Who is the most masculine leftist? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15044680
Zionist Nationalist wrote:haha even before looking in this thread I could guess who had opened it :lol:


Is it just me or does Agent Steel sound a little bit like he is batting for the other side?
#15044687
Political Interest wrote:delete


What happened to that post PI? I LOVED IT. You should not have edited it.

I was going to comment. :*(
#15044689
Tainari88 wrote:
What happened to that post PI? I LOVED IT. You should not have edited it.

I was going to comment. :*(


Sorry, Tainari.

Let me put it here again for you to respond. I am sorry. :)

Yes, the Western left today are essentially charlatans. After the 1960s we now only have fake New Leftists hipsters and misanthropic idiots who focus on cultural issues.

In the old days we had Stalinist hardmen in the Western left. These were real men who loved their countries and wanted socialism for their peoples. They were not scared to put in the hard work and do the heavy lifting. Most of them were actual workers, i.e. steel mill workers, boiler makers etc. People like Harry Pollitt in Britain, for example. Pollitt knew Stalin and met with him a few times, he even pleaded for his ex-girlfriend's life in front of him before she was shot by the Stalinist state.

These were fighters and believers. They didn't focus on the divisive nonsense that the New Left of today focus on.

There was no obsession about race, gender, or other nonsense. It was all about building socialism.
#15044699
Feminism is a retrograde and antediluvian political ideology that has long since mutated into something entirely unrecognizable. It presents a one-sided and ahistorical case against modern Western society. These 'trendy' ideologues are pretending that they're underprivileged and 'repressed', using a relentless and duplicitous media-industrial complex and activist academics to further their objective to extract special privileges, while the legal and political systems of the Western world have long since addressed these issues several decades ago.

Weinstein was just a Hollyweirdo doing what Hollyweirdos do and wasn't representative of Western society. Could you imagine if the Western world was like Hollywood? :lol:
#15044710
Political Interest wrote:Sorry, Tainari.

Let me put it here again for you to respond. I am sorry. :)

Yes, the Western left today are essentially charlatans. After the 1960s we now only have fake New Leftists hipsters and misanthropic idiots who focus on cultural issues.

In the old days we had Stalinist hardmen in the Western left. These were real men who loved their countries and wanted socialism for their peoples. They were not scared to put in the hard work and do the heavy lifting. Most of them were actual workers, i.e. steel mill workers, boiler makers etc. People like Harry Pollitt in Britain, for example. Pollitt knew Stalin and met with him a few times, he even pleaded for his ex-girlfriend's life in front of him before she was shot by the Stalinist state.

These were fighters and believers. They didn't focus on the divisive nonsense that the New Left of today focus on.

There was no obsession about race, gender, or other nonsense. It was all about building socialism.


You have to see PI, that all these supposedly 'fluff' issues were created by a liberal squishy neoliberal type of dialogue. In my opinion it was to deflect what true Leftism should be about. Building a society that is about serving human needs. Human needs that are inclusive. You don't have to focus on the details of? But I am gay, or I am African American, or I am British working class, or an ex prisoner, or a low wage earner, or a woman and a lesbian, or I am bisexual. It was about what works for HUMANITY. period. The liberals want the issues to center on all this fluff shit. Why?

Because the core of the problem is economic. And liberals back for profit banks and for profit corruption and for profit compromising of that essential equality.

I don't believe in shooting anyone just because they got a disagreement with a government system. I think you need to allow people to speak about what they disagree with. What you can't allow is a system to take over that is about dividing the classes and privilege again and again...you will get the bourgeoisie on top over and over again.

The best thing to do is to create both stability and beauty. Security and comfort, but also freedom to fail above all else, something is not working MODIFY THE DAMN THING AND MAKE IT FUNCTION, and until you find what is the best balance within the reality of human history--which only respects honorable failures....who keep going till they find the right balance and get it right. It is a long road.
#15044725
@Tainari88 that is basically right. The contemporary Western left is really just a bourgeoisie appropriation of traditional left wing politics. The appearance of femininity is just a reflection of how upper class people try to create an image of difference between themselves and that group they believe are beneath them. The old working class leftism had that masculine image, so the appropriated bourgeois version presents itself as something in which the old left has no place.

For the most part, what we call political correctness, is just an exercise in bourgeois snobbery. Any system built on social hierarchy must have some structure of prejudice to maintain that hierarchy. All this identity politics is a means to maintain prejudice in order to keep the have nots in their place. It is just a clever reinvention of the system of manners intended to distinguish between the ‘well cultured’ and the workers.

Of on a tangent, I should point out that every regime in history had its own version of political correctness to legitimate their privilege. In English speaking countries, with the exception of America, the old political correctness was built on loyalty to the Crown. But it doesn’t matter which historical example we might choose, it is all about maintaining a given socio-economic hierarchy.
#15044728
Tainari88 wrote:You have to see PI, that all these supposedly 'fluff' issues were created by a liberal squishy neoliberal type of dialogue. In my opinion it was to deflect what true Leftism should be about.


It was the New Left. They were more interested in cultural issues as opposed to actually establishing working socialism.

Tainari88 wrote:Building a society that is about serving human needs. Human needs that are inclusive. You don't have to focus on the details of? But I am gay, or I am African American, or I am British working class, or an ex prisoner, or a low wage earner, or a woman and a lesbian, or I am bisexual. It was about what works for HUMANITY. period. The liberals want the issues to center on all this fluff shit. Why?


I've always thought that these liberal types do not want actual socialism, they want far more. Socialism would make them bored.

The only type of socialism that would appeal to them is Maoism of the Red Guard variety. It's a type of ultra-leftism that has no basis in stability or in actually making normal people comfortable and free.

Tainari88 wrote:Because the core of the problem is economic. And liberals back for profit banks and for profit corruption and for profit compromising of that essential equality.


