#economic ideology

[trendynewsnow]

The Political Deception of Donald Trump: A Critical Analysis

The Political Con of Donald Trump Donald Trump has consistently demonstrated himself to be a master of deception. Throughout his career as a businessman, he has left a trail of disillusioned investors who suffered financial losses in his ill-fated ventures, all while he profited handsomely. From students who invested thousands in his defunct educational programs to countless unpaid contractors,…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"SINGLE TAX MEN AND MOVEMENT," Winnipeg Tribune. December 9, 1913. Page 5. ---- W. W. Buchanan Delivers Interesting Address on Status in Old Land ---- "The Men and the Movement" was the title of the address delivered, uder the auspices of the Land Values Taxation league, in the Monarch theatre on Sunday evening by W. W. Buchanan, and it was a racy and entertaining description of the leaders of that movement in England, and their methods of work. Mr. Buchanan made his biographical sketches, veritable tables of the border, sparkling with romantic touches of incident and devotion. He contrasted Jos. Fels, the dogmatic doctrinaire who was putting his life and his fortune into teaching the truths of single tax, with Lloyd George the practical statesman who is working as much of the truth he can into the laws and administration of the land. Neither figure suffered by the comparison, but the speaker used these men of diverge talents to illustrate the varied characters necessary to carry on any great reform enterprise, and he followed it with an appeal which denounced exclusiveness and pleaded for breadth of vision and catholocity of spirit. He gave rapid pen pictures of a number of the members of the parliamentary group, devoted to the exploitation of single tax, including Neilson, Chancellor, Price. Oughtwaite, Higham, Jones, Wing and Wedgewood. He told how these men, not only fought the battles on the floor of parliament, but spent the recess in storming the country, abandoning the pleasures of home, that they might spread the doctrines of social justice.

Shrewdness of Leaders. Incidentally, Mr. Buchanan drew attention to the spirit and shrewdness of the leaders of the Liberal party in Great Britain, in the way they linked up the potency of these reform movements and brought to the party organization the enthusiasm and loyalty which characterizes the activities of these aggressive reformers who frequently criticized and prodded party leaders, as dangerous men to be read out of the ranks of the party, they are distinctly encouraged and not only kept within the party fold, but actually provided by the party machinery with constituencies which give them seats In parliament. Within a twelve month he pointed out that no less than four single tax leaders had received nominations from the Liberal party and won seats in by-elections. In two of these contests there were three cornered fights, but the fighting blood of the single taxer had helped him to snatch victory out of the face of apparent defeat. He further pointed out that the broad spirit of Liberalism in Great Britain did not make an excерtion in favor of taxers, for similar treatment was given the leaders of the temperance reform. Leif Jones, the president of the U.K. alliance, held a seat in the house. Roberts, the son-in-law of the Countess of Carlisle, at the head of the W. C. T. U. of the world, had a seat in the house, and Sir Wilfrid Lawson, son of the late baronet, was also in the house. It was evidently the policy of the Liberal party in the old land to encourage reform movements and to gather the strength of these various movements together to maintain itself in the ascendency and to keep reactionaries in opposition.

Propaganda Described. He also described the propaganda, the offices, the publications, and the methods of maintaining public agitation for the spread of single tax doctrines, and in that connection he canonized a little Scotchman named John Paul, who was the master mechanic of the organization and chief propagandist. He claims that although Henry George started this wonderful movement on this continent, the centre of activity had been transferred to the world's capital, old London, and he predicted that the victories which would be achieved there, and the enactments of the British parliament, would lead to a complete revolution in all the nations of the world with respect to taxation and would play a major part in establishing the reign of social Justice from the rivers unto the ends of the earth. He pointed out that while the philosophy of the single tax involved the removal of taxation from individual industry and enterprise and proposed only to take for the purposes of government those values which were created by society as a whole, it was at the same time a distinctly religious movement which sought to establish just relationship. Instead of regarding these between reformers who frequently men, upon the principles, and in the spirit, of Him who was the Saviour of society.

[familyabolisher]

highly fucking egregious to claim that antisemitic attacks happening in europe are the fault of an antizionism that somehow hasn't toed the line enough around jews and not the total equivalency of jews & zionism that remains central to hasbara & the broader zionist ideological project. it is well within the interests of israel for the diaspora to be rendered unlivable for us

[coochiequeens]

TRAs "We're so oppressed and people say we're violent men" Also TRAs - set fire to a venue then send 300 to swarm a conference to intimidate women for talking about the full impact or gender ideology for both women and the TQ+ that are undergoing transition.

