💬 Off-Topic The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto - They genuinely want to kill you for misgendering them.

Just a reminder that the term 'gender' originated from John Money, who advocated for the legalization of pedophilia while experimenting on two young boys.
I earned a psych degree (gay I know) and the unit I had on Money was taught by a whyte woman in a liberal area in like 2013. By some miracle she just showed the facts, didn't try to sugar coat things.

The class feeling when ending the unit was:
"WOW that Money guy molested two boys and basically made them kill themselves. I guess that experiment was a fucking failure. And when addressing the DSMV it seems that extremely rarely some people are 'born the wrong gender' and 'try to look and live as the other gender' but it looks like fucking hell and these people are basically pitiable."

I want to pretend she stayed based not insane and didn't start teaching troonacy eventually.
 
Última edición:
I want to pretend she stayed based and didn't start teaching troonacy eventually.

I will never understand those who acknowledge John Money as being the monster as he is, and yet still fall for troon retardation, even though Money is the only reason why transgenderism didn't die with weimar germany. Even troons, those who acknowledge Money's existence, agree he's a monster, and yet they still don't give up on gender ideology altogether. I think it's because they supposedly disagree with Money on the point that you can raise a boy to be a girl, when most troons claim that gender identity is innate....and yet in the same breath, contradict themselves by saying that you don't need to have gender dysphoria in order to be trans. Or, you know, contradicting their own beliefs through their own compulsive need to groom kids or autistic adults who would otherwise never troon out.

They don't condemn Kinsey, they worship the ground he walked on, despite Kinsey being much worse than Money was.

Yes transgenderism technically predates Money, it was invented in weimar germany. But the doctors involved were just as depraved as Money was.
 
Última edición:
"They literally want to kill you!"
Are you just figuring this out, after a decade of them saying "Kill all Nazis" and "If you disagree with us you're a Nazi" in the same breath?
 

III. Communism​

preferableAlternative.png

Thanks for the Marxist slop. It's good to remember that the entire grounding of these belief structures is schizophrenic, over-rationalized garbage.
 
Material Basis
[..]
So where does gender’s material base lie? Gender is produced primarily by the division of reproductive labor. Reproductive labor is any labor that helps to produce the next generation, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, and gender is defined by how this labor is divided up, with the different genders being distinct classes which are expected to perform specific sorts of tasks regarding reproductive labor.

The way gender differs between cultures is determined by how these tasks are divvied up between the genders. The particular characteristics that this produces are what is known as the superstructure. So, while gender is produced by this material base, it also involves an amalgamation of various stereotypes, ways of dress, formal speech, etc in its superstructure which differ how we experience our gender.

And this applies to all cultures. The Bugi people of Indonesia, rather than the two genders of our society, have five genders in total. Calabai and calalai people have biological characteristics that have been gendered as male and female respectively, but they adopt the reproductive labor tasks typically assigned to makkunrai (roughly equivalent to women) and oroané (roughly equivalent to men) which provides them with a different social class. More interestingly, however, are the bissu, the fifth gender, which fills a role distinct from the other four. They fill special ceremonial religious practices and are said to be a mixture of the four other genders. Whereas makkunrai and calabai take on typically feminine reproductive labor tasks, such as homemaking, and oroané and calalai take on typically masculine ones, such as providing support for their spouse, the bissu transcend this and engage in their own tasks.
You've discovered that a lot of human behavior is a social construct and that gender is a hierarchy: achievement unlocked! Now explain to me how your gender is innate to your identity and cannot be changed again.

Sex and Gender

But sex is a thing and, if it isn’t the basis of gender, what is it? Well, this formulation isn’t wrong, per se, it’s merely backwards. Gender forms the basis of sex. We are not born with sex already within us. We have penises, vaginas, breasts, beards, chromosomes, etc, but these things are not sex on their own. They are features of our biology, but we group them into sexes. When we call penises boy parts we are creating and imposing gender upon the body.

What this means is that sex is the gendering of our biological features. We assign gender to our biology and claim them to be innate. This is used to present the gender class system as a natural thing that just exists rather than a social system that gets imposed upon us. By gendering our bodies, we act as if gender just is rather than it being something that we’ve created. As such, sex serves to reinforce and defend gender.

