THE MAP MOVEMENT IS OUT OF TIME

[zarkle]

@Anonymous_Lover

The 90s and 2000s had just as much pedo hatred. The only difference was society was much more isolated and not communicating on social media. Once humans started mass communicating on social media they all discussed their shared common hatred of pedos allowing hate to spread and go viral with social medias amplification. We failed to enter the LGBT movement once again for refusing to acknowledge parental instincts to protect children are the real barrier standing in our way. LGBT didn't have that problem of triggering parental instincts. We do. One thing I'll add is that before 9/11 humans were more lax and possibly more sexually libertine due to society not feeling threatened. 9/11 only made society more tense and things much worse. The higher qualify of life the more sexually libertine humans become

Also I see you using terms like proletariat and bourgeoisie. So Obviously you are not even trying to hide your Marxist roots. Look dude, I am no fan of the very rich 1% or Elon Musk but I am politely fed up with how Marxist think. They divide the world into two categories and view it as an epic battle between side 1 and side 2. Then make further subcategories about how intersecting classes interact like the petite bourgeoisie, the family unit, the poorer proletariat and the above average proletariat. Which inspired the class analysis of Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, and Feminist theory. I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society" I argue it ties directly into animal protection instincts and the same neurocircuits wild animals use to defend their young being repurposed to attack us.


So here's the points I'm making other then my trademark talk about evolutionary psychology

1) Society was more isolated before social media, its possible if social media was around in the 70s then anti pedo hysteria would have existed then
2) Your use of Marxist terms like proliteriat and bourgeoisie draw skepticism in me
3) I tend to agree if we had started in 2000 with very good strategies we would have been more liberated now

>There isn't going to be a comfy Euro welfare state in the future, as overrated as that is, there isn't even going to be democracy, there's going to be fascism and police-state/military rule enforced at gunpoint with the pretense of wartime and emergency powers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

>The average liberal is now on the same level as a Qtard from 2017

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.


The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Have you ever read Marx and not just read about him? Genuinely

I read a few chapters of the manifesto and had it summed up in documentaries.

[Rakuraku]

@Anonymous_Lover

The 90s and 2000s had just as much pedo hatred. The only difference was society was much more isolated and not communicating on social media. Once humans started mass communicating on social media they all discussed their shared common hatred of pedos allowing hate to spread and go viral with social medias amplification. We failed to enter the LGBT movement once again for refusing to acknowledge parental instincts to protect children are the real barrier standing in our way. LGBT didn't have that problem of triggering parental instincts. We do. One thing I'll add is that before 9/11 humans were more lax and possibly more sexually libertine due to society not feeling threatened. 9/11 only made society more tense and things much worse. The higher qualify of life the more sexually libertine humans become

Also I see you using terms like proletariat and bourgeoisie. So Obviously you are not even trying to hide your Marxist roots. Look dude, I am no fan of the very rich 1% or Elon Musk but I am politely fed up with how Marxist think. They divide the world into two categories and view it as an epic battle between side 1 and side 2. Then make further subcategories about how intersecting classes interact like the petite bourgeoisie, the family unit, the poorer proletariat and the above average proletariat. Which inspired the class analysis of Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, and Feminist theory. I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society" I argue it ties directly into animal protection instincts and the same neurocircuits wild animals use to defend their young being repurposed to attack us.


So here's the points I'm making other then my trademark talk about evolutionary psychology

1) Society was more isolated before social media, its possible if social media was around in the 70s then anti pedo hysteria would have existed then
2) Your use of Marxist terms like proliteriat and bourgeoisie draw skepticism in me
3) I tend to agree if we had started in 2000 with very good strategies we would have been more liberated now

>There isn't going to be a comfy Euro welfare state in the future, as overrated as that is, there isn't even going to be democracy, there's going to be fascism and police-state/military rule enforced at gunpoint with the pretense of wartime and emergency powers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

>The average liberal is now on the same level as a Qtard from 2017

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.


The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Have you ever read Marx and not just read about him? Genuinely

I read a few chapters of the manifesto and had it summed up in documentaries.

