makes you look like a standard schizo for the standard "marxist" on this board. Tbh there is a lot of build-up for your theories and most dipshits don't even read your posts. You expect them to read your blog?
>>689969 >You are literally an anprim
Na, he said he is an eco-socialist, but they ran out of flags so he chose this
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:01:32 No. 689976
I mean, Eugene is literally a fuckin oil shill who was probably gone for weeks because he was stuck in the psych ward again, or was doing his meds, idky anyone is still influenced by his shit
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:04:21 No. 689978
>>689972 >You don’t need to read someone’s long winded verbal diarrhea to know they have nothing of value to say, the main reason Eugene writes walls of texts is so no one actually reads it
Oh, that's weak. You're supposed to be one of the better posters on this site even. What does someone have to fulfill to be taken serious by you?
>And needless to say, I’m pretty sure he’s admitted he has been institutionalized before, so the things he says are indeed
This doesn't mean shit nowaday, unless you accept bourgeois narratives about "mental health", but it is true that socialists have a hard time incorporating disabled folk, I'll give you that
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:05:37 No. 689980
Ecology is the study of how organisms interact with their environment, that’s about it
This may be a stunning revelation to Eugene, but humans actually are organisms on this Earth as well, not special spirits inhabiting the dirty mortal plane or whatever the fuck, so obviously you can study how human societies interact with the environment as well
Since Eugene is also, idk, ignorant about how human technologies work, and how agriculture works, and that organisms actually are reliant on the Earth and “human willpower” isn’t what creates the things we need, even discussing things like the ecological crisis are fascist
He’s just a worthless literal oil shill which is why I ignore him
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:07:36 No. 689982
have never seen a eugenics-kun post under 280 sentences, let alone characters.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:10:35 No. 689984
>>689978 > What does someone have to fulfill to be taken serious by you?
A better argument than calling everyone that disagrees with you or even studies subjects you don’t understand “fascists” would be a good start. Maybe a bit of intellectual honesty and he would get respect in return. Unfortunately all he ever clings to is ranting about how we “just don’t understand” and actually we all secretly adhere to “eugenics” as well.
I have to ask, are you just easily influenced? I stopped reading Eugene’s long posts and stopped making long replies to them because I saw that he never said anything insightful or particularly new. It’s always just calling his opponents and all of modern scientific research fascism, it’s very weak shit
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:21:35 No. 690000
>>689984 >I have to ask, are you just easily influenced?
Probably yes, if I make no pretenses with myself, but that's not the issue here. I reacted the same way as you with eugenes posts.
They were gibberish with little coherence and everybody was an eugenicist and fascist. He shilled his blog and after I insulted him for being a cocksucker, he said I can't criticize if I don't read his shit, which I did in the end.
The thing is, that it's mostly not that bad and actually offers some insights. I study environmental engineering(probably more like MechEng but that's the name anyway) and I obviously don't agree with his stances regarding "ecology" as psyop to destroy the left, but I see where he is coming from now.
Since you are a reasonable poster and I see you acting the same way I did when I saw his nametag, I just advise you to read some of his stuff, because there is this thing, even on /leftypol/, where you can agree with some takes and disagree with others.
Also the board is pretty shit right now and you can't disagree when I say that he is better than the amount of absolute brainlet threads we have right now, right?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:22:05 No. 690002
I'm literally forecasting the end of the world because of stupid political ideologies, because that is precisely what is happening now and the death has already started. How I am too scared to "admit climate change"? Literally it's just you and idiots who actually believe in the climate boogaloo nonsense at this point. You do know most people just said whatever and mumbled assent to pass science class? They try super hard to impose on history this belief in ecological catastrophe that has never really happened, and they maintain this artificial idea that ecology is apolitical and that the social forms are always the most perfect possible forms (straight from Malthus, his theory requires accepting that the social arrangements cannot be improved upon and that this is just how it has to be, even when the social arrangements are grossly inadequate).
You have no recent evidence to suggest an "ecological" cause for any famine. The famines in Africa are primarily political and economic - simply put, subsistence farming cannot continue to compete and there isn't industrial work, so there is extreme unemployment and what little support system there is is being eviscerated, or wars are instigated. Go back in the past with the famines in communist countries and they were usually political in nature, and this process of industrialization was bloody in all the world that went through it. About the only exception to the trend was the American colonies / countries, and it must be remembered that for much of the 19th century, the American continents were a geopolitical afterthought and sparsely populated compared to the old world and really sparsely populated compared to Asia. In short, the mechanization of agriculture in the Americas coincided with independence, expansion, and mass immigration, in a part of the world where workers would do far better than their European counterparts. It was less possible to eviscerate agricultural populations by introducing the machine, and slave owners were not in the habit of exterminating their own human livestock so slaves were not displaced or made redundant by mechanization, the way agricultural workers were eliminated in Europe. If you're talking about agriculture at all, you cannot ignore the political realities of agriculture, before you start supposing a naturalistic cause. This can go back very far, where in Antiquity war, plague, and famine would repeatedly strike at the same time, because they came with each other and intensified the crisis of the year.
Well then, the difficulty is that people don't really think about what ecology means (or economy for that matter). That's going to be a stumbling block to understanding anything that is happening, not just my takes.
No, organisms interacting with an environment is not solely defined by "ecology". You can interact with environment objects without an "ecology" as such, and you would be dealing with the actual sciences concerning those interactions. Ecology by its nature is a catch-all for a whole lot of disciplines, just to make sense in the late 20th century. In reality, so much of ecology is a pseudo-science which purports to be some "master science" linking all the subordinate disciplines, but the Grand Ecologist knows pretty much nothing and makes bold claims about his subordinates' fields, which said subordinates will call bullshit on. But, because there is no other framework for intellectual integration of the world-system, the ecologists get to decide truth, basically acting as a priesthood of science rather than doing any actual science. Take, for example, the infamous Club of Rome computer simulation from 1970. The assumptions built into that model were asinine, but no one in 1970 has home computers so the ecological experts just say "trust us bro, we're the bestest scientists". Then their model goes tits up because it was based on ridiculous assumptions, and lets be real, computers in 1970 aren't good for much and there aren't that many quality programmers that would untangle in full what the model is saying. Then those programmers would be tasked with actually understanding the things they are modeling, and the cyberneticist was likely just told by the lower specialist what formula the program should run. The whole Club of Rome simulation is so asinine that it's a wonder that model is still brought out. But, it enshrines elitist myths about the social system and the infalliability of institutions. I got an idea earlier today, before jumping back in this thread, about doing a mini-podcast on this tendency to believe institutions are infalliable, and why that is built into eugenism but not technocracy necessarily. Technocrats are aware their institutions can be broken and have mal-adaptive tendencies, with dystopias being extreme examples of what can go wrong.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:26:00 No. 690005
I thought they banned your ass. Did they lift it again?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:30:54 No. 690011
I never said "ecology is a psyop to destroy the left". Ecology is older than the modern left, and the modern left pretty well destroyed itself as a coherent force for more reasons than ecologism. What I described is this whole other movement taking the place of the left in full starting in the 1970s, when the left abandoned labor and labor abandoned the left. That was my Climategate episode. The ecologists weren't so much destroying the left from within, but replacing it entirely with a whole new construct. It was not like ecologist moles snuck into the communist parties (although there's so many feds in the socialist parties). Ecologism was in total an entirely different "left" framework, one designed for a time of anti-politics. It was aggressively displacing the memory of "statist" communism and the various revisionist forms of communism like Trotskyism (and if there are people who really hate ecologism, Trots are pretty high up there, because they see the ecologists claiming their turf as the "safe left"). The ecology parties aren't so much mistaken about what the left needs. They're charting a different course entirely, and are very aware of what they are doing - or at least the political leadership of these movements are aware. Presenting this ecologism as socialistic is a deliberate insult to labor and any mass movement that could be associated with the left as a faction. It's intended to be an insult, to tell the workers and the common people to get out, so the left can be the protest cage and a wasteland for the rejects of society, so that the losers of society are in their own special party where they always lose. It's so antipolitical it is mind-boggling that this is accepted, but one of the things we are taught is to hate and destroy ourselves, and if someone has no basis for comparison, they tend towards this self-destructive path.