By Genevieve Gluck September 20, 2024

A private school in Lyon, France, had its electricity sabotaged on Thursday as trans activists attempted to have a conference critical of gender ideology cancelled. The event was later swarmed by 300 trans activists, who gathered outside of the Institute of Social, Economic and Political Sciences (ISSEP) in opposition to the appearance of feminist activist Marguerite Stern, co-author of the book “Transmania.”

The conference, titled Comment L’idéologie Transgenre Détruit des Vies? (How Transgender Ideology Destroys Lives), sought to discuss the harms of both medical transitioning and the aggression of trans activism. But even before the event was set to officially begin, the venue – a private school founded by right-wing Member of Parliament Marion Maréchal-Le Pen – was targeted for sabotage.

At approximately 4:00 AM on the day the conference was to take place, an explosion occurred and a fire broke out in a room housing an electrical meter adjacent to the venue. As firefighters worked to extinguish the flames, 200 police officers were dispatched to the scene. The officers were present throughout the evening’s event in order to secure the safety of attendees.

While police are still investigating the cause of the fire, security camera footage caught one unidentified individual setting off an explosive device. The explosion set fire to the electrical meter of the adjacent building, resulting in a power outage for some local residents. This occurred while trans activists had been vandalizing the front of the institute with threatening slogans.

Vandalism on the ISSEP building’s front read: “Dirty TERF,” an acronym which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’ and is often used as a pejorative to harass or threaten violence against women who oppose gender identity ideology.

Some of the vandalism on the ISSEP building. Photo courtesy of Marguerite Stern.

Stern, formerly an active campaigner against femicide, decided to speak at ISSEP Thursday evening despite the damage to the institute and credible threats to her safety which were shared on social media. While the event took place, more trans activists gathered outside of the venue and complained of “transphobia” to local media.

“At the conference, I talked about how children are harmed by puberty blockers, and all the women who ‘transition’, especially the teenagers, and [detransitioners] who find that ‘transition’ destroyed their lives. But I also talked about the ‘TERFs’, the women who resist, because I believe that transgender ideology destroys their lives, too,” Stern told Reduxx.

“When we started the conference, we didn’t have electricity because the workers were still trying to turn the power back on. And this is not the first time a venue where I was scheduled to speak was vandalized. So what I was talking about was happening in front of our eyes,” Stern continued.

“I’m so upset about that fire and the impact on the people living there. Those people who set the fire just didn’t care about human lives,” she added. “They knew that children were sleeping in this building, and the fire could have been much worse if the firemen didn’t come to stop it. Can you imagine? Some children could have died.

Stern is no stranger to controversy and has been targeted by trans activists for several years.

Last April, when Stern was set to speak at a symposium in Nantes intended to raise awareness of the plight of Afghan and Iranian women, the event had to be postponed in response to violent threats made against her and the venue.

Stern has previously been ousted from her own organization in direct response to her concerns about transgender ideology. Les Collages Contre les Féminicides, a direct action campaign she launched in 2019, involved the creation of murals calling attention to violence against women and girls. In 2022, trans activists destroyed one such mural created in remembrance of the infant victims of shaken baby syndrome by an organization sympathetic to Stern, L’Amazone.

On International Women’s Day in 2021, Stern was pelted with eggs by trans activists in a coordinated and premeditated assault. She, along with members of L’Amazone and the Collective for the Abolition of Pornography and Prostitution (CAPP) had gathered to hold a demonstration at the Place de la République in Paris. The women soon found themselves swarmed and outnumbered by trans activists who called them “SWERFs,” meaning Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and shouted: “No feminism without whores.”

In May, Stern and another women’s rights advocate, Dora Moutot, had death threats chanted at them by a crowd of trans activists outside of Assas University where they had been invited to speak about the book they wrote together.

Demonstrators surrounded the entrance and shouted, “A TERF, a bullet, social justice,” at the two women as they were escorted by police. “They have no shame,” said Stern in footage depicting the scene. “How can they say that in front of police?” marveled Moutot.

Leading up to last night’s conference, Stern was mocked and threatened with violence on social media by trans activists, some of whom joked about hurling eggs at her for their own amusement.

