Queer Vanguard

Dear Comrades,

I am a man disturbed by the dark and meaningless age in which we live. The only question that matters is how do we engage in revolutionary acts that attack a monstrous society? How do we act with meaning? The atrocities of our time are the consequence of preposterous social values, and we must smash those values in order to prevent the bourgeois hegemony from oppressing the working class. The enemy in this case is heteronormativiy, along with the gender and sexual roles that alienate the worker from the full potential of their sexual exploration.

To prepare ourselves for the coming battle we must shatter these roles within ourselves. While the methods to examine our own prejudices are highly personal, I have a few suggestions. Firstly, we should act out in a form of revolutionary transvestism by wearing the clothes of the opposite gender. We can also act out in ways expected of the other gender, and even treat people in a way discordant to their gender identity. When confronted with the mythology of sex, the workers will see false consciousness for what it really is and will shatter the bonds that hold them to a repressed way of living.

Secondly, we should take part in bisexual and homosexual activities and other strange sexual subcultures. By making out with other men (or women) we confront the only thing that prevents us from crossing the Nietzschean tightrope stretched taut across the gaping hole of the abyss. We can make it across, and it will make us supermen. While not all of us may be able to give or receive an act of sodomy, certainly all of us can at least go to gay bars and get as drunk as possible. Those who try might even make a few friends; potential partisans in the coming revolution.

Thirdly, we should organize into secret cabals bent on penetrating society and steering within them. If we do not come to victory the first time, we can thrust again and again until we do come. After we have engaged with the workers and our relationships are strong with them, we can set ahead on the great work of honing their revolutionary consciousness. The Party will clearly set the lines of march, and instruct the workers on how best to struggle for their equalities. Comrades, queer politics is clearly the most revolutionary of all Marxist doctrines.

Fourthly, we must create a culture of experimentation such as opportunistic group sex. Today's youth are bored and looking for outlets to figure out who they are. We can either fail to channel this angst or we can successfully wield it against the bourgeoisie. People will come to the Party in hopes of sexual experiences, and once they engage in these we can instill in them the whole of Party doctrine. Think of all the college graduates who have been taught that they're entitled to a family, a house, and a fairly well paying job. We all know they won't be getting these, and thus will not be able to have sex with their neighbor's wives. We, however, can offer them an outlet for their hungers that have been jaded by internet pornography.

Yours In Revolution,
Comrade Chris.

lol... ?

no-maps wrote:Comrades, queer politics is clearly the most revolutionary of all Marxist doctrines.

Clearly.

no-maps wrote:The only question that matters is how do we engage in revolutionary acts that attack a monstrous society? How do we act with meaning?

As socialists, the most meaningful thing we can do is assist in the advancement of proletarian revolution. The most effective method toward that end is to educate the working class, so as to build class consciousness and revolutionary fervor. Lenin was of the opinion that, left to their own devices, the proletariat could, at best, develop no more than a trade union consciousness; I happen to disagree with that notion, for I believe that people possess an innate disdain for wage labor itself, but the necessity of a revolutionary vanguard is undeniable.

The atrocities of our time are the consequence of preposterous social values, and we must smash those values in order to prevent the bourgeois hegemony from oppressing the working class.

While bourgeois social relations no doubt play a role in determining our current social mores, it would be presumptuous on our part to proclaim which values are ultimately the 'appropriate' ones, or which ones will characterize post-capitalist society. We can, of course, theorize the matter—which, incidentally, is why I'm a left-wing nationalist—but we must do so with a sense of modesty.

The enemy in this case is heteronormativiy, along with the gender and sexual roles that alienate the worker from the full potential of their sexual exploration.

I think it's profoundly mistaken to believe capitalism has somehow greatly distorted human sexual relations. If you examine sexuality under each mode of production man has hitherto lived under—e.g., primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, state socialism, Utopian communes, etc.—you will find a significant degree of continuity (gender roles notwithstanding). Heterosexuality is the norm, though, as Alfred Kinsey's research on human sexuality found, sexual inclinations roughly fit into six gradient categories. It, of course, makes sense for heterosexuality to be the norm since, being biological organisms, our sole task as a species is reproduction. (This, however, doesn't suggest I believe in many of theories propounded by evolutionary psychologists—far from it.)

