Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[Polident]

Nearly every conflict is “cis” people wanting to mind their own business and not being allowed to.

[malfoyking]

Nothing is settled until US also stops listening to online extremists. UK and Europe might finally begin to come to their senses.

[Uncle]

Seems TransERA feels betrayed...

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-110?post=121531986#post-121531986

And Stonewall goes to bat for.... the Cass report and conversion therapy. I guess the whitewashing in the film was a prelude of where they were going. I guess we're going this alone.

Maybe consider that the Cass report has merit that needs considering?

What is important, above all, is that trans and gender-diverse children get the quality healthcare that they need and deserve. The Cass Review can play a vital role in achieving this aim, if its recommendations are implemented properly.

stonewall over here trying the old and thoroughly tested tactic of pretending they support something so they can worm their way into the process and guide implementation in their favor, and these motherfuckers are too dumb to recognize basic strategy

[Rendle]

I would never trust an organisation called Stonewall to help get something done

[Uncle]

They may deny it, but they are absolutely addicted at "fighting" culture wars with the "chuds."

and combine this with the internet hipster desire to be "first!!" or "called it!!" or "I hated it before it was cool!!" and you have them sabotaging themselves by issuing sweeping edicts before anyone knows how it's going to shake out in the wider culture

[Besticus Maximus]

Listen fuckers, I made talking children into cutting their dicks off my entire personality and i'm not about to stop now because of some CHUD report that wants impossible standards of 'evidence'

[benji]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/geoengineering-test-launches-salt-crystals-into-atmosphere.837738/page-2?post=121404081#post-121404081

And the countries coasting off of all the oil and blood it takes to get it are riddled with unhealthy systems and pathologies anyway. Like cool, the world we've built off of fossil fuels and road systems allows you to get a video game console with one-day shipping from Amazon. Do you have any meaningful relationships with other human beings? A job that pays you what you're (actually) worth? Good healthcare? Walkable infrastructure? Are you a minority?

Like, toss a stone at any thread on Era and you will find it riddled with people who are just ridiculously unhappy for one reason or another, even under a Western standard of living. What are those people losing if you're unable to waste as much because the systems at play don't allow you to, or have to take more public transportation, or you can't do one-day shipping anymore?

I don't know about you, but if you told me getting rid of fossil fuels meant I could have a better life by the standards that actually promote healthier, happier living, and not just the ones that facilitate mindless consumerism and dangerous travel along highways built over my ancestors ' homes, I would make the trade in a heartbeat. And frankly, I don't think you're ever going to move the needle as much as you need to if you're defaulting to the alternatives always resulting in a worse standard of living anyway. That we have to keep up this ridiculous system of production and waste or else we are worse off. We have to actually be more optimistic and imaginative.

Child C's hilariously poor argument should tip you off that this is likely some conservative or libertarian claptrap.

Some good arguments from someone optimistic and imaginative against this ridiculous system of production and waste:

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks approach the question of socialism in a doctrinaire way, from the standpoint of a doctrine learnt by heart but poorly understood. They picture socialism as some remote, unknown and dim future.

But socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically, by every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism.

What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

Consolidate and improve the state monopolies (in grain, leather, etc.) which have already been introduced, and by doing so prepare for the state monopoly of foreign trade. Without this monopoly we shall not be able to “free ourselves” from foreign capital by paying “tribute”.[4] And the possibility of building up socialism depends entirely upon whether we shall be able, by paying a certain tribute to foreign capital during a certain transitional period, to safeguard our internal economic independence.

We are also lagging very far behind in regard to the collection of taxes generally, and of the property and income tax in particular. The imposing of indemnities upon the bourgeoisie—a measure which in principle is absolutely permissible and deserves proletarian approval—shows that in this respect we are still nearer to the methods of warfare (to win Russia from the rich for the poor) than to the methods of administration. In order to become stronger, however, and in order to be able to stand firmer on our feet, we must adopt the latter methods, we must substitute for the indemnities imposed upon the bourgeoisie the constant and regular collection of a property and income tax, which will bring a greater return to the proletarian state, and which calls for better organisation on our part and better accounting and control.[5]

The fact that we are late in introducing compulsory labour service also shows that the work that is coming to the fore at the present time is precisely the preparatory organisational work that, on the one hand, will finally consolidate our gains and that, on the other, is necessary in order to prepare for the operation of “surrounding” capital and compelling it to “surrender”. We ought to begin introducing compulsory labour service immediately, but we must do so very gradually and circumspectly, testing every step by practical experience, and, of course, taking the first step by introducing compulsory labour service for the rich. The introduction of work and consumers’ budget books for every bourgeois, including every rural bourgeois, would be an important step towards completely “surrounding” the enemy and towards the creation of a truly popular accounting and control of the production and distribution of goods.

