I mean, if you knew who H3 were and didn't know they had terrible politics, you didn't know who H3 were.

They have said more than once that they're pro-Israeli, Hila (if I'm not misremembering) was born there. Ethan is Israeli-American (again, if I'm not misremembering). It's really not a shock that these two horrible people had horrible takes.

this comment not having downvotes means the people downvoting probably didn't even open the post. If they read it they used the preview.

That's what you call bad faith engagement.

liberals mad

genuinely my favourite thing about 1st thought. The headline will be like "NATO plans to destroy the world, South Korea develops child killing drug, and 100 good boys getting much-deserved headpats" as an extremely exaggerated example.

is this a rare Vaush W?

I could be misreading, I've had an exhausting day, but is Vaush "Nato is a based organization" V supporting Palestinian liberation?

his fanbase is about to fuckin meltdown

Who would have thought that neo-liberals threatened economic instability and resource scarcity in an illegitimate war against Russia and multipolarity, and the groups that disagree with neo-liberalism are willing to listen to Russia's valid arguments against their neo-liberal countries?

the neos will froth at the mouth for any chance to call anything that doesn't suit them "Russian propaganda"

love how the Canadian parliament inadvertently exposed just how far into fascism neo-liberals are.

just a few days ago, if you wanted to find out how willing to defend Nazis liberals were, you'd have to do a lil searching. Now it's right in front of us, all the time, without stop.

"He's a hero, he fought against Russia" "He's just a little old man, he can't be a Nazi!" "So what if he was a Nazi? Communism was worse than anything the Nazis did" "How dare you call me a Nazi for defending Nazis?! I'm not a Nazi, I just hate Russia"

literally their evolution through this.

more or less yeah, at least in my view.

other views on the topic are valid as hell, but the way I see it the people who're doing the most to harm the left aren't people who actually do anything progressive (in terms of progressing movements). Those people are also, without fail, the ones who are the most ready to fight against our unity. Those who want to see a brighter future, and have put in the work to understand theory and the way propaganda works, are already working with us. So it's less about changing the minds of those already against us, and more about keeping those groups from talking over us.

All of the principled Marxists are already working with us, though mostly IRL.

Many people here on both LG and HexBear don't identify their ideology with Lenin's theories, but they're already here civilly engaging with us. There is already unity between us, for as far as matters.

What matters more, imo, is educating new leftists on the ideology groups that seek to destabilize the left so they don't fall into their traps.

I have Anarchist friends who are surprisingly good about actually understanding propaganda, and simply disagree with philosophical concepts that Marxists uphold, and those Anarchos deserve their place among our ranks. I can respect some Anarchists, but they're a minute minority in a sea of dogmatic anti-communists.

On Maoists, though. Working with them is impossible because they're purposefully against AES. Which should say quite a bit about what their actual beliefs are. And why the distinction between Maoists (see: larpers) and ML-Mao Zedong Thought (see: actual comrades) is so important.

Maoists don't actually agree with Mao's theories, or the history that Mao himself put into motion. They care about the abstract notion that Mao was the last great revolutionary until the founder of Maoism came around (I.E. Abimael Guzmán, aka Comrade Gonzalo). Modern China, to them, stopped being communist shortly after Mao left power. Some argue it was before Deng, and some argue after.

Maoism, in the most blunt terms, is the South American form of Patriotic Socialism. Gonzalo and his goons used the aesthetic of Marxism-Leninism to get into the hearts of workers, then used their power to push reactionary policies. One of which being the murder of natives. This legacy remains, as every Maoist organization is ultimately a proto-fascist one at heart. Like, for instance, the Austin Red Guards. Who operated similarly to a cult, utilizing abusive practices against "unsatisfactory" members. They began as a somewhat based group, hosting events for the LGBTQIA+ community, but evolved into an anti-LGBTQIA+ and anti-BLM movement, that accusedly planned and launched a physical assault on Austin's PSL wing.

Maoists aren't our comrades, they're grifters looking for authority.

This part is an addendum, not to QueerCommie but to anyone who's read this and thought something along the lines of "I identify myself with Maoism, but I don't mirror the beliefs described". You're likely ML-MZT, and the western left's love of making things confusing got'cha. It's not a big deal if this is something you've just not realized, but ML-MZT is the actual following of Mao's writings and the politics of modern China.

I really believe the concept of "left unity" is part of the fed disruption of the left.

