/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1818221
>>1818232
cool, catholics calling the pope heretical never gets old, is this group for real why would "good christians" care about property bruh

>>1817727
They don't come out of the same intellectual milieu. The Liberals were of the opinion that those to the left of them held untenable positions. "Godlessness" itself isn't expressly a liberal concept anyway. The "Cult of the Supreme" being comes to mind.
>So marx's materialism isnt the same as the liberals'
Should have stopped there. Even reactionaries make attempts at "science" and liberals aren't expressly atheistic.
>Yes and its an inversion of hegel's idea of history
Then it follows that it's distinct from Hegel and that it's not truly a "misnomer". As Marx puts it, it's not centered in an idealistic view that measures periods of history in accordance to certain ideas. The practical overthrow of social relations is given precedent over mental criticism as a driver of history. Here he explains:
<My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

>I just take science's word for it
That's a more mechanical materialist outlook which is oddly more "atheistic" than the Marxist viewpoint. What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization.
>"humans need food to live" isnt a novel insight
Good thing that's not all he is saying. You can shrug at "demystifying the relations of production", but seeing as "mystification" keeps happening with the right it's been incredibly useful.
>Again, marx's appraisal of bourgeois "self-interest" is his materialist ethos, which is what materialism is "in-itself"; godlessness as a sociality *and* corresponding mode of production
>self-interest
This seems like an issue you need to take up with Stirner rather than Marx. Marx is way more interested in class interest.

>>1820714
>What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization.
Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter
>Marx is way more interested in class interest.
The whole point of the manifesto is to say that the capitalists have revealed that history is a process of working out selfish desires, but that theyre now just conserving that power for themselves.
This is also marx's criticism of capital's internal contradictions, that it limits its own ability to circulate commodities in production by hoarding wealth in the capitalist class. Marx likes liberalism, but doesnt feel that its liberal enough.
Ive never read a passage from marx that talks about "class interest" as something which doesnt procure a political universalism. The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.

>>1820723
V. I. Lenin
MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM
Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy

Chapter Three: The Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism and of Empirio-Criticism. III
1. What Is Matter? What Is Experience?

I did not readed this text, i will do it later, maybe it will help in explaining what is matter

>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/three1.htm

>hey guys here's a fun catchphrase idea I had
214 replies later
>achkshually, as Lenin clearly says in Imperialism and Emperio-Criticism…
lol, lmao, even. who says this site is dying?

Fascists need dogwhistles because they're inbred spastics who know their ideas are unpopular to sane people, so they dance around it with shit to conceal it but get off on triggering twitter users since that's half the reason why they joined the far right in the first place. (That, and they're childish losers who unironically think this le secret society movement shit is real). Most of them aren't any different from the libs who vote for the dems or the republicans, they just get off on backing a different team to own the libs/commies/[insert slur]. Most of them aren't going to do any meaningful activism to support whatever ideology they've picked from politics Kmart, and the ones that do aren't really going to be interested in dogwhistles.

Also:
>Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims
- Marx, the communist manifesto (inb4 "the tradition of dead generations")

but if you think it's a good idea, go for it

>>1810028
^^^ this. If you're only interested in dunking on the right, a hammer and sickle work just fine.

>>1820723
>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter
I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization. You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.
>le manifesto
In the manifesto itself it says that bourgeoise interest springs from the mode of production. That's class interest.
Marx sees liberalism as tied to capitalism. It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground. Even with social liberalism, its appeal to natural "rights" is flawed within a Marxist framework. Marx has a kind of inverted "Sittlichkeit" that he follows conversely.
>The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.
That's because it's not about identity. It's about the social relations of production as a force propelling interest, not "self-interest" by itself. That's more of a Stirnerism.

>>1820772
>a hammer and sickle work just fine.
Damn, sometimes the simplest solution goes over your head. Should have thought of that.