The state, which for centuries has been an organ for oppression and robbery of the people, has left us a legacy of the people’s supreme hatred and suspicion of everything that is connected with the state. It is very difficult to overcome this, and only a Soviet government can do it. Even a Soviet government, however, will require plenty of time and enormous perseverance to accomplish it. This “legacy” is especially apparent in the problem of accounting and control—the fundamental problem facing the socialist revolution on the morrow of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. A certain amount of time will inevitably pass before the people, who feel free for the first time now that the landowners and the bourgeoisie have been overthrown, will understand—not from books, but from their own, Soviet experience—will understand and feel that without comprehensive state accounting and control of the production and distribution of goods, the power of the working people, the freedom of the working people, cannot be maintained, and that a return to the yoke of capitalism is inevitable.

All the habits and traditions of the bourgeoisie, and of the petty bourgeoisie in particular, also oppose state control, and uphold the inviolability of “sacred private property”, of “sacred” private enterprise. It is now particularly clear to us how correct is the Marxist thesis that anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are bourgeois trends, how irreconcilably opposed they are to socialism, proletarian dictatorship and communism. The fight to instill into the people’s minds the idea of Soviet state control and accounting, and to carry out this idea in practice; the fight to break with the rotten past, which taught the people to regard the procurement of bread and clothes as a “private” affair, and buying and selling as a transaction “which concerns only myself"—is a great fight of world-historic significance, a fight between socialist consciousness and bourgeois-anarchist spontaneity.

...

Dictatorship, however, is a big word, and big words should not be thrown about carelessly. Dictatorship is iron rule, government that is revolutionarily bold, swift and ruthless in suppressing both exploiters and hooligans. But our government is excessively mild, very often it resembles jelly more than iron. We must not forget for a moment that the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois element is fighting against the Soviet system in two ways; on the one hand, it is operating from without, by the methods of the Savinkovs, Gotzes, Gegechkoris and Kornilovs, by conspiracies and rebellions, and by their filthy “ideological” reflection, the flood of lies and slander in the Constitutional-Democratic, Right Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik press; on the other hand, this element operates from within and takes advantage of every manifestation of disintegration, of every weakness, in order to bribe, to increase indiscipline, laxity and chaos. The nearer we approach the complete military suppression of the bourgeoisie, the more dangerous does the element of petty-bourgeois anarchy become. And the fight against this element cannot be waged solely with the aid of propaganda and agitation, solely by organising competition and by selecting organisers. The struggle must also be waged by means of coercion.

As the fundamental task of the government becomes, not military suppression, but administration, the typical manifestation of suppression and compulsion will be, not shooting on the spot, but trial by court. In this respect also the revolutionary people after October 25, 1917 took the right path and demonstrated the viability of the revolution by setting up their own workers’ and peasants’ courts, even before the decrees dissolving the bourgeois bureaucratic judiciary were passed. But our revolutionary and people’s courts are extremely, incredibly weak. One feels that we have not yet done away with the people’s attitude towards the courts as towards something official and alien, an attitude inherited from the yoke of the landowners and of the bourgeoisie. It is not yet sufficiently realised that the courts are an organ which enlists precisely the poor, every one of them, in the work of state administration (for the work of the courts is one of the functions of state administration), that the courts are an organ of the power of the proletariat and of the poor peasants, that the courts are an instrument for inculcating discipline. There is not yet sufficient appreciation of the simple and obvious fact that if the principal misfortunes of Russia at the present time are hunger and unemployment, these misfortunes cannot be overcome by spurts, but only by comprehensive, all-embracing, country-wide organisation and discipline in order to increase the output of bread for the people and bread for industry (fuel), to transport these in good time to the places where they are required, and to distribute them properly; and it is not fully appreciated that, consequently, it is those who violate labour discipline at any factory, in any undertaking, in any matter, who are responsible for the sufferings caused by the famine and unemployment, that we must know how to find the guilty ones, to bring them to trial and ruthlessly punish them. Where the petty-bourgeois anarchy against which we must now wage a most persistent struggle makes itself felt is in the failure to appreciate the economic and political connection between famine and unemployment, on the one hand, and general laxity in matters of organisation and discipline, on the other—in the tenacity of the small-proprietor outlook, namely, I’ll grab all I can for myself; the rest can go hang.

