Liberals seem to have this weird idea that they always need to do sex over economics in their analyses, because Marx didn’t understand the power of horniness or something. (You bet he did, he worked with fucking Engels).

I’ll do you one better, Ho Chi Minh was reportedly celibate his entire life and didn’t turn Nazi. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if liberals think he did.

You mean to say that –

• switching candidates halfway through the election

• having your replacement candidate be one of the few people somehow less popular than Biden

• having said candidate go around openly endorsing genocide

• telling leftists to ignore this, because genocide isn’t really a big deal

– isn’t some kind of winning strategy to Unite the Left?

Haven’t checked out Hasan, but I’ve been watching the online meltdown, and it’s pretty hilarious. E.g., from the Destiny sub (ngl, had me at the title):

Source: the ghost of Kiev (excuse me, Kyiv or whatever dumbass way they spell it)

Liberals, in my experience, think that US evangelicalism is the paradigm for all religions (despite the fact that evangelicalism as Americans understand it developed quite recently within global Christianity). Hence they assume that every religion is in itself basically static, because fundamentally incoherent; it consists in a few principles, badly understood and adopted originally for political ends, which must be defended at all costs and never approached with any kind of nuance. Thus we get religion as brand or identity, rather than a way of life. If the average American Protestant, by and large, believes nothing and bows mostly to secularism in his day-to-day actions, but proclaims loudly (and as a kind of remnant of earlier faith) that you must “read the BI-BUHL and accept Jesus or you won’t be SAVED” – well, then, the average Muslim must similarly see the truth of western liberalism, and for reasons merely eccentric or perverse insist on “oppressing women,” etc., and this can never change. Or so thinks the liberal.

But the thing is, most religions are not like that. Catholicism is not like that; most Protestants are not like that; nor is Islam like that. They are living systems of life and belief, which one can accept or reject on their own merits. They are not dead signifiers, like US evangelicalism is: for the latter is nothing but bourgeois “secularism” with a tacked-on Christian “theme.” But liberals find the American view of religion easy to accept, because their own politics and philosophy are also inconsistent, virtue-signaling, and confused.

There is a weird phenomenon from both anti-communists as well as a lot of ultraleft and leftcom communists themselves of applying a “one drop rule” to socialism, where socialism is only socialism if it’s absolutely pure without a single internal contradiction. But no society in the history of humankind has been pure, they all contain internal contradictions and internal contradictions are necessary for one form of society to develop into the next.

This is a really good way of putting it. So much of ultraleftism is in fact an idealist denial of basic dialectical materialism.

Today is the US presidential election. And everybody online and offline is in the most annoying state of hysteria imaginable.

Since it doesn’t make any difference who gets elected, I think I’m just going to sit back and watch the fireworks.

AI has finally accomplished the impossible: making Macron look cool.

Because they have no material analysis, and no understanding of geopolitics; hence they have no notion of critical support. It’s all a very shallow kind of morality where good = talking like US Democrats, and bad = anything else.