The increase in leisure time, brought about due to vast increases in productivity in conjunction with the labor struggles for the eight-hour workday, has provided mankind with the ability to explore its sexuality as never before witnessed in history. Religious taboos have not withstood the onslaught of secularism in most parts of the global north; the feminist movement has achieved much to provide women with equal rights; and the commodification of sexuality has provided people with the means to indulge in every one of their sexual desires. I cannot see how our sexuality is being stifled at this point.

If anything, I think socialism may provide people with fewer outlets insofar as sex is concerned. For example, prostitution will, in all likelihood, decrease (if not completely vanish) since destitution will become a thing of the past. The end of prostitution, while undoubtedly an admirable accomplishment, will negatively impact the unattractive males in society who are incapable of acquiring consensual sex. The sex industry (pornography production and strip clubs) will also likely be abolished due to their exploitative nature, thereby limiting ones access to atypical sexual performances. Et cetera.

To prepare ourselves for the coming battle we must shatter these roles within ourselves. While the methods to examine our own prejudices are highly personal, I have a few suggestions. Firstly, we should act out in a form of revolutionary transvestism by wearing the clothes of the opposite gender. We can also act out in ways expected of the other gender, and even treat people in a way discordant to their gender identity. When confronted with the mythology of sex, the workers will see false consciousness for what it really is and will shatter the bonds that hold them to a repressed way of living.

Secondly, we should take part in bisexual and homosexual activities and other strange sexual subcultures. By making out with other men (or women) we confront the only thing that prevents us from crossing the Nietzschean tightrope stretched taut across the gaping hole of the abyss. We can make it across, and it will make us supermen. While not all of us may be able to give or receive an act of sodomy, certainly all of us can at least go to gay bars and get as drunk as possible. Those who try might even make a few friends; potential partisans in the coming revolution.

To ask of people to engage in sexual behavior which doesn't come naturally to them is completely unethical; it's akin to the Christian organizations which attempt to turn homosexual individuals heterosexual. Our sexuality, like most behavioral characteristics, is the result of a complex interaction between our genes and environment. Following puberty, we basically know what our sexual orientation is—excluding those who are unfortunately forced to repress their sexuality, of course—and it's pointless, if not psychologically harmful, to attempt to consciously change it. Human beings are not infinitely malleable, if they were, you could theoretically raise a human to have the consciousness of a penguin (to paraphrase Michael Albert).

Moreover, I fail to see the relevance in what you're suggesting. Dressing in drag, participating in orgies, and forcing ourselves into having homosexual encounters isn't going to do anything to bring humanity closer to socialism or communism. Such behavior, in my opinion, would simply serve to have the proletariat (the very engine of revolutionary change) feel completely alienated from us. As much as I disagree with Trotskyists, they at least understood the vital importance of not alienating the proletariat—Tim Wohlforth once even went so far as to attempt to appeal to the proletariat's most reactionary sentiments by exclaiming, "The working class hates hippies, faggots and women's libbers, and so do we!" I'm definitely not suggesting that we emulate Wohlforth, but rather that we set aside issues like sex and focus on what unites us, namely, our class interests.

Comrades, queer politics is clearly the most revolutionary of all Marxist doctrines.

I disagree. I wouldn't even call it a Marxist doctrine, as neither Marx nor Engels ever wrote a word on the subject. A few contemporary Marxists agree with some of what you've written here, but there certainly isn't enough evidence in the Marxian tradition to claim what you advocate in this thread is legitimately "Marxist."

Today's youth are bored and looking for outlets to figure out who they are. We can either fail to channel this angst or we can successfully wield it against the bourgeoisie.

Indeed, but their energy would best be utilized in learning, engaging in political activism, and assisting proletarian families in need, not indulging in promiscuous sex. As Lenin told Clara Zetkin:

"The youth movement, too, is attacked with the disease of modernity in its attitude towards sexual questions and in being exaggeratedly concerned with them . . . I have been told that sexual questions are the favourite study of your youth organisations, too. There is supposed to be a lack of sufficient speakers on the subject. Such misconceptions are particularly harmful, particularly dangerous in the youth movement. They can very easily contribute towards over-excitement and exaggeration in the sexual life of some of them, to a waste of youthful health and strength. You must fight against that, too.