A second protest organized by Jeune Garde, or the French arm of Antifa, which would have occurred at the entrance of ISSEP, was cancelled by order of the police. Stern explained that the police were aware that Jeune Garde protests are “always violent.”

Le Collectif Droit des Femmes 69 coordinated the protest with over a dozen various trans activist and so-called feminist organizations, among them: NousToutes Rhône, Solidaires Rhône, Ensemble ! 69, VIFFIL-SOS Femmes, PS du Rhône, Filactions, Les Ecologistes 69, SOS Homophobie, Jeune Garde, and le Planning Familial.

“As members of the Collectif Droits des Femmes 69, we cannot remain silent in the face of this conference,” the organization’s leaders announced in a press release. “Indeed, this event illustrates in every way what we are fighting: the crass transphobia of a part of the political and media class, increasingly uninhibited in France and elsewhere. Transphobes publicly spread their venom, legitimizing physical, psychological, institutional violence against our trans or non-binary siblings. The feminism we claim is inclusive, we stand up together and for everyone!”

Individual organizations also made public statements on social media vilifying Stern and calling on their supporters to denounce her.

“On Thursday, September 19, ISSEP, Marien Maréchal Lepen’s school, has invited Marguerite Stern to present her book ‘Transmania’. This book, which is nothing more than fiction that aims to demonize trans people and spread hatred, is not based on any scientific reality,” reads a statement produced by Solidaires Rhône. “In particular, it served as support for a transphobic bill aimed at banning the transitions of minors, in complicity with the extreme right.”

Since the publication of “Transmania” in April, which Stern co-authored with her colleague Dora Moutot, the two women’s rights activists have been denied speaking opportunities. For years, the two have faced ongoing threats of violence both online and via publicly posted signage, been publicly condemned by prominent politicians, and even had legal complaints made against them for “misgendering”.

Last year, one of the organizations involved in yesterday’s demonstration, SOS Homophobie, filed France’s first-ever “misgendering” discrimination suit against Moutot. The “Transmania” co-author was accused of “violently attacking” Nicolas ‘Marie’ Cau, mayor of the small town of Tilloy-lez-Marchiennes, by calling him a man.

[unopenablebox]

attempt to idly discuss concept of custom wedding vows with 🌸 ground to a halt after the realization that neither of us actually, like, wants to try to figure out what the fuck we'd be promising

can you do custom vows, but instead of vows to do stuff, it's just a list of the superbly good qualities of the other person in order to make it clear why any rational actor would agree that you should obviously plan to keep hanging out with them as long as possible

[tanadrin]

*very* frustrating to hear a couple of sociologists talk about the fall in Russia’s life expectancy in the 90s as if it was all abstract higher order effects like “social dislocation.” the goddamn gdp contracted for nearly 10 years straight! austerity is *incredibly bad* for health and education and the economy and a ton of other shit! this was not the bounty of capitalism that a few people happened to miss out on or old people dying of nostalgia or something.

[siaradwast]

good god. done some brief catching up of the news over the past few weeks in the uk since ive been pretty tapped out due to focusing on uni and having like. a still ongoing mental health crisis. very bleak that having labour in charge literally seems no different to the conservatives. (didn't expect much but holy hell. it's bad) (giving ozempic to unemployed people to get them back to work? sending job advisors to visit patients in mental health hospitals? REAL suggestions from the health secretary of the uk). and now kemi badenoch is head of the conservatives.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Progressive Liberalism is a very nice idea but is simply missing the huevos to call for the constitutionally uncontested single-party rule that would be necessary to actually implement it's advertised goals

[dailyanarchistposts]

That humanity is somehow ‘out of balance’ with nature is hardly a topic of controversy nowadays. There is little question that humans are fouling the world to the point of suicide for us and mass extinction for all other life. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. In a variety of ways, people have attempted to grasp the problem, define it, and seek solutions. Of the many new and more faddish results, few have been as popular as Deep Ecology — also known as Biocentrism — the view that humans are acting out of excessive human-centredness (anthropocentrism) and thus destroying the planet and the rest of the species which have just as much ‘intrinsic right’ to live out their biological destiny as we do. Accordingly, Biocentrism (life/earth/nature centredness) calls for a new way of acting. Specifically, it calls for ‘earth-centred’ activity and thinking — putting the ‘earth first’ (instead of putting ourselves first) as a way out of the global dilemma.