Grillpilled Schizo 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:32:45 No. 690014
YOU FUCKING RETARD MONGOLOIDS ITT GIVING THIS IDIOTIC, POINTLESS, TIRING BOLLOCKS OF A "POLITICAL" ISSUE ALL NEED TO FACE THE FUCKING WALL
NO, MALTHISIANISM ISN'T HAPPENING BECAUSE SOME RETARD WROTE A CLICKBAIT ARTICLE ON FUCKING GUARDIAN NO, BIRTHSTRIKE IS NOT FUCKING PRAXIS BECAUSE ONLY COMPLETELY MENTALLY RETARDED PEOPLE LIKE (YOU) DECIDE THEIR RECREATION BASED ON POLITICS NO, THIS ISSUE IS NOT FUCKING WORTHY OF EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CONSIDERATION BECAUSE NONE OF YOU CAN DO FUCK ALL TO INFLUANCE IT INTO EITHER DIRECTION. EVEN THE FUCKING BOURGOISE CAN'T EVEN IF THEY WERE AS EVIL AND MACHIAVELIAN AS YOUR PARANOID, INTERNET ROTTEN LIMIN-HATTED MIND SUGGESTS BECAUSE ALL OF THIS SUPPOSED MALTHUSIAN PROPAGANDA IS JUST FUCKING ARTICLES DIRECTED AT IDIOTIC HYPER ONLINE LIBS WHO WILL NEVER FUCKING STAND AS A VANGUARD FOR ANY MOVEMENT, LEAST OF ALL FUCKING MALTHUSIANISM FUCK MAUPIN AND OTHER NEO LAROUCHITE MONGOLOIDS FOR DIGGING UP THIS RETARDATION OF A DISCUSSION FUCK YOU DIPSHIT ANTI-NATALIST ANONS AND YOUR RETARDED 100 YEAR OLF ARTICLES OF "BBBUT EMA AND FOSTER WERE PRO BIRTHSTRIKE BRO" FUCK YOU ALL FOR GIVING THIS TOPIC ANY FUCKING MERIT AND FUCK ME FOR GIVING THIS ROTTEN PIECE OF SHIT OF A THREAD A BUMP AND FUCK YOU IM NOT DOUBLE CHECKING MY SPELLING FUCK YOU
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:33:52 No. 690015
The earths made out of radioactive rocks and trillions of dead bodies
HOW TF DO ENVIRONMENTALIST CUCKS ACTUALLY THINK THATS WORTH PROTECTING AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA? Earths gonna recover as if nothing ever happened if the Holocene ended in a coruscant like earth Fucking eco cucks 🥴
bloodgasm 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:35:59 No. 690017
clipped and saved fucking perfect
eugenics-kun 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:40:55 No. 690022
I'll add that I don't deny you can use an ecological model, so long as you understand what you are doing with it. You can make economic forecasts, but you should take from economy things that aren't real and should understand on some level what the economic measures are pointing to. At some point you have to acknowledge that political economy is really made up stuff, and that was Marx's point, that political economy was a pseudoscience and not really equipped to answer questions of technology or natural history. But, you can acknowledge Marx's critique as a valid one - I don't for some really hyperspecific nitpick reasons, but in the main the description of mechanisms is correct, only failing in that it is taking capitalism at face value, which was never really the intent if you dig into what the liberals thought. Capitalism really meant, behind its pretenses, a continuation of policies favoring mercantile interests, but what those interests wanted to do with the world had changed. The goal had always been to have these titans of finance really calling the shots, rather than a bunch of lawyers and shopkeepers. Those lawyers usually had a buy-in with said titans, like the East India Company. The whole of capitalism is a giant scam, and so when Marx is saying this actually kind of sucks, the neoclassical economists say "Yes, this is what we intend to do. If you wish to object, we will crush you." And that's precisely what transpired in the years between Capital and the formation of oligarchies in the 20th century. But then, Marx's point was never to present capitalism as a perpetually stable system, but as a grossly inadequate arrangement with many perverse incentives, which led to immediate crises every time its been tried.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 18:53:34 No. 690032
>>690022 >I'll add that I don't deny you can use an ecological model, so long as you understand what you are doing with it
A bit too cryptic. Mind clarifying?
>the rest of your post
I have read your texts so I know what you're getting at. Anyway, a question from my behalf. You some kind of workerist populist. You really try to push this notion that Marx's theory was a ruling class programm and that he wanted to make the workers something they were not.
Yeah…Lenin even mentioned that without a vanguard, working class politics would only amount to trade-union politics, but Lenin was no workerist.
Since you claim that there is no coherent alternative to technocracy, why even shit on historical communists establishing a technocracy?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 19:01:27 No. 690042
Yoo you really do have twitter. I see are you following prolekult(love the channel). They are big on the anti-eugenicism and made some docus about the treatment of disabled people by the british government if I remember right.
But they also describe themselves as eco-marxist so what gives you following them?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 19:06:40 No. 690046
I realise that he is a doomer and I don't agree with it and advocate for a "communist technocracy" as he would call it, BUT it is interesting to read someone who is not a communist but still sympathetic to the left and its goals as compared to the liberals and fascists.
Kinda why I tolerate you, since you also don't buy into tankie pretenses about themselves and I would probably be called a ML by most standards. Makes a poster instantly better imo. I mean take someone like leninhat. You have to agree that this guy offers nothing to the modern left and its goal of revolution, right?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 19:14:17 No. 690050
Pretty ironic to follow Prolekult considering they are very conscious about ecology and the threat of ecological collapse
Leninhat is a worthless cunt
Honestly I do see myself as a Marxist and ML is closest to what I approximately believe, I see the efforts of the USSR to be admirable and the efforts of ML revolutionaries around the world more admirable still
I just criticize tankies because they’re a bit too far us their own asshole what with the constant historical LARP, treating Marxism like a religion, and being needlessly antagonistic towards anarchists
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 19:32:20 No. 690056
>>689646 >The only surprising thing is William Z Foster advocating for it. But then with such an incredible body of work it's not surprising he'd fuck up at least something
Dude literally said the Soviet Union was going to reach full communism by the mid 1950s and that he'd live to see a time when full communism would take over the entire world. Definitely loved his hyperboles.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 20:23:59 No. 690080
>>689141 >How do we realistically fight against this Malthusian mindset
There is no ideological fight when hard facts dismiss this brainrot.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 21:25:21 No. 690127 >>689628 >not based, but i'm glad you exist because it advances my agenda.
I call it "chumming the waters".
It comes easier to antagonize the posters of a topic of interest to generate discussion than asking for input. This way they respond to you, and they do it gladly. Then someone else gets triggered and responds to them and so on. The trick is to bait the specific type of response that would antagonize others or would leave glaring holes for someone to chime in and be witty/pedantic about. Best part about it? You don't need to know shit about the subject matter to extract responses, as long as you pick the right targets.
The bigger the mess the more likely that reasonable/knowledgeable people will pass by and leave their saner takes. Or devolve into trolls trolling trolls, which is also fun
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 22:06:16 No. 690161
>>689714 >it's enough to fix all our most pressing environmental issues
It's not an issue you throw labor and resources at. 8-10 years ago it was still worth having this discussion but now only the willfully ignorant remain in denial the apocalypse currently underway. I understand it's your psychological preference to remain ignorant heading into death so I will let you be.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 22:09:22 No. 690164
there is a reason this board no longer has a climate change thread
reality was too depressing for anons to handle lmao
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 22:58:23 No. 690228
The amount of Ameriblobs in this thread insisting its their right to pollute the world with their hellspawn is fucking depressing. Do us all a favour and kill yourselves.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 23:29:29 No. 690254
Why is the birthrate going down a big deal?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 23:56:40 No. 690270 >>690161 >>690164 >the end is near
You're just green doomsday preachers.
Climate change will make earth less hospitable, and may the bourgeoisie rot in hell for mismanaging this planet, but if you think about it from a materialist perspective, earth will still be a planet that is 95% terraformed. And we just have to do 5% of a regular terraforming process to bring it back to 100%. With good enough means of production and a efficient mode of production that can be done.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:10:14 No. 690274
Basically don't commit to "economism" for the reasons Lenin described.
Lolno. I actually take pretty gratuitous shits on the workers, which is why I speak of "commoners" more often than the working class, or the division between the lower and middle class.
The faith in the vanguard is pretty much about making sure the middle class guides the project, however much they say it's for the workers. Revolution 101 is to say you're doing it for the people. The point isn't that this is necessarily a bad thing in of itself, but to make it clear that the workers and the new class (technical class) have never been the same thing and have inherent antagonisms. There's a reason why luddism was a thing, and it was not pure bigotry or simplemindedness. The machine and technology has meant, for the commoner, a lot more bad than good due to how that technology is distributed. And there was an idea, though it fell out of favor, of democratizing knowledge and doing away with institutions like the school, which were quite clearly about drilling children for obedience instead of teaching anything or preparing children for any particular role. That concept became incomprehensible in the 20th century because it became impossible to describe too plainly the form of government that actually existed. Even I can only allude to it so much, since I have no idea how you would overcome the inherent problems of intellectual production. You could, though, choose not to exacerbate the worst effects of that kind of society.
You seem to think I'm saying technocracy is evil, but I try (even if it doesn't seem like it) to say that this isn't the case. I'm pointing out tendencies within the institutions that exist and the way science is approached, and that those tendencies have to be checked or else the apparatus rots into what we have. The technocrats were aware that what they built was not perfect or infalliable, which is one reason the dystopias caught on and had to be written. (The more aware dystopians like Huxley were aware they were declaring a threat that if people didn't obey, they're going to get tortured and that the current elite were the best of all worlds.) But, here comes this political movement which doesn't just emphasize all the worst traits of the technocratic system, but considers them good things in of themselves, and seeks to arrest history at that point. That movement came to us as eugenics, although it encompasses something more than just eugenics. Eugenics would be, for many reasons, the preferred choice of an oligarchy seeking a scientific dictatorship to last forever. The other ideologies understood the scientific dictatorship to be a temporary measure rather than an end unto itself, and understood on some level that they had to populate those institutions with people from the commoner ranks. Even the fascists had to abide that, though their intent was always to reach a state where they didn't have to abide that ever again. The eugenic ideology in its full form seeks a full segregation of valid from invalid, mental genius from brute physical labor. It's an ideology born of managerial intents built into the capitalist arrangement and philosophical conceits going back a long way, but it was not the only way history could have gone. Even those technocrats who are concerned more with actually staying in power know that this eugenicist madness has been a disaster, and it is only most useful because it pits everyone against each other and keeps them from attacking their common enemy, the rich and well-connected.
My objection to the present technocratic system is simple - it is a demonstrable failure not just in an ideal form, but in the most basic practice of perpetuating the knowledge base required to sustain such a society. The hubris of technocrats is killing this country and much of the world, for little more than middle class vanity. Those who are getting laid off or kicked out are starting to get that they were never part of the plan, and that the system never actually could work the way it was "supposed to". So that's why you need something new, and that's not going to come from the established institutions which have declared there can be nothing outside of them that is intellectually valid. They're never going to allow reforms that would undermine their own institution's perpetuation.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:19:10 No. 690279
I follow a lot of people I don't agree with, so I can replyguy them or comment on their useful content.
Twatter encourages echo chamber creation, and that sadly seems to be what the people want. They often are shocked that I won't play along and like to poop on their parade. But, I've built up a good friends list which points to some quality content, and that's really what Twitter is good for.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:31:00 No. 690288
My boyfriend's ex pressured him to get it after she gave birth to their second child. He wants a reversal now.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:12:01 No. 690324
>>690279 >They often are shocked that I won't play along and like to poop on their parade.