>>1820794
no worries m8

one of the easiest and most obvious strats leftists seem to ignore is that it is extraordinarily easy to get people onto your side if you just be normal. Talk to people about their lives (your social skills and ability to do this will improve over time - if you're a socially stunted autist like me or just have social anxiety, think about it like an RPG - you talk to random people your character doesn't know all the time, right? But you do it because you have to fulfil an objective. Think about it like that.) If you don't act like a total retard and just talk to people like they're people, same as you (and DON'T proselytise), you'll find it easier to talk to normies about socialism, even easier to recruit them to the cause if you maintain a friendship/relationship with them over the course of weeks, months, or years. Even if it's just a normal convo, sneaking in this or that Marxist perspective gets pretty easy once you get the hang of it (and don't act like a total autist when you do it)

theory related

>>1820830
Chad and based

>>1820732
Lenin just criticises the machists for being idealists, but also says they are secretly materialists. He never gives a full definition of what matter is except this:
>matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.
I feel like this is typically tautological and fallaciously dichotomous; as if idealists dont believe in external sensation.
Lenin also talks about 'externality' in regards to matter which is pure rhetoric. But Lenin gracefully references marx's transhistorcism by saying that there are basically 2 trends in philosophy; materialism or idealism, and you must pick one. Althusser also had this opinion, where he saw science as revolutionary and philosophy as always being sophistical and masking ruling power.
So Lenin here is just being an empiricist talking about sense-certainty and whatnot. So a marxist materialism here clearly takes off from the liberal tradition's own codefication of science as a liberating tool. And should we be surprised considering marx and engels' project was "scientific socialism"?
>>1820782
> I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization.
Word Salad
>You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.
The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical.
>It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground.
In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests. Communism is supposed to just be the french revolution 2.0 that rights the wrongs.

I didn't even know that "Christ is King" has become a dogwhistle. Christian nationalists ruin everything for everyone else. Same thing happened to groomer which used to be a word that had an actual meaning, before they destroyed it.

>>1820830
Practical advice? In MY /leftypol/?!

>>1820850
>Word Salad
Nah
>The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical.
Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.
>In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests.
The only mention of pure reason is here:
<For the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering
It's describing the English, French, and first German
socialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.

>>1820862
It's funny, the right will accuse everyone of being degenerate while degenerating the meaning of certain words.

>>1821223
>Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.
Yes it is. Einstein calls his system "relativity" partly as a rhetoric against the *absolutist* newtonian concept, which was mechanical. Newtonian mechanics hasnt been disproven though, just sublated.
>It's describing the English, French, and first German
socialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.
So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then? I just try to be historical. When marx talks about "the terror", he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against them; i.e. the liberals didnt go far enough.

>>1810024
The daniel dennett outlook towards consciousness (as being illusory) has nothing to do with materialism, you've confused marx's dialectics of nature for british empiricism, lol. Consciousness is inherently in no way anathema to marxism nor is it reactionary. Rightoids who adopt consciousness do so out of mysticism, due to their pathological idealism, yet this is only but one model upon which to conceptualize. Besides, one can defend consciousness as extant and irreducible to the body = all, death = permanent cessation conception even WITHIN a physicalist framework. Like, there are literally books and papers doing exactly that.

>>1821259
This being said, you really should come up with other dogwhistles and develop a more thorough understanding of marxism and its many internal deviations. We can already accomplish this by coopting populist rhetoric in a class-driven direction.

>>1817649
I have a few honest questions.
1.) If you're genuinely of this belief: "My feeling from german idealism is that the objective has its own subjective gaze in man which orders reality to an instrumental reason, and marx follows from this - that in some way the world is an unfinished thing that has to be made by man.
I would also say that art is part of this transhistorical consciousness; that nature is not enough." why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism.
2.) Have you read Giovanni Gentile? Actually read him, not just the Wiki summary.

>>1821275
Oh, I also wanted to add that although Zizek is seen as a 'meme philosopher', if you seriously read his written works, he directly addresses the insufficiency of reality unto itself from a neo-hegelian perspective vis a vis marx. Are you familiar with his 'Less than Nothing' and, if so, do you have any criticisms regarding it?

>>1821275
>why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism.
Yes this is a great question.
I just call myself a fascist or nationalist or anticommunist socialist. Nazi is just the flag on this site, but i do hold my spooked right-wing respect for them. Im not an anti-nazi, but im also not german, so i have no place in the reich.
>gentile
No ive never read him, but ive seen people talk about him.
Im not really into "political philosophy" since it gets bogged down in "theory" which is inherently universalist, or "lawful" in its orientation. I much prefer metapolitics since it gets to the root of the dialectical dispute, which i see as a battle between the *qualitative* on the right and *quantitative* on the left (as per guenon's "reign of quantity").
Its not a perfect dichotomy, but the dialectic is always internally-contradictory anyway.
Many today dont believe in a left and right, but my orthodoxy is in seeing this meta-politics as an objective process in modernity (which is where both formally begin).

