www.maoistrebelnews.com

Jason Unruhe #moonbat maoistrebelnews.com

RevLeft is a Bunch of Pedophile-Zionists
Jason Unruhe / 2010 09 19
So, Rev-visionist left wants round three. Last time it took you a little while to respond, but now you’re paying better attention. If you watched the last video you know I called them out once against to prove their accusation against me. And once again they were unable to do so. They claimed I dodged the accusation, but I called THEM out to prove their claims. But they never did because their full of shit. The whole forum is full of shit.
[...]

But let me show you how it’s done. This here is proof that RevLeft is a bunch of Zionist pedophiles.

This was the thread last year on Roman Polanski. Observe The Anarchist Tension (that’s the guy’s name), the most powerful admin on the site and the excuses he makes for that cretinous pedophile

“13 is the age of consent in various countries including South Korea and Mexico. Some could argue that America’s (and other peoples) social conservatism is the problem.”

That disguises his pedophile politics through his rants against the age of consent, but everyone sees him for the pedo he is.


And just recently, someone rumbled their super secret forums and exposed their internal discussions on legalizing child porn. Check links 4 and 5.

Link 6 was a REJECTED proposal to restrict Zionists. But the site owner Malte (aka Edelweiss on the board), is a petit bourgeois Zionist who runs revleft as an appendage to his che t-shirt store. Malte is a hardcore acolyte of ISSrael, and he has posted attacks against Lebanese anarchists and communists for siding with Hezbollah against the Zionist settler colony, calling them class traitors.

And for link 7: Is it any wonder that ISSrael is notorious for harbouring pedophiles?

That’s how it’s done, that’s how you make an accusation and back it up. Rev-visionist Left has been exposed for the Zionist Pedophiles that they are.


Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

An uncomfortable truth that must be acknowledged, Trotskyists have more influence in the first world than Maoists do. If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll see that Troskyists are a growing influence in the U.S., while the Maoists are declining. We must see past the vitriol, and our feelings towards the reactionary Trotskyism to see the truth.

Where are the Maoists in the Untied States? Immediately we think Bob Avakian’s RCP, or even the Kasama project. Of these two groups, the RCP is still alive, however reactionary. Outside of these two groups we have collage activist circles trying to pass themselves off as legitimate revolutionary movements. The New Communist Party (a.k.a. the New York Maoists) has proclaimed itself to be “the leaders of the Maoist rebellion of New York.” The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada literally claims to be doing People’s War. Both of these statements are utter nonsense, there is no war going on, there is no rebellion or armed struggle taking place. At best each is a few handfuls of people. They’re both collage activist groups composed of mostly upper-middle class twenty-somethings, whom one would be surprised if they even owned a gun.

Now, contrast this with the strength and popularity of Trotskyist groups. The ISO (International Socialist Organization) is a primary example. They’re a very large political group that stretches across many countries. They can even be found in places like Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Take a look at all the noise being made around Kshama Sawant in Seattle. A minor position in a city council is significant when compared to the influence and power Maoists have in the U.S. Socialists all across the first world are enamoured with her victory and it has garnered her Trotskyist group (Socialist Alternative) a lot of support. Her actions have also driven a lot of people towards Bernie Sanders (even though he’s not a Trotskyist). They have legitimate union connections all across the country, while the Maoists have none. This disparity in influence and power is plain to see, if people but only look. Are these Trotskyists revolutionary groups? No, they call for social democratic reforms.

Does that mean Trotskyism is correct and Maoism is wrong? Absolutely not. Trotskyism is a terrible reactionary, racist ideology, and social imperialist on a theoretical level. All I am pointing out here are their levels of popularity. Trotskyism clearly does wield much more influence in the real world. It does this over Marxist-Leninists as well. This is by no mean a failing exclusive to Maoism. What is important here is to acknowledge the reality of the situation. One group merely pretends to be revolutionary and have no support, while the other is openly reformist and enjoys large support.

Why is this happening? Essentially, this is a symptom of First Worldism. As there is no significant presence of a proletariat in the first world, people tend towards reform not revolution. The revolutionary potential is not there. Almost all activist groups openly reject the idea of revolution, while the Maoists promote revolution over reform. It should come as no surprise that Trotskyists have more support.

First Worldism is a reactionary tendency, it must be rejected.