The changed attitude of the young people to questions of sexual life is of course based on a 'principle' and a theory. Many of them call their attitude 'revolutionary' and 'communist.' And they honestly believe that it is so. That does not impress us old people. Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called 'new sexual life' of the youth—and sometimes of the old—often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we communists understand it. You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. This glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis! Matters aren’t quite as simple as that. A certain Frederick Engels pointed that out a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and, moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is, of course, an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises, it is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.

As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title 'satisfaction of love.' In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor communist. You will remember that about the middle of the last century it was preached as the 'emancipation of the heart' in romantic literature. In bourgeois practice it became the emancipation of the flesh. At that time the preaching was more talented than it is today, and as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don't mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad.

Young people, particularly, need the joy and force of life. Healthy sport, swimming, racing, walking, bodily exercises of every kind, and many-sided intellectual interests. Learning, studying, inquiry, as far as possible in common. That will give young people more than eternal theories and discussions about sexual problems and the so-called 'living to the full.' Healthy bodies, healthy minds. Neither monk nor Don Juan, nor the intermediate attitude of the German philistines. You know, young comrade ––? A splendid boy, and highly talented. And yet I fear that nothing good will come out of him. He reels and staggers from one love affair to the next. That won't do for the political struggle, for the revolution. And I wouldn’t bet on the reliability, the endurance in struggle of those women who confuse their personal romances with politics. Nor on the men who run petticoat and get entrapped by every young woman. That does not square with the revolution."
Lawrence & Wishart. Women and Communism: Selections from the Writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, pp. 94-97.

I entirely agree with Lenin's assessment of the issue.

People will come to the Party in hopes of sexual experiences, and once they engage in these we can instill in them the whole of Party doctrine.

That sounds eerily occultic. I hope you're not serious.

Celtiberian wrote:If anything, I think socialism may provide people with fewer outlets insofar as sex is concerned. For example, prostitution will, in all likelihood, decrease (if not completely vanish) since destitution will become a thing of the past. The end of prostitution, while undoubtedly an admirable accomplishment, will negatively impact the unattractive males in society who are incapable of acquiring consensual sex. The sex industry (pornography production and strip clubs) will also likely be abolished due to their exploitative nature, thereby limiting ones access to atypical sexual performances.

I agree with what you said about prostitution; but as a guy who has never even really contemplated visiting a strip club (not my thing..) I do not see why such industries should be abolished. Even with the porn industry, some women DO enjoy what they do, and do not enter into such industries out of desperation. As long as society does not necessitate that they enter industries out of desperation (which it will not) I see no problem with women entering into such an industry provided that socialism is extended to their workplace as well.

The outlawing and abolition of porn and strip clubs sounds more like people imposing their own morality on others rather than anything progressive. I suppose this abolition you speak of would also abolish the exploitation of male strippers by females that pay to see such acts?

Pantheon Rising wrote:I agree with what you said about prostitution; but as a guy who has never even really contemplated visiting a strip club (not my thing..) I do not see why such industries should be abolished. Even with the porn industry, some women DO enjoy what they do, and do not enter into such industries out of desperation. As long as society does not necessitate that they enter industries out of desperation (which it will not) I see no problem with women entering into such an industry provided that socialism is extended to their workplace as well.

Some people would voluntarily enter into chattel slaves if given the choice, but that doesn't mean we should allow such a degrading profession to exist in society. The reason why the porn industry and strip clubs should be abolished is because there are negative externalities associated with them. Most harmful of those externalities is the objectification of women, which impacts the male psyche and thus produces various consequences for many families and relationships. Just as we regulate the use of alcohol and narcotics, and prohibit people from voluntarily selling themselves into slavery or engaging in child labor, so should we set restrictions on sexual professions.

The outlawing and abolition of porn and strip clubs sounds more like people imposing their own morality on others rather than anything progressive.

People are going to impose their morality one way or another, that's just a fact of life. Not every community will decide upon the same exact moral regulations, since morality is inherently subjective, but such laws will exist nonetheless. Personally, I feel that professions which objectify human beings, such as pornography and stripping, are fundamentally incompatible with socialism anyway.

I suppose this abolition you speak of would also abolish the exploitation of male strippers by females that pay to see such acts?

Indeed.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I agree with what you said about prostitution; but as a guy who has never even really contemplated visiting a strip club (not my thing..) I do not see why such industries should be abolished. Even with the porn industry, some women DO enjoy what they do, and do not enter into such industries out of desperation. As long as society does not necessitate that they enter industries out of desperation (which it will not) I see no problem with women entering into such an industry provided that socialism is extended to their workplace as well.

