[ldpeaceb]

hi its clara gayhex i just got deleted lol please just follow this until staff responds im gonna use this until i decide if i even want to use tumblr anymore

[ldpeaceb]

BTW i got s worded on twitter lol im @peacebremix now

[ldpeaceb]

i got got... again... now @amazingkiseki lets pray they give old account back tho

[stellarphileistic]

Tulip Twinkle

[pure]

btw it’s not “millennial feminism” vs “gen z feminism.” and i say this as a total hag who has been politically active on and offline. it’s radical feminism vs patriarchy, heterosexual ideology and gender—all the same evil but i restated it three times cuz it has three different names lol. the latter three systems have existed for thousands of years and they have adapted to many forms and have taken on many names around the political spectrum, including some strains of so-called feminism. many of the gen z girlies are brushing up against radical critiques of the prevailing sexual culture that were pioneered by 60+ year old ultra wokes. the likes of dworkin and brownmiller and lorde and wittig and even totally banned, difficult and bigoted authors like jeffreys. read as much as you can in the canon.

Reducing it to a generational squabble is what happens when u don’t #ConsultTheLiterature. what’s happening is people are trying to reinvent radical feminism with no citations and with no engagement of the readings, because they are too scared of being socially ostracized by their leftist peers who hate it and have convinced you not to read it because they are scared it will turn you into an ungovernable female who spits in the face of how we are socialized to submit to everyone but ourselves lol. You must sit with the black sheep of ideology if you want to move forward, sift through the literature very critically, and garner the best tools to adapt and create the future you want. this is not an appeal to book worship. read it the same way leftists have allowed you to read the most difficult marxist and civil rights theorists.

i no longer think we can afford to cower away from its utility and pretend we are doing ourselves any favors, so our leftist peers will think we are well behaved. we cannot behave. we need radical feminism like workers need marxism. everyone on the political spectrum wants to enslave women and this is one of the tools that will keep you out of their chains regardless of left, right, center, up, down, diagonal. idgaf if i sound inflammatory lol. you have to become confident in your ability to read and reason because our oppression is sophisticated, it’s hard to unravel, and no one wants to contend with it.

you cannot allow your socialization to doom your political ferocity against misogyny. stop being afraid of people falsely accusing you of bigotry or manhating lesbianism for opposing this rotten system. people want you to drop the gun while they tighten your shackles. Unlearning and rejecting your socialization, which is the first form of psychological torture and self annihilation that girls experience, is the first and necessary step. this is why i do what i do and post what i post, because some of you are cowards (i say this affectionately) and need an example of a totally ungovernable woman. happy women’s history month. the work never ends.

[pure]

i caught a peep of the War on Anal™️ on twitter. this is what i have to say. idk how formatting works on here anymore but this is long lol.

the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.

industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.

we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.

wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.

this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.

a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.

idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!

here are a couple of excerpts from a sexual freedom advocate, rene guyon, in 1939. this is from his book, “sexual freedom.” see anything familiar?

women who impose sexual boundaries, limitations and sexual ethics are rejecting their “natural” position as sex objects to be used by men—we call this biological determinism. a rejection of men’s sexual desires is viewed as “anti-sex.” the concept of sex itself is conflated with male entitlement, so if you object to male entitlement, sexual liberationists will likely call you “anti-sex.” they have been doing this for over a century. don’t let them. keep your feet on their necks lol.

again, women who deny men’s “natural right” to sexually access women are viewed as aberrations that require corrective recalibration. they simply don’t understand their “natural role” as objects. women who don’t embody their “natural role” as objects of male desire are rejecting womanhood (!!!), and rejecting womanhood is an attack on nature, and we must not attack nature, because it benefits men, of course. society has been panicking about women who abstain from heterosexual sex for decades, because our ability to say no is a serious threat to male supremacy.

as a result, celibate women, women who simply do not seek male partnership regardless of their sexual identity, and lesbians are viewed as insufficiently female or un-woman (shoutout to monique wittig) and thus a threat to nature. this is why both the left and right freaked out when enough women were mumbling about a potential sex strike a few years ago lol. this is why you’ll find that both sides will chastise women for low birth rates. speaking of low birth rates, let us turn to page 267…

do i even need to break this one down lol bro’s saying that women who get too many rights, women who go into male-dominated fields, and women want equality are losing sexual appeal to men. women who limit men’s sexual access to them are neglecting their “natural role” as mothers, and the birth rate is falling as a result! this was published in 1939! nothing is new. also, a bit of early “divine feminine” coping—the idea that women who arouse men are the ones with the real power, right, right? sound familiar?

here, this entire passage is a quote from gaston rageot, a male writer. do i even need to break this down lol.

feminism is a rejection of human nature. both sexual liberationists and patriarchal religion take umbrage with our ability to limit or restrict men’s “natural” entitlements, because men’s ability to sexually subjugate women is integral to their social status as men, and receiving their subjugation is what makes you a proper woman. kill it all with fire lol. critical support to the hysterical gen z puriteens.