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

In the wake of brutal police murders of young Black men, a popular resistance began to form. This movement was known as “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) Officially according to the organization it began in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In June of this year I said that the movement was nearing its end; and that it had only a few months left to it. This appears to be the case now. The movement is on its last legs, the steam it came on with has blown itself out.

Don’t mistake my words here for some kind of celebration. Most leftist groups in the U.S. are still in denial over the movement’s fate. What was once a loud and proud resistance has become little more than a part of the “cuck” jokes about Bernie Sanders. What was once a declaration of war against oppressors has become little more than the obnoxious behaviour of a few self-involved individuals.

So what happened? Essentially what I predicted would happen: liberals took over the movement. It was born out of a radical need to fight killings by police. A real physical defense against police oppression was being organized. Truly radical ideas like self-defense forces were being organized. Unfortunately the mass of the movement are liberals, not radicals. The majority of Black people in America aren’t leftist radicals, they’re liberals who vote Democrat. BLM is made up of liberals with a few radical elements around the fringes. These fringe radical elements are the exception, not the rule.

I said that liberals were going to overtake the movement and co-opt it. Once that took place the movement was sabotaged. Liberals are not interested in radical change, they’re interested in getting concessions. Radical elements were deliberately purged from the movement. This is what the Austin chapter of BLM did:

That’s a consideration that’s come into question since news broke that the city would host three discordant rallies at the same time this Saturday morning. Members of the 1312 Project did not respond to calls from the Chronicle, but Margaret Haule, who spoke on behalf of Black Lives Matter, quickly made it known that her organization is “not to be confused” with the 1312 Project. “We don’t do things that are considered illegal,” she explained. “We’re not trying to get a bad rap. We’re more transparent and open. It’s important that people see there are people playing an active role in the community.”

Essentially the 1312 Project opposed (and rightfully so) the Police Lives Matter (PLM) movement. However, the BLM wanted to support the PLM. This collaboration is with Police Chief Art Acevedo:

Acevedo said he spoke with members of Black Lives Matter about national and local policy changes they want implemented to ensure equality, and added he agrees with the majority of them. He also said what the group would like to see in regards to police relations is only a small part of the entire movement.

“All they want is to have police officers that are respectful, that treat people as part of the community and don’ treat them like they’re an occupying army and we get that,” Acevedo said.

This act is an outright collaboration with the enemy. The 1312 Project was purged from BLM because it had a radical agenda that challenged the police. There were not without comment on the matter:

On Monday morning, Sept. 14, an anonymous member of the anti-police-brutality activist group the 1312 Project – shorthand for “All Cops Are Bastards” – posted a message on Facebook announcing a change of plans. This Saturday, Sept. 19, the group will send its membership to rally at the Capitol rather than APD headquarters. “It appears as though some organizers’ desire to control this movement has resulted in, at best, police collaboration and, at worst, the active selling out of other organizers,” read the note. “We see this as a breach in camaraderie that puts those of us who were planning on meeting at APD headquarters in far more danger.” The seven-paragraph message concluded with an edict: “Fuck the cops, fuck politicians, and stay savvy,” it read.

The fact is in the first world the more successful you are, the more you’ll be co-opted. At this point BLM is an empty shadow of what it was intended to be. The mainstream media and political establishment aren’t even opposed to it. News networks are now using terms like ‘white privilege’ and going over the recent history of police violence. Politicians are voluntarily meeting with the group, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If the establishment doesn’t see it as a threat, you’re not challenging the system.

Why did this happen? Long story short: there is no social base for revolution in the first world. Radicals begin resistance groups to challenge the power of an unjust system. The problem is that the masses of the American people don’t want to do revolution. Often they face very oppressive conditions, such as the police killings of young Black people. However, they have no desire to overthrow the system which causes that oppression. They only wish to have that oppression stop. There is no social base for these radical groups to lead. There are only liberal Democrat Party supporting reformers. The liberals co-opt these radical movements because there isn’t any significant number of radicals to follow them.

The truth radical groups are not accepting, is that Black people in America don’t want a civil war to bring about a whole new society. All they really want is the same wealth and privileges that White people have. Radical groups however, continue to pull quotes from the 1960s Black Panthers and act as though we still exist in those times. Just because radicals want to take radical action, does not mean that the mass of Blacks in America want to take radical action themselves.