So you're relying on what other people said about him and the short manifesto? The reason people read Marx is because he studied and analyzed the structure of capitalism, a structure that has largely not changed

[zarkle]

Have you ever read Marx and not just read about him? Genuinely

I read a few chapters of the manifesto and had it summed up in documentaries.

So you're relying on what other people said about him and the short manifesto? The reason people read Marx is because he studied and analyzed the structure of capitalism, a structure that has largely not changed

I'm more educated then you think

Don't you know about Bakunin and Proudhon both warning Marx that his system of communism could turn out dangerous? and weren't they right with "the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao"? Obviously Marxist will never agree but it is most likely they were following Marx's idea of a centralized state seizing property and that is what caused the mayhem.

Bakunin warned that the people do not want to be beat with a stick just because its called the people's stick, implying a state claiming to recognize the people was ultimately dangerous no matter how good its intentions were. Proudhon warned that any centralized power rather it be from the workers with good intent or from the capitalist with bad intent would be extremely dangerous to liberty. Marx and Proudhon both dissected capitalism and agreed capitalism had huge flaws exploiting workers and leading to inequality. The former of the men (Marx) framed it a historical struggle spanning all of human history evolving from primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism to communism again as if it were a historic prophecy. The latter man (Proudhon) grounded his reasoning in resistance to all coercion manipulation and fraud. Any authority against a man's sovereign will is what Proudhon stood against. Proudhon had a hunch that most of the capitalist privilege was tied to government granted protections like patents tariffs zoning laws and other monopolies that allowed absentee ownership of land.

Proudhon pointed out a nuance in the definition of property Property is Theft (Landlords, rent seekers, factory owners who own dozens of bases they never set foot in, or the entire worlds economy interdependent on central banks, giant capitalist firms like big tech Google, Apple, Meta and X and paying endless subscription fees to tech giants ) Property is Liberty (Local food markets, small business owners, artisans, a (market economy powered by mutual banks and free and open source software) Proudhon wanted decentralization. Proudhon did not care if people preferred markets, communes, mutual aid, or some mixed economy of all 3. As long as it was strictly voluntary. Being a worker co-op or a individual artisan was fine. Marx was far more focused on just one solution which was a centralized state collapsing into a stateless classless utopia.

Marx only made this distinction for personal ownership against all ownership used for economic self benefit regardless of occupancy and use. Proudhon supported occupancy and use "property". Marx seemed to have argued all markets were exploitation no matter how you do it. Marx talked about capitalism being responsible for scarcity in how it allocates resources, but his communism clearly showed evidence that when markets are gone and a centralized state takes control of previous property, a lot scarcity happens and people starve.

Marx had a specific strategy of history moving stage to stage as if it was divine prophecy of going to war against the capitalist class and it had to play out in a scientific way. Proudhon wanted to take any pragmatic approach to stop exploration. Marx and Proudhon split the left and the reason Marx dominates leftist thought instead of Proudhon is because Marx's entire story though very complex it can be reduced to a simple "us" vs "them" of rich vs poor, thus appealing to simple lay people who can easily understand the great battle narrative, after all evolutionary research on tribalism shows humans favor simple narratives of "ingroup vs outgroup" like that over complexity.

That's why Marx's ideas spread like a game of telephone in culture and evolved into critical theory, critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theory and colonial theory. Its not an intention plot to overthrow the West like right wing loons say, its a Darwinian memematics adapting and mutating. Proudhon and Bakunin despite being very different never went viral perhaps because of because of their complexity. Too much nuance for the public. Marx spread through academia like wildfire because of the oppressed vs oppressor dynamics fits the human psyche alot better.

[DANAT4T]

I never knew you were a Hall & Oates fan.

[Scorchingwilde]

I've been so busy lately but you hit the nail on the head in regards to a lot of what I've been thinking about the past couple days. Us leftist MAPs are literally being conflated with the ultra-elite capitalist genocidal warmongers and all I can do is hope that humanity, and maybe me and my loved ones manage to survive the next fucking decade thanks to circumstantial privileges that give us an advantage on trying to survivethis nightmare. Hearing that the "Epstein war" line has made its way into Iranian rhetoric is really fucking depressing too, but thank you for sharing so much so I don't feel absolutely alone in how I feel about everything going on right now.