[yosefgaza42]

My children and I desperately need your £50 donation to buy food and survive starvation and death in Gaza. People are dying of hunger. Why are you seeing my post and ignoring me? Be a helping hand to my children by donating. I am grateful to everyone who donates and shares my post.

✅️Vetted by @gazavetters, my number verified on the list is ( #591 )✅️

Donate to Youssef and his family need your support., organized by Kirsty Watson

I am kirsty, I am from England, I met Youssef through volunteer work with Ebon… Kirsty Watson needs your support for Youssef and his family

[pure]

children who engage in fandom should keep their feet on the necks of hags who talk like this, actually. they have been trying to memory hole their part in cultivating grooming factories out of “fandom spaces” for decades. they are simply mad that many children now have the political education to recognize how inappropriate their interactions are with kids. they now see children as a nuisance because they can no longer be inappropriate with complete impunity like they could in the 2000’s. Please continue to ageistly marginalize these freaks. i have nothing but contempt for Fandom Elders™️.

[pure]

these “people” reduced predatory behavior at conventions to a joke and a pastime (any fellow hags remember the ‘pedobear’ cosplays?). this culture escalated to the point that a “cosplay is not consent” slogan needed to be coined. adult men with influence like vic mignogna were so well known as predators on the convention circuit that it was an open secret, but no one dared to directly, publicly confront this behavior for years. roleplay and fanfiction sites were and still are platforms where grooming and a disregard for ethics and boundaries occur even today. in the last ten years, two roleplay websites were shut down as a result of this. they take pleasure in humiliating and degrading children online for questioning their behavior, because they know children are an oppressed group whose complaints are dismissed. they aren’t being bullied enough for my tastes. #SendFandomEldersToLaborCamps

[pure]

many fujoshis have spent years revising their explanations for why they love yaoi, in order to superficially appear more “progressive,” and this revisionism and misrepresentation has invited scrutiny from people who actually do engage in feminist analysis and study published feminist literature. i have my foot in both camps lol. i was a fujo for most of my life, and i’ve been a feminist reader for all of my adult life and late teens.

fujos should have never tried to present their hobby as “feminist” in character. this was a grave error, and i chalk a lot of this up to the explosive impact of “your fave is problematic” listicles in the 2010’s and its style of engaging with art. instead of acknowledging the limitations, messiness, and regressive aspects of things we desire and sitting with this knowledge, there is a drive to misrepresent our desires as strictly “morally good” or “progressive” with no flaws. but, we do like bad things. our desires can be messy and regressive and transgressive. we have lost the ability to sit with these realities, and doing so prevents us from doing the hard, transformative work.

i’ve written a post about this some months ago lol but fujoshis lack a lot of epistemic power due to cultivating a female-dominated hobby—the complexities are ignored in favor of simple dismissals or explanations by outsiders because their interior lives as women are disregarded. and fujos do themselves no favors by treating feminism like a grab bag of catchy phrases, urging people to take their artform seriously, and then shutting down or scrambling when people do. i’ve seen a number of journalists write about yaoi and i constantly see large gaps or blindspots about the relationship between the art and the reader and the wider community. a lot of fujos have little to no political education and the people analyzing them have little knowledge of their relationship to the dolls being played with. it’s a big mess lol.

yaoi is primarily about heterosexuality and the woman’s position in it. seme/uke is an exploration of heterosexual ideology, a toying with male violence, and it is the tool through which women find erotic thrill in an institution that subjugates them. it is seldom ever about fetishization and queerness. fujoshiism is very sophisticated, and this sophistication is often missed due to a lack of respect for women’s ability to craft complex philosophies. this is the starting point of my analysis and i strongly believe it is the more accurate one lol. this is the root that the vast majority of critics miss. it’s not feminist, but it is doing something transgressive. Maybe i will do another breakdown of what’s going on in the foreground again lol.