In the following rant I wish to take a critical look at these assertions and show them for what I believe to be false, misleading and even counter-productive. I don’t mean this to be a sermon or some statement of absolute truth. No way!

What follows is, more than anything else, just my initial attempt at deciphering and understanding the relationships between some types of ideas and activity that I’ve discovered to be true to the best of my experience. The points I take on here, and their broader implications, have been of central importance to many of the great disputes and inconsistencies within what can loosely be called the ‘radical ecology movement’. Hopefully, my efforts here will help to encourage further discussion.

According to its proponents, Biocentrism is nature-centred living. It therefore must be premised on an irreconcilable separation of humans and nature. This is so because if humans were inherently natural beings — i.e: an equal part of nature, fully integrated into the natural flow of life — then to be human-centred (anthropocentric) would also imply being nature-centred (biocentric). But Biocentrism has already been defined by its practitioners to be the opposite of Anthropocentrism. So, according to Biocentrist thought (nature-centred philosophy) humans are irredeemably estranged from nature — or were never part of it in the first place — because ‘human’ is posited as the opposite of ‘nature’ (Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism). Oddly, Anthropocentrism implies the very same thing. If Anthropocentrism is human-centred living and this is the opposite of Biocentrism, or nature-centred living, then once again, ‘human’ and ‘nature’ are opposite and therefore separate. It is a contradiction to say that two positions which are identical are, in fact, opposite. I will try to resolve this dilemma by going outside of what is common to both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism — ideological thinking.

Ideological thinking is false consciousness. In other words, it is ideas and activity which originate elsewhere, outside of our own emotional and intellectual subjectivity, our identity. Ideology is when we mistake others’ thoughts for our own or when our own thoughts become rigid and fossilised and those thoughts come to control us — instead of the other way around. Marxism, all religions, guru cults are all very clear and obvious examples of ideological thinking. The politically correct sacred or official line is what one must adhere to. These ideas and demands on our activity originate not out of our own needs or desires, or ideas or personal lived experience or community, but from outside of us, externally to us. Other examples of ideologically (false) activity include: all political ideologies, ‘causes’ (doing things for ‘the cause’ instead of for our own needs), consumerism (externally created wants and preferences) and philosophies.

Both Biocentrism, and its necessary companion, Anthropocentrism, are ideologies. They both place external demands on our thinking and activity. Biocentrism differs from, say, Marxism, Christianity or the Moonies only in content. In form it is identical. How it differs is that it demands that we act, not according to the politically, morally or guru determined correct line, but to the ‘naturally’ correct one. ‘Nature’ — or an abstract overruling idea-of-nature replaces the guru, Bible or Party doctrines. There is no room in any of these (or any other ideologies) for the vagaries of human wildness, independent thought, activity or desire — or nature. All thought and activity is pre-scribed, determined externally to our human need, desires. At times we may agree with something that is also part of an ideology. But at this point, if it is truly no longer ideological, no longer external, no longer false consciousness, then we need not invoke the label, category, guru, or other ‘authority’ to justify our ideas and activity. In other words, instead of saying “according to the Marxist doctrines...”, or “The Bible says...”, or “Deep Ecology says...”, we would say “I think that...”, “I’ve noticed that...”, “I feel that...”, or “I’m doing this because...”. In this case — authentic, subjective ideas and activity based on our constantly changing needs and desires and always personally checked out against our own everyday lived experience — we can defend and explain our ideas and activity with arguments and examples that we know to be true because we’ve thought about or actually experienced them. (This has been called ‘theory’ — more on that later). In other words, we can claim our ideas as our own.

When we are in the grips of ideological thinking and acting we cannot do this because the ideas are not our own — we did not think, feel or experience them for ourselves. (Ideology, in this way, is administered thought, directed action — more on that later.) Therefore, we cannot argue, explain or justify them ourselves. Instead when someone opposes or challenges our ideology, we must put them into a category — i.e: label them as ‘other’. The label (authority, justification) of the ideologist is then used to justify evasion of any challenge. Some examples are “That’s just Marxism...”, “That’s Violence, we follow the Non-Violence Code...”, “She’s a Humanist...”. Thus, any challenge to an ideology can be dismissed as that of an ‘outsider’ in the eyes of the Party faithful who will all nod their heads in agreement at how clever the ideologist is.