You sound fun to be around.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:22:38 No. 690338
It's a nonstop party with Eugene. I'm so much fun once you get my sense of humor.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 02:40:25 No. 690414
Less rich white liberals breeding? I fail to see the problem. How many people's insurance covers vasectomies anyway?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 02:45:58 No. 690419
Why exactly do I need to care whether or not there's carbon-based self-replicators on this particular ball of rock in 200 years?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 03:52:04 No. 690460
Never in a million years. They can fuck up your sex drive and your psychology. Plus they're not always reversible.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 03:56:32 No. 690461
>>690414 >>690419 >>690433
The reason why Malthusians are hated passionately is because you might be questioning reproductive rights, you certainly seem to be saying something other than "I support full reproductive rights for all people"
In the past there existed societies that did not have reproductive rights, even forced sterilizations existed, and we are not ever going back to that dark place, ever-again. Basically stop talking about the reproduction of other people, because you're wrong as soon as you have an opinion on that.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 04:23:02 No. 690472
According to the schizoid "anti-Malthusians" (who as this poster
noted don't have any actual arguments beyond justifying unbound reproduction), every ecological scientist is some kind of "Malthusian" for recognizing that the biosphere is a closed system with finite resources and some kind of carrying capacity. The total biomass of all human on the planet now outnumbers the biomass of all other wild mammals combined by a factor of 10:1, the only exception is the massive biomass of domesticated livestock that exists to feed us, the humans. A question for the "anti-Malthusians": How much is enough? Will you be satisfied when we finally outnumber the annelids? Molluscs? When we finally overtake all the fish in the world's oceans? When we dethrone arthropods? What proportion of primary productivity on planet Earth will finally be enough for you to say "okay,
humans are using a little too much of the pie now"?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 04:26:22 No. 690474
>>690461 >you certainly seem to be saying something other than "I support full reproductive rights for all people"
Correct, I do not support reproductive rights in any capacity whatsoever because i do not wish for reproduction to happen.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 04:26:42 No. 690475
>>690472 >More viruses than humans
lmao Earth is gross, maybe we should destroy it.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:00:16 No. 690483
I genuinely do not understand people's fucking obsession with calling anything other people do that they disagree with an "obsession".
No I'm not a breeder, but I'm not retarded nor cynical nor depressed like you to think this way.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:01:29 No. 690485
Most people don't actually think much about having kids, it kind of just happens to them. I'd say you have more of an obsession with antinatalism than normals who pump out kids literally just because.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:02:47 No. 690486
>>690472 >the biosphere is a closed system
But the world isn't a closed system.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:05:28 No. 690487
You do realize birth rates are on a steady decline, right
It's like you are ignoring everything people who rightfully hate neomalthusians say just to cry about doom and gloom.
>>690414 >Less rich white liberals breeding? I fail to see the problem.
This is a great point. It's always upper class white girls who even care about vasectomies and stuff.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:07:46 No. 690488
That's a pretty good justification against natalism though?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:09:35 No. 690489
We get a significant amount of solar input and that's it on any kind of geological or biological scale. Everything else is transformation of that which already exists.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:09:46 No. 690490
Let's hear your argument.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:14:12 No. 690491
You do realize your core argument is straight from the Austrian School theory that socialism is impossible because people are naturally greedy? There is no actual resource crisis. You're talking about hundreds of billions of people before you reach a "natural limit" with current technology, even if the social forms did not change very drastically (as in, humans become pod people living on soylent). So much is wasted on intercine wars, which if you understood the most basic formulation of socialism you would know is one of the core arguments for socialism and against this shit we have now. We spend fortunes on nothing more than vanity, so that some people can feel they're better than others and smell their own farts. The barest minimum to survive is just not that much.
You could fit 20-30 billion now with basically nothing changing, aside from the obvious need for housing (and this would assume an end to the insane rent extraction that everyone knows is insane and unsustainable). It's funny how ecologists whine about sustainability, but the grossly equal and extractive society we have where people tear each other apart like dogs is the most unsustainable thing I can imagine. The only justification is to declare that struggle between people is so fundamental that any solidaristic politics is impossible from the outset, in which case you will never have an argument for socialism and especially no argument for communism. That's why this narrative is a frequent go-to, and why it became foundational for eugenics in particular, which expanded it to a whole political system exacerbating the worst tendencies of what I just described on purpose. Eugenics is so taken for granted that we can't ask a simple question like why we're still paying rent at all, or why there just has to be this culling mechanism in the workforce and every welfare provision. This shit didn't always exist. Rents for most of American history were never this exorbitant, where they are literally unpayable by design and rent-seekers actively make it even more impossible to be approved for housing. Then there is this big moral panic about a homelessness situation that was entirely manufactured by declaring that "structural unemployment" is a thing.
If you can't even bring yourself to criticize those points, you have no fucking business talking about a "natural limit to growth". These things would be solved simply by eliminating the absurd rent-seeking. It isn't a technological fix, but a political fix.
Ultimately the counterargument has to come back to Malthus - that if life were not made completely miserable, the poors would outbreed the good middle and upper classes and oh how horrible that would be. Never mind that the poorest of society have never been prolific breeders on average, since raising kids requires money, and contrary to popular belief, there isn't a lot of welfare going around even in the supposed good days. It's so disturbing that supposed leftists start calling their would-be constituents welfare queens with Reaganite terminology, when they invoke the ecologism argument.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:16:04 No. 690493
>>690491 >You do realize your core argument is straight from the Austrian School theory that socialism is impossible because people are naturally greedy?
No? Got any other straw men to beat up on… Oh, that's your entire post and every post you ever make, isn't it? Take your meds.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:16:43 No. 690494
>>690491 >You could fit 20-30 billion now with basically nothing changing,
As ever, eugene is a worthless schizo who will never, ever explain why we should do this.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:21:34 No. 690497
>>690487 >You do realize birth rates are on a steady decline, right
something that 'anti-malthusians' are loathe to accept and will blame on 'neomalthusians' before anything else.
rendering any interesting discussion on the differences in birth rates between developed countries in history - which can be dramatic - impossible.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:28:32 No. 690502
>>690491 >Ultimately the counterargument has to come back to Malthus - that if life were not made completely miserable, the poors would outbreed the good middle and upper classes and oh how horrible that would be.
So then why are the people who are the most liable to voluntarily limit their own breeding is middle-class whites in rich countries? Wouldn't these be the exact people the Evil Malthusians want to keep around as a barrier between their small numbers and the mass of poors? Shouldn't porky be blowing billions out his ass to make sure that there's enough upper-middle class fascist-prone whites breeding at a steady rate?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 06:48:50 No. 690551
It's a personal choice, why is this even a debate?
If you want to have kids that's fine, if you don't want to that's fine too. Next we're gonna have threads in which coke fans and pepsi enjoyers fight each other.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 06:53:53 No. 690554
>>690551 >Next we're gonna have threads in which coke fans and pepsi enjoyers fight each other.
Welcome to the left.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 06:55:15 No. 690556
Am I the only one who think she strongly resembles Richard Spencer's ex-wife?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 06:59:21 No. 690559
welcome to literally all of human history
fuck you for assigning this to something else, hope you fall off a cliff.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:24:59 No. 690583
t. Pays Every Penny to Save Israel
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:27:33 No. 690588
What? Get offline you fuck. I didn't know he even had a wife
It would be nice from you to give some sort of empirical evidence for your claims. It would would certainly make your case more credible. You never do that, if I recall right even at your blogposts. Come on, eugene…
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:29:03 No. 690592
You have lots of sex, do you? Are you secretely the helping hand anon from si/b/eria?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:18:05 No. 690668
>>690583 >ISRAELISRAELISRAEL out of fucking NOWHERE
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:45:50 No. 690695
Why does your analysis against "clima change" never focuse on the emissions emitted by the global bourgeoisie? You are telling me that australia being on fire is just because it is? If so, support your claims with evidence please
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:51:40 No. 690701
The neoliberal capitalist economy with it's fiat currency actually needs constant population growth to stay afloat because more and more people are needed to pay off the debt of previous generations. Keeping a stable or even declining population helps errode capitalism's support structure.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 09:02:03 No. 690706
kek now i feel like a retard for not getting the joke
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:03:16 No. 690748
>>690739 >I refuse to take any individualist measure to compensate for capitalist caused problems Not a Malthusian but taking part in the recycling chain or cleaning an oil polluted beach is not an individualist measure, you give time and labor to participate to a collective effort. Yeah it compensates for capitalist problems but your only excuse to not do that would be if you spent 100% of your life trying to do a revolution.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:07:32 No. 690752
I have a feeling, that he doesn't get invited to a lot of parties
The Real Eco-Socialist Anon 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:22:58 No. 690760
That’s when you realize that the whole point of Eugene ranting about “Malthusians” is so he doesn’t need to counter the actual evidence
Don’t need to prove the science wrong if you just call all the scientists fascists and can rant about the “Club of Rome” while deliberately ignoring the massive global conservation efforts that occurred in the 70s and 80s that narrowly averted an even worse wave of extinctions than what we saw
The Real Eco-Socialist Anon 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:29:05 No. 690791
>>690776 I didn’t read any of this, I don’t fucking care, if you were dying in front of me I’d probably laugh if I knew who you were My post was about Eugene, not the average subhuman Amerishart
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:14:10 No. 690828
It's odd alright. I don't have a problem with his grand claims per se and he doesn't have to be a positivist ofcourse, but when he denies certain narratives without backing it up with some sort of evidence then it's getting very tricky imo
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 13:39:01 No. 690887
the issue is that while eugene can make unique, insightful, and true posts, he only can do at most two of those at once.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 14:25:30 No. 690931
hahahaha, I guess you're right. I sure as fuck looks like he doesn't need that much time, till he spirals into manic territory
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 14:48:07 No. 690958
Putting consooming at the center of political economy, was a brainrot that Baudrillard intprduced with his sign value concept, anyway. As always with post-structuralist thinkers, it adds more confusion than clarity
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:41:28 No. 691215
It's not a matter of "should", it's what our present knowledge of the world's resources and industrial processes tells us is possible. I keep trying to tell you, if there were a real "natural limit" or even an inevitable political limit, states and firms would act very differently, and you would have seen rationing imposed over any objection of the people. The behavior of the ruling states and institutions suggests they are entirely in control of the demolition of the population, and have chosen who exactly will die and when. That is the only way in which the Malthusian proposition makes any sense. The current system goes out of its way to engineer a situation where the "hard choice" of eliminating population must be made, conveniently with a list beforehand of who should be sacrificed, and it conforms exactly to the class divisions in present society, with the people in the world being meticulously catalogued to figure out who should be disposed. All of this happens while food is thrown out, the products of industry remain unsold, and as I said, people are deliberately denied housing by exorbitant rents which could easily be lifted. To claim there is a resource shortage is to claim that exorbitant rent-seeking is a naturally ordained state of affairs and immutable.