While its easy to assert this, too easy given how valuable each MAP activist is given our small numbers and what's at stake, we're beginning to hit the point where we have to organize and fight or die. This is not a call for needless effort and risk expenditure, or "rah! rah! organize!" cheerleading as its own end. Suffice it to say, as anyone could probably tell by the post, I have deep criticisms of the way the movement has been and the direction its been going. Sure, to use an old 60s leftist line "a single spark can start a prairie fire" in the right situation it may not be necessary that we all agree or are even mostly on the same page to breakthrough. To indulge this possibility is a type of magical thinking that we can no longer afford, in my view. I even made the point on pedi a few years ago that what most MAPs need is not more Foucault or queer theory readings but to sit down with a 1960s union field organizer's manual. At this point, even if we all held and agreed to disagree, the present state of the movement and the moment is proving that good organization or unity between groups is not enough to offset bad strategy and ideas.

While I've always kept a somewhat open door in terms of willingness to negotiate with other leaders and work with other leaders in the movement it appears that the differences have been too large to bridge.

The situation isn't hopeless but provisions must be made to rise to the occasion. We need to protect ourselves, survival instinct is good, but the best defense is a good offense. One of the reasons MAPs keep losing is they are too nice and too patient, the enemy is always attacking us, so is it really a surprise we've been losing ground continually when we mainly defend and counter-attack or even strike first in their weak point. I'm an advocate of a political strategy I like to call konfrontasi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia ... frontation) meaning I do favor a more aggressive strategy against the enemy than MAPs have try. Sukarno invaded Malaysia because he viewed it as a British colonial puppet state, in a similar way, we do need to be aggressive and even hit first where we can. But I don't favor terrorism or rash actions that could get people harmed needlessly that would be a tremendous misconception and really only doing the feds job for them in many ways. We need soldiers, not martyrs. We have plenty of martyrs in languishing in prison, whether they consider themselves MAPs or not. Its hard, no one is truly safe right now, but the hardest part is being afraid but choosing to do it anyways.

Anyways, if this post spoke to you, you should consider joining PCMA. Its not strictly speaking a leftist group, I am a Marxist *but* I have too much experience with people who want to put their own favored political project above the MAP cause to say "yes, this has to be a leftist group" at the moment. I'm still formulating a doctrine and ideology for people to follow, we need a specific MAP doctrine and MAP politics not to be tailing the antis in the center (the worst), the right or the left. We can still make progress because nearly anything can happen in the present moment but we need to be making provisions for survival at the very least. I don't say we go underground and then fight but at the very least we try to continue to fight but also build the bunkers we need for shelter if it becomes truly impossible. They are counting on you to turning inwards and your compliance to a fair extent. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I think I will as soon as I have the ability to, though that may be some months off. Mentally I've already been trying to figure out the 'bunker building' process for a while now and I think it's near impossible to do solitarily. Thank you, and I likely will be asking more questions in the future.

[Rakuraku]

I read a few chapters of the manifesto and had it summed up in documentaries.

So you're relying on what other people said about him and the short manifesto? The reason people read Marx is because he studied and analyzed the structure of capitalism, a structure that has largely not changed

I'm more educated then you think

Don't you know about Bakunin and Proudhon both warning Marx that his system of communism could turn out dangerous? and weren't they right with "the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao"? Obviously Marxist will never agree but it is most likely they were following Marx's idea of a centralized state seizing property and that is what caused the mayhem.

Bakunin warned that the people do not want to be beat with a stick just because its called the people's stick, implying a state claiming to recognize the people was ultimately dangerous no matter how good its intentions were. Proudhon warned that any centralized power rather it be from the workers with good intent or from the capitalist with bad intent would be extremely dangerous to liberty. Marx and Proudhon both dissected capitalism and agreed capitalism had huge flaws exploiting workers and leading to inequality. The former of the men (Marx) framed it a historical struggle spanning all of human history evolving from primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism to communism again as if it were a historic prophecy. The latter man (Proudhon) grounded his reasoning in resistance to all coercion manipulation and fraud. Any authority against a man's sovereign will is what Proudhon stood against. Proudhon had a hunch that most of the capitalist privilege was tied to government granted protections like patents tariffs zoning laws and other monopolies that allowed absentee ownership of land.

