He's right. Class matters, not race, poor blacks have more in common with poor whites than rich blacks, and are more likely to achieve political objectives through class solidarity
We know but /lit/ is too full of temporarily embarrassed millionaires to admit it
>>25281343>class solidarityYeah, those white coal miners in Kentucky, Latino day laborers on California, and black auto workers in Detroit are going to be best friends.
>>25281355>fwensGoddamn, bro. You are infantile
The thing about commies is that they think everyone should be pulled down to the proletariat's level, rather than effecting upward class mobility.
>>25281378>the thing about people who want to abolish slavery is they think everyone should be enslaved instead of making more slave owners
>>25281367Even an infant would see through your Marxist nonsense.
>>25281343I don't really have anything "in common" with other humans. Guys from the same class as me bullied me in school and gave me trauma, and I'm supposed to be on their side because of "class" even though they have had friends, girlfriends, wives, etc. in their lives?
>>25281384What do you consider to be slavery?
Most people I know who are poor are poor because they make extremely bad financial decisions, like gambling or buying brand new Hellcats with 20% interest. I have no solidarity with those idiots.
>>25281390Can you ever move past that trauma? Genuine question.
>>25281405Hopefully
>>25281390>I don't really have anything "in common" with other humansAt the bottom of it all you do. Obviously. Who you think you are depends on countless concepts and things produced by your society>I'm supposed to be on their side because of "class" even though they have had friends, girlfriends, wives, etc. in their lives?The issue is a common cause against wage slavery and labor alienation>>25281397The worst and most costly financial decisions are made by those who manage billions
>>25281354I admit it
>>25281728>Who you think you are depends on countless concepts and things produced by your societySo?
>>25281343People will continue to be racist because of aesthetics though. Even if a classless society emerges racism will still exist
>>25281811This post says nothing
>>25281820Ok
You're never going to sell your revolution to the vast majority of whites apart from those who are ideologically motivated. The average white family working class or not is already rich in comparison to the global south. Whites basically are the bourgeoisie
>>25281830>poor whites are basically the owners of the means of productionWhat? Even when American labor was far better off than it is now, Mao, said Comminists of China had common cause with white and black labor in America
>>25281830Really?
>>25281838Third world sweatshops are ran for the benefit of the average white so he can have cheap clothes, an iPhone, etc. He doesn't own the means of production but for one he's usually not a productive worker anyway, he likely works in the service industry, and secondly there's no real distinction between a slave owner and a person who benefits from slavery
>>25281841>ho but as a slave you wear clothes made by slaves! You yourself might as well be a slave owner.
>>25281343>poor blacks have more in common with poor whites than rich blacksdo they? any research that supports this claim?
>>25281845>any research to prove that if x is poor and y is poor, they're *both* poor?
>>25281844Do you see the difference between a white person who in the USA makes a median salary of $45k per year, is educated, has access to luxuries, and so on, versus a third world sweatshops child labourer who makes his clothes and gets paid a dollar a day?
What is the Marxist-Sakaist take on Eastern Europeans?
>>25281847i accept ur concession. lame thread.
>>25281848Most of the working class in America makes wages, not salary. The median wage is 20 something an hour. I have actually known people who live in tents making that because the cost of living here so high>do you see that some labor is worse off than other labor?Profound. Deep. Tremendous. No, actually, this observation is what you might call a, "No fucking shit, dumb fuck." Opportunism is actually the ideological term in Marxism-Leninism wherein the best-off labor accept temporary gain for themselves in exchange for siding with the capitalist class, many Baby Boomers did that and how temporary the advantage is can be seen by how often it doesn't pass on to their kids. The last attempt at opportunism was Trump and we can see where that went because capitalism cannot afford to concede anymore and still be profitable. They will continue to offer opportunism but will never follow through again, they will just keep lying snd eating away
>>25281854The entire book is about the study of political unity of working class blacks and whites during periods like the great depression when it actually was more effective than either working alone
>>25281355They don't have to be friends to realize they share a certain economic status. >>25281378The few nominally communist countries in world history invested heavily into education in order to uplift the proletariat, though. Khrushchev's family were literal peasants.
>>25281811Sure but the racism will be localized and ineffectual because it won't be mediated by class.
>>25281908Why would it be ineffective?
>>25282180Because it can't cause any form of material oppression
>>25281343>my idpol is better than your idpolClass reductionism is still idpol. I say this without judgement because I have no problem with idpol of any kind.