The middle class is not the most population-depressed. You have to consider that a great many poors do not have children. You're trying to racialize it by conflating white with rich. Tell a black man there isn't a world of whites telling him he should be dispossessed.
It just so happens that whites internalize eugenist thinking more, and they literally believe that education is defined by accepting eugenist values for themselves. It's self-punishment more than anything else. Take the typical white liberal and see that insanity, and ask yourself if a eugenicist actually sees them as viable stock. It's the middle class person's fault for accepting this judgement for themselves, and turning themselves into vessels for the eugenic religion. And then poor whites are also taught to believe in the eugenic creed and act like shitheads. Everyone who does reproduce (and can manage to reproduce) is doing so in defiance, because people don't automatically have to accept eugenics, while you believe people are destined to internalize eugenics, because you have yourself and the eugenic creed demands the whole world be subjugated by eugenics.
I'm not going to play the game of "fetch the 'empirical evidence'. When have eugenists EVER required empirical evidence? This has always been a sophist's argument of appeal to authority. Somehow the establishment position just so happens to have a special quality that does not require it to present proof of its claims. I could cite all of the failure of eugenic policy, that it has not produced the promised-for race of atomic supermen, and that it has in fact produced a race of bugmen incompatible with a free society, but I believe any sane person in the 21st century has seen this in some form. No one can look at present America and see a functional society, even in the most basic ways we would expect a society to function. The entire apparatus is designed to produce misery, and this is the point as I intend to describe in the not-too-distant future. A eugenist considers the misery produced by their movement an inherent good thing, and thus there is no way to negotiate with them.
The claims I have made are largely non-controversial. The claims I have made about education for instance can be found in literature concerning what American schooling would be, going back to the 19th and early 20th century. Back then, the schools were not shy about their authoritarian purposes and the philosophy behind it, and they will tell you that the schools were about control point-blank. It is only in "liberal democracy" that a pretense was created that schools were somehow necessary for a democratic society, and this strange idea of schools as a service was present (and even then, the schools-as-service idea only really gained traction in neoliberalism, as neoliberalism wanted to eliminate language that suggested that the state was actually the state of old, but neoliberalism has always retined the core functions of a state or oligarchy and simply transferred them to corporations). The description of philosophy as a predatory thought-form does not require a proof - it is simply an interpretation of philosophy and pagan religion from the perspective of someone who has no reason to believe in those myths. This view of the ruling ideas as predatory is effectively the default of the lower classes, who for most of history are not allowed to speak. Ruling philosophy doesn't even make a serious pretense that it isn't predatory. If you look at ruling philosophies which enshrine an upper class, they are almost nakedly about protecting that upper class from the lower orders. Eugenics is no different - it openly despises the lower orders and sees the lower classes as an enemy. If you understood class struggle at all, this would be a basic reality, one that Marx assumed the reader already knew when he wrote about class struggles. It is you who have invented a pure mystification of class, and this isn't from Marx but from a curious view of class that appeals to a middle class that is grasping to dominate and control the world.
Why would I care about emissions? The entire emissions story is a farce. It exists as a dogma which demands all of the resources of any movement that claims to be environmentalist. You do realize a purpose of the narrative is to say "we can't clean up water or restore forests, because the machines will emit carbon"? It's a way of sucking up resources entirely for this "climate" cause, so that any part of the environment that actually could be fixed doesn't get fixed. The environmentalists themselves have noted this problem, when the "ecology" corporate people come in and tell people to believe the climate boogaloo, when they were talking about clean water or actual problems facing agriculture.
Imagine actually believing oil oligarchs are there to protect the trees. It's all technocratic delusions.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:44:54 No. 691221
You literally are an oil shill, Eugene
Please, I’m begging you, apologize to your family before you end your life
They deserve to hear from you one last time
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 18:46:22 No. 691226
> I'm not going to play the game of "fetch the 'empirical evidence t. Eugene <Uh ackshually my outlandish claims don’t need evidence, if I rant about fascism I don’t need to be able to counter climate science and ecology Imagine this tactic working anywhere other than Leftypol (where it still mostly fails to be fair)
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:09:52 No. 691245
>>691215 >I'm not going to play the game of "fetch the 'empirical evidence'
Oh come one m8, why not? For example your claim, about famines never being caused by the weather and only being political. What's the reason you just won't drop evidence, that proves your claim?
>When have eugenists EVER required empirical evidence?
If we follow your theories, then obviously never, but scientific racism has been tossed aside because they were not up to stand the test of scientific rigour, so atleast they could be disproven in the end
>This has always been a sophist's argument of appeal to authority
Partly, but you could be making shit up and nobody would know if they don't know about the subject. One prime example is that your first segements of technocratic polity are about Plato's republic, but turns out you haven't read the book and just read summaries of it. That's pretty weak.
Now you could say, it isn't required for your argument to work, but who can prove to me that you ever read all 3 volumes of capital? I think the main issue, I have in this case, is that you never cite anything in your articles. For example you claimed that Engels said "property is always replaced by a new kind of property". Great, now all you need to do is point to where he said that, like any other essay or article or whatever.
>I could cite all of the failure of eugenic policy, that it has not produced the promised-for race of atomic supermen, and that it has in fact produced a race of bugmen incompatible with a free society, but I believe any sane person in the 21st century has seen this in some form
Sure why not. I wouldn't mind you citing it even if I would probably agree with your statement in the broadest strokes. I mean you shit on praxeology and rightly so, but they were justifying their crap in the same vein as you do. "It's self-evident and I don't need to verify shit"
>The claims I have made are largely non-controversial
50/50. You're talk about ecology is pretty controversial. The technocracy thing not so much. Eugenicism…I guess you could go along with it, even as a "marxist"
>The claims I have made about education for instance can be found in literature concerning what American schooling would be, going back to the 19th and early 20th century
Just drop the works you have cited in the respective articles. What's wrong with having a bibliography at every end of your articles?
>Ruling philosophy doesn't even make a serious pretense that it isn't predatory
All I'm asking is for you to just to point to one or two works when making such emotionally charged arguments, ok? Because I am an uneducated son of peasants and I don't have the vast knowledge that you have
>If you understood class struggle at all, this would be a basic reality, one that Marx assumed the reader already knew when he wrote about class struggles
Maybe he shouldn't have assumed so much and just give a bit more exposition if he wanted the proletariat to truly understand his work
>It is you who have invented a pure mystification of class, and this isn't from Marx but from a curious view of class that appeals to a middle class that is grasping to dominate and control the world
Yeah, power fantasy is one hell of a drug. I am not a middle class dude though, but dominating the world in form a proletarian vanguard makes my dick hard ngl. You hit it on the spot.
Idk if you are impatient with the people asking questions on here, but you are really difficult to talk with. No offense. I get why eco-socialist anon shits on me for even giving you the benefit of the doubt.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:06:13 No. 691331
>>691245 >scientific racism has been tossed aside
I never claimed eugenicists were intrinsically "scientific racists". I made that clear in discussing why the biological science was important. Reducing eugenics to "scientific racism" is a common sop to tell people that eugenics is gone, when it never went away. The real question is this obsession with arresting biological information.
I mentioned that scientific racism never really was the core principle of eugenics. This was considered during the early days of the eugenics movement. Scientific racism was only ever a way to sell the product, given the popular mentality of that time - that people saw their common interests represented by race or kinship groups more than any ideological project, and this was a convenient principle for pitting people against each other. But the core of eugenics was always about the central institution arbitrating who would go where, and the imperial structure didn't really care about race even in the 19th century. The overarching goal always had to be control of the world and the whole society. Scientific racism really was just a divide and conquer strategy to do that, and it had been pursued almost entirely for that purpose, rather than any racial solidarity or the elite whites seeing poor whites as inherent partners. The first population that really was experimented on with eugenicist methods, that was regimented thoroughly, where the white populace. Non-whites were usually just lumped together, with a few exceptions elevated to keep the minority races under control (and those selected for advancement would usually REALLY believe in the eugenicist dogma, because they were acutely aware their position depending on toeing the line to ingratiate themselves with who ruled).
>Partly, but you could be making shit up and nobody would know if they don't know about the subject. One prime example is that your first segements of technocratic polity are about Plato's republic, but turns out you haven't read the book and just read summaries of it. That's pretty weak.
Do you want me to repost the entire text, or what? You can carry on that argument endlessly, but I don't feel the need to repost in detail the entire book and recite passage after passage. I reduced it to those points that were most relevant for how this elite would view its role in later society.
Normally in a written work, if I'm citing a quote I can put a handy footnote, but I wrote the podcasts for audio recitation and so doing that would break what I'm trying to explain. Again, though, you're missing the point. I'm not here to critique older authors and reproduce their points, or limit myself to the writing of the past. That which I am proposing is a wholly different trajectory. What you're really doing is trying to trap me into this mentality of the ruling institutions, which if you read my original content, you would understand is a large purpose of how we approach intellectual production in the universities and so on.
>I mean you shit on praxeology and rightly so, but they were justifying their crap in the same vein as you do. "It's self-evident and I don't need to verify shit"
If someone believes eugenics is good and that the society we have is the default state, then nothing I say is going to be relevant to them. I'm not interested in arguing to them, or proving anything to them, because they've already decided that any challenge to the ruling institutions must be resisted at all costs. Again, this is a point I have made, and will continue to make. It's self-evident to the vast majority of people alive today that the people in charge don't really know what they're doing, and they're sacrificing us to preserve their precious institutions. Why would someone defending the institutions ever surrender them? You seem to believe still that this is about debate or possessing the correct ideas. It will never be that - it was always be a struggle, because the elite have no reason to ever see us commoner scum as political equals or even people worthy of any political role. Eugenics, as I will explain later on, explicitly seeks to deny commoners any political rights, because it is inherent to the eugenic concept of management.