Proudhon pointed out a nuance in the definition of property Property is Theft (Landlords, rent seekers, factory owners who own dozens of bases they never set foot in, or the entire worlds economy interdependent on central banks, giant capitalist firms like big tech Google, Apple, Meta and X and paying endless subscription fees to tech giants ) Property is Liberty (Local food markets, small business owners, artisans, a (market economy powered by mutual banks and free and open source software) Proudhon wanted decentralization. Proudhon did not care if people preferred markets, communes, mutual aid, or some mixed economy of all 3. As long as it was strictly voluntary. Being a worker co-op or a individual artisan was fine. Marx was far more focused on just one solution which was a centralized state collapsing into a stateless classless utopia.

Marx only made this distinction for personal ownership against all ownership used for economic self benefit regardless of occupancy and use. Proudhon supported occupancy and use "property". Marx seemed to have argued all markets were exploitation no matter how you do it. Marx talked about capitalism being responsible for scarcity in how it allocates resources, but his communism clearly showed evidence that when markets are gone and a centralized state takes control of previous property, a lot scarcity happens and people starve.

Marx had a specific strategy of history moving stage to stage as if it was divine prophecy of going to war against the capitalist class and it had to play out in a scientific way. Proudhon wanted to take any pragmatic approach to stop exploration. Marx and Proudhon split the left and the reason Marx dominates leftist thought instead of Proudhon is because Marx's entire story though very complex it can be reduced to a simple "us" vs "them" of rich vs poor, thus appealing to simple lay people who can easily understand the great battle narrative, after all evolutionary research on tribalism shows humans favor simple narratives of "ingroup vs outgroup" like that over complexity.

That's why Marx's ideas spread like a game of telephone in culture and evolved into critical theory, critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theory and colonial theory. Its not an intention plot to overthrow the West like right wing loons say, its a Darwinian memematics adapting and mutating. Proudhon and Bakunin despite being very different never went viral perhaps because of because of their complexity. Too much nuance for the public. Marx spread through academia like wildfire because of the oppressed vs oppressor dynamics fits the human psyche alot better.

It's bizzare to use Proudhon and Bakunin, both of whom would agree with Proudhons tract "Property is theft!", to critique leftists for analyzing the impact of the bourgeoise on the development of society. While certainly some Marxists are weird authoritarians and some are vulgar materialists like Fuererbach, the general idea that the bourgeoise influence society negatively is one basically any self respecting anarchist would agree with.

Rather than dwell on that point I want to show you a way in which the bourgeoise are currently trying to develop society to protect their surplus value while reducing the autonomy of kids and adults. Currently Meta has through lobbying spun up fears about children being exploited by groomers to try and implement laws which would benefit them. Meta merely acts in the interests of its owners, it's stockholders, who make money off its dividends and stock price. In other words the bourgeoise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/jfFRZHR0yL

This goes to say that even if there's some innate biological dislike of pedophiles (something I think is absurd but will entertain) this response is used and exploited by the bourgeoise to their own purposes. They benefit from this fear being unchallenged and unthought of. They would resist society developing in such a manner where they could not use this fear to mask their purely economic interests behind "protecting children"

[zarkle]

So you're relying on what other people said about him and the short manifesto? The reason people read Marx is because he studied and analyzed the structure of capitalism, a structure that has largely not changed

I'm more educated then you think

Don't you know about Bakunin and Proudhon both warning Marx that his system of communism could turn out dangerous? and weren't they right with "the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao"? Obviously Marxist will never agree but it is most likely they were following Marx's idea of a centralized state seizing property and that is what caused the mayhem.

Bakunin warned that the people do not want to be beat with a stick just because its called the people's stick, implying a state claiming to recognize the people was ultimately dangerous no matter how good its intentions were. Proudhon warned that any centralized power rather it be from the workers with good intent or from the capitalist with bad intent would be extremely dangerous to liberty. Marx and Proudhon both dissected capitalism and agreed capitalism had huge flaws exploiting workers and leading to inequality. The former of the men (Marx) framed it a historical struggle spanning all of human history evolving from primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism to communism again as if it were a historic prophecy. The latter man (Proudhon) grounded his reasoning in resistance to all coercion manipulation and fraud. Any authority against a man's sovereign will is what Proudhon stood against. Proudhon had a hunch that most of the capitalist privilege was tied to government granted protections like patents tariffs zoning laws and other monopolies that allowed absentee ownership of land.