[xshimmer-shinex]

winx club blingees ☆*: .｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆

[pure]

“so you don’t listen to marginalized narratives?” one may ask. i absolutely do listen to “marginalized” “narratives.” Sometimes those narratives are gay and wrong, and i would only come to that conclusion through listening, of course. i am invalidating marginalized narratives constantly, daily even. i am a D1 athlete in the art of speaking over marginalized voices. too many “marginalized” “people” support nonsense and many oppressed people are often just self-interested social climbers who abuse standpoint theory to defend evil. i need a bit more substance than a mere identity-based claim to authority. i do not pretend to be unbiased, and anyone who does claim to be unbiased is lying to you, as there is no such thing. with that said i am always biased against amerikkkan depravity. Give all victims or potential targets of amerikkkan plundering a nuclear weapon NOW. Return maduro and his wife home safe NOW. i will continue to ignore any “marginalized” “voice” to the contrary. i will make it my mission to decenter and ignore a variety of voices and i hope to invalidate millions of marginalized voices in the future. Thank you for your time.

[pure]

there is an unfortunate history of dykes being suppressed and exiled from feminist or women’s organizing because proximity to dykes had threatened straight women’s reputation to men. betty friedan purged lesbians from NOW in the 70’s because dykes who did feminist and lesbian separatism, rejected heterosexual ideology, and called for gender abolition went a lil too far and seemed scary to men. she infamously called lesbians a “lavender menace” and thought dykes would damage the respectable, feminine reputation of women’s rights organizers. a similar tragedy happened to monique wittig. she was chased out of both her organization and france for her gender abolitionist principles and her insight that heterosexuality is a political regime. straight women get very anxious when lesbians take the feminist framework to the ends of the social order. liberal feminists want gender equality. radical feminists want gender abolition. there is a reason that lesbians were instrumental in developing the latter.

straight feminists, at least in many social spheres in the west, have taken up a near total rejection of political power…because they can’t alienate the demographic they seek love from. they have a delusional belief that they can attain a benevolent oppressor through education and capitulation. i call this delusional, because it ignores what is socially necessary to overcome subjugation. they think men sexually subjugate women because they lack education. these women are so politically illiterate, that they don’t understand that upholding patriarchy could only be achieved through a type of education. men are politically organized. around male supremacy. men have political education around male supremacy. one cannot be dumb and uphold gender hierarchy. but it does help if their victims are politically ignorant and yap about how their need for romance prevents them from doing politics like most other oppressed groups. one can see why radical feminists criticized romance novels as patriarchal propaganda.

assata shakur famously said that nobody in history ever achieved their freedom from appealing to the moral sense of the oppressor. but straight feminists absolutely love disarming themselves in this way. this isn’t a complaint about pandering to men, or being “male centered,” or any of those playground insults. the danger in the cowardice of straight feminists is a straight up rejection of political science, an embracing of helplessness, and an allergic reaction to building political power and asserting political authority. they think gently complaining about their oppression and nicely asking for change is a workable solution, because they still want romantic love. idgaf about chastising them for pandering to men. THIS is an insult to women’s intelligence. it keeps women intellectually infantile. that’s why it’s dangerous.

you cannot nicely ask a tyrant to stop whipping you and expect them to stop out of the goodness of their hearts. yes, the tyrant was not born evil, they were socialized to maintain their position, and yes, the tyrant does have the capacity to change. having the capacity to change is different from having the will to change, though. the tyrant has a material interest in whipping you, he benefits from whipping you, he is enabled by a political regime to whip you, and it will only end if he is forced. straight feminists will cope with their refusal to confront these social conditions by mischaracterizing these truths as “victim blaming” or “bio-essentialism.” a tyrant will not care to stop whipping you if you pose no threat. these are facts of political science and political struggle. many men who are oppressed understand this. they know sooner or later they will need to mobilize around a political goal, take up their fists, or a gun, and/or strike, and exert force to free themselves or improve their conditions. kwame ture said, “if a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. if he has the power to lynch me, that’s my problem.” engels wrote that the proletariat must assert their own political authority over the ruling class in order to abolish or transform their conditions. but men do not have a monopoly on logic and reason, and straight feminists need to stop propagating that myth. misogynists already do this enough, and they don’t need cheerleaders.