Earlier I referred to ‘theory’. Theory is (to clearly define it at least for the sake of this discussion) the opposite of ideology. Ideology is inside-out theory. In ideological activity, the motivations come from without. With theory, motivations come from within, from our own subjective ideas, experiences, longings and needs. Thus theory can also be called ‘self-theory’. Most people today are walking around inside-out, motivated and directed by a myriad of things — anything but themselves. Theory is never static, never rigid. Our theory, if we fail to constantly evolve and test it against our experience and new information, quickly fossilises into ideological thinking.

When we base our activities and ideas on our self-theory, we can clearly see what the actuality behind new information is and choose to take or leave whatever we want. The self-theorist skips and dances through the great supermarket of ideology, tearing open every package, scattering the contents and appropriating what seems good and nourishing and discarding the rest. The ideologist shops carefully, or even perhaps on impulse, looking for just the right fit of pre-packaged ideas to take home and consume wholeheartedly — after paying at the register of course! Ideologists often are brand switchers. They’ll stick with one package of (non-) thought only until the next one in a shinier package comes along and lures them in. Other ideologists maintain a lifelong brand loyalty!

In the earlier discussion about ideologists using labels to evade challenges, we can say that the self-theorist can easily see — and see past — ideological boundaries of the opponent by watching for examples of ideological thinking such as statements like “Deep Ecology says that...”, “Marxism says that...”, “Gandhi would’ve said that...”. The person under the influence of an ideology, a false consciousness, on the other hand, having constructed these barriers, cannot see out. It has become a wall, a real barrier to advancement, a very un-radical thing to do.

Note also that just as the ideologist isn’t the originator of his/her ideas, so s/he neither claims the credit for them (e.g. “Biocentrism says...”). But here is another example of how the ideologist is mystified. Doctrines, ideologies and the like do not themselves talk and so it is wrong and misleading to say “Biocentrism says...”. Who is Biocentrism? When we begin to ask such questions, we can peel off layers of mystification and confusion like the skin of an onion until we can see what lies beneath: Actually Biocentrism doesn’t say anything. Actual people do and say things such as “Biocentrism this and that...”, not some mystical Biocentrism force or creature. It’s important to uncover the real source of ideas we hold so they can be fully evaluated on their actual content and meaning. If we then really do agree, then we can say “I think this and that...” and the ideas will no longer have control over us. We will control the ideas. Beware the dangers of attributing concrete activity and thinking to abstract concepts or doctrines or slogans.

In response to attacks, the person who engages in ideological thinking and activity simply builds higher and bigger walls. To continue this imagery for a moment longer, we can see that eventually the ideologist will be overwhelmed by the theorist who, being free to think, evaluate and rove around, will eventually find the cracks and weak spots that will bring the whole thing down with little effort. Imagine a guerrilla group with a radical self-theory challenging a monolithic state military force under the grip of a rigid chain of command (external control, ideology). This whole preceding discussion has obvious relevance for anyone engaged in direct subversive resistance — or think they are: ideology creeps up where you’d least expect it. But you can draw you own conclusions on that...

I’ve tried to present a fairly clear and simplified (if not simplistic) picture of what ideological activity is, how it operates and how it can limit us. I’ve tried to contrast that with theory, a better way to understand the world and think and act. What I’ll try to do now is explain how ideology is the death knell of radical change, of humanity, of nature and of the earth and wilderness. I showed at the very beginning how Biocentrism (an ideology, a category of Nature-ally correct thought and activity, a label used to discredit opposing views, an external source of ideas and action, an authority) is premised on the view that humans are separate from nature and act out of human-centeredness (Anthropocentrism) and this is what is destroying the earth. But I also showed that the apparent opposites of Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism both in fact mean the same thing. I said that this dichotomy was resolvable by breaking out of ideological forms of thought. This is what I mean.

I’d like to start with this assertion: Humans are not separate from nature. Our ‘nature’ is that which is most ‘natural’ to us — our deepest needs, desires, dreams, internally defined ideas (self-theory), our emotional wants and expression, our wild, animal instincts. Our human nature is our wild, free animal instinct and subjectivity. This is what is most natural and also what is most human about us since these qualities arise naturally and from within us. ‘Human’ and ‘nature’ are not contradictory, mutually exclusive terms.