>50/50. You're talk about ecology is pretty controversial.
No, it's not controversial. Allusions to "political ecology" and "social ecology" are made from time to time. The myth that "ecology" is something that rises above the political and dictates the political is the newfangled thing, and very controversial to those who don't believe in the dogma. It's only believed by a minority who find the dogma suitable for their own projects, and it isn't a reasonable proposition at all. Obviously the formulation of biopolitics - and that exact word has been used in the past - implies that science cannot be parted from politics. You're assuming a minority, self-serving position is the "true default". It's that presumption itself that I am attacking, since it very clearly does not resemble what our common senses tell us about the world. This view of science as something above the political, that dictates the political, is very artificial and it has been commented on by people long before me. It is only very recently that this view of "The Science" really could impose itself on humanity in a new way. Much of what I write about technocracy, though it has clear origins, does appear as if it were particular to the period of neoliberalism or the post-war settlement, that just happened to appear. There was a definite change in consciousness some time in the 1970s, and this makes sense when understanding the particularly eugenicist character of the transformation that took place over the past 50 years, which finally came out as this biofascist corona scam we're going through today.
>Just drop the works you have cited in the respective articles. What's wrong with having a bibliography at every end of your articles?
As mentioned, my notes are for a podcast, rather than a written article or book. I have made references to the original books and posted some on my website, and I kept a library of some of the key works I have talked about. I figure it is better for people to just have the original text and read it from the horse's mouth. One of the things I find bothersome about internet discourse is how people are trained not to actually read the older authors, and the older authors are mystified. I cannot and do not want to merely recapitulate past authors, since my point is a very different one. Honestly, I feel like the format of my website is one that should be replicated by people if they want to engage in this discourse, rather than the blog format that is suitable for the kind of nasty communication people are taught to do in school and university. But you seem hostile to me simply because I don't replicate this form of trying to persuade and cajole people. My work is written to oppose that very mentality and the way it infects political discourse, particularly on the left where people seek gurus to tell them what to think. It's insidious.
>Maybe he shouldn't have assumed so much and just give a bit more exposition if he wanted the proletariat to truly understand his work
Marx was writing more for the middle class intellectual, people like himself. He understood he wasn't a worker and didn't present himself to the workers as if he was totally one of them. I think a prole doesn't need Marx to tell them what class struggle is, or what a social class is. They live through the class struggle in a way that makes it difficult to not see. TBH I do think Marxism confuses what a class is, that it itself contributes to the present mystification of social class by removing class from specific institutions. That's why one of the first points I make is that there is no social class without some institution associated with it, some regular reproduction of that class. But, I think this modern day view of class as an essence disconnected from any institutional reproduction or production is not in line with Marx's own contributions to the matter, either. It's particular to a view of society in which the political is decided solely by an elite cartel, i.e. the politics of a fascist society or one that has enshrined the eugenic system.
>I am not a middle class dude though, but dominating the world in form a proletarian vanguard makes my dick hard ngl.
You do know that the vanguard is overwhelmingly middle class intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the current arrangement? That's always been a feature of revolutionary movements.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:39:58 No. 691367
insanely fucking based
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:54:20 No. 691392
>>689339 >Why are there more transwomen in CPI than cis women? I'm not a TERF of course but this fact is kind of telling.
I susepct that's due to deflecting from allegation of transphobia.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:59:48 No. 691398
>>691331 >I'm not here to critique older authors and reproduce their points, or limit myself to the writing of the past. That which I am proposing is a wholly different trajectory
Fair enough, but I just think it would make for a more thorough critique if you put the author and work in a bibliography if you decide to indirectly cite them.
>What you're really doing is trying to trap me into this mentality of the ruling institutions, which if you read my original content, you would understand is a large purpose of how we approach intellectual production in the universities and so on
Not really trying to trap you, just feel empirical methods shouldn't be ditched entirely. But I am assuming you see empiricism as a ruling philosophy too right? I guess it was, since bacon, locke and hume were kinda the ruling class.
>If someone believes eugenics is good and that the society we have is the default state, then nothing I say is going t
What about those that are undecided? You seem to make it an entirely for or against eugenics case, which it is probably…
>You seem to believe still that this is about debate or possessing the correct ideas
I kinda do believe that's true, like most on this board.
>One of the things I find bothersome about internet discourse is how people are trained not to actually read the older authors, and the older authors are mystified
Yes that is bothersome, that's why I ask you to cite them.
>I cannot and do not want to merely recapitulate past authors, since my point is a very different one
You said that yes. But what exactly is your "point". Very interested to hear, since you don't want to write a ruling class programm.
>But you seem hostile to me simply because I don't replicate this form of trying to persuade and cajole people.
Not really hostile, but I am simply used to this type of standard when concerns intellectual disucssion
>My work is written to oppose that very mentality and the way it infects political discourse, particularly on the left where people seek gurus to tell them what to think. It's insidious
What do you mean about the guru thing specifically? I mean, I kinda see your point since most people on the left think Marx or Cockshott or whatever is a god, but then toss them in hell when a new messia comes around. Kind what happened with Stalin. You should assume that it wouldn't take Krushchev to just kill Stalin's reputation, but it did lol
>TBH I do think Marxism confuses what a class is, that it itself contributes to the present mystification of social class by removing class from specific institutions
See that would make a good episode where you attack the marxist conception of class from your standpoint and why it isn't sufficient, because I myself do very much think that marx is right in his classification of class, but I would love to hear otherwise
>You do know that the vanguard is overwhelmingly middle class intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the current arrangement?
I mean my parents are workers in germany, so I am probably more of a labour aristocrat if we wanna keep it real with imperialism. So I probably am middle class and you are right in your assessment broadly, but look at the naxalites in india for example. They aren't middle class by any stretch. You should make an episode on the chinese revolution btw
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:07:34 No. 691551
Or it's because Caleb's movement is the short bus of political cults. I've seen these people, none of them are serious and there's lots of crazy in there. It's an echo chamber.
>>691398 >Not really trying to trap you, just feel empirical methods shouldn't be ditched entirely.
There's empirical methods - actually relying on evidence - and then there is this sophist's trick where you do the Molymeme "Where are the proofs?" endlessly until your opponent is tired of arguing. It's circular and dishonest and you know it. Like I said, much of what I write isn't particularly controversial. The only difference is that I am seeing it from the perspective of the underclass, and that is a forbidden perspective. People like me are not supposed to exist, and are taught to hate themselves. I am writing my book primarily for me and people like me, because I'm tired of seeing so many people beat themselves up for things they didn't create and have no control over. Eugenist society demands we internalize their shitty value system.
I see the empiricism/phenomenalism "debate" as a false one. There is a reality, but human knowledge is largely irrelevant, and we as humans only build models of reality for our understanding. Those models are never the actual thing. Basically, my view is an attempt to get around this notion of "self" and the stupidity created by that belief, because most of us have no reason to believe in this farce of sense-experience and no reason to believe in the wank. I would be concerned with what actually exists, rather than what a model tells me to believe and defending that model. It's thinking like that which has meant science can only advance one death at a time.
>What about those that are undecided? You seem to make it an entirely for or against eugenics case
There are no real undecideds. If people really can't tell A from B, then the decision will be made for them, usually by the eugenicists. This belief that anything can be anything is promoted by eugenics so that people only see that which is in front of them. For most of us, though, the eugenics question is one that has to be confronted, in some way or another. We can't escape it, and we have to decide at some point whether we believe in the eugenic institutions or we believe anything else is possible. There is no middle ground where coexistence is possible. Eugenicism as a political movement does not tolerate dissent on the central eugenic issues, and this is evident in all the decisions eugenicists make about what human society must be. Certain tenets of the eugenic religion are so necessary that the moment those tenets are criticized or even acknowledged too plainly, the programming is activated. That's part of what MKULTRA and the like cultivated, a reactive response that ensures any critique of the dominant ideology is immediately obliterated and people are triggered at a subconscious level. It's a very elaborate system. It's doublethink, but much more elaborate than Orwell ever knew.
>See that would make a good episode where you attack the marxist conception of class from your standpoint and why it isn't sufficient, because I myself do very much think that marx is right in his classification of class, but I would love to hear otherwise.
My argument is that your view of class isn't Marxist, so I'd be attacking something very different from Marx's point. But, I think the notion in Marx that history is a grand narrative of class struggles, or any such narrative, is fundamentally wrong. It isn't until the classical period that class struggle really enters the mainstream as a concept, and this is something I link to this concept of the philosophical state, and philosophical thinking on the state. Class struggle as Marx sees it was simply not a feature in much of the world's societies, in the way Marx imagines in a crude narrative. Classes always are, and I say this outright, really associations of people in institutions. There is no slavery without a law or practice pertaining to slavery; if slavery were purely a local arrangement, it would not be possible to create the impression that slaves have any duty to the master, and this sense of duty was necessary for slavery to predominate. It was necessary to form slave patrols and all the laws demanding that some men be slaves, and the free populace is defined by not being subordinated to this status and possessing something like a right to exist. So, slave society is not confined to a simple prejudice of the master, and couldn't be. It is the same with any other exploitative system.
To really get it, you have to accept that capitalism and revolution really are conspiracies - and at the time these concepts are rising in the late 18th century, the whole Enlightenment was understood to be a grand conspiracy against the public. The concept would be nonsensical if it "just so" happened, and no one aspiring to rule the world ever stopped at some arbitrary point because it would offend our sensibilities of what's "fair". Conspiracies are what human beings do, and this is difficult to understand because the present conspiracy does not tolerate people speaking too plainly about what is actually happening, or acknowledge reality. I write about this at length when I mention how the predatory system seeks to create its own reality and superimpose it over what actually happens.