The outlawing and abolition of porn and strip clubs sounds more like people imposing their own morality on others rather than anything progressive. I suppose this abolition you speak of would also abolish the exploitation of male strippers by females that pay to see such acts?

Socialism does not entail that every individual simply be allowed to do as they please so long as their actions are in accord with the non-aggression principle and do not violate the "rights" of others. Try libertarianism if you want a nonsensical philosophy which fails to take into account negative externalities and the socially determined status of rights.

There is nothing inherently objectionable, from my perspective, about imposing a social morality so long as it is legitimately arbitrated and enforced. It makes absolutely no sense for every individual to simply follow their own moral path in life.

Celtiberian wrote:Some people would voluntarily enter into chattel slaves if given the choice, but that doesn't mean we should allow such a degrading profession to exist in society. The reason why the porn industry and strip clubs should be abolished is because there are negative externalities associated with them. Most harmful of those externalities is the objectification of women, which impacts the male psyche and thus produces various consequences for many families and relationships. Just as we regulate the use of alcohol and narcotics, and prohibit people from voluntarily selling themselves into slavery or engaging in child labor, so should we set restrictions on sexual professions.

What is meant by objectification? Any job can technically be objectifying. Plumbing can be seen as an objectifying profession, as it fulfills a desire, a human want. So does a lap dance. We prohibit hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc. it is my opinion that marijuana should be legalized though I am not a smoker), because they are so bad for you. We can not compare cocaine to the likes of porn or a strip club.

No matter if any studies were done to show how porn "impacts the male psyche" the fact is that it isn't responsible for the breaking up of families and relationships. There are many females who enjoy the viewing and taking part in pornography as well.

People are going to impose their morality one way or another, that's just a fact of life.

Not sexual morality, no sir. The imposing of sexual morality on people by the state is reminiscent of the christian dark ages. There are natural things, that must be outlawed obviously, like pedophilia because the child has no say and is not of age to make a decision; however, two full grown adults do have the right to do whatever. No matter how funky I or you may think it is. If a woman wants to make a video of herself having sex and then exchange it, it is in my opinion, tyrannical to tell her she can't.

Indeed.

I still do not see what is so wrong with the industry, male or female, provided it is done on their own volition. There are women who practice pole dancing all the time; to them it is an art and just as valid as any other dance.

Rev Scare wrote:Socialism does not entail that every individual simply be allowed to do as they please so long as their actions are in accord with the non-aggression principle and do not violate the "rights" of others. Try libertarianism if you want a nonsensical philosophy which fails to take into account negative externalities and the socially determined status of rights.

Indeed, but I didn't think it was about imposing morality on people either. I actually thought the purpose of socialism was to ensure each citizen had the right to exercise their full freedoms without infringing on anothers', even so far as going to say that exercising their full freedoms enables another to exercise their full freedoms.

There is nothing inherently objectionable, from my perspective, about imposing a social morality so long as it is legitimately arbitrated and enforced. It makes absolutely no sense for every individual to simply follow their own moral path in life.

There is something objectionable about it if you ask me; like telling a women what she can't and can't do on her own volition. You can in no way shape and form impose your morality on everyone. There is universal morality among humans, but there is variables in morality as well. Some people don't feel comfortable having sex before marriage, some people have sex the first or second date. There is no way to enforce a totally universal morality onto people.

What is being a porn star if not a legal prostitute? I do not understand why you simultaneously disapprove of prostitution and uphold the porn industry's permissibility.

Rev Scare wrote:What is being a porn star if not a legal prostitute? I do not understand why you simultaneously disapprove of prostitution and uphold the porn industry's permissibility.

Because people are forced into prostitution by poverty and social conditions. With the introduction of socialism, the social conditions which lead to prostitution would be wiped out. However, we can not say ALL porn stars are led into the industry by conditions of poverty therefore it is likely to say that with the introduction of socialism there would still be willing porn stars just as there would be strippers.

Sort of like how left wing nationalists believe the working class will not forsake their national identities with the introduction to socialism; there is no reason for me to believe people will forsake the porn industry or strip clubs with the introduction of socialism.