one of the worst trains of thought to come out of liberal politics is this stupid notion, “it is the responsibility of white people/men/[x subjugating group] to change. we, who claim to be oppressed, are not responsible for changing our conditions because the fault lies with the oppressor.” this helpless un-thought and political ignorance will keep you oppressed forever. man, woman, or otherwise. it’s a horrible mindset to have for any human who seriously thinks they are oppressed, really. many straight feminists embrace this nonsense so much because it absolves them of any responsibility to build political power to attack women’s subjugation by force, because doing so would ruin their reputation to men and they wouldn’t get romantic love as easily or whatever it is they’re saying nowadays. can you imagine if any serious political actor thought like this for too long? can you imagine if a harriet tubman or a ho chi minh said, well, the slavemasters and the war criminals need to change, and we can change them nicely and gently through education, without harming our reputation, and also our status as victims who are oppressed precludes us from using any political force or maneuvers at all ever because that would be victim blaming. can you imagine literally any male revolutionary thinker behaving this way? cmon bruh lmao.

many feminists have capitulated to male supremacist interests over time, by supporting pornography, the sex industry, the surrogacy industry, and the institution of marriage, so they can appear less threatening while asking for better treatment. male supremacists answered this cowardice with the incel movement, complaining about birth rates, attacking no fault divorce, and diminishing abortion rights. being politically weak does not touch the heart of the oppressor. being politically weak invites the oppressor to act on his material interest even more. because that is political science. feminists who operate on the avoidance of alienating men’s romantic love will keep us all politically castrated and impotent. we will be oppressed forever if we keep ignoring our own capacity and NECESSITY to assert political power and political force regardless of how the oppressor feels.

there are men out there who won’t think of straight feminists as unlovable for attacking women’s subjugation, sure, and an even smaller amount of men will act against their own material interests and reject the imposition of gender hierarchy, sure. but a feminist movement that is beholden to the desire for men’s romantic love is doomed, is unworkable, and is politically inept. honestly i think looking stupid is way worse than looking unlovable but i’m just a dyke what do i know about womanhood.

not all hope is lost, though. straight feminists do not have to limit their feminism to the boundaries of men’s romantic love. many have rejected this in the past and many are rejecting it now. 4B is a modern example, but i bet none of you know about Cell 16, which began in the united states, and had sharper teeth than 4B does. they didn’t just strike, which is significant in itself, but they also understood the political necessity for self defense and taking up arms for oppressed people. it is a tragedy of feminist capitulation and corrosive liberalism that few of us know about these organizations. these politically sound tactics must be adapted to the current time in order to build a better future. we have power. it is not enough to just blame female socialization forever. we must actively oppose the slavery of our social programming and use political force to get free.

[pure]

it isn’t that straight women can’t be feminists. it is more that the vast majority of self proclaimed “feminists” simply don’t want what feminism entails. at least, not to me, lol. feminism’s goal is the abolition of gender. straight women who actively seek love from men generally do not want this as it would end heterosexual ideology. being a gender abolitionist is alienating to the primary benefactors of gender hierarchy; most of their male suitors wouldn’t like that they want to end the very framework that gives them social power and a sense of identity lol. they should never lead a feminist movement unless they are prepared to face the possibility that most men may not like them very much and their dating prospects may be diminished. they are incentivized to water down their commitments to feminism by seeking love from men. they don’t have to do it, but they do it anyways.

lesbians, asexuals and celibates should be at the forefront of any feminist movement. while any woman can be a male supremacist, lesbians, asexuals and celibates have greater potential to not gaf about appeasing any man ever. the primordial soup of a feminist revolution will always be with them first, i think. nothing precludes straight women from having the principals of the dyke, but today’s straight “feminists” are simply weak. that’s all really. cowardice and weakness. every revolutionary movement has to engage in strikes or resistance from the machine. refusing to have sex with men can be a tactic in conjunction with other forms of resistance and striking. look at how insane people are with regard to low birth rates. imagine if it was organized. even the slightest whiff of organization around refusing sex with men, such as 4B, made people rabid and scared. the world collapses if enough women just say no. and we radical feminists want that collapse.