There definitely needs to be a coordinated radical action against the racist U.S. police state. Unfortunately there isn’t the social base, nor the organization for such a thing to happen.

Free Criticism #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

I am personally inclined to accept the transwoman over the homosexual, or more accurately, I am more inclined to accept the autogynephile over the homosexual. I think there is a reason the homosexual was integrated into imperialism first, and there seems to be a struggle in the ranks of the bourgeoisie over the integration of autogynephiles.

Even though I am inclined to accept autogynephiles over the homosexuals, I freely admit I think the radical feminists have pegged them pretty accurately. The autogynephile does have the mind of the rapist, or rather, the sexual fantasies of the autogynephile tend toward extreme submission of the female. There is an article where a feminist recounts her experience as a phone sex operator talking to men who we would know recognize as having autogynephilia, and she points out none of these men ever fantasized about becoming a woman and dominating other men with their new vaginas. Their sexual fantasies are always playing the submissive, and clearly “Stefonknee” is no different.

I would say the integration of the autogynephile is basically a confirmation of the rape-culture thesis. Basically the Oppressor Man and his Oppressor Woman force the Homo-Fascist (the white gay male in charge of the LGBTQ alphabet-soup in the West) to integrate the autogynephile because they get-off on autogynephilic sexual fantasies. Not all women, but a lot of them do have rape fantasies. The rape fantasies of women aren’t exactly like the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile. The rape fantasies of some straight women are usually more narcissistic; the man is raping me because he is overcome with lust for me and must possess me now. This fantasy is still focused on the hyper-exaggerated erotic mental state of the male rapist. The submission fantasies of the autogynephile are being in the act of submission itself, having really nothing to do with imagining the erotic mental states of their would-be sexual partners.

In that sense, the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile are closer to straight men than any woman. It is probably easiest for the straight man to sympathize with the autogynephile, especially any straight man who has every constructed an elaborately detailed feminine fantasy object for masturbation purposes. The difference seems to be one of identification with the feminine fantasy object, or in the case of the autogynephile, perhaps even a lack of imagination on the erotic mental states of actual women.

In any case, from my previous experience working with LGBTQ people in student activism, I am inclined to believe anti-transwoman sentiment is because the homosexual male doesn’t want to really integrate this identity into the LGBTQ alpha-bet soup they control. The male homosexual sees the autogynephile as a homosexual with a mental disorder. If this is true, I suspect the real difference between the male homosexual and the autogynephile relates to the onset of the sexual imagery. The homosexual male begins identifying with the feminine fantasy object earlier on, even before the onset of puberty, while the autogynephile is a post-puberty version of the same sort of internal fantasies. The continuity here is best evidenced by the androphilic transwoman, who in another context would develop into a ‘normal’ male homosexual. The male homoseuxal sees this an understands what he could have been forced to become, given another cultural context, and fears the integration of the transwomen because it could lead to the extinction of his identity, given a profound shift in political/cultural values.

Lastly, the androphilic transwomen actually desires straight men, seeing ‘normal’ homosexuals as too effeminate to desire sexual encounters with. While they are really homosexuals, they don’t actually desire other homosexuals. In some way, this leads to a divergence of how the two types of homosexual construct their sexuality. The androphillic (homosexual) transwomen desires straight men, while the homosexual can either desire masculine men or they can fetishize other homosexuals (this seems to be the most common). The most extreme form of the fetishizing other homosexuals can be seen in the bug-chasing fantasy. The homosexual with the bug-chasing fantasy fetishes the male homosexual with aids as the ultimate male-slut, and begins to resemble the straight male slut/virgin binary that is more commonly known about.

Myself, I believe Marxist-Leninists must return to an anti-homosexual view, a view that has been held by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, etc. If this means an alliance with the transwoman, autogynephile and/or androphilic, so be it. However, we should not be under any illusions about the nature of their identities. Ideally, in the imperialist oppressor nations, after a revolution, the LGTBQ pyramid will be restructed, with the male homosexuals at the very bottom. The queer-theorist autogynephiles will be near the top of the hierarchy, followed by the female bisexual, then the male bisexual. Some politically acceptable form of lesbianism will police it, but will be directly answerable to the party.