Proudhon pointed out a nuance in the definition of property Property is Theft (Landlords, rent seekers, factory owners who own dozens of bases they never set foot in, or the entire worlds economy interdependent on central banks, giant capitalist firms like big tech Google, Apple, Meta and X and paying endless subscription fees to tech giants ) Property is Liberty (Local food markets, small business owners, artisans, a (market economy powered by mutual banks and free and open source software) Proudhon wanted decentralization. Proudhon did not care if people preferred markets, communes, mutual aid, or some mixed economy of all 3. As long as it was strictly voluntary. Being a worker co-op or a individual artisan was fine. Marx was far more focused on just one solution which was a centralized state collapsing into a stateless classless utopia.

Marx only made this distinction for personal ownership against all ownership used for economic self benefit regardless of occupancy and use. Proudhon supported occupancy and use "property". Marx seemed to have argued all markets were exploitation no matter how you do it. Marx talked about capitalism being responsible for scarcity in how it allocates resources, but his communism clearly showed evidence that when markets are gone and a centralized state takes control of previous property, a lot scarcity happens and people starve.

Marx had a specific strategy of history moving stage to stage as if it was divine prophecy of going to war against the capitalist class and it had to play out in a scientific way. Proudhon wanted to take any pragmatic approach to stop exploration. Marx and Proudhon split the left and the reason Marx dominates leftist thought instead of Proudhon is because Marx's entire story though very complex it can be reduced to a simple "us" vs "them" of rich vs poor, thus appealing to simple lay people who can easily understand the great battle narrative, after all evolutionary research on tribalism shows humans favor simple narratives of "ingroup vs outgroup" like that over complexity.

That's why Marx's ideas spread like a game of telephone in culture and evolved into critical theory, critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theory and colonial theory. Its not an intention plot to overthrow the West like right wing loons say, its a Darwinian memematics adapting and mutating. Proudhon and Bakunin despite being very different never went viral perhaps because of because of their complexity. Too much nuance for the public. Marx spread through academia like wildfire because of the oppressed vs oppressor dynamics fits the human psyche alot better.

It's bizzare to use Proudhon and Bakunin, both of whom would agree with Proudhons tract "Property is theft!", to critique leftists for analyzing the impact of the bourgeoise on the development of society. While certainly some Marxists are weird authoritarians and some are vulgar materialists like Fuererbach, the general idea that the bourgeoise influence society negatively is one basically any self respecting anarchist would agree with.

Rather than dwell on that point I want to show you a way in which the bourgeoise are currently trying to develop society to protect their surplus value while reducing the autonomy of kids and adults. Currently Meta has through lobbying spun up fears about children being exploited by groomers to try and implement laws which would benefit them. Meta merely acts in the interests of its owners, it's stockholders, who make money off its dividends and stock price. In other words the bourgeoise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/jfFRZHR0yL

This goes to say that even if there's some innate biological dislike of pedophiles (something I think is absurd but will entertain) this response is used and exploited by the bourgeoise to their own purposes. They benefit from this fear being unchallenged and unthought of. They would resist society developing in such a manner where they could not use this fear to mask their purely economic interests behind "protecting children"

I don't like Marx because his definition of property as theft is not the same as Proudhon's definition, Proudhon was pro small businesses and local artisans operating in a market economy, Marx would have considered that petite bourgeois exploitation on a slippy slope.Even though they both use the same word. and Marx's call for a centralized state is undeniable

Marx's Communist Manifesto clearly called for a strong centralized Government first to transition to communism. It was a intermediate state. I think that's impossible and leads to authoritarianism like the Soviet Union or Pol Pot.

