Marxists will deny they actually are responsible for this

marxists will deny they actually are responsible for this
>b-but they betrayed the pure ideals of the proletarian revolution
No they didn't. This is a logical consequence of moral relativism proposed by Marx, Engels and (specifically) Trotsky. They thought the only way to achieve a full classless society is to destroy the ''bourgeois'' family and morals
Trotsky himself wrote a dedicated work explaining why it was urgent to destroy everything that the ''bourgeois'' consider sacred and why family abolition was the only way to achieve a classless society
As Gramsci said himself: "Proletarian revolution without culture hegemony is meaningless"

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

Other urls found in this thread:

mirnov.ru/arhiv/mn985/mn/22-1.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>They thought the only way to achieve a full classless society is to destroy the ''bourgeois'' family and morals
I believe they stated that the family was being destroyed without their input.

That's completely wrong. From Robespierre to Bakunin and Marx the abolition of inheritance and family rights is essential because they are the basis of capitalism (according to them)

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."

Can you guess the source?

>Look at these events that are happening in non-Marxist countries and never happened in Marxist countries, after the Marxist countries either went under completely or otherwise withdrew from the international arena and are in no position to support these events.
>I bet the Marxists are to blame.

Christianity layed the foundation by which Marxism and Secular Humanism would flourish.

The egalitarian mindset is a direct consequence of all being "equal under god".

The family was effectively destroyed when god and later on the state took the place of the final arbiter in all familiar affairs.

"Gradually the curse of ‘Law’ invades the privacy of every home. It
encourages emotional feminines to defy husbands, and Deify an irresponsible Authority. In other words it deliberately promotes unfaithfulness and unlimited free-love. It undermines the husband’s Control, but at what a dreadful cost? With the “equalization” of women comes wholesale panmixia — scientific concubinage, State-regulated polyandry, and the poisoning of all inter-family intercourse. When average women find in Statute Law a “deliverer” and a “champion” more powerful than their husbands and brothers, they become both unfaithful and profligate — especially if “well educated.” Then it cometh to pass (as in all ages of connubial decadence) “no man knoweth his own father.” Is not that the practical tendency of the times? Again, is that ‘tendency’ itself not the horrible result of State-Paternalism — of majority-box dictation — of Statecraft and Priestcraft? The Church lives by the functional emotionalism of women. Thus the Individual wanes and the State GROWS MORE AND MORE. In NATURAL society, every woman’s husband is to her, both priest and king. When the baleful shadow of politics and preacherisms, looms over the marriage bed, dreadful days are at hand." -Might is Right

You cant have your cake and eat it too, developing civilization along with monist religions effectively displaces the father's role in his family.

The only reason the father was allowed whatever control he had left was because men used to be needed for their labor and combat roles but with technology, they have become less and less relevant today.

Not him, but I think that's from The Manifesto of the Communist Party.

You just proved what I said I'm not sure why you quoted chapter II to me
I have at least 6 more Marx&Engels quotes regarding the abolition of inheritance as the only way to achieve communism after the socialist transition
In short Marx just like positivists deny reality and fight against it.

>the more we come to know about the Gnosis of antiquity, the more it becomes certain that modern movements of thought, such as progressivism, positivism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, are variants of Gnosticism
>All gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in divine, transcendent being, and replacing it with a world immanent order of being, the perfection of which lies in the realm of human action.

Post-Modernism and hysterical SJWs are a direct result of Marx&Engels even though it's quite obvious their disdain for human nature is older than any marxist movement

You seem to be implying that there's something wrong with what's in that image. I don't see anything wrong with it. Those people seem like they're probably fairly stupid, but most people are fairly stupid, of whatever political persuasion.

They use the legal system to enforce their behavior to others
They are very clever to attack and make revolutions in schools, university and in the media. They want their worldview to be the standard hence why they are worse than any other junkie or stupid criminal

yeah, that's the joke
Probably because of the bit about the bourgeoisie doing the work of abolishing the family for them. Do you remember that bit?

Seriously, do you?

Your claim that a group of movements which stressed empiric epistemology deny reality is fucking baffling. Especially since your counter-proposal is believing in divine, transcendent being.