Because sex isn’t some inherent thing, but an element of gender’s superstructure, it has changed over time. The earliest people could only have gendered the features that are plainly visible, such as genitals. It’s only as our understanding of anatomy progressed that we were able to gender things like ovaries. Most recently, chromosomes have been gendered because of their relationship to features we’ve already gendered.
How did we go from sex and reproduction formed the earliest division of behavior between male humans and female humans to this insane argument? He starts off by stating that the gender class system isn't natural and is something we created (even straying into gender critical talking points), but then contradicts it immediately by saying sex itself isn't actually a thing.

Vaginas and penises aren't sex, just features that anyone of any sex can have? Really? And don't drag up the whole DSD thing because everyone is tired of educating you about how biology works and how it sometimes screws something up (but you're still primarily one sex or the other).

Enforcement and Sexual Violence
[...]
So, if not the state, how is it imposed? Through sexual violence. When we look to statistics on the issues, what we find is that rates of sexual violence are higher among women than among men and among queer people than among straight men....Trans people face higher rates of sexual violence than cis people of the same gender as them...
[...]
Sexual violence fills the role among women and queer people that police violence fills among many others. Indeed, while police violence does exist, it is quite frequently sexually charged when applied to women and queer people. Among queer people specifically, sexual violence is often done with explicitly correctional purposes. That is, sexual violence, particularly rape, is often used against queer people specifically to make them straight and cis....
Trans people face higher rates of sexual violence because they insist on being sex workers. What do they expect?

And, yes, women experience more sexual violence than other classes, but he's not making any kind of point with this other than to say that queers experience it because other people want to rape them into being normal.

The Modern Gender Binary

There aren’t any current genderless societies. Though there are many variations, all have created a division of reproductive labor which has produced a gender system. Indeed, they’ve been around since at least the first civilizations developed the first writing systems. Gender is the first system of power developed by society.
Again, all this info does is reinforce TERF talking points, which I'm sure he's not trying to do.

This class dynamic of man over woman is the principal dynamic of patriarchy, but they do not comprise the only two classes. Instead, we find that some people relate to reproductive labor differently than how it’s imposed upon the population. This is especially the case with regards to sex, when someone engages in sexual relations that do not fit with the dynamics imposed by patriarchy. This includes people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender (gay/lesbian people), of multiple genders (bisexual/pansexual people), or no gender (asexual people). In addition, people whose gender is different from the one patriarchy assigns to them can’t be classed as neatly as people who accept the assignment by gender. While they might be personally men or women, they aren’t treated by society in quite the same way so they comprise a distinct social class. Characteristic to this is the detachment of sex and romance from reproducing the next generation. While it’s still possible for all of these groups to reproduce the next generation, it is no longer a necessary part of sex and romance.

Since this third class is defined by it’s difference from those of the first two classes, it is named queer. Queer people are all those who relate differently to the division of reproductive labor assigned to them by patriarchy. Because of the different relations, queer people are inherently subversive to the class system as a whole and constitute the revolutionary class under patriarchy.
I see someone paid attention in those useless gender studies classes that universities teach. He's starting to fall on his face, though, by now beginning to assign to gender an innate feeling that will require HRT and surgery to bring into alignment with their sex, and not as people who personally don't perform the stereotypes and expectations placed on them and are okay with that.

You know, the people we used to call tomboys and effeminate.

Saying “Yes” to Gender
[...]
Here we can listen to the analysis of Judith Butler: Performative acts, that is all the little actions you take which construct an identity, are key to understanding how gender functions on an individual level. We find these in the most basic things we do and say, “I am a woman”, “No, I can’t play with that. It’s a boy toy”, “Boys will be boys”. These acts produce an identity, both within ourselves and within others. You identify as a woman or a man and identify others as men or women by engaging in these acts.
[...]
This serves as a method of control and reproduction. Gender isn’t inherent, but it spreads by assigning us to a class and forcing us to say yes to that class. “Yes, I am a man. It is who I am and who I always have been. I cannot escape it or deny it. I am a man.” This is nothing but a lie we are forced to repeat. But by repeating it enough, we come to believe it. Gender becomes natural, inescapable, eternal. It ceases to be an imposed identity and becomes an eternal part of who we are. By objecting to my gender, you are objecting to that which is inherently me.
No, you identify other people as men or women by appearance, not because of behavior. Back to the Stone Age with you!