>>1821293
Gentile is meta-political, to be fair. He has law oriented texts like the doctrine of fascism, but theory of mind as pure act, its untranslated sequel, and on education are all meta-political and metaphysical.

>>1821290
With zizek books i read excerpts at a time
I have read bits of less than nothing and i like a part in his introduction, where (by *qualitative* distinction), he differentiates between "idiots" and "morons". An idiot is someone who takes codes literally, like someone responding to "how was your day?" seriously, while a moron is someone who takes the position of a complacent common sense. I myself am an idiot. I have an example, where once as a kid i missed my grandad's birthday, so my parents told me to write a card to send the next day - i included in the card an apology for missing his birthday (as an act of true belief in the social custom), and my parents scolded me for this. I always believed what i was told, like santa and the tooth fairy - but here's the hilarious contradiction. I was into science as a kid so i knew the speed of light and i was figuring out how fast santa would have to be to be able to move across the whole world and so on. So in my general intelligence i was being totally idiotic. Whereas i imagine a moron is someone like a cynic who says there is no santa, and the same type of guy to later compare God to the easter bunny.

I read another passage today where he was making a great point about this inefficiency of reality youre talking about, (or where "reality" is put in the place of ideology), where the "objective" person like carl sagan talks about the "pale blue dot" as a fact of a sort of lifeless gaze, the "grey" gaze of the Real, which might be analogous to the camera lense. Zizek's point is that in this "transcendence" is precisely the disregarding of the kantian *transcendental*, where a man imagines himself as inhabiting the "objective" but through the fantasy of the objective itself. So the objective here is a crudely human universe, since our judgements are clearly limited by our subjectivity.
But think of this in more ideological circumstances. In feudal times it was your ordained place to be at the bottom, or at the top. God or divinity here is the self-referential "objectivity" which we refer to. Today a bootstrap conservatives tells us "thats life" when we demand change, as of "life" here is something we can see *through* into the supposed impersonality of power. The greatest myth ofc is the "free market" which is self-regulating. I once heard a catholic say that the "invisible hand" is real and it is literally god. Here, "transcendence" is limited to the *transcendental*, or the objective is always subjective, and that would be the hegelian through-line.
But this is why i say that in the matrix analogy the blue pill is more true than the red pill. The red pill is the fantasy of ideology, while the blue pill gives us "the real world" for all intents and purposes. I reject Zizek's "third pill" here and stick with a brutal dualism. Cypher is the hero of the matrix.
i had an idea once for a rewriting of the matrix where it was humans who ORDERD the robots to build the matrix to create "the real world" for them after the ruins of a trashed earth. Neo finds this out in the last one and decides that the matrix is good, BUT still lets zion exist in its place of revolutionary fantasy

>>1821296
I have the PDF
I'm just going through the collected works of plato atm and will get to him eventually. But in my hegelian way ofc, you should fake it til you make it. To normies maybe i namedrop gentile here and there and give the "good enough" truth of gentile's perspective.

>>1821246
>Yes it is.
It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism.

