folaht

I would like to start that the reason I find US imperialism especially abhorrent is the fact that the country shouldn't exist in the first place.
It's a settler-colony of which each star in it's represents a genocide of multiple Amerindian tribes.

That said, I'll start with the list of red herrings, because they annoy me the most:

The list of red herrings:

1. The Jewish Occupational Government conspiracy

"It's the Jews! The Jews are really controlling the earth, not the Anglo-Americans. In particular George Soros and the Rothschilds, the latter controlling all central banks and trillions worth of gold secretly in the Vatican."

Occurance

Ukraine war news commentators and sites I follow.
Exclusively in the chat and comments sections.
These come from US Republican nazis and it's vassals from their empire that hate the Democratic party more than they like Ukrainian white supremacists.

Rant

This annoys me first and foremost because it suggests that the real powers that be in the world reside in the EU and I just got to wonder why Italy isn't the richest country in the world?
Also, since if the Rothschilds hide their gold in the Vatican, then why doesn't the European central banks also stash their gold in the Vatican?
I'm sure it's safer over there then to stash it in the US. It's closer to home as well. And which security company is guarding the stash of gold?
Is the best security company in the world a European security company?
If it's an American security company, then why haven't they suggested to the Rothschilds to move their gold to the US?
And what's with the heavy focus on Jews in Europe when there are more Jews living in the US?

The only European Jewish person with some real power is George Soros. But compared to even just the slew of Jewish Americans in the tech sector like Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and others, he's just a small fry.

I think the best conclusion one can get from Jews being rich is that most of them live in the US and in particular New York State, so one of the richest states of the US.

1a. The JOG WEF herring

"It's the WEF! The WEF is really controlling the earth, founded by Klaus Schwab not the Anglo-Amerians. They are responsible for the economic collapse in the EU, by having Germany close down nuclear and coal power plants."

Occurance

Some of the Ukraine war news commentators dabble in this. I believe at it's core it's PatSoc commentators doing this.
so they don't have to fully blame their own government, and instead can blame foreign elites.
That said, US nazis likely started this.

Rant

Klaus Schwab is another Rich Jewish European that is nowhere near as powerful as George Soros, let alone Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Michael Bloomberg, Larry Fink etc.
He's just the host of an elitist tea party and not the kind that protests against high tax rates, although considering the type of crowd that goes there, perhaps they do.

Closing down nuclear and coal power plants is a good idea. What's not a good idea is sanctioning Russian gas, especially when warning everyone that Russia would cut off the gas in order to severely damage your economy, despite constant reassurance by the Russian government that they would continue all gas flows even during the Ukrainian war.

The reason why it's a good idea, besides the fact that coal is the biggest pollutant on earth and nuclear meltdowns causes land to become inhospitable for a couple of decades, is because for the last few decades, both of these two energy sources have either been stagnant in cost or actually gone up, while natural gas, wind power and solar power all have gotten cheaper to the point that it makes sense to use those instead.

And the argument that the sun doesn't always shine or the wind doesn't always blow makes the so-called pro-economic tough-luck anti-renewable crowd even more hilarious, as wind and solar are doing economically fine in this scenario. When they work, they beat out coal and nuclear power plants completely from running. But for coal and nuclear power plants it's an economic disaster, as the new reality for them is that they can only run 6 months a year, but having to pay the same maintenance cost.

So the so-called "pro-economic growth" side is talking all about how Germany should have just gone for the more expensive energy sources, because Germany needs to maximally sanction Russia at all costs without hurting oneself economically at all times whenever it suits the US.

And it's the US, not the WEF that wanted Germany to close down Nord Stream 2. They have openly stated so.

The whole regret of low coal and nuclear is thus to have wanted Germany to economically shoot itself in the foot before any potential war even started.

1b. The JOG Cultural Marxist herring

It's the Frankfurt school! That's where all the US identity politics stems that causes a US cultural and therefor also economic downfall.

Occurances

I can't remember anymore.
Likely a debunking youtube video (by Shaun?) of PragerU or SargonOfAkkad,
where cultural marxism was blamed for wokeism.
Yet again, likely started by US nazis,
this time picked up by those who hate communism.

Rant

By Frankfurt school these people mean Rich Jewish Academic "Marxist" Germans from the 1920s. I think we're seeing a (💰 ✡️ 🇪🇺 or ☭ = 🚷) pattern here.
I put Marxist in quotes, because they veered off from it quite a lot as most of them were psychoanalytic sociologist philosophers who came up with coining the term "critical theory", which means coming up with an idea of social change, consistently win the argument in discussions and then convince everyone to follow your ideology. So they saw communism as an ideology created this way and thought "we gotta have more of these ideologies so we can make even more social change making the world even better".

This has been picked up by several Anglo-American feminists and LGBT-movements whom, like the Frankfurt scholars, also felt little for class struggle, but came up with their own theories and ideas on oppression.

Instead of dividing people into those who have capital and those that do not and those with capital being exploitative, they have more than a dozen types of divisions put into a progressive stack in which classism takes a backseat to around 10th place in terms of importance. The first place being sexism and second racism.

Conflating Anglo-American feminists with the Rich Jewish Academic "Marxist" psychoanalytic sociologist philosopher Germans at the Frankfurt School during the mid-early to mid-late 20th century and then calling the latter the originators of "Cultural Marxism", which in the eyes of the latter meant practicing a type of research to form your new critical theory, has confused quite at the very least myself into thinking that "Cultural Marxism" acutually means marxism where people are divided into cultural hierarchies (sex, race, oriëntation, physical ability) rather than social class hierarchies.

And thus yet again, it's another red herring.