>>25281390zazed incel refuting politard lies.i have no friends. die you stupid fags and stop telling me what to do.
>>25282245>common political cause through being enslaved is the same as a common political cause based on having double-jointsNot at all
>>25282257you're not enslaved
>>25282255hey hey u have to risk ur life during the revolutionary struggle for the good of humanity comrade! oh, what? u wante a crumb of sex? to know the feeling of loved by a human? improve urself to be more competitive chud! no one is entitled to human intimacy!leftists can never avoid that selfown.
>>25282264I'm a wage slave
>>25282265Have you considered that capitalism is what leads to commodification of love?
The nature of the person matters more than their economic status. Different races show different behaviors and ways of thinking, and these manifest themselves in culture, or the lack thereof. I don't care if a white man is poor or rich, i feel more at ease with him than i do a black man. Less likely to stab me too:https://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Race-Evolution-and-Behavior-ocr.pdf
>>25281385Wanna test that theory?
>>25281378What about bringing back chattel slavery?
>>25282505Whether you do or not, you are on the plantation alongside blacks and others own it
>>25281355>black auto workers in Detroitwho?
>>25282595They're very common in Detroit contrary to your discord Goonsesh Awoo Based NatSoc info
>>25282525If you're going to rebel against the plantation owner, isn't it easier to do it with people you're similar to, and not different? Is coordination not easier when we all share the same dispositions and instincts, and can appeal to a common heritage and history that's not being respected by the current slavery? If there were different races of slaves who once competed in the past, would it not be easier for the owner to play off these different factions against each other? Freedom would sooner come to those who are united by blood rather than the needs of the current moment. Globalism and marxism makes the whole world slaves of the cosmopolitian jewish class, a "class" based upon race. If the workers of the world unite, they'll just make themselves easier to conquer. Plus, defining our identities based upon class is extremely unstable and a weak link between individuals. Class can change multiple times over one's lifetime, and am I supposed to feel kinship with a middle class indian who just moved to the u.s, and replaces the current white american culture with an indian one, just because we make similar amounts of money? What sort of identity are we leaving for our children? "Protect the tombs of your ancestors: they made 100,000$ (adjusted for inflation)". I want my people to feel a deeper sense of kinship and community with each other, causing the rich to help the poor. You would make a people defined by their victimhood, where is the beauty or culture in that?
>>25281343It's so funny that jewish communists opened the race box thinking that they could pass themselves off as POC. Now they're trying to claw their way back to class before anoder shoah happens. No take backs!
>>25281841>services aren’t productiveNot Marxist. How stupid do you have to be to think picking a potato is productive but being an agriculture professor isn’t? As Engels put it you think we want a ‘society of porters’.
>>25282505Black people are not related to each other so how can they be genetically inferior? The evidence on heredity can be interpreted either way but this destroys it. Have you ever noticed that white trash look similar and behave similarly, with brutish faces compared to educated whites? But they aren’t related and they aren’t a genetic underclass, though they are ugly retards. Furthermore, you will be happier if you ditch your racism. Hating people and thinking yourself superior makes you miserable.
>>25281343You can buy a 5lb bag of rice at any grocery store in America that will feed you for a week for 5$.It is enriched rice, white rice, better than your ancestors had for thousands of years.If you stand around with a cardboard sign for 2 days you would make enough money to feed yourself for half a year. This isn't even accounting for food stamps or EBT.These are not the conditions from which a revolution is constructed, though we do appreciate your roll in making it easier to keep the government divided and weak with your childish fantasies.
>>25282670>people aren’t struggling because rice is cheap>people aren’t mad enough for real change to be possibleThis anon has never worked a real job and does not know any families below the upper middle class. Now watch he’s going to lie about himself.
>>25282613It's easiest to do with people who are set on victory or death, once the revolution has started. Those will never be the majority of slaves, of any race. That's not how revolution works
>>25282664Just because they're not literally related to each other doesn't mean they aren't genetically similar. I honestly haven't noticed "brutish" faces being higher in poor whites compared to rich ones. Yes, they do have similar behaviors. Not all behavior is genetic, some is learned through environment. If those poor whites were raised rich, the majority of them would act like rich whites, whereas blacks on average wouldn't. I don't froth from the mouth when I see blacks, I just move on with my day and wish I was living in a whiter country. You can prefer your own people without hating others. I think I personally am superior intelligence wise compared to most blacks, but that's from objective observation. I also know that in terms of impulse control and intelligence, my race is on average superior to blacks. But this doesnt cause me mental anguish, how could feeling superior ever cause one to feel worse than being inferior? That's utterly strange.