>So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then?
You should read this:
<It is of this absolute method that Hegel speaks in these terms:
>>“Method is the absolute, unique, supreme, infinite force, which no object can resist; it is the tendency of reason to find itself again, to recognize itself in every object.” (Logic, Vol. III [p. 29])
<All things being reduced to a logical category, and every movement, every act of production, to method, it follows naturally that every aggregate of products and production, of objects and of movement, can be reduced to a form of applied metaphysics. What Hegel has done for religion, law, etc., M. Proudhon seeks to do for political economy.
<So what is this absolute method? The abstraction of movement. What is the abstraction of movement? Movement in abstract condition. What is movement in abstract condition? The purely logical formula of movement or the movement of pure reason. Wherein does the movement of pure reason consist? In posing itself, opposing itself, composing itself; in formulating itself as thesis, antithesis, synthesis; or, yet, in affirming itself, negating itself, and negating its negation.
<How does reason manage to affirm itself, to pose itself in a definite category? That is the business of reason itself and of its apologists.
<But once it has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts – the positive and the negative, the yes and no. The struggle between these two antagonistic elements comprised in the antithesis constitutes the dialectical movement. The yes becoming no, the no becoming yes, the yes becoming both yes and no, the no becoming both no and yes, the contraries balance, neutralize, paralyze each other. The fusion of these two contradictory thoughts constitutes a new thought, which is the synthesis of them. This thought splits up once again into two contradictory thoughts, which in turn fuse into a new synthesis. Of this travail is born a group of thoughts. This group of thoughts follows the same dialectic movement as the simple category, and has a contradictory group as antithesis. Of these two groups of thoughts is born a new group of thoughts, which is the antithesis of them.
<Just as from the dialectic movement of the simple categories is born the group, so from the dialectic movement of the groups is born the series, and from the dialectic movement of the series is born the entire system.
<Apply this method to the categories of political economy and you have the logic and metaphysics of political economy, or, in other words, you have the economic categories that everybody knows, translated into a little-known language which makes them look as if they had never blossomed forth in an intellect of pure reason; so much do these categories seem to engender one another, to be linked up and intertwined with one another by the very working of the dialectic movement. The reader must not get alarmed at these metaphysics with all their scaffolding of categories, groups, series, and systems. M. Proudhon, in spite of all the trouble he has taken to scale the heights of the system of contradictions, has never been able to raise himself above the first two rungs of simple thesis and antithesis; and even these he has mounted only twice, and on one of these two occasions he fell over backwards.
<Up to now we have expounded only the dialectics of Hegel. We shall see later how M. Proudhon has succeeded in reducing it to the meanest proportions. Thus, for Hegel, all that has happened and is still happening is only just what is happening in his own mind. Thus the philosophy of history is nothing but the history of philosophy, of his own philosophy. There is no longer a “history according to the order in time,” there is only “the sequence of ideas in the understanding.” He thinks he is constructing the world by the movement of thought, whereas he is merely reconstructing systematically and classifying by the absolute method of thoughts which are in the minds of all.

>he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against them
He wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.

>>1821317
>It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism.
Well i was clearly bring flippant about my trust in science. But a critique of science is only immanent to a scientific understanding itself. The most "true" concept of matter still must come from science.
<orange text
Yeah, so he wants to out-reason the rationalists. Thats my point. Engels' quote about "Reason" is a sarcastic and rhetorical response to the enlightenment.
>He wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.
Political terror refers directly to the revolutionary terror of the jacobins. Marx is clearly appropriating this aesthetic, the same way the anarchists and all communists did.

>>1820850
>I feel like this is typically tautological
I think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system.

Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.

>>1817727
> its an inversion of hegel's idea of history
Its actually not. All three of them are just being autists. Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world. Marx studied interpreters of Hegel that vulgarized this so he thought it was necessary to emphasize the material over the "ideal". Lenin was fighting the orthodox church so he went hard on atheism. All three of them repeatedly emphasize that dialectics means that both ideas and matter interpenetrate in flux they just differ on terminology and what is primary, which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains both. Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.

>>1825829
>>1825829
>I think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system.
Yes, but "materialism" as a discourse brings direct antinomy to "idealism". Thats why i say materialism is an outdated idea, where someone like graham harman would agree, with his own "immaterialism", or someone like zizek (in his own kantianism) would implore that "materialism has nothing to do with matter".
If you want to know, a fundamental theory of matter begins in aristotle, who simply sees it as the vessel for "form", but all is held within "substance". When DiaMats talks about "matter", they mean "substance", but there is no "substantialism" as a doctrine, because, again, its tautological.
>Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.
I wouldnt be so simplistic. Things are very different in their worldviews, and so the hubris of minimalist metaphysics doesnt get you closer to consellation with a common Reason.
>Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world.
Yes, and no. He didnt mean Nature as something for-itself (like muh black holes), but like Kant, saw Nature as normative to Reason.
>which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains both
I think this is too dualistic, but i get your point. But it also matters in how you approach the world and how you derive your concepts.
>Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.
Inversion is subtraction the same way 3 - 6 = -3
Hegel puts agency in the elites, while marx puts agency in the workers. In truth, both are right and both are wrong in different ways.
>Method
What method exactly? Historical analysis?
Sure, but the concepts differ here again. Hegel's point would be that utopia is impossible, but there is still the necessary struggle for civilisation and society abstractly (through the internal contradiction of social identity itself), while marx's point is that science can liberate man from his hardships.
In terms of the absolute, hegel views it as Reason manifested in the world toward itself, while marx sees it as the self-movement of labour toward its liberation.
I think temporally there is difference here again, where hegel's conception is cyclical (as per the dialectic), and marx's is linear. Both believe in progress, but from different angles.
I embrace marx as a *critic* of hegel, but that means he also subsists within his critique as such, the same way lenin is a critic of the marxism of his own time. This relates to hegel being a critic of Kant too, and so on.
I am not a hegelian dogmatist so i appreciate it, but you must also understand that there is no fundamental recociliation, otherwise you'll be like the cooks still trying to reconcile plato and aristotle.