I feel a somewhat shy, but I've read one post seeing that it's okay to disagree. I'm not exactly communist, but I'm not anti-China, support universal basic income, and that seems to be communist enough for the average Anglo-American, so I hope I should be okay asking about these very touchy subjects.

I would like to know what the answer is among marxists to the questions of

• "Is sexual marxism marxist?"
• "If not it always fascist?"
• "Is anyone here in favor of it?"
• "And if so, where would you draw the line?"

While also boring everyone with my own view.

My short answer, not a marxist myself, though on the left, I don't see why sexual marxism should be avoided. I see it as no different from let's say, housing marxism. So I'm in favor of it and I draw the line at any solution that includes force, coercion or manipulation as I find such solutions inhumane, creating conflict and drama and especially completely unnecessary when the problem comes down to a lack of non-elderly women and the solution to me seems very simple.

The solution?
Just add more women. And since it shouldn't matter if they're artificial, subsidize sex robots and keep them legal. Problem solved.

As for my long answer....

I'll start off with saying that being an anime fan and seeing that the word incel is defined as 'person who has a difficult time finding a partner', I feel like , and that communism is about 'helping the downtrodden', that the term 'sexual marxism' is born.

However, I feel like the incel community is mostly dominated by fascists and the fact that 'the downtrodden' in this market are men warps the entire premise in two ways.

1. Progressives, feminists and 'their allies' on the left massively hating on sexual marxism and incels, which I will call sexual capitalists.
2. Sexual fascists coming up with sexual "marxist" solutions.

Let me start with group #2. Looking at the incel wiki here are the sexual marxist potential policies:

1. covert government program to societally brainwash people to make incels more attractive to women.
2. Government funded prostitutes or escorts for incels
3. Mass legal rape and universal forced monogamy
4. Culturally encouraged volunteer corps of women to sex up incels

And the incel wiki has this to add:

"Some blackpillers have mixed feelings on sexual Marxism, as some seem to like the idea of legal mass rape, but everything else they tend to make fun of, or not dwell on much. "

Personally, I would consider #2 as the only policy in the list as truly sexual marxist, while the other three are sexual fascist as policies advocate manipulation, coercion and/or force.

#2 actually has been implemented in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017 for the disabled and while I think that's a good thing, I kind of feel it's missing the full picture.

Onto group #1, I think the term 'sexual capitalists' suffices for the people who sympathize more with the haves than the have-nots.

Women who are raped in marriage is sad, but it's sad in a similar fashion that small business owners having lost their shops or landlords going bankrupt because their tenants refuse to pay rent during eviction moratorium.

To me it's sad but it also reminds me that I never owned a small business and I never had a marriage partner. They lose something I never had in the first place.

And what I noticed is that those who sympathize the most with them often seems to be related about the status of the cause.
If the perp is an ugly man, if the shop was burned down by poor protesters, think of the poor "This is horrible. We HAVE to DO something about this." If the perp is a hot woman, if the shop was burned down by a large corperation, "Oh, that's bad. What's for dinner?"

It's almost as if they hate competition coming from below, while supporting anyone that's being punched down except when they themselves are the target.

I don't apply to that line of thought and it gets worse when I start stating solutions that turn have-nots into haves, because I think that any form of scarcity, artificial or natural, is the most pressing issue in a society, and then it suddenly becomes a problem for them.

My line of thought is when I am confonted with a rigged game, I will try to fix the game. When someone tells me "Don't bother with the rigs, just try improving yourself", my reply will always be "What!? No!! This game is rigged! And if a game is rigged, it needs fixing! That's a first priority. Always."

And what annoy me the most about this, is which group is now the largest addressing the issue and which group is the largest defending it.

So here's my point of view.

For starters, sex, unlike most products is a two-way market. One could argue that any market is a two-way-exchange as one gets money and the other one a service or a good, but while a prostitute that offers sex, gets to have sex, a plumber does not get his sink fixed for fixing someone else's sink.

On top of that, a prostitute won't be as keen as a plumber of 'doing the job herself'.

Next to it being a two-way market, it's also an intimate service. Imagine potential policy #3, but then for plumbers. They'd be obligated by one designated costumer to repair their sinks at any time and have their sink 'fixed' at the same time, even when they don't want their sink 'fixed'. That is exploitation. Now if plumbing was an intimate service on top of that, it's exploitation on an intimate level, making the policy even more inhumane.

So sex, or more encompassing, a relationship, is a two-way market intimacy market which of course has demand and supply.

From what I've experienced in life the demand of heterosexual men for women is slightly above 1, while that of women slightly below.

The birth ratio however is approximately 21 men to 20 women and while in the past this quickly dropped due to high infant mortality hitting more boys than girls, this no longer is the case for Europe, North America and Australia since the mid 20th century.

Thus the sex ration stays around 21 to 20 all the way up to the beginning of old age.

And as birth rates are dropping, the previously in history softening solution of a two-year-gap selection, where women can and will choose higher status men by age with an average of two-year older men only exacerbates the problem.

With sex being a two-way intimate market, sexual marxism in my view would have to need a solution that isn't invasive in anyone's life.

And so my solutions are ensuring that there enough women, which can be achieved in the near future through the production of sex robots and further into the future by adding girls via ecto-genesis. So here is my list of potential policies:

1. Subsidize sex robots until one sees online dating no longer being (un)favorable for one gender.
2. Make spying/collecting data via sex robots illegal.
3. Subsidize ecto-genesis and orphanages for girls that close the 3-10% gender birth gap so future generations don't have to deal with robots.

P.S. This post was quite long. If there's any gaps in it due to my editing, please let me know.