>>25282759Blacks raised in a high-literacy environment do not act at all like literate blacks. This a much greater factor than simple wealth, for any race.
>>25281343The workers are competitors to each another.Yet, there is not reason for a hate based on colour etc.The reality is far more nuanced. Class struggle could be a mean to an end but has to be considered instrumental instead as pseudo-religious like the Marxists. I will stop here. Enjoy circle jerk.
>>25282697Of course those who prefer death to defeat will reach their goals faster than those who submit out of fear or luxury, but a revolution needs more than just this minority of aristocrats. The common people will only join a revolution if they think there's a good chance of winning, and that the cause is worth fighting for. On a literal slave plantation, no matter the ethnic content, if these two conditions are fulfilled, the revolution will probably succeed. But the relative material deprivation of Americans isn't a literal slave plantation, and improving the conditions of the poor relies more upon social programs and opening employment opportunities, rather than brutal rebellion. The middle and upper classes are more willing to support these socialist policies when they believe they sacrifice more of their money for "their" people. Defining in-groups upon race is the only way for those people to cooperate in socialist regimes, whereas defining in-groups based upon class, or literally nothing like contemporary America, hinders this socialist objectives.>>25282763What would you say these factors are?
>>25282853Revolutions are NEVER fought by a majority of the people. Ever. Castro started the Cuban revolution with 82 men.
>>25281343>the average muttoid who's gorging himself daily and spends four digits on entertainment each month is actually a slave and this close to rebelling because of his awful conditions says the pretend commie for the 9th million time in the past centuryHow do you not tired of being this stupid? Go read a history book, the level palpable misery that needs to be reached in terms of physiological suffering in order to start a revolution is almost unthinkable in the west, and in fact most of the modern world. You can cry about Mcjew Moneybags making billions dishonestly but he has still made the bottom worker drones richer than anyone before him. Your ideology is a dead end and only appeals to upper middle class whites who want to larp as dissidents.
>>25282868Yes, but most revolutions are going to need more than the people who will literally not stop fighting until they die. Plenty of the soldiers in the American revolution would have went back to their farms if a truly serious defeat was sustained, something along the lines of the battle of Cannae. And revolutionary personalities aren't just limited to the left-wing, for every Marxist there's a national socialist. Having a mono-racial slave class would allow the slaves to revolt more easily, because world views based upon race won't fracture them, and they can resort to common sentiments and heritage to inflame the slaves to revolt. And what happens once the revolution is done? Is it not inevitable that certain races try to dominate the new government to their advantage? This is precisely what occurred with the soviet union in regards to the Jews, to the point where the "colorblind" ideology of communism made an exception just for them, so they could get them out of the government. If there was a literal, diverse slave plantation, the slaves would likely go their separate ways once they have earned their freedom. There's nothing to be gained from a diverse slave population (in the slave's view), since you'll have revolutionary personalities no matter what, and if such small numbers of them are required for revolt, would unity not take even greater priority, seeing as how sheer numbers are less of a necessity?
>>25282893Revolutions need that nucleus, they need the tools, and they need the kairos. That is it."National socialism" (a subspecies of what Lenin called "social chauvinism" the idea we must be loyal to the capitalists of our nation) arose as a reaction against socialist opposition to WWI, it can never arise in America because there are just no morr "glorious wars" to accuse "commies" of not supporting, there will never be crops of young men saying hurray for fighting another foreign war, kill commies for being anti war and sabotaging it. The premise of national socialism was supporting your nation's wars regardless of which class benefitted by your dying and killing
>>25282884>the level palpable misery that needs to be reached in terms of physiological suffering in order to start a revolution is almost unthinkable in the west,This. Recently I've been reading a lot of Chinese history, and it's just insane what the peasants had to suffer through before they'd revolt: simultaneous famines, conscriptions, droughts, floods, plagues that would leave millions dead. This weird notion modern commies have that normies will revolt over frivolous shit like Epstein is ridiculous. Nobody gives a shit about political sex scandals
>>25282906They just can't accept that they whiffed their one and only opportunity for a world revolution.