This doesn't mean you just believe any conspiracy or that the ruling class is capable of anything. It's difficult to broach the subject of conspiracism without having to debunk many technocratic tropes about what these conspiracies are, and what the conspirators are actually capable of. The inverse is that we are told to believe there are never any conspiracies, and things just sort of happen with no conscious actors responsible. It's very convenient for those who would launch a conspiracy against the public.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:09:14 No. 691555
>>691551 >All these words <And still no sources provided
Eugene, the fuck do you ever do aside from sophistry?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:10:48 No. 691556
Why would I cite sources for my own conclusions? This is exactly what I am talking about - no original ideas or thoughts are possible in your world-system, only reproduction of elder works. It's a belief system in which all actions are arrested and the state is total. Total society does not tolerate dissent. It's fascist. You're Hitlerian.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:15:57 No. 691568
>>691556 >It's fascist. You're Hitlerian
Ok calm it.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:33:14 No. 691593
No I'm not going to calm down. He's trying to shit up discussion by saying we can only come to conclusions that are written by other people. It's offensive and exists to stifle any meaningful discussion we could have. He's asking me to literally have some older author approve my points, on things they didn't write about and had no reason to write about. It's not about asking for evidence of factual claims, but trying to demonstrate that only the ruling ideas are admissible as "true ideas".
Anyway, I don't think much of what I wrote in the second series is particularly controversial. In the immediate years after WW2, the people in charge wrote openly about "an excess of democracy" and the prospects of a scientific dictatorship, concluding that such a regime was possible and desirable and that there was really nothing stopping them. So, that is what they did. I mention it because it is necessary to see how much of that has been implemented. The argument that it didn't happen, and that conspiracies are impossible, relies on purely ideological arguments, that believe the pretenses of a state are the truth and reality is an inconvenience. No one who actually rules has thought about the situation that way. Ideology is for the slaves.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:43:00 No. 691608
>>691556 > Why would I cite sources for my own conclusions
Because otherwise we can only assume that you started with your conclusions and then worked backwards to construct a narrative justifying those conclusions. Funny enough that’s exactly what you claim “malthusians” have done. Why should we give a shit about your “conclusions” when you’re some nobody on the internet as far as we’re concerned? Your sophistry is worthless, provide actual evidence for your claims and provide a model that actually dismantles scientific fields such as climate science and ecology.
> Total society does not tolerate dissent. It's fascist. You're Hitlerian.
You already know that you’re trying to draw tears from a stone, cease with emotional appeals. As I said before, your entire tactic, when pushed up against the wall (that is, asked for evidence of your claims) is to call your opponent a “fascist” or “eugenicist” or “totalitarian”.
It’s pathetic, it’s cowardly, and it shows that you’re full of hot air and little else.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:48:24 No. 691616
>>691593 >It's not about asking for evidence of factual claims,
Ok, but when you do make factual claims, you would have in theory no problem with providing evidence?
>but trying to demonstrate that only the ruling ideas are admissible as "true ideas".
I see your point, but let's take Lenin here who you claim was the man of the 20th century. When he wrote "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" he amassed vast amount of data to support his claims and you can't say that he was writing in favour of ruling ideas at the time, no?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:52:48 No. 691620
You don’t understand, when
(forgot Eugene doesn’t believe in socialism for a second) if whatever the fuck Eugene advocates were to happen, well, we’d just throw out all those warped technocratic fascist fields like biology, physics, chemistry, geology; basically everything that led to the Malthusian beliefs like recognizing a dramatic climb in the Earth’s climate in accordance with carbon emissions and extrapolating likely effects based on both that and the severe weather events and mass extinction we’re already witnessing
It’s sort of like what Ian Wright wrote about magic, see, our friend Eugene is, effectively, a magician, doing real magic here, with the ability to flip his entire way of thinking around such that a reality right in front of him is quite easy to ignore and explicable via a multi-century long conspiracy
Honestly I wonder what Eugene even wants, like, what would his ideal society be? You’d think peasant communism due to his fear of “technocracy”, yet he’s also a hardcore oil shill and productivist, and he also opposes what any of us would call socialism
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:55:24 No. 691625
Just remember, since you personally did not see the fossil record, the ice cores, or were alive for centuries to personally experience the shift in weather patterns and loss of biodiversity; honestly you just need to listen to the nice internet man who gets genuinely enraged when you ask him for actual evidence that isn’t his own statements
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 23:10:34 No. 691646
I start with the conclusion because that is what is there. There is a reason eugenicist ideology is promoted incessantly and reproduced. If you're trying to recycle the belief that eugenics is dead or that eugenics doesn't exist today, you're wildly ignorant of reality in the 21st century. People act on the eugenicist idea every single day - it is everywhere around us, in every decision someone makes about their conduct. Obviously this affliction affects the underclass the most, and that is who I am writing for. If someone needs to have proof delivered to them that eugenics is the dominant idea, they are delusional and need only think for five minutes about how they approach all of their relationships, or why their lives have been decided effectively at childhood. That is self-evident, and if you want to insist that it isn't, you're going to build however many excuses so you don't have to acknowledge reality. If someone is that determined to deny what is right in front of them, there is no argument I can make that is going to change their mind. The events of the past two years have shown that it is no longer possible to deny the biopolitical theory, and that has been the primary line of attack. At first the rulers could feign ignorance, but they quickly turned to vicious attacks against anyone who points out that the current technocratic arrangement actually sucks and the institutions suck.
>your entire tactic, when pushed up against the wall (that is, asked for evidence of your claims) is to call your opponent a “fascist” or “eugenicist” or “totalitarian”.
I call them fascists because they are fascist. Their claims are fundamentally fascist. They're the kind of people who say Hitler had the right idea, or they always make apologies for some aspect of Nazi rule. If fascism didn't have negative associations - because ordinary people know the fascist ideology is fucking toxic - they would call this other thing that is just like fascism but somehow not, a good thing that should be pursued. That is how fascism and eugenics have been able to rebrand themselves and insinuate that fascist, eugencist ideas are the only acceptable ideas, and that further it becomes a criminal act to criticize eugenics or fascism in any serious way.
The only defense of eugenicism, and the only reason someone would have an argument with my core claim, is if they are seeking to defend fascism or eugenicism. The people who disagree with particulars are not fascist. They're not shrieking that Eugene is an evil monster and the worst thing to happen to humanity, because they understand even if they disagree with me that I'm talking about something relevant. Usually the honest detractors say I'm a charlatan, and I cannot make excuses for how I present myself. I am not a scholar or prestigious academic, just a commoner doing things the only way I know how. I don't believe I'm a charlatan because the claims I make are actually very simple, and it only appears I am speaking mystically because I'm trying to untangle all the mystification on this topic. That's why, when I rewrite these things, I'm not going to pay as much deference to leftism as I did when I was writing the second series. I tried thinking I was going to be able to speak to leftists, but leftism itself was always premised on many faulty assumptions about humanity.
>>691616 >When he wrote "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" he amassed vast amount of data to support his claims and you can't say that he was writing in favour of ruling ideas at the time, no?
The point is not that data collection is useless, but that you and the Hitlerian-Primitivist are playing a sophist's game where you just ask for proofs incessantly. I could present a whole volume of information pertaining to the establishment of the things I'm talking about, but it would complicate an argument if I digressed at length. I am not writing a history book, but a book about the theory of the things I am talking about. The things I am describing are not things that are only known to an academic elite, which require a grand theory to even see. As I mentioned, the "scientific dictatorship" was described as exactly that in the post-war and interwar literature from the academic elites, and the pre-eminence of "The Science" is enough proof that such a structure is indeed operative. A thorough history of that technocratic structure would be a different book than the one I am writing, but there are a great many books already written that describe just what the United States has been since 1913. I don't need to regurgitate every single one of them and their sources to re-litigate their claims, and the people writing those books are not writing to the audience I am writing to or the concerns I care about. Most of those people concluded that a scientific dictatorship was desirable in some form or another and see no reason why the underclass should have anything. My argument has been that this technocratic aim was in conflict with a communist project, and that was one of the things eating away at the USSR from the very start. Simply put, the people saw the "workers' state" as antagonistic in some way, even if they were generally supportive of socialism. There wasn't really a way to say the system was wrong or that it needed reform, and that meant that reform would be imposed instead from on high from those who would dismantle socialism and stick it to the workers. By the 80s though, there was a growing sense that some sort of reform was needed, and that the institutions of the USSR were clearly dysfunctional when there's a giant black market. Unfortunately, the argument for reforms other than the fascistic globalization reform could no longer be made. There was no language left to describe a world other than globalization, and the Marxist-Leninists retreated into an echo chamber and arguments over orthodoxy, or they simply turned against the masses.
Strawman argument. Biology is not "inherently fascist", except in the mind of a fascist like you who wants it to be so. Actual biologists have a lot of contention with mythological retellings of biology like the genetic theory. It's ideologues like you who insist on a retardation of science and understanding, so that reality conforms to your preferred vision by force.
You're not capable of engaging with my actual ideas. One thing I have said, and this should be obvious, is that aiming for some ideal state is itself one of the problems of technocracy, and it's a very predatory view of society and the world. It's particular to total societies that seek to enclose the world. It's fascism. The point being is that if you want "perfect institutions", the way you and people like you go about it is clearly not the right way. The scientific institutions themselves, the scientists themselves, had every incentive to go along with this retardation of science, because no one would tell them no. You seem to believe that the institutions are perfect if they only worked the way they were s'pos'da, and my point is that the scientific institutions were horribly flawed from the start, and a religion of science was horribly flawed. You can't comprehend that argument. It's entirely inadmissible to your world system and your delusions of grandeur.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 23:22:06 No. 691670 >>691646 > I start with the conclusion
And you need not say anything beyond that
Nigha, I can start with the conclusion that the Universe is a glass orb and that the Earth itself is an orb moving through an aether and make an argument supporting this position (people did this for literal millennia)
I can start with the conclusion that the Earth is a flat fucking plane and build an argument to support that conclusion too (people do that right now)
I have no desire to read the rest of your long winded but ultimately empty rant
eugenics-kun 2022-01-14 (Fri) 23:36:48 No. 691703
You do understand that what you describe is basically how cosmology works today? You have to make some premise about what the universe is and then see if your model conforms to information you can gather. That's the only way you can even begin with an investigation of natural history. Otherwise, you'd only be able to speak of the universe in a solipsistic way, where the Earth is always the center because that's where we are and we define the universe entirely in relation to us.