[ldpeaceb]

update for any of my tumblrites i am an auntie now

[pure]

mods are asleep it’s time again to be the insane anti sex supersoldier for a moment ✨😉

porn is hate speech. the girlies and theybies who write erotic fanfiction of children are writing hate speech. objectifying children for the purposes of sexual gratification is an act of hate against a vulnerable class—portraying them as temptresses, overly mature for their age, portraying sexual abuse of children as permissible and titillating. it is hate. this is why the so-called “proshipper” cohort grow very angry when children negatively comment on the way they are represented by adults. patriarchy socially transforms both women and children into private or public property. property cannot speak out of turn, and if they do, they must be suppressed.

i am an “oldhead” so to speak. back in the day we didn’t have such childish, sanitizing terms like “proshipper” and “anti.” these people should be called what they are—rape sympathizers. i took maybe a 12 year hiatus from being actively involved in fandomite culture. at the time, despite being totally brain broken by sex positive liberal feminism, it still felt strange to approach twenty years old, fraternizing with adults who make the underage dolls they play with do porn skits. i didn’t realize i was being groomed which is kind of the point lol. but i’ve been engaged and adjacent in these spaces since 2003.

i remember when there was no real sense of responsibility when adults engaged in this kind of art production, where cartoons made for kids and the child characters in them were acceptable sex objects. the whole “minors dni” virtue signal is a decent prerequisite and a much needed improvement, but it is no where near sufficient. this behavior is emblematic of how children are devalued and oppressed in society. i’ve been both a kid and an adult around fandomite culture. i sincerely believe these people are predators. a predator isn’t just a physical abuser. patriarchy is a predatory ideology that socially transforms people into objects, and they are enforcing this ideology by telling you that art cannot be critiqued for its patriarchal symbolism. they are telling you something so much more disgusting than “representation doesn’t matter.” to them, representation does matter…unless an orgasm is involved. representation does matter…unless you call it a kink. just another hitlerian demographic in a long line of hitlerian demographics who believe that the pursuit of an orgasm could never be questionable. that an orgasm religiously baptizes any heinous action you do to attain it. Now who are the real “puritans” here? 😜

i fully own the fact that i am a radical feminist, and i have no qualms being slurred as a frigid “anti sex” harpy by a political culture that exists to eroticize and decriminalize sexual abuse. the entire political spectrum, both the left and the right and everything between, are invested in rape culture and male supremacy. u will have to excuse me for my inflammatory post. i saw a 15 year old on twitter who was engaging in “proshipper discourse,” supporting and seeking validation from the adult predators. i saw 20 and 30 year olds following this account. That did psychic damage to lil ol me. Nothing has changed since 2003. All of you are a danger to children. This queer theory liberal feminist sex positive post structuralist idpol sophistry will not work on a brain sharpened by the woke blade of radical feminism.

it so much worse to me, now that i see it for what it is. anyways happy sunday lol.

[pure]

need the anti generative ai camp to also advocate for the real consumption habit that will radically save the environment: veganism

[pure]

they won’t do it cuz they’ve been spending the last decade saying veganism is racist and cringe or whatever but they are all fake environmentalists until they realize veganism is correct☝️

[pure]

the car, airline and agriculture industries have been poisoning black communities since time immortal, but progressives didn’t really talk about it until the income of petty artisans were threatened by ai slop. i genuinely feel like their concern for black communities is auxiliary to the whole “robots stealing our jobs” thing lol. sorry for being cynical. i truly am. but Ima need them to pathologically hate cars and planes next, then I’ll believe their concern for black communities is genuine and not just additional moral fodder for the plight of professional artists.

[yekkes]

Hello, I was too busy & exhausted earlier to make a new post but I'm experiencing some work instability this month bc I'll be visiting relatives after a recent death in my family.

As a result, this will cause a loss of income. With that, groceries, & meds, I anticipate needing about $400 in financial assistance this month. I greatly appreciate all of the help I have received, thank you sm ❤️ & please boost!

Support Solo

Instantly exchange money for free on Cash App

Venmo also @ cab972

[yekkes]

Today, I had to go to urgent care to remove a bug from my ear & it was $130.

Currently in the red as I'm only at $47/400 in my initial goal. Idk what I'm going to move it to yet BUT $83 more ASAP would be absolutely fantastic the whole $130 more would be spectacular bc I really need to get groceries

[yekkes]

This isn't moving & is VERY urgent, please, please, PLEASE keep boosting!

[yekkes]

Was able to pick up more work, so I'm setting my new goal at $475, currently at $56/475, I have an EXTREMELY long way to go & there's only 13 days left of the month, just $74 to be able to cover the urgent care bill would be great & $121 would be incredible bc I really need to get groceries. This is BARELY moving, PLEASE keep boosting!

[yekkes]

I didn't reach my goal for Aug. BADLY at $207/475, the majority of which was spent at that emergency appt above & the remaining on immediate groceries at the time.