As for age verification that's a mix of moral hysteria on porn which ties back to research I cite on Haidt's Moral Foundations about how social conservatism is a survival strategy natural selection favored. All over the Planet you see both western and non-western cultures show aversion towards porn, gambling and consumerism and support of traditional family values. That isn't entirely shaped by colonialism, capitalism, evangelical Christians or industrialism. The bible belt family in the deep south and a Thai family living by a Buddhist monastery have the same brain wiring that favors traditional meritocratic society, hard work, and strong sexual norms. Culture just makes the possibility of what those things are vary. Both the Buddhist father and the Christian father believe in meritocracy, family values, avoiding lust, and self discipline, and punishment of crime - despite having radical different cultural values and beliefs because the same neuro firings are in both of them, and they favor conservatism.

The way I see it these age verification laws in the Linux and free software community ecosystem are the byproduct of inadvertent consequences of law makers not thinking about open source handling age verification and social conservative norms hardwired into humanity causing porn aversion in the first place. I will partially agree that capitalist are supportive of this because it can wipe out Linux, their puny competition.

Also off topic, I use Linux and like it a lot but it will probably never be a commercial OS, the only usecase normies may have with Linux is keeping old hardware functional. But they won't ever use it as a daily driver because it can't synch with the social media software on their phones and its too disruptive for the capitalist for profit system.


There are ways to make money with free libre software, 1) like paying for features/code you want, 2) bounties on bug reports, 3) reoccurring donations from a trusted community, 4) making money from media and documents you create using open source, 5) running a buisness that uses open source tools like LibreOffice, Inkscape to save money from subscriptions 6) servers and infrastructure hosting (this is most common with normies but I mentioned it last to show other ideas)

But its no where as inriching as capitalist software that makes money through the artificial scarcity of copyright, the trolling and monopolistic patents and anti right to repair laws. Back in the 2000s big tech was making more money off hoarding patents then innovating software. The laws of the United States back then favored mass patent hoarding and trolling showing the problem isn't free markets it is the state's laws

[Rakuraku]

I'm more educated then you think

Don't you know about Bakunin and Proudhon both warning Marx that his system of communism could turn out dangerous? and weren't they right with "the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao"? Obviously Marxist will never agree but it is most likely they were following Marx's idea of a centralized state seizing property and that is what caused the mayhem.

Bakunin warned that the people do not want to be beat with a stick just because its called the people's stick, implying a state claiming to recognize the people was ultimately dangerous no matter how good its intentions were. Proudhon warned that any centralized power rather it be from the workers with good intent or from the capitalist with bad intent would be extremely dangerous to liberty. Marx and Proudhon both dissected capitalism and agreed capitalism had huge flaws exploiting workers and leading to inequality. The former of the men (Marx) framed it a historical struggle spanning all of human history evolving from primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism to communism again as if it were a historic prophecy. The latter man (Proudhon) grounded his reasoning in resistance to all coercion manipulation and fraud. Any authority against a man's sovereign will is what Proudhon stood against. Proudhon had a hunch that most of the capitalist privilege was tied to government granted protections like patents tariffs zoning laws and other monopolies that allowed absentee ownership of land.

Proudhon pointed out a nuance in the definition of property Property is Theft (Landlords, rent seekers, factory owners who own dozens of bases they never set foot in, or the entire worlds economy interdependent on central banks, giant capitalist firms like big tech Google, Apple, Meta and X and paying endless subscription fees to tech giants ) Property is Liberty (Local food markets, small business owners, artisans, a (market economy powered by mutual banks and free and open source software) Proudhon wanted decentralization. Proudhon did not care if people preferred markets, communes, mutual aid, or some mixed economy of all 3. As long as it was strictly voluntary. Being a worker co-op or a individual artisan was fine. Marx was far more focused on just one solution which was a centralized state collapsing into a stateless classless utopia.

Marx only made this distinction for personal ownership against all ownership used for economic self benefit regardless of occupancy and use. Proudhon supported occupancy and use "property". Marx seemed to have argued all markets were exploitation no matter how you do it. Marx talked about capitalism being responsible for scarcity in how it allocates resources, but his communism clearly showed evidence that when markets are gone and a centralized state takes control of previous property, a lot scarcity happens and people starve.

