MAP Forum

CantChainTheSpirit wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 4:54 pm I'll put my two cents in.

I don't like to use terms such as liberals or conservatives, left or right. I don't see our situation as a political situation, it's a distraction, a red herring, it removes our focus on real issues and divides the community. Left and right, neither is openly pro-map. No party is, no political group is, our situation isn't going to be improved by either side. I hate terms like woke or liberals, they're lazy terms invented to antagonize people while solving nothing.

To the original point, I'm not as fatalistic but I do like the points raised because they are important.

I don't think we're out of time because there is no time limit. Change can take a year, 10 years a hundred years.

1. Is this the start of WW3 and a new world order? I doubt it. Maybe it is, or maybe it's a TV celebrity and influencer given his dream platform making the most of it for fame and attention. Presidents, prime ministers, dictators, monarchs come and go, societies and their people last a lot longer. Since leaving social media 9 months ago and adopting a policy of avoiding the usual news stories, instead focusing on family and friends and local news, I've found that my life is much more balanced and I'm no longer suckered into believing all the garbage online. Trump is an old man who loves attention, the Middle East has conflict and I've never known a time when there was conflict to one degree or another, the markets are down then back up, shipping lanes are closed yet again, politicians are slinging mud at each other still. I would advise to not get swept along by all the news stories and political fighting since only around 5% of it is true, the rest is to trigger people which it's good at.

2. Our situation can change quickly or slowly. The current hysteria about maps doesn't have to endure. We've been a convenient soft target for a long time but with change in the world, new targets can spring up quickly, new groups spring up, new arguments, new politics. We have presidents and prince's being targeted in the media and we have normal non-maps being branded maps for the most random of reasons. Take a photo of your kid in a school play or film them in public and someone is out to brand you a pedophile.

3. But I do agree that we're not really that methodical in our approach. If we want to bring about change we have to be honest with ourselves about why efforts have failed in the past and really push forward either with many small unrelated initiatives or an organised joined up initiative.

Is adopting the LGBTQ+ model the right approach? I don't know. There is an assumption that because this set of strategies worked for them, then the same strategies would work for us. That is a leap that might be wrong. They may work, or maybe we should be taking an entirely different approach.

We need to stay calm and focused and be strategic, the worse thing we can do it panic or lose hope or be defeatist or turn to a blame game. If you're right that the world is about to change dramatically then that could be a good thing, it could be the catalyst that makes a real difference in our favour. But I don't think we can rely on that, we need to really rationalise our way through this which I'll write about separately.

Point one is a a kind of copium. Honestly, the people who talk about le doomscrolling being bad and unplugging are people who can't find solutions so they go into a kind of escapism. If anything people aren't doomscrolling enough. This is a dramatically different type of conflict, Iran isn't going to make peace because it knows the US and Israel are just biding their time to rearm again. The present leader had multiple members of his family including his father, wife, and a child killed, so you can imagine he's not in a hurry. Iran's conventional weaponry (drones, hypersonic missiles) and men under arms is far beyond what the West can counter. Western Anti-air is being depleted and can't be replaced at scale. They have cities underground and production tailored for war, they've been preparing for this war for nearly 50 years. They have 90 million people and a million men under arms, last i heard they were planning to call up 20 million men. Iran is basically a sky-fortress with mountains ringing and running through it on all sides. They need very little to close the strait its just 20 miles across, you can honestly do it with just mines. But since Trump hit Iran's biggest natural gas field they've been targeting gulf state oil infrastructure, and if that goes far enough then it doesn't matter if the strait is open at all near term. They coordinated the biggest oil reserve release in history between 38 countries with 400 million barrels and the price of oil is still climbing because the level of oil output being lost is worse than the output that was lost in the 70s at its worst point.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), in an assessment published on Friday, compared such an operation to the Gallipoli campaign of 1915—the catastrophic Allied attempt to force open the Dardanelles by landing British, French, Australian and colonial troops on Ottoman soil. At Gallipoli, the navy could not clear the strait, and the army was sent to do what the navy could not. The result was eight months of slaughter, a quarter of a million casualties on both sides, and a complete Allied withdrawal with nothing achieved but mass death. The defenders, fighting on their own ground, proved impossible to dislodge.

The institute’s assessment of an equivalent operation at Hormuz is devastating. It would be “Gallipoli times ten, with the difference that the Iranians could always pull back to interior lines of defence.” The Iranian coastline commanding the strait stretches more than 150 kilometers—three times the length of the Gallipoli peninsula—backed by mountains that offer defensive positions in depth. “There is no defensible line that US forces could ever secure,” the ASPI wrote.

