MAP Forum

Rakuraku wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 2:10 am

zarkle wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 12:52 am @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.

zarkle wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 4:50 pm

Rakuraku wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 2:10 am

zarkle wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 12:52 am @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

Rakuraku wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 6:27 pm

zarkle wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 4:50 pm

Rakuraku wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 2:10 am
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.

I never knew you were a Hall & Oates fan.

Anonymous_Lover wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 11:26 am

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 5:31 am 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.