Marx had a specific strategy of history moving stage to stage as if it was divine prophecy of going to war against the capitalist class and it had to play out in a scientific way. Proudhon wanted to take any pragmatic approach to stop exploration. Marx and Proudhon split the left and the reason Marx dominates leftist thought instead of Proudhon is because Marx's entire story though very complex it can be reduced to a simple "us" vs "them" of rich vs poor, thus appealing to simple lay people who can easily understand the great battle narrative, after all evolutionary research on tribalism shows humans favor simple narratives of "ingroup vs outgroup" like that over complexity.

That's why Marx's ideas spread like a game of telephone in culture and evolved into critical theory, critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theory and colonial theory. Its not an intention plot to overthrow the West like right wing loons say, its a Darwinian memematics adapting and mutating. Proudhon and Bakunin despite being very different never went viral perhaps because of because of their complexity. Too much nuance for the public. Marx spread through academia like wildfire because of the oppressed vs oppressor dynamics fits the human psyche alot better.

It's bizzare to use Proudhon and Bakunin, both of whom would agree with Proudhons tract "Property is theft!", to critique leftists for analyzing the impact of the bourgeoise on the development of society. While certainly some Marxists are weird authoritarians and some are vulgar materialists like Fuererbach, the general idea that the bourgeoise influence society negatively is one basically any self respecting anarchist would agree with.

Rather than dwell on that point I want to show you a way in which the bourgeoise are currently trying to develop society to protect their surplus value while reducing the autonomy of kids and adults. Currently Meta has through lobbying spun up fears about children being exploited by groomers to try and implement laws which would benefit them. Meta merely acts in the interests of its owners, it's stockholders, who make money off its dividends and stock price. In other words the bourgeoise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/jfFRZHR0yL

This goes to say that even if there's some innate biological dislike of pedophiles (something I think is absurd but will entertain) this response is used and exploited by the bourgeoise to their own purposes. They benefit from this fear being unchallenged and unthought of. They would resist society developing in such a manner where they could not use this fear to mask their purely economic interests behind "protecting children"

I don't like Marx because his definition of property as theft is not the same as Proudhon's definition, Proudhon was pro small businesses and local artisans operating in a market economy, Marx would have considered that petite bourgeois exploitation on a slippy slope.Even though they both use the same word. and Marx's call for a centralized state is undeniable

Marx's Communist Manifesto clearly called for a strong centralized Government first to transition to communism. It was a intermediate state. I think that's impossible and leads to authoritarianism like the Soviet Union or Pol Pot.

As for age verification that's a mix of moral hysteria on porn which ties back to research I cite on Haidt's Moral Foundations about how social conservatism is a survival strategy natural selection favored. All over the Planet you see both western and non-western cultures show aversion towards porn, gambling and consumerism and support of traditional family values. That isn't entirely shaped by colonialism, capitalism, evangelical Christians or industrialism. The bible belt family in the deep south and a Thai family living by a Buddhist monastery have the same brain wiring that favors traditional meritocratic society, hard work, and strong sexual norms. Culture just makes the possibility of what those things are vary. Both the Buddhist father and the Christian father believe in meritocracy, family values, avoiding lust, and self discipline, and punishment of crime - despite having radical different cultural values and beliefs because the same neuro firings are in both of them, and they favor conservatism.

The way I see it these age verification laws in the Linux and free software community ecosystem are the byproduct of inadvertent consequences of law makers not thinking about open source handling age verification and social conservative norms hardwired into humanity causing porn aversion in the first place. I will partially agree that capitalist are supportive of this because it can wipe out Linux, their puny competition.

Also off topic, I use Linux and like it a lot but it will probably never be a commercial OS, the only usecase normies may have with Linux is keeping old hardware functional. But they won't ever use it as a daily driver because it can't synch with the social media software on their phones and its too disruptive for the capitalist for profit system.