What people actually thought about cosmology is not your stupid theological argument, or at least that wasn't the thinking of anyone who was serious about answering the question. It happened that in earlier times, the ruling orthodoxy required a ruling cosmology - the intellectual production institutions were usually religious, and so the origin and position of the Earth was of theological importance. Even then, most of the religious arguments were not premised on a physicalist argument, as if God's existence was disproven because the Earth revolves around the Sun. You don't even know what the content of the Church's argument against Galileo was (basically, he was punished for dissing the pope and the institutions of the church, rather than the church needing to Debate The Science, and the heliocentric model was actually something learned men at the time were contesting). I've even heard arguments from "The Science" people today that they would have believed the Church was in the right, according to how they believed scientific institutions ought to work; that is, they believed the evidence favored the Church's claims and Galileo appeared like a crank. Galileo for his part wasn't making this argument that The True Science was knowable to him and him alone, and Galileo wasn't the only person making the claim of a heliocentric universe (and remember that he does have to suppose the sun as the center, because Galileo doesn't have a concept of galaxies or the galactic core).
Ironically, the person here who is actually NOT starting with the conclusion is me, in that I don't have some preferred end state of society already in mind, because the project of changing the world to conform to my will and prejudices simply isn't interesting to me. I gave up trying to change the world or human society, and if I wanted to do that I would write a very different book. But if you're trying to reductio ad absurdum any argument that society is anything but ideological, you're in a terrible position. Eugenics is a simple reality we observe every day, because the dominant institutions of this country enshrine eugenicist ideas, for the sake of eugenics. Obviously this way of thinking came from somewhere. I forget though, according to you, humans are not deliberate actors at all, and everything is just the result of random happenstance and it can't be any other way. It denies that conspiracy can ever exist and that society is total. It's insanity, and it's fascist, and so I will continue to say you are Hitlerian.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 23:41:17 No. 691707
Why do you bother writing so much when I don’t read past your very first sentence?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 23:45:22 No. 691710
Same thought goes through my mind whenever I see an anprim flag.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:00:06 No. 691722
Why do you think I'm writing for you? Hitlerians cannot be reasoned with. My writing is for the millions of people who are told your idiocy is the only acceptable idea, and that any idea that would actually be good is forbidden.
But hey, if you want to keep destroying the world for nothing but your own vanity, that's your problem… until you make it mine, which you inevitably do. That's what the whole predatory system relies on, keeping people believing in this ideal that will never actually happen, and then destroying the world in an attempt to make it come true. I've seen it destroy so many lives, and it did its work to destroy mine. I've only been able to actually live a life because this predatory thought-form is something I can avoid now. That's what Hitlerians like you want - no escape, maximum terror, pressing the nerve of power forever. That's what your ideology does, and that's why you are so aggressive against me, when my points are really quite innocuous compared to the raging carnage your ideology creates. I don't go around vowing to destroy whole civilizations just to conform to some ecological ideal, or cull billions of people. I shouldn't have to be as cantakerous as I am, but the dominance of people like you in the present situation forces me to call you what you are, which is fascist.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:06:18 No. 691727
Lol didn’t read
Most people don’t read what you say, Eugene
Even that one guy you briefly influenced has realized you’re full of shit
That’s all you have, hot air, hot air and then pulling the “Hitler” card on anyone that tells you you’re full of shit
At least Leninhat is courteous enough to keep his bullshit relatively short and to the point
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:25:04 No. 691755
People only read your shit because there's so much of it. You're nothing but boilerplate talking points, constructed by some CIA-funded ghoul. You have nothing to offer humanity and your ideology is a clear failure. You will be swept into the dustbin of history.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:29:28 No. 691763
Yet you admit that the difference between us is that people actually do read what I say instead of instantly ignoring me ;)
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:32:51 No. 691768
>Another thread of the same three namefags and flagfags talking with each other leftypol? more like díscordpol.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:33:06 No. 691769
See, nothing you say really phases me because, just like Leninhat, every rebuttal you come up with relies on ascribing an ideology to your opponent and trying to get some sort of reaction from whoever in the audience you think is stupid enough to actually fall for that trick
I wonder, are you and Leninhat just the same anon pretending to be two different people?
You both have nothing in your repertoire of rebuttals aside from calling your opponent a fascist, telling them you’ll or someone representing you will “kill them” and then foaming at the mouth about the conspiracy of all the millions of scientists in the world who each have an identical political perspective as proven by their shared disagreement with you in particular
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:38:24 No. 691776
No it probably is Eugene, if you’re new here, well, Eugene has always been extremely confrontational, that’s a large part of why people write him off and ignore him
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:45:01 No. 691778
>>691776 >if you’re new here, well, Eugene has always been extremely confrontational, that’s a large part of why people write him off and ignore him
I'm not new, I'm saying this because even though he often gets heated, something about the past two posts just felt "off", and I remember in around August he also felt "off" and then another anon actually pointed out that it could be fake. Perhaps I am just overthinking however.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:51:01 No. 691783
Eugene's entire worldview is based on his childhood trauma. I sympathize with him, but I don't really expect him to be coherent.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 00:56:24 No. 691785
I think you're overthinking. Those posts are aggressive but the writing style is still characteristically Eugene, right down to the syntax.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:00:28 No. 691789
This isn't the Soviet Union circa 1936 anymore, son.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:08:12 No. 691796
Adoption is a terrible system, not to mention highly expensive.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:18:44 No. 691810
Indeed, the situation is far more dire now
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:25:03 No. 691814
Bro, what? You realize that in the case of adoption, the parents literally can't take care of their kid no matter what so they drop them off for adoption themselves, your logic is compelety backwards.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:25:15 No. 691815
>>691808 >”Stealing” children
Ah yes, because spending your entire childhood in an orphanage is so much better
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:26:40 No. 691819
I'm talking about babies-on-demand adoption whereby working-class women are paid to give up their newborns to infertile porky couples, not the foster care system.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:28:33 No. 691820
Does it say that anywhere in that image?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:28:39 No. 691821
Yeah… But the article didn't say that specifically…
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:29:12 No. 691822
You beat me to it!
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:29:57 No. 691825
Shit I'm retarded of course
is me not
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:35:53 No. 691833
I was just recording the segment of my next episode where I take a large dump on anarchism as a philosophy (yet again), and how it lead to eugenicist thinking. I'll be posting the ep tomorrow, not sure when. It's pretty important to this thread, because the arguments against me are anarchist arguments rooted in individualism and philosophical pretenses taking over reality. The anarchoids are always hyper-aggressive when something disrupts their pretenses. They're far more totalitarian than the people they argue against, and do so in the name of freedom. It's why their attack arguments are always the same boilerplate drivel, repeatedly incessantly. Their whole philosophy is rooted in appeal to power and appeal to pretenses. There's nothing there.
I don't think Malthusianism would have its second life if not for the anarchoid thought of Herbert Spencer and then the eugenics movement. It barely made sense when Malthus wrote it back in 1798, and was quickly disproven because agricultural methods are not fixed in stone and never were. An agronomist in his time could have called bullshit, but he wouldn't have to because it was clear as day that there was no "naturalistic" argument for revolutions the way Malthus implied. Anyway, to answer OP, the only way to fight it is to fight all the philosophies pointing to it, and it's a many-headed hydra. Trying to argue the facts only works so often, because Malthusianism has always gone against the known realities of agriculture and industry. They need to force a crisis into existence to prove their stupid theory, and it's never actually happened that way, but the philosophical disease persists because it serves the interests of a certain kind of person. That sort of person is typically a middle class grasper who wants to believe some guru is going to give them the correct ideas and purge all the Bad People. The upper class elites' real views are quite different - they know the Malthusian argument is just a convenient pretext, and will tell you it's really about control, both of the broad masses and their middle class subordinates who need to be led to fight each other for position.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:36:49 No. 691834
Take your pills schizo
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:39:26 No. 691838
The real crisis, the thing that actually does kill people, is the ideologues making this world as hellish as possible, to conform with their conceits about what the world ought to be. People are killed for nothing more than vanity, because it pleases the will of some pissant. It's not the sole explanation for all the bad that happens, but it explains a whole lot of the misery that exists. And always, the eugenists shit on someone who they use as a scapegoat. That was me when I was growing up, where I am blamed for things other people clearly did, and at the same time encouraged to do terrible things that I should have learned not to do, but that the incentives of eugenism told me to do because it creates a world of slaves where people are cajoled and lied to every day. Unfortunately I was not capable or strong enough to see what this system was in full, and I made the mistake of not trusting the instinct telling me this was wrong. That's how they get people, the first step is to teach as much self-doubt as possible, and then to appeal to the mystique of "self" to sell something that is actually imposed on people.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:40:17 No. 691840
You are a soldier of eugenics.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:41:50 No. 691842
I’m literally not an anarchist
So if you’re entire rant centered around that, kek, what a moron
I hope you have literally nothing better to do and this wasn’t a massive waste of your time
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:43:57 No. 691845
>>691838 >His entire ideology centers around having a shit childhood like most people did
So this is literally just all a psychological thing and has no real philosophical or ideological basis?
Honestly pretty sad, I know I reached my own ideology due to an interest in science, willingness to question state backed narratives, and empathy
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:46:37 No. 691849
Anprim eco-"socialist" denies that he's actually an anarchoid fed after posting nonstop anarchoid talking points. Fucking Breadtube tier faggotry, Jesus.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 01:49:59 No. 691852
I’ve literally never claimed to be an anarchist or a primitivist
And, Breadtube? Tf does Breadtube have to do with anything? Did you just shit out a string of words that’s supposed to get a pavlovian response from the average anon here? You realize you’re too disliked for that particular trick to work?
Anarchist talking points? Said by the dude that shits out posts deriding Marxists as “technocrats”, some miserable cunt sad over his shit childhood that can’t even articulate his own vision of the world? Fuck you nigha
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 02:36:09 No. 691905
>>691215 >It's not a matter of "should", it's what our present knowledge of the world's resources and industrial processes tells us is possible.