Not taking "sides" on this issue, but remember all that there is a difference between doing some masturbation tape to your boyfriend, and a multi million dollar industry with power and resources to spare.

In response to people who say that prostitution and pornography should be outlawed: Fair enough that is your opinion but are you aware that many proletarians ( especially blue collar proletarian males) will turn away from you if you support such things?

See its no secret that a good number of working class guys ( me included) like strippers and prostitutes. Im not saying that stripping and prostitution are good things, in fact I agree they are bad things. But the thing is many people do bad things ( me included). So as long as these bad things arent that bad ( such as murder) then I dont see why they should be outlawed. I mean few people are saints after all. Not to mention outlawing these things would cause many people to lose their outlets for release. Which may cause tons of people to go crazy and possibly start going postal. So my point is as long as no one is forced to be a stripper or a prostitute, then I dont see why such things should be banned ( since doing so would probably cause more trouble than good). Anyways this issue will ultimately be settled on a Nation to Nation basis so the people will decide I guess.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What is meant by objectification? Any job can technically be objectifying. Plumbing can be seen as an objectifying profession, as it fulfills a desire, a human want. So does a lap dance.

Objectification obviously means viewing someone as an object, as opposed to a human being. One of the reasons we socialists oppose wage labor is because we loathe workers being treated as merely another expendable commodity in the process of production. Contrary to the deplorable state of labor under capitalism, socialism creates the conditions wherein labor is no longer demeaning.

A lap dance does indeed fulfill a human want, but, again, at the expense of objectifying an entire gender of people. Sexuality is a very complex aspect of our psychology, and to compare the services of a plumber to that of a sex worker is nonsensical. Receiving sexual gratification via a business transaction simply doesn't have the same psychological affect on people that plunging their toilet does.

We prohibit hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc. it is my opinion that marijuana should be legalized though I am not a smoker), because they are so bad for you. We can not compare cocaine to the likes of porn or a strip club.

Of course we can. If it can be legitimately argued that the porn industry or strip clubs negatively impact society in some capacity, which I believe it can, then there are grounds for regulating those professions.

No matter if any studies were done to show how porn "impacts the male psyche" the fact is that it isn't responsible for the breaking up of families and relationships.

I never argued that it was the sole, or even primary, reason why families and relationships fall apart. What I have suggested is that it negatively influences the manner in which males perceive of women and sex—and there is ample sociological evidence to support that claim.

There are many females who enjoy the viewing and taking part in pornography as well.

And there were many individuals who enjoyed owning slaves.

Not sexual morality, no sir. The imposing of sexual morality on people by the state is reminiscent of the christian dark ages.

There is a difference between regulating which professions we allow in society, and regulating human behavior. Socialism consists of the democratization of the economy, thereby placing in the people's hands the power to determine precisely which industries they wish to maintain and which they wish to discard. If a population should freely choose to ban sex work—as we might expect in middle eastern communities, for example—it will be banned.

Aside from sex work, communities may also set regulations on sexual behavior in general. I'm not suggesting that they will regulate what consenting adults do in the freedom of their own homes, such laws would surely be archaic and unjust, but they most likely will maintain the laws which currently exist that prohibit people from fornicating in the streets, for instance.

If a woman wants to make a video of herself having sex and then exchange it, it is in my opinion, tyrannical to tell her she can't.

I never wrote that people making videos of themselves having sex is problematic, I simply claimed that sex work is harmful for society.

However, we can not say ALL porn stars are led into the industry by conditions of poverty therefore it is likely to say that with the introduction of socialism there would still be willing porn stars just as there would be strippers.

I fully agree that not all sex workers are currently forced into the profession due to poverty. Some of them have psychological problems stemming from parental abuse or neglect which led them to the career, others were traumatized during an important stage in their sexual development, and still others may genuinely enjoy the work, that's all besides the point.

A masochistic individual living under a socialist mode of production may wish to sell him or herself into slavery, should we allow this to occur since it's entirely of their own volition? I don't think so. It's degrading to the individual involved as well as to society in general.

With that said, this topic is deserving of a thread onto itself and I would prefer not derailing this particular thread any further by continuing to discuss sex work.

I smell a troll or somebody from Rev-left that wants to pervert left-wing nationalism. Homosexuality is immoral behavior, it is encouraged by capitalism. Homosexuality thrives because of capitalism. This was established by comrade Stalin.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I smell a troll or somebody from Rev-left that wants to pervert left-wing nationalism.