Liberals have even racialised economic arguments. Now Maoist Third Worldists say the first world white proletariat does not exist.

Tainari88 wrote:I don't believe in shooting anyone just because they got a disagreement with a government system. I think you need to allow people to speak about what they disagree with. What you can't allow is a system to take over that is about dividing the classes and privilege again and again...you will get the bourgeoisie on top over and over again.


Solidarity is key.

Tainari88 wrote:The best thing to do is to create both stability and beauty. Security and comfort, but also freedom to fail above all else, something is not working MODIFY THE DAMN THING AND MAKE IT FUNCTION, and until you find what is the best balance within the reality of human history--which only respects honorable failures....who keep going till they find the right balance and get it right. It is a long road.


I agree with all of what you've written. I'm not even a leftist or a Marxist, but I would want the same within a rightist context as well. No divisions, just solidarity around a common ideal. Race and religion are irrelevant if we have real solidarity.

If these Western pseudo leftists ever took power it would not be like Cuba or the USSR, it would be an absolute hell on earth.

As much as left wing ideals have been corrupted so have right wing ideals. Alt-Right and the far left of today are all abysmal.
#15044737
Social masculinity is alienating. It alienates men because it forces them to hide themselves, and separates them. It alienates women because women have to socially serve men into "relieving" their social masculinity.

Social masculinity also manipulates men into thinking that they need to use women as sexual objects and "play" which makes them more socially competitive thus a characteristic of social alienation.
#15044742
Political Interest wrote:In the old days we had Stalinist hardmen in the Western left.

Marxism-Leninism was first collectively popular in the Russian Empire.

Marxism-Leninism was a revolutionary product that came from the standards of the Russian Empire. Some of those standards are:

- Cultural masculinity (Aggressive rougher men, submissive fake women)
- Christian values (Coming from an Eastern Orthodox culture, Stalin was one for example)
- Family (Eastern Europe is more family oriented)
- Hostile views against casual sex, masturbation, and physical relief

Marxism-Leninism came out of a religious, Slavic Eastern European culture and society in the 1900's and 1910's. Many of the policies that Stalin presented in the Soviet Union that had some resemblances of those standards are:

- Conserving the family institution
- Conserving traditional men and women gender roles
- Going against masturbation and dis encouraging casual sex
- Manipulating men to be very masculine, thus making culture more rough and socially alienating

Marxism-Leninism is a scientific sociological tool that was used to get a religious, family oriented, Eastern culture towards gaining real consciousness. This was popular from the 1920's to the 1950's. Once a society like that starts to gain real consciousness, there is no point of having some of those values that dominated that society before socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

Eastern Europe is more conservative, more family oriented, more religious (or just has more religious values), and more masculine. The reason why Stalinist politics are not popular anymore is because the generations of today, and no earlier than the 1960's, did not come from a religious culture where values from before socialism still dominated their societies like how the Soviet Union was during Stalin's time.



English translated texts show at 6:50 in video, Stalin's claim that:

"However, it was not as difficult for "them" (Western British, French, etc.) to work,
As it was for Us RUSSIAN Communists,
in the period of TSARISM,
When even the SMALLEST STEP FORWARD was considered a SERIOUS CRIME
"

Even as early as the 1950's after the Second World War, Western socialist parties in Britain, France, Ireland, or Italy did not need Marxism-Leninism or Stalinist politics because they did not come from the conditions that the Tsarist government in the Russian Empire imposed on socialist parties from the 1870's to the 1910's.
#15044972
Agent Steel wrote:^ See?

This guy just explained that there's a very logical and rational reason for why I made this thread.

My observation is true.


It sure is, and it's an interesting avenue of discussion: the prévalence of (intentionally?) poor leadership on the left in the rich west.

Something that we can't overlook in rich, bourgeois countries is that commerce has taken control over most aspects of our lives : our education system, our entertainment, our governments, our military, our community structures, our dreams and fears.

So commerce is also choosing wimpy self- centered and divisive leftists ( usually fake). They also give us"green" leaders who are either drunk old ladies or exploited teens.

For leftists who are self confident and charismatic, just go to a non-rich country with real communities. Or the marginalisés leaders from oppressés Minority groups.

Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba, Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez, Malcolm X, etc.

In Western Disneyland culture, all is marketing. You can choose this washed up and slightly drunk and incohérent leftist goody-goody, or this slick, confident James Bond-style Pinochet wanna-be.

The compétent leftists are typically killed or smeared in Legacy media.

*And now a message from our sponsors*
Last edited by QatzelOk on 28 Oct 2019 20:58, edited 1 time in total.
#15044979
Agent Steel wrote:^ See?

This guy just explained that there's a very logical and rational reason for why I made this thread.

My observation is true.


Wait wait wait... no no no.

You had no logic when you created this thread. So don't even try and give yourself credit for someone else's point. You are full of it. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

Your original post was some stupid shit about the physical features of men that are left leaning versus right leaning. Now you are twisting things to somehow claim that what @Political Interest said, is the reason you started this thread?

That's fucking bullshit. Shut the fuck up.
#15044988
:lol:

Masculine
Image


Not masculine - according to Agent Steel, since he's a bloody lefty feminist!
Image
#15044993
If you're a feminist, you would probably take pride rather than offense at the suggestion that you are not masculine.

Why would you want to be masculine if masculinity is a toxic character trait that causes harm to women?

That's why it's so funny and ironic the way Godstud is getting so defensive about this. It makes no sense.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Epidemiologists trying to get a handle on the c[…]

I don't trust anything coming out of media, acade[…]

Does China Owe Reparations for Coronavirus?

@Rancid I wouldn't recommend anybody engage in[…]

Up Yours Danny

It would be a violation of the rules to just post[…]