The proletarian dictatorship is absolutely indispensable during the transition from capitalism to socialism, and in our revolution this truth has been fully confirmed in practice. Dictatorship, however, presupposes a revolutionary government that is really firm and ruthless in crushing both exploiters and hooligans, and our government is too mild. Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers (as is demanded, for example, by the railway decree), is far, very far from being guaranteed as yet. This is the effect of the influence of petty-bourgeois anarchy, the anarchy of small-proprietor habits, aspirations and sentiments, which fundamentally contradict proletarian discipline and socialism. The proletariat must concentrate all its class-consciousness on the task of combating this petty-bourgeois anarchy, which is not only directly apparent (in the support given by the bourgeoisie and their hangers-on, the Mensheviks, Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc., to every kind of resistance to the proletarian government), but also indirectly apparent (in the historical vacillation displayed on the major questions of policy by both the petty-bourgeois Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and the trend in our Party called “Left Communist”, which descends to the methods of petty-bourgeois revolutionariness and copies the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

Iron discipline and the thorough exercise of proletarian dictatorship against petty-bourgeois vacillation—this is the general and summarising slogan of the moment.

The publication by a small group of “Left Communists” of their journal, Kommunist (No. 1, April 20, 1918), and of their “theses”, strikingly confirms my views expressed in the pamphlet The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government. There could not be better confirmation, in political literature, of the utter naïvete of the defence of petty-bourgeois sloppiness that is sometimes concealed by “Left” slogans.

...

Our “Left” Communists, however, who are also fond of calling themselves “proletarian” Communists, because there is very little that is proletarian about them and very much that is petty-bourgeois, are incapable of giving thought to the balance of forces, to calculating it. This is the core of Marxism and Marxist tactics, but they disdainfully brush aside the “core” with “proud” phrases such as:

“. . . That the masses have become firmly imbued with an inactive *&8216;peace mentality’ is an objective fact of the political situation. . . .”

What a gem! After three years of the most agonising and reactionary war, the people, thanks to Soviet power and its correct tactics, which never lapsed into mere phrase-making, have obtained a very, very brief, insecure and far from sufficient respite. The “Left” intellectual striplings, however, with the magnificence of a self-infatuated Narcissus, profoundly declare “that the masses [???] have become firmly imbued [!!!] with an inactive [!!!???] peace mentality”. Was I not right when I said at the Party Congress that the paper or journal of the “Lefts” ought to have been called not Kommunist but Szlachcic. [Szlachcic—a Polish nobleman —Ed.]

Can a Communist with the slightest understanding of the mentality and the conditions of life of the toiling and exploited people descend to the point of view of the typical declassed petty-bourgeois intellectual with the mental outlook of a noble or szlachcic, which declares that a “peace mentality” is “inactive” and believes that the brandishing of a cardboard sword is “activity"? For our “Lefts” merely brandish a cardboard sword when they ignore the universally known fact, of which the war in the Ukraine has served as an additional proof, that peoples utterly exhausted by three years of butchery cannot go on fighting without a respite; and that war, if it cannot be organised on a national scale, very often creates a mentality of disintegration peculiar to petty proprietors, instead of the iron discipline of the proletariat. Every page of Kommunist shows that our “Lefts” have no idea of iron proletarian discipline and how it is achieved, that they are thoroughly imbued with the mentality of the declassed petty-bourgeois intellectual.

Perhaps all these phrases of the “Lefts” about war can be put down to mere childish exuberance, which, moreover, concerns the past, and therefore has not a shadow of political significance? This is the argument some people put up in defence of our “Lefts”. But this is wrong. Anyone aspiring to political leadership must be able to think out political problems, and lack of this ability converts the “Lefts” into spineless preachers of a policy of vacillation, which objectively can have only one result, namely, by their vacillation the “Lefts” are helping the imperialists to provoke the Russian Soviet Republic into a battle that will obviously be to its disadvantage, they are helping the imperialists to draw us into a snare.

...

This is deceiving the people. If you want to fight now, say so openly. If you don’t wish to retreat now, say so openly. Otherwise, in your objective role, you are a tool of imperialist provocation. And your subjective “mentality” is that of a frenzied petty bourgeois who swaggers and blusters but senses perfectly well that the proletarian is right in retreating and in trying to retreat in an organised way. He senses that the proletarian is right in arguing that because we lack strength we must retreat (before Western and Eastern imperialism) even as far as the Urals, for in this lies the only chance of playing for time while the revolution in the West matures, the revolution which is not “bound” (despite the twaddle of the “Lefts") to begin in “spring or summer”, but which is coming nearer and becoming more probable every month.

The “Lefts” have no policy of their “own”. They dare not declare that retreat at the present moment is unnecessary. They twist and turn, play with words, substitute the question of “continuously” avoiding battle for the question of avoiding battle at the present moment. They blow soap bubbles such as “international revolutionary propaganda by deed"!! What does this mean?

It can only mean one of two things: either it is mere Nozdryovism,[1] or it means an offensive war to overthrow international imperialism. Such nonsense cannot be uttered openly, and that is why the “Left” Communists are obliged to take refuge from the derision of every politically conscious proletarian behind high-sounding and empty phrases. They hope the inattentive reader will not notice the real meaning of the phrase “international revolutionary propaganda by deed”.