It's conceivable.

Homosexuality is immoral behavior, it is encouraged by capitalism. Homosexuality thrives because of capitalism. This was established by comrade Stalin.

Historically, many Marxists (including Stalin) were indeed of the opinion that homosexuality is a "bourgeois perversion," but I don't think this notion has stood the test of time well. Modern research on the subject suggests that homosexuality is the product of a complex interaction between ones genes and environment.

Homosexuality has existed in precapitalist societies and indeed exists among animals. It is as natural as heterosexuality, and occurs in proportions insufficient to interfere with the propagation of the species.

Bestiality, rape and necrophilia is also "natural" amongst some individuals. They have also been seen in the wild amongst animals just as homosexuality has. Homosexuality is a sick lifestyle that needs to be abolish and under utopian socialism it shall.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Bestiality, rape and necrophilia is also "natural" amongst some individuals. They have also been seen in the wild amongst animals just as homosexuality has. Homosexuality is a sick lifestyle that needs to be abolish and under utopian socialism it shall.

Bestiality, rape, and necrophilia all involve one consenting adult, and another person (or animal or dead body) who did not consent. Desecrating the remains of the fallen should be outlawed, so should rape, and the abuse of animals.

However what these do not have in common with homosexuality is that it is two consenting adults. My neighbor is a homosexual and you probably wouldn't know it, he is a pretty nice guy and actually helped my family out financially when in tough times. He isn't a "flamer" and doesn't run around in sex outfits like you typically see in "gay parades". The state should just stay out of people's bedrooms; there doesn't need to be a crusade against homosexuality. There does need to be public decency standards set up though so that what people wear to "gay parades" stays in the bedroom.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Bestiality, rape, and necrophilia all involve one consenting adult, and another person (or animal or dead body) who did not consent. Desecrating the remains of the fallen should be outlawed, so should rape, and the abuse of animals.

However what these do not have in common with homosexuality is that it is two consenting adults. My neighbor is a homosexual and you probably wouldn't know it, he is a pretty nice guy and actually helped my family out financially when in tough times. He isn't a "flamer" and doesn't run around in sex outfits like you typically see in "gay parades". The state should just stay out of people's bedrooms; there doesn't need to be a crusade against homosexuality. There does need to be public decency standards set up though so that what people wear to "gay parades" stays in the bedroom.

Individual consent is no basis for legality in and of itself. People consent to socially destructive behavior regularly. You are delineating arbitrary boundaries of social intervention. What people "do" within the confines of their own personal residences should not be a matter of public discourse and regulation out of sheer decency (unless it can be proven that what transpires produces a serious and negative social effect, such as harming children within the home, for example), not because you believe that there exists some inviolable line over which the rest of us (society) cannot have our fair representation.

Rev Scare wrote:Individual consent is no basis for legality in and of itself. People consent to socially destructive behavior regularly. You are delineating arbitrary boundaries of social intervention. What people "do" within the confines of their own personal residences should not be a matter of public discourse and regulation out of sheer decency (unless it can be proven that what transpires produces a serious and negative social effect, such as harming children within the home, for example), not because you believe that there exists some inviolable line over which the rest of us (society) cannot have our fair representation.

Of course, but in this case it is a valid argument because homosexuality is not socially destructive. I do believe other people do not have fair representation to the affairs of two individuals in the bedroom. Isn't that the very basis of democracy, having a say in decisions in proportion to how you are affected by them? You are not affected by what homos do in the bedroom.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Of course, but in this case it is a valid argument because homosexuality is not socially destructive. I do believe other people do not have fair representation to the affairs of two individuals in the bedroom. Isn't that the very basis of democracy, having a say in decisions in proportion to how you are affected by them? You are not affected by what homos do in the bedroom.

I understand. My statement was more generally applicable than directed at a particular issue.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I smell a troll or somebody from Rev-left that wants to pervert left-wing nationalism. Homosexuality is immoral behavior, it is encouraged by capitalism. Homosexuality thrives because of capitalism. This was established by comrade Stalin.

You have no idea how much it means to me to see another anti-homosexual leftist. Far too many give into the bourgeois's no-win situation of "if you're not X then you're Y!!!"

youtube deleted it, but I'm sure I could find it somewhere on some butt hurt youtuber's profile a remake of my two part video about why communism should and historically has opposed homosexuality. Ironically... I blame it for a lot of what you consider yourself. A nationalist.