I'm out of my meds. I'm $268 behind but $50, $100, or even $20 would help me significantly in being able to pick up them up! This is beyond urgent atp lol PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE keep boosting & help me!

[yekkes]

Despite the notes this is NOT moving!! This is a beyond urgent & desperate situation, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE keep boosting!!!

[ldpeaceb]

i come back here to see what gay shit you guys are whining abt and my only reaction is this when i see people enraged abt fetish blogs being deleted

[pure]

it seems that leftists do not actually understand american lynchings at all. they launder an ahistorical analysis of lynchings to prop up their rampant male supremacy, by likening sexual abusers to potential lynching victims. they equate sexual abusers or those who are accused of sexual abuse to an oppressed class as a result, which could explain why most american leftist orgs devolve into cults that harbor male abusers. this is a serious error.

most lynchings were not even the result of a sexual assault accusation. lynchings were not a case of white people “taking the law too far,” undervaluing due process, nor were they a case borne out of a cultural disgust for rapists. the “cultural disgust for rapists” that leftists speak of doesn’t even exist—what they are seeing is a disgust for the sexual trespass of another man’s property. if a general fanaticism against rape was motivated by a genuine disgust of patriarchy, and this fanaticism actually existed, then both the left and the right wouldn’t attempt to decriminalize sexual abuse in various ways. this disgust has never existed, as rape was used as a tool to exert male power in the U.S. and beyond long before the colonization of the americas. rapists are not dehumanized under our current social order. they are coddled and rewarded, unless they violate another man’s property. it is not worth considering the humanity of the mostly women and children who are routinely victimized by this ideology. lynchings during segregation were a mechanism of antiblack terror, regulation and control—they were not motivated by a moral opposition to sexual assault, murder, robbery, etc.

white male supremacists were sexually abusing their own wives, daughters, slaves, and free black people while they were deploying criminal accusations against black americans for allegedly doing the same. the myth of the black rapist is an effective cultural weapon that is used to protect the private property claims of white male supremacists, portraying their own supremacy as so just and objective that murder and dehumanization of the out-group is permissible to protect it. white people who deploy this myth did not and do not have a moral opposition to rape, because white people utilized rape as a method of sexual discipline and control against women, children, and black people for centuries.

the white women who participated in white supremacist violence were not disrupting their position under white male supremacy—they were enshrining it, supporting the hierarchy that placed them below white men but above black americans, and gaining a relatively favorable reputation to their white male owners by engaging in antiblack racism and reproducing the hierarchy against other women. marginalized white people were free to attack the racial enemies of white people in general, but their own position in the hierarchy remained unchanged. in this framework, white men can sexually abuse anyone they please, including those in the out-group, because they are asserting their birthright by doing so. they must curb all women, everyone in the out-group, and white male sympathizers to oppressed groups from being able to threaten the hierarchy. this ideology sees sexual abuse as an adequate tool for men to use until other men are perceived to be trespassing property lines. this can even be seen today…

a significant amount of right wing white men will simultaneously complain about how marital rape laws undermine traditional families while fearmongering about out-group men sexually abusing white women. how can they seemingly view rape in both a positive and negative light at the same time, you might ask? this thinking is not paradoxical at all when you consider how patriarchal control works. it is ideologically consistent.

marital rape laws contribute to the legal subversion of the whole class of women as private property—it’s harder to claim a woman as private property if she is both socially and legally free to reject the disciplining act of heterosexual sex. an out-group man who sexually engages with a white woman is a violation of white men’s private property claims, whether she is being assaulted or not does not matter because the mere interaction itself, regardless of context, is seen as subversive to the white male supremacist.

white male supremacists are against interracial relationships, consensual or not, because they upend white men’s birthright in three ways. by taking white children out of the gene pool and undermining racial purity norms through interracial reproduction, by removing white women from the private control of white men, and by muddling the position of the out-group within the hierarchy since they are trespassing property lines. all of these positions are otherwise known as the white genocide anxiety. the white genocide anxiety is about white men losing their private property claims against man, woman, and nature itself. feminism, communism, and black liberation must be opposed, because when synthesized, they usher in a new world that denies the birthright of white male supremacy and disables them from maintaining it.

the white male supremacist culture does not have a moral opposition to sexual abuse or even criminality in general. they only respect laws if they exist to protect their class interests. they cynically pretend to have moral convictions against sexism and crime in order to shroud their real motivation: the protection of white men’s private property. they will lie, obfuscate, and kill to defend it. this is the true motivation behind american lynching.