The flaunting of high-sounding phrases is characteristic of the declassed petty-bourgeois intellectuals. The organised proletarian Communists will certainly punish this “habit” with nothing less than derision and expulsion from all responsible posts.

Lenin's great. Best Marxist writer by far? Mao's too weird and seemingly drunk half the time so it's really hit or miss. Lenin's just bangers constantly.

Marx is that shitty incoherent gibberish of modern academia but from 150 years in the past additionally mainlined through a German Hegelian.

[HaughtyFrank]

Fact check: if you report on the Cass report existing you're a Terf!

[Uncle]

Nearly every conflict is “cis” people wanting to mind their own business and not being allowed to.

[Besticus Maximus]

Trotsky is great craic, genuinely close to the answer but sidetracked by a desire to fill the streets with blood

[books]

Why would I listen to doctors when a chick with a beard agrees with me?

[benji]

Trotsky is great craic, genuinely close to the answer but sidetracked by a desire to fill the streets with blood

I love the one screed against Stalin, basically a huge diatribe about all the ways he's fucking up that are totally accurate about Marxism and his conclusion is that Lenin didn't let him murder enough fellow Bolsheviks to prevent Stalin from winning the power struggle so he could have done the dictatorship ("correctly") even harder. Kinda deserved the ice pick for that kind of shit.

[benji]

Fact check: if you report on the Cass report existing you're a Terf!

Amazing content:

[benji]

It's actually about ethics in employing Jews and cis women in journalism.

[Nintex]

Nothing is settled until US also stops listening to online extremists. UK and Europe might finally begin to come to their senses.

[benji]

There's something amusingly telling about the regular demand of "you should only allow trans women to report on this" when there's trans women like Blair White, Sophia Narwitz and Corinna Cohn out there. Shouldn't they fear the fascists that operate the New York Times will just hire one of these types of trans women to further the exterminationist goal?

[benji]

Was workshopping a joke about The Bire exterminationist agenda. Realized you could just use it unironically for ResetERA.com: Harry Potter, Stellar Blade, chuds literally anywhere, Gene Park, the collective nation of Jewish people, etc.

[benji]

Was workshopping a joke

Don't try this without years of comedy school. It's okay for me, I'm an unlicensed expert.

[Boredfrom]

Seems TransERA feels betrayed...

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-110?post=121531986#post-121531986

And Stonewall goes to bat for.... the Cass report and conversion therapy. I guess the whitewashing in the film was a prelude of where they were going. I guess we're going this alone.

Maybe consider that the Cass report has merit that needs considering?

[Boredfrom]

Lead them to paradise. 

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

The trans genocide is upon us and you're LAUGHING?!

[HaughtyFrank]

One day we'll read about Hachikoma shooting up a town hall and we'll all wonder why it didn't happen sooner

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

We can't just believe the science about this.. It's the wrong science.

[Uncle]

you know

these activists all pull faces constantly about their struggle and how shocking and horrible it is to be mashed into the dirt and how they're having daily panic attacks about the trans genocide

  

and there was a time when I basically believed them and thought they were insane miserable people shivering in their apartment

but really it seems pretty obvious that no one would be able to function like that to the extent that they all do, continually, day after day making hundreds of tweets

they're just reveling in playing the game, aren't they?

tweeting "literally shaking rn from this new anti-trans news, I'll never get these tear stains off my striped socks" and then roll their eyes in boredom because the starbucks barista isn't back with their latte yet, and quietly relishing the moment when the poor minimum wagie stammers in fear of accidentally using the wrong pronoun

every "we're literally dying" is just playing the same card that's been working for a decade and only now is starting to get dog-eared

One day we'll read about Hachikoma shooting up a town hall and we'll all wonder why it didn't happen sooner

yeah see this is what I'm questioning

hachi is in 50 discords quietly encouraging other actually disturbed trans people toward violence so they'll have a nice month-long opportunity to tweet all day about it and score points

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

[Boredfrom]

Leaked footage of Kyuuji and gang plans for counterattack:

[Nintex]

I warned yall about the trans climate marxists being bad hombres

[Propagandhim]

Did that person say they're cataloguing the articles

[Propagandhim]

You went to school for this too? Why?!  It's already your whole life and it doesn't pay the bills.  Just do it on the side for God's sake and pick up a nursing cert or something.  Jesus.

[Uncle]

You went to school for this too? Why?!  It's already your whole life and it doesn't pay the bills.  Just do it on the side for God's sake and pick up a nursing cert or something.  Jesus.

please no

they're the kind of people who would "accidentally" sign up patients for a dose of therapeutic HRT because they think they detect an egg and want to see if they enjoy it