The Communist Movement
[...]
Communism conceived in this way is a movement against the present social order, one seeking the liberation of those oppressed. This should not be seen as an ideal we strive for, but a real, active movement that exists in the present day. We don’t find communism in plans for the future, but, rather, in a worker sabotaging his workplace, a wife who escapes from her abusive husband with her children, Naxalites engaging in guerrilla warfare against the Indian government, rioters rejecting the police to loot and burn their cities, etc.

Within the communist movement we find all the important work being done in the present day. The communist movement isn’t about some far off ideal, but the immediate communism it produces. It’s an active revolt against the present state of things which is communizing society immediately, not some theorists in a university considering the world from his armchair. It simply states the present state of things must go, and then takes action to make it so.
Yes, because communism is about radical individuality and individual liberty. I'm sure Stalin was cheering on battered wives who left their husbands. 100% retard.

Saying “No” to Gender
[...]
When you get assigned the male class, but you loudly assert the opposite, you have said “no” to gender. Gender gave you what you are, but you turned away in disgust. You are not a man, you are something else. Some find comfort in womanhood, others in something entirely outside, but whichever path you take, you have said no to gender.
[...]
When you sit apart from your assignment, you are transgender.
This idiot cannot see how he's now reinforcing the very thing he sought to reject just a few paragraphs before. As OP put it, trannies "swear fealty to 'gender' more than anyone else." If you're going to reject gender, then it means you decouple behavior from sexual characteristics, not find comfort in being the opposite sex and requiring realignment.

Revolution
...Indeed, if enough people reject the gender assigned to them, gender cannot function.

And trans people are those rejecting their gender, saying “no” to gender. This is a modern phenomenon which is subversive toward gender and presents us with a path forward. Here we find the core to the revolutionary potential of queer people. If everyone says “no” to gender, everyone ceases to accept it, then gender is lost. We find similar strategies among resistance to other class systems. People fight capitalism through a refusal to work, a general strike against it. Similarly, a collective “no” to gender rejects the class system and allows us to take it to its knees.

This would be nothing but a revolution. It’s an overhaul of society which allows for queer people to take its reigns and remake it in our image. This act of class abolition by queer people, including a self-abolition of our own class, is a daring attack upon gender. It takes over society to transform it and eliminate class from it. This means that such a revolution would be the dictatorship of the queer.
But you aren't saying 'no' to gender or attacking it all! You're reinforcing its existence and appropriating the lived experiences of everyone else. These people live in a bubble where they think, "The patriarchal conservatives are angry, therefore I've undone gender!" Yeah, some conservatives might be angry, but you haven't undone gender - you've just said that you intend to jump into the next pond over. What's even dumber is that this idiot just spent several paragraphs going full Matrix and saying that the ponds are an illusion to begin with. Please make up your mind!

Queer Power
Far too often people do not seek the liberation of queer people, only our assimilation. Gay assimilation is the mainstream LGBT rights movement, but it does not go far enough. If all we do is assimilate, we are still subject to the power and domination of the gender class system. We aren’t free, just folded into the existing system of oppression and domination.

And it’s dangerous, too. Assimilation provides gender with the chance to escape its final end. If gender can assimilate gayness, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender people, and all other modes of queerness, it will become flexible and accommodate for the forces driving it towards its end. If we assimilate, gender might never end.
[...]
Queer power is separate from the existing institutions. We declare our difference, unashamed and proud. We don’t join their projects. We don’t participate in their systems. We don’t increase their power. In its place, we must make our own!