Both Biocentrism (life/nature/earth-centred) and Anthropocentrism (human-centrism) mean the same thing, yet one is defined as being opposed to the other. They both are ideologies. They both are external, packaged thought for consumption and directed action. Both have adherents who purport that the ideology must be allowed to do the thinking for us, and that we must act out of motivations it prescribes. Ideological thinking requires that we relinquish our desires, our unpredictability, our ability to change and adapt and submit them to the category, label, doctrine, guru, Bible or, in the case of Biocentrism, to an abstracted Nature; an idea of nature.

When we relinquish our desires and wild animal instincts, we are relinquishing what is most natural, what is most human about us. Ideological thinking (false consciousness, since the thoughts and actions are not our own) is the enemy of nature. It is the enemy of humans because it deprives us of what makes us human — our human nature, our wildness. All authority — since it is ideological, externally imposed — is the enemy of nature and wildness. All domination and obedience kills nature in us, deprives us of our natures by depriving us of our humanity, our dreams, desires and wildness.

This is the mistake of claiming to act or think in the name of something external to us — whether it be Biocentrism, Marxism, Non-Violence, ‘The Cause’, America, Deep Ecology or an abstracted idea of Nature itself. These all kill our unruly, natural wild humanity. To say we are thinking or acting for Deep Ecology of the Earth or Nature or the Spotted Owl is to act for reasons external to us. To do this we must submit our desires to these ideological forms of thought, we must suppress our wildness, individuality — our nature. What a bizarre circumstance, to be risking injury or imprisonment to defend an idea of nature while killing the real living nature in ourselves! Of course, if you are doing/thinking those things for yourself and not killing wildness, not killing nature, not involved in ideological activity, them there is no reason to invoke labels as justifications. Be able to say: “I’m doing this out of my own desires for wildness, for my own human nature (or whatever).” And herein lies the way out of the contradiction.

Both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism are ideologies and therefore anti-nature. If we act out of Biocentrism we are actually killing our nature, not being nature-centred. If we act out of Anthropocentrism, we are not acting out of our human-centred desires and wild animal instincts. We are acting out of ideological demands. So, Biocentrism is anti-nature and Anthropocentrism is anti-human! So they are both anti-human and anti-nature.

So, big deal? But this becomes critical when we see that it is this same mode of self-denial or self-repression of wildness that allows us to do anti-human activity and anti-nature activity in this society. Biocentrism (and all ideologies), therefore, reinforces this precondition, reinforces our domestication. The actual daily activity, the dominant mode of human existence on the earth today is mislabelled by the Biocentrists. It is not Anthropocentrism, not human-centred. It is not done to meet human needs, not done as a result of the fulfilment of wild human desires. This activity is done to fulfil the needs of power and capital, nation-states and commodity-exchange, the whole military-industrial-national-empire. It should rightly be called production-centred or power-centred or death-centred since we must kill our wild natures to be part of it. Our daily activity is done to keep this ‘Machine’ running. This Machine is what is devouring the earth, nature, wilderness and humanity. To work in the entrails of this ‘leviathan’ requires that we submit all our wildness to the needs, schedules and routines of it. On a daily basis, this is how we individually kill our desire for our nature, our wildness.

To do this, to suppress our own wild, human, animal instincts, we must put on successively think layers of emotional ‘armour’ to protect ourselves from the pain of a murdered nature trying to break through. Like asphalt and herbicide to keep the wild plants from destroying the roadbed, this armour must be constantly added to or it begins to fall away. This armour can also be thought of as the internalisation of the Machine, its logic and schedules. Eventually the armour can be mistaken for what it is suppressing in the same way that so many people today mistake concrete, machinery and media images for the real world. This is the success of the system, the goal of our education, the triumph of Domestication over Wilderness.

It is only such armoured beings, domesticated humans who have internalised the Machine, that would engage in self-destructive/nature-destructive activity. Herein lies the danger of all modes of ideological (pseudo) awareness and activity (of which Biocentrism is but one of many, many). By encouraging us to follow that which is external to us, that which negates our own human wildness and desires, these ways of thinking and acting, help build our emotional armour against nature! They encourage self-repression and domestication. Ideology causes us to further distrust our wild natural instincts to be free. In this way, we are more able to destroy the world while at the same time we are that much less able to transcend and break free from this very mode of destructive behaviour.

What is needed is a subjective, critical, internal-human-nature-centred type of ‘self-theory’ that helps us peel away the mystification surrounding our relation to ourselves, our world and our daily activity. We need to see domestication and suppression of wilderness and freedom clearly and without illusions before we can begin the wild, liberatory celebration of our nature, the creation of planetary wilderness and the pitiless annihilation of everything which stands in the way.