naturallyobviouslyofcourse, idealism is the big truth. Accordintg to Hegel:

"Thought is an expression which attributes the determination contained in it primarily to consciousness. But inasmuch as it is said that understanding, that reason, is in the objective world, that spirit and nature have universal laws to which their life and their changes conform, then it is conceded just as much that the determinations of thought have objective value and concrete existence."

>>1830437
Misato, why do you have to have the best taste in web but be an Anarchist?

>>1820830
FORD method
Family/Friends
Occupation
Recreation
Dreams
Talk to people about those four things and avoid religion. When the time comes to talk about unionization/whatever they'll already think of you as down to Earth.

>>1830551
whos Misato

>>1830437
>>1830551
This is Madoka Kaname.
这个是小圆

>>1830896
One of the mods here is posting under Anarcha-feminism, usually Misato posting.

>>1830931
Oh, I see, thank you.
哦，原来是这样的，谢谢你。

>>1810024
Its obvious that very few people in here have real life org experiance cause there are leftist dogwistles:
People over profit
Fighting for a world without exploitation of humans by other humans
etc etc

>>1830939
Hell there are even dogwistles for particular tendencies
People democracy
socialism of the 21sr century etc

>>1830936
As an amateur in Mandarin, would you mind advising me on the functional difference between 我懂了 and 原来是这样的？

>>1830953
我懂了——I understand

“我”—— I
“懂”—— understand
“了”—— used after a verb or adjective to indicate that the action or change has been completed.

“原来是这样的”——
This sentence implies something omitted, it can be expanded as —— (这件事情) 原来是这样的

There might be some emphasis differences:
我懂了 emphasizes "I" understand
原来是这样的 emphasizes —— "this matter"原来是这样的

And please, please don't mimic my handwriting; my handwriting is the worst among people I know, myself included.

>>1830953
I'm not a specialized language teacher; I can only tell you the Chinese I understand in daily life.
我不是专门的语文老师，只能告诉你我生活理解的中文。

>>1830964
Ignoring the emphasized points, these two sentences are almost identical in meaning, and can be interchangeable in most cases, even connecting them together" into Chinese would be:“我懂了，原来是这样的”、“原来是这样的，我懂了”

忽略强调的重点，这两句话几乎差不多的意思，大部分情况下可以互用，甚至可以连起来”我懂了，原来是这样的“、”原来是这样的，我懂了“

>>1830975
sure, but i assume theres a reason you used one rather than the other?

>>1831002
Nothing special, just everyday speech.
没有什么特殊原因，日常的口语罢了

>>1810028
>You know what actually trigger rightoids? Actual socialist symbols, talking about socialism, supporting socialists, red flags, singing socialist songs.
O Marx who art in Heaven, please save me from the aesthetic obsessed retards that utter your name

>>1810026
fpbp

>>1817606
Diderot, Helvétius, d'Holbach?

>>1830896
A warrior in an eternal struggle against wheelchair ramps.

>>1831098
Not from "today".

>>1831442
wait i agree w this

>>1830953
Literally, “I understand” vs “so, that’s the case” (literally: originally it was that way, with emphasis on originally).

>>1810024
>Christ is King
Finish it with "of the Jews"

They freak out and start crazy wewuzzing wall of texts conspiracy theories how da joos are not real joos and actual joos are aryan and shiet