In which Eugene finally y admits that he literally has no reason whatsoever to follow through on what he calls for. Just that its possible.
Much like how you could hit your dick with a tack hammer. It's possible with current technology.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:23:33 No. 691944
I never made a claim about what society "ought" to be, because that is not my project. You're so devoted to this project of cajoling people into your perfect society that you can't conceive that there is someone who doesn't give a shit about that. What I can tell you is that there is no "natural limit" compelling depopulation, and you should be able to comprehend that. Eugenicism, and this brand of anarchism, are dependent on a mental gap in which predatory desire must be fused with fundamental nature itself. It cannot permit the concept that there is a reality, except as a temporary inconvenience that will be abolished once the perfect state commands all that exists. Like I keep saying, it's fascism.
Now, would I have some concept of what should happen with society, or at least what should happen if I want to defend my own interests and those of the people I care about? Certainly I do. You're making the assumption that by me merely defending a right to exist, that I am committing some act of violence against you, the middle class. This is essential for eugenism to be comprehensible as a political movement. They have to make it a crime for people like me to defend ourselves or even exist, and claim that it can never be any other way. It's insanity. If I were on a mission to change societal practices, I would start by doing away with this nonsense that we have to ritually sacrifice large swaths of the population for "the environment", which is always carried out with the nastiest intent. Eugenists immediately turn to any excuse to make others' lives miserable. I've suffered enough for it. We've all suffered enough for this stupid belief. It pains me to see others suffer for this bullshit. And the eugenists are slugs - first to shit on someone else, last to take any real responsibility for their actions. So long as they can get away with it, so long as no one will tell them no, they will continue to do that, because it has been a winning strategy for them to be ultraviolent and aggressive. Fascism knows no other way, and that is why the eugenist propaganda is always screaming and shrill, and then conspiratorial and nasty when it comes to the great demonic work of culling the population. There isn't a "normal fascism" of reasonable people. There are only variants of fanaticism.
I would think any socialist, of any stripe, would see that Malthusianism is incompatible with any socialist vision, if for no other reason than the clear impracticality of organizing society around that principle, and the mental disconnect necessary to enforce such a society. Eugenists have to train themselves to ignore basic truths and celebrate lies, like the belief that there's totally a resource crisis. When that doesn't work, they invent a fantastical model of Gaia Theory that says doom is always twenty years into the future - this is what accompanied the rise of fascism in the 20s and 30s as well and it has been a continuous necessity of fascist politics. No such crisis was ever needed, and the Soviet Union didn't do shit like this. That's why they had a country, and the Nazis managed to fail spectacularly and run Germany into the ground in 12 terrible years.
If you had the option to not have people starving, at a relatively cheap price, would you not prefer that? Pay people off with rations, or invent some work / redistribution of labor obligations… better yet, allow people their own land and home, so they're freed from these asinine rent obligations. I doubt such a polity is conceivable to you, but it was something basic to just about every socialism worthy of the name.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:26:12 No. 691946
>let's become fascists to save the world Fuck nature.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:33:11 No. 691952
>The Nazis claimed they were waging war on the Soviets to save nature/Gaia/Earth etc. In today’s round of “shit that never actually happened but Eugene will claim anyway while not providing sources” Like holy shit, you can literally read Hitler’s own outlining of why he wanted to exterminate the Soviets and it was just empty rantings about the evils of jews, communism, “saving the Aryan race” etc. Muh Hitler used a toothbrush is the most stupid goddamned argument, I remember some other retard Rafiq that said owning a pet is fascist because Hitler had a dog, give me a fucking break with this nonsense In other news, I was just reading the schizophrenia subreddit and it shocked me how similar the people there sounded to Eugene, actually a lot of them were far more coherent and less repetitive
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:37:18 No. 691957
How do you know this isn't his job?
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:00:41 No. 691984
The Nazis ecologism is well known by now. It was an essential feature of the entire Nazi world-system and what they presented to their base. It's one of the things Greens do to rehabilitate the Nazis - "oh the Nazis were bad, but they conserved the forest!"
The Nazi desire to conquer the Soviet Union isn't reducible to "Nazis are crazy and only crazy people wage war". This is more infantilization from you. Pretty much everyone in Germany except the communists wanted wars of conquest. That's their national character, and they were taught this ideology for reasons that made a lot of sense to them. There's this effort to say "oh Mein Kampf was just paranoid ranting" without actually discussing the contents of Mein Kampf or what Hitler was actually writing about. I found it remarkably boring and dull. It was that time's equivalent of some shitty mystification tome, although the writer of Hitler's words is a little more capable than the usual academic shill of today. Basically him pissing and moaning about what Germany is s'pos'da be and how trade unionists are meanies. Most of what happened with the Final Solution isn't even particular to Hitler. The Nazis as a whole wanted that extermination from the very start, and that was what the Nazi Party base wanted. There is a need to mystify and say that the Nazi atrocities were a unique exception of only a few people, so that Germans did not face war guilt.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:02:15 No. 691988
It's my job for all intents and purposes now. I have nothing else to do with my life, and nothing else is interesting to me now. Everything else is just breaks in between my shitposting.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:04:50 No. 691992
>>690014 >Grillpilled Schizo
More like Basepilled Schizo
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:31:23 No. 692023
>>691984 > The Nazis ecologism is well known by now
Then post a link you fucking cunt
Again, this shit is unironically
>Hitler had a dog so pet ownership was fascist
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:32:07 No. 692024
Imagine saying this and being arrogant
Why don’t you do what most of us adults did and get some friends and a fucking girlfriend?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:57:11 No. 692041
You know, it just occurred to me what an utter fucking disgusting piece of shit Eugene actually is calling me a fascist while the actual fascists all around the world such as those in Brazil slaughter indigenous people and torture environmental activists to death while trying to cut down every last tree in the Amazon
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 08:02:42 No. 692134
>>692023 >Then post a link you fucking cunt
You never heard of blood and soil?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 08:45:24 No. 692159
>>691703 >You have to make some premise about what the universe is and then see if your model conforms to information you can gather. That's the only way you can even begin with an investigation of natural history. Otherwise, you'd only be able to speak of the universe in a solipsistic way, where the Earth is always the center because that's where we are and we define the universe entirely in relation to us
Sounds reasonable, but I don't know that terribly much about philosophy of science, just that it is dominated by the positivism of the analytical school. Aren't you right now falling back into ruling institution ideas of science?
>My writing is for the millions of people who are told your idiocy is the only acceptable idea, and that any idea that would actually be good is forbidden
Then maybe you should start "writing" a ruling class programm for them or you could just bet your money on us communists, because at your own admission, although we are technocratic middle class fucks, we are atleast anti-eugenics(I hope so atleast). By the way what do you think about Alexander Bogdanov? He's the only Bolshevik who really talked about the danger of technocracy taking over in the young USSR.
>>691727 >Even that one guy you briefly influenced has realized you’re full of shit
He is on a lot of issues and I see that eugene has gone on full gorilla mode again which is kinda funny, but you guys keep triggering that poor guy. Cut him some slack lol.
Also, I have to agree with eugene when he says that the left is plagued by this desire to find a "guru" to completely endorse or complete reject. It is not allowed to actually agree AND disagree with a poster/theorist at the same time.
I also doubt that I am the only one who thinks that way about him, since there are some anons who also say that eugene, while a schizo, makes some good points.
Cope. If you have nothing to say then just neck yourself, or do you want another "what is the materialist explanation for why my poop stinks"-thread?
>>691773 >I'm starting to suspect the same guy who pretended to be you also wrote >>691722 >>691755, Eugene is usually a schizo but he's generally not this confrontational
Nah mate, it's probably him. I remember once, I insulted him so hard in a thread, that he would fall into a similiar type of manic episode where he would threaten me and proclaim that eugene will rise soon. Well we all have our issues, but eugene a bit more than most people I guess haha
>>691852 >Fuck you nigha
You can't say that unless you're black, which I think you said you are?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 08:51:03 No. 692162
you people need a new hobby
try playing civ 5, it's got that 'just one more post' dynamic but you can actually win the game
eugenics-kun 2022-01-15 (Sat) 08:53:35 No. 692164
I don't think you get anything other than this grasping. You're missing the point. This constant grasping for position is a large contributor to the problem, why the left keeps fucking up. If you did want to rule, you wouldn't be this opportunistic, and actually competent communists understood this. I just admit from the outset that I'm not writing a revolutionary tract, and that if I were I would be writing something very different.
>Also, I have to agree with eugene when he says that the left is plagued by this desire to find a "guru" to completely endorse or complete reject.
So you do understand what I'm trying to say, but yet you can't bring yourself to get the implications of that. That's what it seems like to me. The opportunistic tendencies of leftism are part of this "seeking a guru", and that's something that's been with socialism from it's earliest modern inception.
I thought he WAS advocating for a technocracy, but I didn't read into him too much, except I knew Lenin didn't like him very much. You've given me something to think about. Thank you.
Now see, we can have actually fruitful discussions here instead of the usual shit-flinging. That isn't so hard, is it?
Civ 5 sucks. Civ 4 and Civ 2 are where it's at.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 08:53:58 No. 692165
>>692162 >you people need a new hobby
I am trying to get back into having sex. Haven't had it for months. COVID is kinda a nuisance on that…
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 09:04:52 No. 692169
>>692164 >This constant grasping for position is a large contributor to the problem, why the left keeps fucking up. If you did want to rule, you wouldn't be this opportunistic, and actually competent communists understood this
I think this deserves a whole episode from you, as in where the old communists differed from the new ones, because at this moment I don't know how I am an opportunist and Lenin for example wasn't
>Now see, we can have actually fruitful discussions here instead of the usual shit-flinging. That isn't so hard, is it?
It isn't, but you don't have to tell me though, since I try to rid myself of this online-brain poisoning where I need to have a list of approved personas and a list of pariahs that can be tossed into the trash. Anyway I need to go to work now
Unique IPs: 72