Anarchism and Marxism are diametrically opposed. There's no realistic way to have the two peacefully coexisting, especially in the context of pre-revolution organizing.

The idea that we have to work together, and we have to join the same orgs and play nice with each other is part of the reason we're always bickering.

The only thing we consistently agree on is the concept of anti-capitalism. Anarchists will gladly back fascist states and projects, liberal politicians and policies, anti-communist rhetoric and theory, etc. They're not anti-fascist as a whole, they're not anti-liberal as a whole, and they're far more sectarian than we are. So how are we supposed to fight against any of those things when our supposed "sister ideology" will willingly work against the movement? We can't.

The Anarchists will fracture parties, they'll stall projects, they'll hijack movements, all the while pretending to be the ones who're being worked against. There's no working with people like that, the idea that we have to is rediculous.

Instead, we need unity within Marxism. Namely within serious Marxism, so I'm not talking about leftcoms or patsocs, or any of the various groups that only serve as a means of legitimizing larping. I'm talking about actual Marxist parties and organizations. As long as groups can agree that anti-communist propaganda has no place in serious discussions, and that we have aligning goals, there's a means of cooperating with them. That's simply impossible with Anarchists and the soft left, but can be done with people who are serious about Marxist revolution.

In terms of the internet, Lemmygrad and Hexbear are a decent example of Marxist unity. However, cooperation between two Reddit replacements in a sphere of the internet that the average person never goes to doesn't really do much. We need Marxist groups from across the net to come together, to maximize exposure. And we need to establish a means of communication across all of the platforms. I don't know how realistic this concept is, but anything short of it leaves us in the situation we've been in. Just a bunch of blinded chickens, running around in the hopes of finding a single crumb of grain. Many unconnected parts, attempting to lead society towards a revolution that can't come, because we're unable to work together.

TLDR; Anarchists suck, tell your Marxist friends about Lemmygrad & Hexbear.

The "spiritual" could be a reference to Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which the Russian Orthodox Church sees as illegitimate.

Here is an article by Pew Research on the denominations.. The short version is Ukraine's church broke off from Russia's and claims only Ukrainian Patriarchs. Russia, in contrast, claims both Russian and Turkish Patriarchs.

So the usual thing that happens in organized religion, a minority group splits off and takes a hard turn away from convention, and the church that existed for hundreds of years views it as illegitimate. Which, honestly, valid. The Ukrainian church serves as a means of encouraging nationalism and anti-Russian arguments, while the Russian one has been seen as the legitimate Orthodox church for hundreds of years the world over.

holy fuckin' hell, Anarchists really will monetise their ideology.

It seems like every time I see a shop that sells leftist clothing it's an Anarchist.

Also, most of their clothing looks hella bad and it makes me wonder if they made the designs themselves or if the designs are stolen. Also, if they hate AES and capitalism, where do they source their shirts from? Seems pretty damn hypocritical to shit on AES, and then utilize AES labour for your own profit.

Cut a Westerner, and a Coloniser bleeds.

this seems dumb as hell to us, because we know better.

but a lot of liberals are thinkn't enough to see this, and just go with it.

Ukraine has been leading a genocide of ethnic Russians in the Donbas for years, and they've been getting far too friendly with NATO.

The war is happening because Ukraine couldn't keep to treaties, and took a hard turn towards ethno-nationalism.

The war isn't happening because Russia invaded, it's happening because NATO & Ukraine forced the issue.

I'm extra frustrated about this because liberals will make excuses for why the war on terror has taken my entire conscience life, while throwing shit at Russia for taking nearly 2 years in their war in Ukraine.

One's based, and awesome, and dope because skin-colour-meter. The other is terrible, and evil, and bogus because Russia.

Liberal tomfoolery knows no bounds.

"as war drags"

My brother in Christ, wars can take years. Especially in the former USSR states, because land conditions make advances difficult during the thaw months.

Also, the whole war would've been ended months ago by treaty if NATO hadn't stepped in and disrupted that. As far as it is evident, Russia doesn't want this to become more deadly than it needs to be. It's NATO who's making the war "drag on"

God I hate MSM

the TLDR version; in WWII the Americans would look at bombers that returned to base after doing flight missions, and decided based on their damage where to add armour to future bombers. I.E. they looked at surviving planes to decide how to better protect planes, instead of looking at crashed ones.

This time on: Loser can't use google, claims community is alienating users.