>They use the legal system to enforce their behavior to others
How?
>They
Implying that there's some centralized scheme... I doubt it.
>They want their worldview to be the standard hence why they are worse than any other junkie or stupid criminal
Not at all. The people in your pictures aren't going around physically attacking people for their stuff.

diversity is white genocide

How do you namedrop Gramsci and yet not realize what they are doing?

>stressed empiric epistemology
There is no evidence that a familyless society has ever existed and logic is telling us that the abolition of family is impossible. Family and money won't become irrelevant as Engels wrongly predicted. In fact I'd like you to provide a simple logical line explaining why Engels said money and family will become irrelevant after a period of high capitalism
>Implying that there's some centralized scheme
If they read the same books and share the same ideals... all of them seem to be organized in some way or another to LGBT groups, leftist think tanks or simply university groups. They take action more than any other group, that's why they pass laws faster than any other lobby in the United States(maybe with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry)

Don't want same sex bathroom? Massive LGBT, democrat, marxist, communist, anarchist protest. Celebrities, music festivals, university protests, etc.
You can't deny this happened already in 2017 so you can see with your own eyes the massive political action and the results (results = concrete such as a law enforcing X or Y)

Can you name any such laws other than the bathroom law and gay marriage? I disagree with the SJW stance on the bathrooms, but it's not a big deal to me. As for gay marriage, I'd prefer the state to get completely out of marriage. But if straight marriage is recognized by the state, I think gay marriage should also be.

You answered me in 2 minutes. Read again the text and reply again and make a better answer considering what I wrote and not your 1 minute impression

>There is no evidence that a familyless society has ever existed and logic is telling us that the abolition of family is impossible. Family and money won't become irrelevant as Engels wrongly predicted. In fact I'd like you to provide a simple logical line explaining why Engels said money and family will become irrelevant after a period of high capitalism

That's all fucking irrelevent. Are you seriously going to claim that the fucking positivists and Hegelians, who both stressed the importance of sense-experience as the root of knowledge (the positivists more than the Hegelians, but the Hegelians absolutely continued Kant's tradition of empiricist idealism) deny reality? You argue like you have a fucking screw loose.

I know what they are doing. The not real marxism™ in this thread always deny though
It's always interesting to talk with political prostitutes

He asked you to name some of those laws they get passed, you fucking idiot. If they're passing laws so quickly, surely you can name some.

>He
if that wasn't you then your comment is irrelevant to me because I'll wait for him to answer based on what I asked
>the bathroom laws aren't important anymore
>if you can't name X laws in 2 minutes your argument is irrelevant because of quantity
Not how it works

>positivists and Hegelians, who both stressed the importance of sense-experience as the root of knowledge
Where does the opposite side 1 + opposite side 2 = conclusion fits in the ''sense-experience"? You obviously never read any positivist or even Hegel himself. At best you didn't understand what is ''sense-experience.''
Tip: senses are not equal to reality

>I know what they are doing.
Then say it. Use the term that Gramsci used to describe what they are doing

Ok, I read what you wrote again. What are the laws?

I found another law passed by the communist, marxist, anarchist and LGBT lobby

The bill added language to Education Code Section 51204.5
>This section already included men and women and numerous ethnic groups; the expanded language now includes: lesbian, gay, bisexual ,families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children and transgender Americans

am I allowed to move own with the discussion or should I keep tracking laws? Bathroom and LGBT education for children is fairly enough to me
Oh there is more

>Where does the opposite side 1 + opposite side 2 = conclusion fits in the ''sense-experience"?

Oh, so you only have a meme understanding of Hegel's dialectic. Here's a tip, if you say "thesis" you don't have it right. His dialectic is about the refinement of ideas.

>You obviously never read any positivist or even Hegel himself.

Says the guy who doesn't even know what Hegel's threefold model of dialectic actually is.

>Tip: senses are not equal to reality

They're how we interact with reality and how we understand it, you fucking idiot. You got a better suggestion for learning shit about reality you raving lunatic?

>They're how we interact with reality and how we understand it, you fucking idiot.
That's how Hegel thought and that's why he fought against reality just like you're doing right now

You got a better suggestion? Because so far your conspiracy theory level understanding of philosophy, history and politics does not look promising.

btw the whole ''sense/knowledge'' theory of Hegel will end up with the Frankfurt School, specifically with Theodore Adorno. The justification of the LGBT and sexual revolution is already there

>Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.
It's a somewhat annoying PC law. I wouldn't want it to be there, but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I think you're seeing some coordinated scheme when in reality it's just a "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" phenomenon. Members of fringe groups yell a lot, so they sometimes get legislation passed that reflects their interests. The average straight white guy, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit about what goes in the school curriculum, so he doesn't get laws passed reflecting his attitudes.