[scarletfasinera]

Got blocked before I could ever even see the message lmao. The answer is that I am a Communist, and as a Communist, I've read Wage Labor & Capital. hope this helps

[theidealistphilosophy]

Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.

Thomas Sowell, Source Unlisted.

[rotzaprachim]

chamudi it would blow some of your pretty little tankie noggins what the political affiliations of many of the soldiers who carried out the nakba and established the modern state of Israel actually were

[breitzbachbea]

Logging off and trying to fall asleep quickly enough to not miss my hairdresser appointment tomorrow while I think about all possible scenarios of toxic, problematic, sweet sweet Kilick love.

[ugisfeelings]

my issue with recent historians’ claims of making quote, “theoretical interventions” from reading global histories of colonialism and diasporic migration is that their purchases to this cache so often rely on an uninterrogated and almost de tocquevillian-insistence of historical continuity and the immutability of hegemonic logics over change and contestation. which frankly, is profoundly unimaginative (it is quite conservative actually!) and vacates subaltern/colonized people of their own historical agency n mobilization against otherwise! it goes against the v ethos of historicization that they seek to recuperate within cultural studies and recourses to flat presentism. and of course, their archives are almost exclusively drawn from the discursive vantage of colonial elite statesmen (if they even do archival research), and thru a wholly hypostatized notion of culture and state power.

[thewesternpolitics]

Under capitalism, the working class sells their labor-power to the capitalists on the market in exchange for wages, which they use to purchase means of subsistence required to survive.

National oppression is an intrinsic feature to the development of capitalism. The primitive accumulation of capital, slavery, and the expropriation of land and resources provided the material bedrock for white supremacy to emerge as a defining aspect of capitalism.

While the 1% are getting wealthier, the 99% remain obedient.

Divide and conquer until they own nothing and "are happy" !

[rosecorcoranwrites]

(Sorry for taking so long)

Some of the magisterial documents that concern me:

Catechism of Trent, Rerum Novarum 20,36,42,, Quadragesimo Anno 71, casti conubii 120, Pius XII speech to Catholic female organizations (on April 24, 1952) etc

These documents seem to treat women working as a concession rather than as something that should be strived for (usage of the words “should”, “like it or not” etc) 

Which on one hand, yes, I don’t think the modern feminist notion of ���women have to be like men in order to contribute” is good, and corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone, and of course there are differences between men and women that should be respected. 

But on the other hand, because of my overthinking brain, I get to wondering if God thinks people working outside of their usual role/men and women who don’t fit their “role” is just something like Old Testament laws we consider unfortunate today, something God “tolerates/tolerated” rather than something He “wants”

It’s probably more of a me problem

No worries about taking long. I am also super busy, so it’s hard for me to find time to focus on things. Anywho, I couldn’t find the text for the Pope Pius XII’ 1952 speech, which wouldn’t be magisterial, as it is just a speech and not an encycliacal or what have you, so we can set it to one side. As for the rest:

The Catechism of Trent:

To train up their children in the practice of virtue, and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns, should also be especial objects of [wives’] attention and study. Unless compelled by necessity to go abroad, they should also cheerfully remain at home ; and should never leave home without the permission of their husbands.

I’ve read some people’s take on this that their husband’s permission can be understood to implicit rather than explicit. For example, when my mom was a stay-at-home-mom, we would go hiking and shopping and picketing when I was little, but my dad knew we were doing that and wouldn’t have asked us not to.

I have my own take on the passage. The Catechism of Trent was written in 1566, so “home” might not mean a literal house, but more likely a farm or village. Neither spouse should run off to the next village without letting their spouse know, and it’s not unreasonable for a husband to say, “Yeah, don’t go to the next village, because I need you here to help with the (insert myriad duties that weren’t automated at the time).” Running a household back in the day was far more than only child-rearing, and was essentially a job in itself, with cooking, mending clothes, and—if the family owned a shop or farm—helping to run that.

Bringing this perspective to modern day, I think we can agree it is better for families, in general, to “settle down” in one location and build a life there. When children are young, it makes sense for the mother to be the one to stay at home (ie, the hometown) while her husband’s work may require travel. Obviously this is not to say the family can’t take vacations, and necessity (sick relatives, or important speaking engagements on the wife’s part, etc) would allow for the wife’s traveling.   

Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor

I assume the concerning passages are:

20. “Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age.”

This actually proves that the Church is fine with women working, as it implies that there is work—paid work, by an employer, which is suited to the different sexes.

It is also important, just above this line, that it says, “the employer is bound to see that the worker […] be not led away to neglect his home and family.” This applies to both men and women. Context is important for all of these passages, as the document itself concerns treating workers justly so as to have a just society. If society makes it such that work outside the home interferes with family life—for both men and women—than it’s an unjust society (spoiler alert: we’re living in such a society).

36. “…if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; […] if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age - in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.”

The church is saying that the law should step in if family life becomes untenable due to work or if a woman’s health is endangered by her work. I don’t see a problem with this. Now that middle clause about mixing the sexes might sound startling, but read it carefully: "IF in workshops and factories THERE WERE danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] it WOULD BE right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.” It’s not saying that there will be immorality do to the mixing of the sexes but that if there is, the law has to step in. Which secular society agrees with. It’s why we have sexual harassment laws.

Notice, too, that merely by mentioning men and women working in workshops and factories and women being endangered by excessive labor, the Church is acknowledging that women do and can have jobs.

42. “Finally, work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child. […] Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.”

I don’t see a problem with this, either. There are jobs which, frankly, don’t suit women. Dangerous jobs, jobs which require back breaking labor, or jobs which require heavy lifting in a pinch come to mind. The Church is saying don’t force women into hard labor. As for our nature being “fitted to home-work”, that doesn’t mean we can do nothing else. There are plenty of jobs which are not back breaking and that do preserve modesty—medicine, teaching, office work, and so on. So long as those jobs don’t interfere with the the family, there’s no reason a woman shouldn’t pursue them.

Quadragesimo Anno 71

71. “That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children

Many things to note here. First, the acknowledgement that wives can help run farms and shops (which they always have done), and that this is not considered an occupation outside the home. Onto the part about mothers, again, notice the language: “to abuse the years of childhood”  “intolerable abuse […] for mothers […] to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.

This does not mean that mothers cannot have jobs, hobbies, or interests. Mothers of children should not be forced to work because their husbands are not granted a living wage. Mothers of children ought to stay home with their kids. Again, “staying home with your kids” does not mean you can’t also pursue your own interests and hobbies. It just means that your job is to take care of the kids. Once your kids are more grown, and that may mean being school aged or teenagers—that’s probably a matter of prudential judgement—feel free to go back to a paid job.

Casti Connubbii:

120. if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; […] it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God's commands are rendered difficult for them”

Again, this isn’t saying women can’t work, it’s just saying they should not be compelled to do so, and that it would be better if they could focus on homemaking.

TLDR:

I would not say that documents “treat women working as a concession”,  though they do treat mothers of young children working as such (note that there are many mothers of older children and people like me: unmarried women). I do agree that they don’t treat mothers working as “something that should be strived for”, but so what?

I’m gonna get on my soapbox here. You yourself said “corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone” Correct. So stop buying into it. Lose the capitalist notion that a person’s worth comes from their paid occupation. Lose the notion that to “do anything” means to be paid to do it. Christians should not be striving to get a job; we should be striving to become saints. The same goes for men and women. It’s frankly toxic to see a person’s worth as centered in their career. To do so leads people to despair when they lose their jobs or cannot get the one’s they want.

God doesn’t care what job you have, he cares about if you love Him and the people around you. If you can love and serve your family while holding down a job, great. The odds are that you probably can’t do that while raising young children. So make the sacrifice and stop working outside the home for a few years. Your family—and you—will be better for it. Then, when your kids are older—maybe in grade school, or maybe older than that—go back to work if you feel like it. The fact there are women saints with jobs proves that God is fine with women working. And as for men working, I wouldn't say that's something God wants, as the reason we even have to labor is because of the Fall, but I digress....

I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think you’re buying into a combo of feminist and capitalist rhetoric that says a woman’s worth (a man’s) comes from their place a cog in the capitalist machine, and that the goal of life is to have a fulfilling job. It's not. The goal of life for married people is to create a healthy and holy family. Yes, women's role in this usually involves childrearing while men's involves earning a living wage, but how is that unfortunate? You cannot claim to respect mothers while acting like what they are doing is not as worthy as having a career. And, I'll say it again, nothing about being a mother precludes one from having a career so long as your kids come first.