This means creating queer organizations and institutions. Counterpowers to the dominant patriarchal class system. These allow for us to provide people with what they need for transition, including providing HRT drugs, supporting victims of sexual assault, empowering women outside of the system, and ultimately providing spaces to be different, to escape the domination of gender.
Pink Terror
...Queer power needs violence to destroy gender. A sustained terror against those who seek to enforce gender and prevent gender’s death, a pink terror, is a necessity in the revolution against gender.
[...]
This means that the queer organizations and institutions we build for queer power must be militant, armed organizations. It’s not enough to provide a space outside of patriarchy, we must arm ourselves to defend those spaces and to render an assault upon the overarching structures of power that seek to enforce gender upon us. This means that our queer organizations must be, or include, queer militias to fight against the structures of power.
[...]
This can also provide queer people with a framework for fighting against misgendering and deadnaming. When people continuously and knowingly use the wrong pronouns and names for others, it is a form of violence against them. Doing so frequently leads to self-harm and sometimes suicide by queer people. As such, we need to defend and back other queer people up. Such violence against queer people cannot go unanswered and cannot be acceptable. But we should keep proportional responses in mind. Misgendering doesn’t warrant murder.
So, you're going to terrorize yourselves? I mean, the suicide rate is already sky high in your community, so maybe you are.

Funny how can say that they refuse to participate in society's systems, yet probably screeches about needing to use the women's room and play in women's sports. Also, I can't wait to see the way the tranny movement crumbles when they respond to misgendering by sperging out violently.

Bash Back
Gender won’t go down without a fight; a counter-revolution will appear to tear us down. Against the gender accelerationist movement, movements will develop to defend, or even regress, gender. Historically, revolutionary movements often find themselves followed by fascist movements rejecting the call for the new world and seeking a rejuvenation of the present one through rebirth. These fascist movements embrace hypermasculinity and seek to exacerbate the domination of masculinity over society.

Here we find our clearest enemy, and the new fascist movements of the present will react to our accelerationism with reaction and counter-revolution. Here the queer militias will be needed to defend the revolution against advancing reaction. Conflict will inevitably get bloody and we’ll fight in the streets as needed to shut down the counter-revolution and ensure our victory.
Victory At All Costs
We cannot stop part way or allow for our defeat. Gender means the domination of all and sustained violence against women and queer people. We cannot allow for our defeat and our eyes must be upon victory. This isn’t merely a choice, it’s a necessity.
Good luck, troon. Have fun explaining your schizo reasoning to the world as you bang your manly fists against it.
 
100% of the time when you run into some sort of tankie or far left activist online, it is someone that is very poorly read and scientifically illiterate; they always seem to hold a very anthropocentric view of the world and never take into account that humans are animals with an evolutionary history. I seem to recall, buried deep into the thread, that Keffals had a bookshelf filled with books on communism alongside tons of stereotypical turbonerd crap like manga. Not a single book on any other academic type of subject, especially those that might help someone understand human nature. That's what I expect to be true of any sort of "radical" tranny like the ones mentioned thus far in the thread. And of course, they have no idea that they are useful idiots to left wing billionaires that have money invested into the gender industry, like the Pritzker family, Martine Rothblatt, Jon Stryker, or George Soros.
Yesssssss my completely unfalsifiable fairy tales about monkeys bashing rocks together offer key insights into how people behave because Edward Dutton and Jordan Peterson said so, they definitely don't stem from the same gnostic roots, and the way that I can reframe literally anything into a new fairy tale about how it gave some monkeys a 0.0001% survival advantage somehow isn't even remotely similar to how marxists can reframe literally anything as some kind of class struggle
 
Yesssssss my completely unfalsifiable fairy tales about monkeys bashing rocks together offer key insights into how people behave because Edward Dutton and Jordan Peterson said so, they definitely don't stem from the same gnostic roots, and the way that I can reframe literally anything into a new fairy tale about how it gave some monkeys a 0.0001% survival advantage somehow isn't even remotely similar to how marxists can reframe literally anything as some kind of class struggle
You assume that I subscribe to the dumbass talking points pushed by grifters that misuse tenants of evolutionary psychology in order to push the naturalistic fallacy and neglect the role that culture plays in shaping human behavior. You assume wrong.
 
Oh. This thing. I only remember this because it was listed next to Bullshit Jobs and the Unabomber Manifesto on the Anarchist Library site. The writing quality takes a real nosedive in comparison to the aforementioned.

EDIT: You know I always wondered why these anarkiddies come up with really stupid ideas like gender accelerationism but I think I unintentionally pointed out that the proof is in the pudding. These homies don't read. Can't even define communism correctly.
 
Última edición:
It really does seem like these people are all about rebelling not against genuinely oppressive power structures, but against truth. Against objective reality. For its own sake because they are mentally ill and love being angry, especially at those who are objectively healthier, happier, more successful, and more righteous than they are.
Bingo. And don't forget more beautiful.