There are ways to make money with free libre software, 1) like paying for features/code you want, 2) bounties on bug reports, 3) reoccurring donations from a trusted community, 4) making money from media and documents you create using open source, 5) running a buisness that uses open source tools like LibreOffice, Inkscape to save money from subscriptions 6) servers and infrastructure hosting (this is most common with normies but I mentioned it last to show other ideas)

But its no where as inriching as capitalist software that makes money through the artificial scarcity of copyright, the trolling and monopolistic patents and anti right to repair laws. Back in the 2000s big tech was making more money off hoarding patents then innovating software. The laws of the United States back then favored mass patent hoarding and trolling showing the problem isn't free markets it is the state's laws

You can litterally look at Facebook lobbying for these laws for their own profit interest and conclude it's that states problem. There's no real words for someone who clearly cannot see basic sociological analysis about how bourgeoise act vs non-bourgoise

[Anonymous_Lover]

I never knew you were a Hall & Oates fan.

Yes, actually. Hall & Oates are great.

[Anonymous_Lover]

Isn't it kinda obvious that this merits a rethink in MAP strategy and organization? People aren't going to be thinking about MAPs, good or bad, when this thing gets REALLY bloody and costly, they are going to be thinking about safety and survival.

That doesn't sound like a bad thing for MAPs, is it? It means we could make discreet communities without raising alarms. Also ourselves would be thinking more about survival than about minor-attraction, by the way. So perhaps it wouldn't be an age of triumphal activism but it would be quiet at least.

That's why I'm saying there does need to be a strategy. We can take advantage of the situation but only if we know what to do, the good thing would be less focus of the security apparatus on us (in theory) and anti normies distracted by other things. I wouldn't say that even good strategy alone is enough to help us win bc 1. we're poorly organized with not enough numbers or resources atm 2. You wouldn't expect a thriving a LGBT or leftist protest movement to exist in Nazi Germany for obvious reasons. Even our ability to subtlely resist or create a thriving underground amid the chaos might be radically circumscribed. As I'm fond of saying we didn't have to lose as badly as we did in the 80s-90s even if we were being set up to lose by the climate and politics of the time. We might not have achieved victory but by weathering the storm we could have laid the groundwork for it. I still believe in victory. The best way to win when the moment presents itself is to not lose badly when the wind is blowing against you. I think we can probably still win if we're serious but we must have preparations made so that we can at least preserve our strength and gradually advance in the hard times even if that's not possible where we're going.

I'd say it's just pragmatism. I used to think that integrating into liberal society would be nice, not because it's perfect but because I have the "there is no alternative" lemma ingrained in my mind. But now that liberalism has fallen apart, I suppose it's pointless to act as if it were still a thing. Actually, we might begin creating truly radical movements again (society at large, not particularly MAPs). If there's something good coming from the demolition of our world, it's that

Pragmatism is a problem. If we're pursuing ineffective action because we aren't thinking through what we're doing then we're wasting energy, time and resources. A problem with MAPs is they haven't wanted to develop their own critical theory and strategy -- and, no,
strategy isn't the same as tactics when most MAPs think about strategy they are simply thinking of tactics. If war is politics by other means as Clausewitz said then isnt the opposite true? Even peaceful politics is war by other means. So we should think about this like a war which means hurting the enemy, undermining him, making him exhaust his strength, etc, etc. I've been reading a lot on military history lately particularly in the Russian Civil War. When gays showed up physically to protest the classification of homosexuality by the APA it was a kind of war. Notice, that by doing that, they were attacking people responsible for criminalizing/institutionalizing them rather than bigotry in general. Antis have names, addresses, organizations, organizing venues. We don't simply need to convince people to become enlightened, that will happen as we reduce the power of our enemies, however, it is done.

But, as for the war, I don't advocate for any cause as a MAP except for things that will help MAPs. By withholding their support for this war and refusing to serve in it (remember 10-20% of the male population are MAPs, maybe 5% of females too depending on the study) we can improve our position. We've been ruthlessly criminalized and stigmatized by this society, so our response to this society in its hour of need should be to tell it to go to hell. When it is in crisis the way it is now, that's when we have leverage. Some people like Porcelain Lark think that saving Western society is more important than the MAP movement. So how will we meet the moment when that is the position of some so-called leaders within the movement? Lark's own opinions as an individual are irrelevant if the MAP movement chooses to meet the moment. I don't think we should be neutral here as a movement, Iran still has child marriage, and so does Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever certain reactionaries of muslim background may think about us, I don't say that Islam our enemy.