Notice homosexuals refer to themselves as a body, a collective, a cultural identity. This is contrary to the ultimate goal of Marxism. To undo all cultural hegemony. Gays only perpetuate the class war. All sex is exploitative. Theoretically, we'd do away with heterosexual sex as well as homosexual. But homosexual intercourse is just adding fuel to the fire. This is why I was so pissed about my videos going, because they covered all of this.

I'm not it's so simple as to "get rid of the gays" or "make homosexuality a crime". It's more then that. People's entire perception of sexual interaction has to change. But homosexuality is not an ally to communists, and can never be. Believe me, I've tried. Gays don't want to listen. Their self engrossed in this position that it's all about them. As all nationalists are.

The gay reactionary is far more dangerous though, BECAUSE his nationalism exists only in abstracts. What defines gay? They argue back and fourth between "born gay" and "I have a right to choose to be gay". Which is it? If the former, where do glory-holes and rainbow flags fit in? If the latter, then all the more so why we shouldn't applaud it. As it's just about self indulgence and a mass distraction.

Any sex that isn't about procreation is counter-productive and hurtful for both men and women. It's systematic strife where you always feel like you have to "compete" to be attractive, lie, and worm your way into more people's bed sheets. It's disgusting, vile, and leaves many people scarred. And yet many so called communists support it... why? Because they gave into the hype that if you "DON'T" support it, you must be a Christian, republican, who watches Sean Hannity every night?

Homosexuality is the best thing that could happen to the right-wing. It's a great money maker, a straw man opponent they never plan to get rid of, and a perfect ploy to keep the real left condemning each other for having some God damn morals.

As much as I deplore homosexuality however, I will show that I am a reasonable guy, and offer every gay I come across to join me in Freedom From Being Banned. Sort of my own version of Occupy Wall Street. I'd accept anyone, regardless of their misdeeds. A common mistake people make about me is just because I speak ill of gays, they think that's my main concern. I do it mostly because I know it shakes people up. They need to be shaken. They're docile and zombified.


But I am not a nationalist. If it were up to me, there would be no racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise differing identities. There would be only sentience, and the will to survive/develop technology/move forward into space. I'll talk about the space program some other time. But essentially I was going to write a communist version of Starship Troopers where communist space marines go out and liberate other planets from hostile, imperialist aliens. I'm very interventionist/globalist.

Apparently I cannot post links for seven days. So upon seven days, I'll show you my pages I guess. I'm sure you could find it on facebook by looking for "Freedom From Being Banned" and my youtube is "JimProfitCommunist".

I just am trying to expand my social circle to help get things done. Like maybe find some programmers and work on a communist video game. Propaganda is our greatest weapon at this point in time.

Jim Profit wrote:Any sex that isn't about procreation is counter-productive and hurtful for both men and women. It's systematic strife where you always feel like you have to "compete" to be attractive, lie, and worm your way into more people's bed sheets. It's disgusting, vile, and leaves many people scarred. And yet many so called communists support it... why? Because they gave into the hype that if you "DON'T" support it, you must be a Christian, republican, who watches Sean Hannity every night?

I beg to differ. Two adults who enjoy the company of intimacy of each other can obviously have recreational sex without any of those pitfalls you mention. In fact it's only natural, the human species is one of the few that has sex for fun, but it's not even the only one.

Besides, "morality" is an abstract concept defined by society.

Anyways, i agree with the users who above stated that homosexuality, or any form of sexuality between two consenting adults is none of my business.

Jim Profit wrote:Any sex that isn't about procreation is counter-productive and hurtful for both men and women. It's systematic strife where you always feel like you have to "compete" to be attractive, lie, and worm your way into more people's bed sheets. It's disgusting, vile, and leaves many people scarred. And yet many so called communists support it... why? Because they gave into the hype that if you "DON'T" support it, you must be a Christian, republican, who watches Sean Hannity every night?

Uhh sorry buddy but that is the way of life, it feels good people are going to do it, and it isn't harming you. Males always compete for females it is simply nature. It isn't everyone's "right" to have a sexual partner, if you're ugly and not attractive you won't get one. The introduction of socialism isn't going to get rid of competition in the bedroom, only in the market. Silly.