If you know anything about WWI, Gallipoli was the greatest military failure in British history and it was so bad Winston Churchill had a hard time having much of a career in politics for decades after because he was its planner. Even just taking the Iranian coastline will be a massive problem but at the same time the strait is so important they almost have to invade. The only other alternative would be to use nukes to try to scare the Iranians into surrendering, which probably won't work and won't be as effective as they think -- not to mention the blowback of such an action globally.

Anyways, I agree that the best course of action is to stay calm and think clearly but its something we should start on and people generally only begin to start on things like this when the danger is made clear.

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.

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.

I mean the fact that fascism didn't always exist but was something that Mussolini invented in 1919 suggests its not something eternal but historical. I don't understand the impulse to reach for the evolutionary explanation when the historical record is ample. Don't you think the fact that Italian and German societies, and especially their economies, were collapsing in the post-war period had something to do with it? The fact that World War I happened at all is in itself a pretty damning failure/condemnation of 19th century liberalism.

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"

where did i actually argue it is the result of Western patriarchal society? Though I do think pedos should be cautious about falling into tradcon coping, it seems your actual analysis of fascism (which you tie to the pedophilia issue) is far more of analysis of patriarchy then anything I wrote in this thread. "Alpha males seeking power and control" that sounds a lot like patriarchy theory! Even tying it to the child protection issue that's like what Marxist sexologist Wilhelm Reich wrote in the 1930s about childhood sexual repression and the family structure centered around the authoritarian father serving as the soil that Nazism sprouted from. And Reich was a "pedo protector" to us the verbiage people use now.

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.

Libertarianism isn't classical liberalism but a project created by reactionary Austrian economists who were malding because their racist empire fell apart and the workers were rising up. It wears 18th and 19th century liberalism as a skin suit and deprives it of all its progressive content. The idea that a landlord "earns" his income would've been ludicrous to Adam Smith which is why liberal economists like John Stuart Mill and his son called for all land to be state owned and for that to replace taxes (a similar line of thinking as Henry George, though perhaps with less flair and less systematically argued for). The Proudhonian in this thread actually gets this in a way where he deviates is in thinking that in the economic realm that Proudhon and Bakunin were somehow original rather than merely interpreting in a radical way the anti-rentier project of classical political economy which criticized feudalism and sought to diminish the importance of feudal rent-extraction, which later became extended to rent-extraction in general. This only touches distribution within a market system or the sections of the economy that still operate under pre-market social logic (like feudalism or slavery). This is why Marx actually opposed welfare states because he was the first to say that productive industrial capital itself was exploitative and to explain why in a clear way. Inequality for Marx arises out of the relationships of production and how the production process is organized. The welfare state started in Britain around the same time as capitalism around 400 years ago. It will probably last as long as it lasts but the manner in which it exists will definitely end with capitalism. It really is an insult to Smith or the 18th/19th century liberal revolutionaries to be associated with modern libertarianism.

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.

Its been like 300 years since secular liberalism got started around the time of the 1688 Revolution in Britain. I don't know how much more time you think it needs or how you think its going to mature. You do realize that, to the extent this subject has been topical, liberalism has been marginalizing and oppressing pedophiles/MAPs continually right? Don't you think that might have something to do with the liberal contract theory i pointed to being applied to sex, a phenomenon which is always deeply social and can rarely be distilled into a legalistic contract. The liberals have actually gotten more sexphobic even when it comes to sex betwen since the 2010s rather than less and the liberal establishment is low key reflecting that more and more.

Anonymous_Lover wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2026 7:51 am 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

I think this is something we all agree on: we would like to increase our numbers. So, according to you, is this an achievable goal? And how? I cannot think of anything more important for a future MAP movement than building strong communities with enough people heavily involved. Honestly, I think this should take priority even over long-term strategy, given that no prediction is 100% accurate and strategies would arise naturally once each community is built.

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.

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.

I like your comments with regards to strategy, of combating anti-MAPs rather than "educating" the public, as well as your words of caution that even subtle methods may face restrictions if we are heading towards an authoritarian age. However I don't see how you would make MAPs refuse to serve in the war? I guess that's just a tactic, but I don't see how that would happen.

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.

I feel there was no need for you to mention Lark once again, and honestly I don't see how supporting a particular religion fits with your materialist analysis. (Of course, there are good reasons to support Iran right now others than it being a theocracy, although in my opinion child marriage is not one of them.)

I'd agree that it's very important that American MAPs don't throw themselves into this war against Iran - a not insignificant number of US soldiers fighting against Vietnam's liberation were semi-suicidal closeted trans women desperate for normative social validation (according to some surveys and anecdotes from them following the military ban last decade), and MAPs in the current state of the world have high suicidal ideation. Also, with the MAP population being far larger than that of the trans and genderqueer population, there's an opportunity to leverage our power against the state by collectively refusing to go to war for this imperialist power, not unlike the African American resistance to the Vietnam war.