>>25282901National socialism is an ideology premised on loyalty to your race (Germans, historically. But national socialist movements in the US are typically northern European or just European in general). If the capitalist of my country are helping my race become more healthy, intelligent, and cultured, why wouldn't I support them? If they were doing the opposite of these things, it's only right to change their behavior so as to increase the virtues of the race. Loyalty to the nation is really just a euphemism for loyalty to the race, where national borders and identities are constructed upon a certain race. National socialism was very much influenced by marxists before, during, and after the war, but it was equally shaped by the Versailles treaty and the subsequent indignity the Germans felt afterwards.I think a national socialist like policy can, and probably will arise in America. Whether it will be based upon Germans, Aryans, or all white people is unknown, although it will most likely be based upon a broader white identity. National socialism requires preparing the race for war, but it doesn't mean we have to seek it out if it doesn't fulfill a purpose.I don't know about you, but there's definitely more MAGA conservatives which support the Iran war, compared to American Nazis which support the war. The only foreign war I can imagine Nazis in the US advocating for is against Israel, and of course the more militant ones would like a domestic race war. But the key point isn't that they're advocating war to protect the interests of capital, their entire rhetoric is about being replaced by the Jews, and preserving a white culture. None of that has anything to do with commerce, industry, or bourgeois interests, although a white nation would be more successful in these areas.>there will never be crops of young men saying hurray for fighting another foreign war, kill commies for being anti war and sabotaging it.That's definitely true for right now, but our nation will endure for longer than the current century. What if the national socialists really did make a white ethnostate out of some fragment of the US? Could you not imagine that, if this ethnostate was to be invaded by another country, these men would just sit at home doing nothing? If communists and Jews existed in this theoretical state (which they wouldn't), we would see the same agitation and striking we saw at the end of WW1 in Germany. History would literally repeat itself.>The premise of national socialism was supporting your nation's wars regardless of which class benefitted by your dying and killingTrue national socialism wouldn't give military exemptions to the rich, when the nation goes to war, it's for the good of the race, not the interests of capitalists. Even though the poor have less material possesion to lose from defeat compared to the rich, they still have mothers, wives, and daughters they'd like to defend, and a way of life they hope to preserve.
>>25282945This is exactly why Nazism is a non-movement and always will be in America. Its nucleus is military men who formed paramilitaries. As you correctly point out, it is loyal to national capitalists and so calling is socialism is a joke, it is rather national capitalism. But national capitalism today would presuppose some sort of antisemitic white capitalist class in America, when America's white capitalists are locked in arms with Jewish and Indian capitalists.
>>25282958This post has a false premise and assumes the subaltern is the same as bourgeoisie
>>25281384This but unironically
>>25282977It presumes the ruling class makes the politics.
>>25282958>This is exactly why Nazism is a non-movement and always will be in America.What do you mean by "non-movement"? That it's ineffectual, or that it doesn't have a coherent idea of it's political and social objectives? It's ineffectual because our media is owned by Jews, and those who truly base their worldview upon their race and it's welfare usually don't call themselves Nazis anymore, but just white nationalists. I think there is a coherent vision for national socialism, but it's not to be found within the former party of George Rockwell, at least not anymore.>Its nucleus is military men who formed paramilitaries.I can see how that makes it politically ineffectual and marginal, but how does this show that it advances the interests of capitalists over that of the race?>As you correctly point out, it is loyal to national capitalists and so calling is socialism is a joke, it is rather national capitalism.You can have free markets (with regulations, to ensure capital works for the race rather than the other way around) while also having social programs to uplift the people. The essence of national socialism is designing every aspect of the nation, from it's economy to it's art, to uplift the people. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is it not communism which necessitates public ownership of the means of production, and not socialism? As far as I understand it, socialism is placing government controls on production and commerce so as to shape it to help the lower classes. And it's only "loyal to national capitalists" on the condition that helping the capitalists class will uplift the entire race. The capitalists are (or forced to) be more loyal to the race, rather than the race being more loyal to the capitalists. I think it's still fair to call it national socialism because it's end goal is the elevation of the race, and it's all too willing to mess with the interests of the capitalist class if it impedes them in these goals. > But national capitalism today would presuppose some sort of antisemitic white capitalist class in America, when America's white capitalists are locked in arms with Jewish and Indian capitalists.World views don't depend on current conditions, but rather ideals about what society should look like. By your logic, communism would presuppose a Marxist proletariat, when it's truly the middle class which forms the majority of Marxists today. Just because our capitalists today are in bed with Jews doesn't mean they will be tommorrow. Capitalists societes across the entire political spectrum place limits on capital, why couldn't a "national capitalist" state merely say you can't do business with Jews or Indians?
>>25282997I mean Nazism as a movement in Germany arose out of paramilitaries disgruntled about Germany's surrender in WWI, and formed a sort of political consciousness killing communists in the interwar period. They hated communists because communists strongly opposed fighting WWI and they felt they undermined morale, and obviously because military men, who are in the military by choice, under capitalism, who identify strongly with being in the military, will always side with capital. That's their job. Socialism at that time was originally a term synonymous with communism, ideologically speaking. In the 19th Century, Prussia engineered the first welfare state in order to placate the labor movement and the term "Prussian socialism" came into coin, as a sort of counter to the socialist movement among. This ideology was revived in the interwar period.Worldviews are not pulled from dimension x, I'm afraid, noMarxists tend to be more educated in America, that doesn't mean they are middle class in the sense of bourgeoisie (the capitalist middle class between labor and nobility). Capital must always expand, that is the nature of capital. You can build a fence around it but that fence won't last long if capitalists are the ruling class. Every drug that is illegal can be bought in prescription. Every weapon that is illegal is sold to armies. Even sex acts that are illegal are provided to the ruling class
>>25282607Faggot leftist detected go bak to reddit
>>25282958Jews actually had high rates of intermarriage in Germany and Austria-Hungary prior to WW1 and they were overrepresented among business/financial elites just like they are in America today. Yet the German and Austrian-Hungarian elites still turned on the Jews as the winds around them changed. The situation was not as different as you think.
>>25283017Awoo basedbrofren, wait until r/the_donald hears about this! *sAWOOtes you*
>>25283018They turned on them to plunder them. Which is not very likely in America
>>25283016>I mean Nazism as a movement in Germany arose out of paramilitaries disgruntled about Germany's surrender in WWI, and formed a sort of political consciousness killing communists in the interwar period. They hated communists because communists strongly opposed fighting WWI and they felt they undermined moraleThis is absolutely true.>obviously because military men, who are in the military by choice, under capitalism, who identify strongly with being in the military, will always side with capital. That's their job. Whether or not they ended up serving the interests of capitalists is irrelevant to what these soldiers thought they were actually doing. These soldiers sided with their German heritage and nation, and went out to defend it. Whether or not this defense was necessary or in the real interests of the people doesn't change the motivations of the soldiers. They sang "Deutschland Uber Alles", not "Capital Uber Alles". If these soldiers viewed themselves as mercernaries for the interests of the elite, they wouldn't have joined Hitler's movement after the war, they would have sided with the borgeious of the Weimar republic. But they sided with the nationalist who weaved rhetoric about the nobility of the German people and nation, rather than the practical economic benefits of free markets.>Worldviews are not pulled from dimension x, I'm afraid, noWhat I mean is that worldviews are based upon the foundations of philosophic systems (what we should desire, what's right and wrong). They're not based upon what the voters will accept the next election cycle, or the difficulties of putting this worldview into practice. Worldviews are formed from observing the problems of one's contemporary society, yes, but they don't change depending on what's possible in the next decade or so. Take socialism for instance, it's based upon the perception of poverty and inequality, and doesn't subject it's principle to the sentiments of the current American public, but tries to change the sentiments of the public to it's worldview.>Capital must always expand, that is the nature of capital. Don't make them the ruling class. Outlaw extreme versions of lobbying and provide funds for candidates by the public money. Limit voting rights to those of superior physical, mental, and moral qualities. The only way to achieve such objects is by adopting race as the foundation of our worldview, rather than individualism and personal liberty, as Americans now prefer. But this love of liberty is not the desired state of humanity, we are more collectivist than individualist. It's only because racial tribalism is looked down upon that the capitalist class reigns supreme, we all feel disconnected from each other, and the most emotional and resonant identities we have are not allowed to be expressed. If white people could say that "we're doing this for the betterment of the white race", you'd see a lot less decisions like FEC v. Citizens United.