They only take up the mantle of "the oppressed" as a pretext to oppress. If there is no absolute truth (which is exactly what they believe) everything is just a naked struggle for power. That is why they do so much work justifying violence. There can be no appeal to a "true" principle at any point, only rhetoric that grants them power.

Ironically, we in the West with our big Christian hearts have been conditioned to give the most deference to the oppressed. This is being exploited like a virus exploits an immune system. If we had some other core principle, these people would still be clamoring for power but under some other pretext. It's just nihilism.
 
They only take up the mantle of "the oppressed" as a pretext to oppress. If there is no absolute truth (which is exactly what they believe) everything is just a naked struggle for power. That is why they do so much work justifying violence. There can be no appeal to a "true" principle at any point, only rhetoric that grants them power.

A lot of SJW/woke midwits pretend that it's all about being "tolerant" or celebrating diversity or some shit, the postmodernist rejection of objective morality or truth.

I can't help but respect the Stirnerites though for their admission that a world where absolute truth or good and evil are mere "spooks" is a world where nothing matters except for said naked struggle for power.

The average wokist either lacks the brainpower, or actively avoids, confronting this reality, because they still want to convince themselves and others that they're good people. If nothing else, I admire the Stirnerites for being honest about their own wickedness and lack of empathy for their fellow man.
 
Última edición:
Lol. Retard, you're the one working backwards. You could call men and women skoomas and skimbos respectively and the human race would instinctually recognize and categorize the differences between the two sexes, because above all else we are mammals and sex is the very basis of our reproduction.
Still making my way through this but right off the bat and in keeping with my account theme:
You just did proper Marxist material dialectic analysis right there whereas that wannabe terror troon is doing the opposite while mimicking Marxist lingo in some places.

Into the Gulag the anarchist tranny goes.
And you:
Congratulations, you are now promoted to gender commissar.
 
Wow, the 'manifesto' posted in OP is essentially just faggy social justice whining compared to this insanity.

'Virgin Marxist Tranny' vs 'Chad Hypersexist Gender Shredder Aphotic Feminism Schizoid'

(both still go in the oven)

I was thinking about posting my own analysis of the essay that the manifesto in the OP rips off, but I'm rethinking it seeing that it's even more schizophrenic and even lengthier than the other one.

Leftists are particularly bad at brevity, they need walls of text in order to justify themselves. I have to give credit to the one in the OP for being somewhat better at not making that mistake, however.
 
Vikki also wrote about egoist agorism, wherein it expresses admiration for the illegalist movement and for Max Stirner, an anarchist who was unique in that he rejected morality completely and said that it was a good thing that an anarchist society would be one where might makes right.

Vikki also rejects even the bare-bones ethical standards that Samuel Konkin put forth, and admits that it personally sees nothing wrong with "red markets," or black markets that not only violate governmental laws but also violate the non-aggression principle, like hitmen.

From the three essays Vikki has written, it's quite clear that it's an incredibly spiteful mutant and sociopath, not just a useful idiot and degenerate like most anarchists/lolbertarians. It's not just severely mentally ill, it is a flat-out evil person who is genuinely full of hate for those who are objectively more righteous and healthy than it is.
Max Stirner does not necessarily reject morality. He rejects societally imposed morality. Calling them spooks. Fundamentally he saw morality not a passive code but an active choice which pleases one Ego.

Which can result in might = right society, or a co-operative society. Its very flexible and intentionally so as it measures all morality by the individual. Nietzsche was said to read Stirner but Im not sure if this is confirmed. Both of their philosophies mirrors each other in some key ways.

Stirner was also somewhat acquaintance with Marx. With Marx in his earlier years praising his work but later on denouncing Stirner. Some people - in a mostly joking way - said that Stirner never existed and was just Engels ragebaiting Marx.

Edit: This means that an egoist is not necessarily selfish or amoral, they could be, but if it pleases their ego to be altruistic and helpful to their fellow man then so be it. Its egoism without prescriptions on how to act. To Stirner one gets to choose. Out of all of the philosophies I have read I cannot help but admire the simplicity of Stirner's
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo