Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

Also was it this thread that @AnOminous had some quibble with maoism? I meant to get back to the post to give it a more thorough reply but have been too busy and it seems James already did a reply.
I have a bit more than a quibble with Maoism, like being an insanely murderous ideology that killed enough people to make Hitler look like an amateur, but my specific gripe is the very notion that an agrarian-based revolutionary model could possibly succeed in the sense that Maoism succeeded at least in driving out foreign invaders and upending the previous social order.

I'm also aware of the phrase "Maoism with American characteristics" but it is nonsense to me, like "Nazism with Judaic characteristics."

If you were going to succeed in the U.S. with anything like a Communist revolution, you'd want to adhere more closely to Marxism/Leninism, which is far more suited to a revolutionary vanguard based in overeducated and underemployed urban dwellers.

Mind you, much like Nazism, they both lead to the same place, mass murder (with many of the proponents considering this a good thing because they are evil fucks), but I suppose there is one good thing about many of these idiots focusing on Maoist style thinking, because as little chance of a Marxist/Leninist revolution actually succeeding has, Maoism is a complete non-starter.
 
This happened virtually every time anything eventfull occured in China.
Chinese history, where mass cannibalism and starvation doesn't discount something from being a major victory.
1693539609015.png
 
True chink mentality.
View attachment 5308130
Literally the human version of eusocial insects.

Globohomo wants to turn all of us into this.
Normally I oppose people saying to “eat the rich,” but I think that it's probably justified to literally do that when the rich guy starts ordering people to engage in murderous cannibalism. At least the Donner Party had the decency to mostly wait until the victims had already died!
 
I have a bit more than a quibble with Maoism, like being an insanely murderous ideology that killed enough people to make Hitler look like an amateur, but my specific gripe is the very notion that an agrarian-based revolutionary model could possibly succeed in the sense that Maoism succeeded at least in driving out foreign invaders and upending the previous social order.

I'm also aware of the phrase "Maoism with American characteristics" but it is nonsense to me, like "Nazism with Judaic characteristics."

If you were going to succeed in the U.S. with anything like a Communist revolution, you'd want to adhere more closely to Marxism/Leninism, which is far more suited to a revolutionary vanguard based in overeducated and underemployed urban dwellers.

Mind you, much like Nazism, they both lead to the same place, mass murder (with many of the proponents considering this a good thing because they are evil fucks), but I suppose there is one good thing about many of these idiots focusing on Maoist style thinking, because as little chance of a Marxist/Leninist revolution actually succeeding has, Maoism is a complete non-starter.
I glad to see we do have a mutual hatred of it, I'm just not quite following your logic that agrarianism is a key component to it - as if invading poland was a key component to Nazism therefore there could be no american neo-nazis because they can't invade poland. Especially as much of what James is talking about with Maoism is its techniques (like struggle sessions and brainwashing) aren't something exclusive to farmers that I can figure unless you have some detail I'm missing.

Here's his full essay:
But a key passage-
More specifically, Mao originally created ten identities for people: five “black” (bad) and five “red” (good, Communist). People and their children, grandchildren, and further descendants were classified and handled according to this system. The idea was primarily to pressure youth given black identities to want to renounce and destroy the “Four Olds” of society and become Maoist revolutionaries. A variety of identity campaigns, involving both carrots and sticks, were employed in the process. Denounce your old way of life and thinking publicly and repeatedly, undergo criticism, self-criticism, and struggle, denounce your father and family if they had the wrong kind of identity, pledge loyalty to Mao, help his revolutionary cadres and forces—those kinds of things could get you a ticket out of a “black” identity into a “red” one.

The goal Mao had was to enact the formula he claims he created in 1942, though it is probably a Soviet import. That program he called “unity – criticism – unity.” Create the desire for unity (just like Biden’s Democrats). When people desire to have unity, show them how they are failing to live up to the standard unity demands through criticism. Get them to self-criticize. Put them through humiliating struggle. Teach them that they’re racist and must become anti-racist and would except they lack racial humility and exhibit white fragility because they covet their own white privilege and the benefits it provides, for example. Exact confessions and apologies and promises to “do better.” Always hold out radical identities as a possible escape from some or all of the pressure, which never quite goes away (white and queer is still white—do better). Only when they die to their old selves and are reborn on the side of the oppressed (in Freire’s language, anyway) can they adopt unity “on a new basis,” which Mao called “socialist discipline.”

Today, of course, under Intersectionality, the program is the same. Straight, white, male, cis, blah, blah, blah: black identities. Ally, radical activist, change agent, queer, and all that: red identities. The goal isn’t “unity”; it’s “inclusion” and “belonging.” Those sound nicer. The program is the same. Create a desire to belong; initiate a period of struggle, criticism, and self-criticism as a cult initiation and hazing ritual; and achieve unity under a new “inclusive” standard.

What this achieved, especially thanks to his thorough and early capture of the schools, turning them into revolutionary universities and high schools, was the creation of an extremely radical youth culture that didn’t know any other standard some sixteen years after Mao first claimed power. These were called the Red Guard, and they were selected only from the ranks of the red identities. They had praise heaped upon them; they were celebrated and affirmed; and they were largely above the law in their rampant and destructive radicalism. They ransacked homes and temples, destroyed statues and art from the old culture, bullied, humiliated, and tortured wrongthinkers, sometimes to death, all with the blessing of Mao’s police. From 1966 to 1968, they ran a red terror through every corner of China, and Mao rode the terror to increasingly consolidated and unquestionable power.

Hm. I'm getting a real deja vu off that last paragraph. Especially since 2020...
 
Guys I don't know where to complain and this thread is semi appropriate. Just got a flier for my kids' school picture day, and overpriced Lifetouch couldn't bring themselves to put more than one white kid on the flier - and that white kid clearly has downs.
Well, looks like this normie mom is going to research how to pirate photos without paying. White people can't be shown healthy and happy anymore, even at a school that is 70% white.
 
Most of the euphorics were originally center-left or were lolberts and most of them went Woke, with a few going trad. Very few of the original fedora-tippers remained center-left and most of them are older guys like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

Even those atheists who were initially anti-woke "Skeptics" from 2012-2016 such as TJ Kirk, MundaneMatt, and Shoe eventually all became BreadTubers after Trump got elected.
Ironic how so many supposedly "freethinking" and "enlightened" people became so cult-y after GamerGate and Orange Man Bad happened.

(and who is "Shoe"?)
 
Back