>>25283083>This is absolutely trueBut these days people are a little more savvy unless they are boomers, they don't scream it is unpatriotic to not support wars.The German soldiers sided with capital, not with heritage. Lebensraum is about marketsSocialism is based on labor alienationThe owners of capital in every age are always the ruling class, owning capital is what makes a class the ruling class
>>25283101Lebensraum is literally about making living room for the German people. To get the neccesary land for the German people to farm and acquire other resources that would make them self-sufficient. Yes, this would also aid the capitalist class, but the general people and the capitalists can benefit at the same time, the growth of industry can benefit the nation if it is properly handled and controlled.If we did outlaw the worst cases of lobbying, congressmen would usually still be quite wealthy on account of the educational requirements to fill that station, the money needed to run for office, and the general correlation between intelligence and wealth. However, limits can be placed on the ruling class, just like we place limits on the president. Congressmen ultimately derive their law making power by the consent of the people, despite all their wealth, the sentiments of the people are the real key to power in a democracy. Yes, the people can be lied to, that's why voting should be restricted based upon qualities of character rather than material possessions. I ultimately don't see issue in the ruling class being a majority wealthy if they only obtain power by the consent of the people, who will naturally vote for what benefits the nation rather than what serves the interests of capital. I don't see the problem of alienation being overcome by an international ideology, but only one which places it's full love in one particular people. Worldviews without a concrete and exclusive in-group often leads to greater individualism (which impedes political activity) rather than a larger collective by which political goals can be achieved. Could socialism work? I don't know, perhaps. But it would have to refrain from imperialism like the soviet union, and focus itself only the narrow sphere of a single people. Still, Hitler and his national socialists were definitely not fighting for capital, they WERE fighting for heritage. His main quarrel with Marxism was it's international and Jewish character, which would deprive Germany of it's own particular character that he loved.
>>25283169Lebensraum for Germany meant exactly the same thing it does for Israel. The capitalist class will ultimately, at the scale it as at now, ALWAYS side with its own class over its proles of its nationality. You can either match that with a similar movement by labor, or lose
>>25282180Think about the way we discuss discrimination in modern society.>Redlining discriminated against black people (harmed them materially by denying them financial services)>Women are discriminated against in the work place (lower wages for the same work)The point is that all our serious discourse on discrimination is in reference to material disadvantage. The only exception to this, which is not an exception at all, is the case of antisemitism. We all know antisemitism is a bullshit charge. Why? Because Jews suffer no material discrimination whatsoever. They aren't discriminated against in any meaningful sense.
>>25283418>RedliningThat's just one specific form of racism. Much of it isn't tied to material conditions about aesthetics. For example the anti-Indian hate, which is predicated on them being brown/ugly/short/dirty
>>25283673>about aestheticsbut to* aesthetics
>>25282683You attack my person rather than my argument, which is fine, I will not stoop thoughever.It doesn't change the fact that in prior revolutions, people were literally starving and homeless. It was a le guerre or le mort. Our homeless people have smartphones which can stream high quality entertainment (and porn).>but theres folks in a real bad wayWell certainly, but drugs are a separate non-financial issue.A junkie will blow through millions in a matter of months, they do, we have stories like that all the time on 30 for 30 or YT "the fall of X". No amount of donations will ever quell the problem, and no one has a real solution that won't violate the Geneva convention on all counts.People are not going to pick up guns and risk going to prison or being killed because they cant buy a better new TV or bigger apartment.People aren't even willing to put in the effort to do basic research like how to not get ripped off on a car or why their bank account is going to zero in a hyperinflationary enviorment - yet they still sign at 30% interest and still hold cash.The only thing you are doing by being a commie is hurting the chances of the few elites who can actually help you as dems. But whatever, I'm not trying to talk you out of it, you're just playing your roll in the system.
>>25281343Toure Reed supports affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies.This is for the birds. It's basically a libtard trying to warn his fellow libtards that they are doing too much and instead they should push gender and race drivel slowly. Another example is Freddie de Boer talking all damn day about the importance of class, but he kvetched and banned his own subscribers for denying to gender trannies correctly .
>>25283729>he's against racism, he's a leftistJesus Christ, no shit, Sherlock, the book is published by Jacobin
Another shitty commie thread. I feel sorry for all capitalists wasting their time on these idiots. I mean if they want to be stupid on purpose then I feel like we should let them. Let them fail.At least I dont see much point anymore in arguing. My mental energy is a scarce good too and I want to practice some self love.
