reminder when trying to debate online this is the level of epistemological disagreement you have to try to mediate

lol

i'm not sure what that has to do with the comment i'm highlighting but i'll take the bait and just note that trump is clearly illerate (big shocker) and highlighted it because he saw the title and didn't actually read it (he couldn't have because it's paywalled), since the article is in reality about the fickle nature of cult of personality populism pseudo-politics rather than an endorsement

Kyeyune's inability to fathom anything intellectually except apocalyptic doomer depictions of american/european collapse is incredibly annoying but people continually confuse his political nihilism w actually being right wing

seems to me like a weird syncretic populist

hes also part of a Swedish conservative think tank and whose updated "Marxist class theory" is just petty-bourgeois productivist nonsense that argues for immigration restrictions and killing welfare programs ("transferiat")

right-wing nationalist populism under a cloak of the left

petty-boug small biz owner truck drivers are the new proletariat oh yes

kyeyune definitely isn't right wing, it's just that he has an incredible amount of nihilism that prevents him from articulating any ends to ideological practice. he's kind of devolved into irony over time in communication as a cope for thinking any form of viable politics can only exist in a post-collapse world, people read his articles as his supporting right wing stuff but in reality he's writing about the observation of right wing victory and why he perceives it as working, a kind of looking glass approach borne from that same nihilism of being a "leftist that hates leftism" type person. he's a black guy whose parents are african refugees, he's not hiding behind leftism to push weird race immigration stuff

cncpt is really just a bunch of berniecrats that got blackpilled and ran towards sansepolcro-style fascism

if he's so focused on how the right-wing is winning and wants "the left" to imitate them, then he lacks a solid class a***ysis

he lacks class a***ysis but it's for a different reason. in general he's more of a political nihilist than a real political pundit or thinker. his arguments with actual right wingers on social media are entertaining though

admittedly i am somewhat of a political nihilist too, i reject the concept of "the left" as a unified force, because the ideologies that comprise it are very different from one another, however i do understand its colloquial meaning and try to engage with it that way, although very critically, i think "post-left" should take back on its original meaning (the 1990s-2000s tendency that read max stirner/situationists and other esoteric critical stuff) rather than the idiotic clique of podcasters and substackers originating from nyc hipster circles

good thread, deals with the classic divison between MLs and anarchists as an intro, explaining in more detail (i am not this person but this does explain it better than i could in a short way)

Happy New Year Comrades

(Soon)

Happy new year comrades
Although once again, we all know the REAL new year is on 9/11

it's 2023, you know what that means fellas. inshallah soon

there's a lot of stuff to dissect here so i guess let me try to break it down as easy as i can.

firstly, there's no one who really thinks of the "left" as a unified force besides ideologues. The whole idea of unified political forces is more of a colloquialism for referring shorthand to relative standings on issues in common language than it refers to genuine coalitions. The standings of political parties are manifested far more based on context of conflict than they are necessarily more abstract epistemological frameworks - of course, this doesn't detract from the fact that in "reality" on a non-intellectual basis social groups exist which espouse more akin beliefs to each other, but the extrapolated positions of those groups doesn't mean much without a receptacle within the actual sociopolitical process. the obsession over the specifics of unity or coalitions relative to ideological abstracts is a kind of non-starter to any form of real political a***ysis; on a historical basis, it is, sure (i.e. you want to talk about the Sino-Soviet Split), but this is all retroactive, the nuance in position applies just as much as a mutual commonality at the time vs the post-hoc a***ysis of such. This is also why "ideology" (zizek memes aside) is such a joke within more well-read circles, it's not a dismissive point, it's to show the stark division between acting parties within a political process and the divisions which occur between social groups carrying out cultural-political ends disparate from direct political apparatuses. While I understand to a degree you're trying to get to something similar with emphasizing people like Stirner (i assume you're calling attention to the whole like "League of Egoists" type ideas), I think you're confusing detached discourse alongside retroactively applied historical parallels vs the reality of how cultural groups interact within political frameworks.

Within the thread you mentioned for example, before I get into what the guy is saying, the springboard of using two random idiots flinging s*** at each other is a poor representation of any actual political process. It's an example of a Baudrilliardian illusion of politics, sure, but it's not real "politics". He may as well have used an example from the music sxn of stans arguing about Drake vs Kendrick sales numbers. The people identify as political but the politics are a detachment separate from political process; does this affect how they act in their everyday life? To some degree, yes, of course. For example, I'm sure they're nicer to a trans person than someone who identifies as a "Far right monarchist tradcath" or something, but none of that is "politics" regardless, that's all social processes, it may as well be chalked up to cultural psychosomatic pathologies. Even if these things were to get to the point they interface with lawmakers, it's sill kept within the framework of pre-existing political contexts - that's not actually a systematic apparatus as much as it is a symptom of the reach of the system we already live in. There is where most political nihilism comes in, because people are intimdated so much by the tendrils of the current system that decoupling the illusion of the political process from the systematic apparatus o fthe political process seems so impossible that people resign into sociocultural groups with the flair of the political.

Breaking down the thread, the guy is trying way too hard to make a mountain out of a mole hill by dissecting faux-political social interactions. While he notes this later on with the whole "marginal strains"/"D&D stats" tweet(s), if that's the case, doesn't it already pre-invalidate the rest of his tweet? If he thinks these are all projections of marginal inordinate ideologies that are just roleplays, why does he place so much disproportionate attention on how they interact with each other? Why even focus on what critiques exist or what dynamic exists? I had a hard time reading the remainder of tweets past that because the point stops being relevant after he acknowledges the LARP of ideology present in modern strains. Anything past that he's committing the same intellectual sin as the people he's criticizing, as he's pulling extrapolations from something that doesn't exist. If you recognize the underlaying meaninglessness of something in a cultural sense, you can't then use it as a springboard for a further sociopolitical criticism (him discussing the ideological crutch of "leftism"). If he wants to talk about "leftism" in a quasi-historical or pathological lens, sure, I guess so, but if you want to first initiate the a***ysis of eroded cultural function, you can't turn around and then criticize that group relative to a group you claim to belong to opposing said group yourself. This isn't even to say that he's wrong about the idea of people using politics as a crutch, or that he's wrong about subcultural function (i.e. people being mall goth), but it's immediatedly invalidated by his inability to project the caveat beyond the scope of the conflict he's found himself clearly on one side of in terms of disposition.

troll account

that's why it's funny

only fake news is allowed to be posted here move on

thought this was a Mao advent calendar at first glance

lot of questions here but first of all why did they basically not change Batman’s skin tone at all

Mao advent calendar would be dope

Get out of struggle session free card, sparrow bones, maybe a little wallet sized pic of Nixon