The LGBT and sexual revolutions are a good thing.

>I think you're seeing some coordinated scheme
If they have the same agenda they don't need to be coordinated
But in reality what we see are music festivals, university riots and protest, mass media articles, everything working when a single state refused the bathroom laws.
We can't argue about who coordinates the movements because there is not 1 coordinator. What we can argue is they have specific goals and they are somehow organized to get their laws passed.

Still waiting for OP to reply to me on this. It is really simple answer

Gay people aren't communists, they're just fighting for their right to party.

I was replying but I forgot my line of though. Perhaps you can tell me
Cultural hegemony? I already said it

Good for sexual mutations who demand the world see them as fit despite their dependence on modern technology to hide their unfit nature.

Only civilization wishes to save everyone and everything from the fate it deserves in nature.

They are good only within the context of civilization which wishes to ultimately water down all differences and turn humanity into a single unity.

>there is no basis for the concept of the “traditional family”, much less a traditional monogamous family with mutual bonds of fidelity, as is insisted on today. This model was only adopted under Christianity, and even then only as an ideal
>is that only the abolition of class society can create the material economic basis and cultural drive sufficient to dismantle the model of the monogamous family as the only basic unit of society. By socially carrying out all the tasks that are today assigned to the sphere of the family, and mostly to women (cooking, cleaning, raising children), and by allowing the free development of individuals with access to the best material and cultural resources society can provide, it will be possible to facilitate a process by which interpersonal and family bonds are gradually freed from material necessity and correspond solely to romantic and sexual desires, thereby dissolving the oppressive norms and discriminations that exist at present.

Words of Trotsky:

>“The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the rouble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, ‘We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim’, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.” (The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 7, Family, Youth and Culture)

Every single good communist know the LGBT movement plays a key role in the socialist transition. One cannot ignore this

Fair enough. I don't view them as any sort of serious threat, though. They're sometimes annoying, that's about it.

No. It is counter-hegemony. The whole point of LGBT people doing all of that shit you described is coz their opposition has already done the same to them and they were turning the tables. This is a 'it is okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it.' moralizing that you are pulling off ITT.

Communism is identification with victimhood, and since Gays see themselves as victims natural circumstance, they will naturally gravitate to movements which champion victimhood.

Uhh... the vast majority of LGBT people and people who participate in the sexual revolution are not surgery-seeking transgendereds. Transgendereds are a tiny fraction. And they're the only ones that your phrase "sexual mutations who demand the world see them as fit despite their dependence on modern technology to hide their unfit nature" really seems to apply to.

It seems that most mass politics nowadays is based around victim complexes. The right is full of victim complexes too, it's just a different set of victim complexes.

>coz their opposition has already done the same
Here you show you understand nothing about history. And we go back to the principle: political prostitutes like marxists will always fight against human nature. You can't win human nature but you can create chaos and a bloodbath.
The elimination of marxism, positivism and scientificism is the only answer to the cultural hegemony proposed by Gramsci. It's not a matter of counter-revolutionary passion but simply a matter of common-sense.

Maybe you have some polling data to back up this hypothesis.

There is nothing about LGBT movement in those quotes.

And that's why every single socialist country persecuted LGBT movements.

>political prostitutes like marxists will always fight against human nature.
>human nature
Your pure ideology doesn't undermine that just as they use 'legal system to enforce their behavior to others' solely coz it was used against them. Moralizing this power dynamics is pointless

We can't have social order with marxists can we? Then we have two choices: allow their free run until a dictatorship takes place or simply eliminate them

We are heading towards a dictatorship (either islamic or technocrat). However if the social agitators create their own society or are eliminated we will have a different course of events(other than islamic or technocracy) in which I have no idea what will happen

We are not progressing or evolving, we are simply allowing ourselves to be destroyed from within. As I said, their free-run will lead to a technocracy (could be under Chinese rule?)

We either go back to the pre-enlightenment revolution or we will keep playing chaotic games until some force like islam takes place

I'm no fan of marxism, positivism, or scientism in the technical senses of those terms, but something tells me that's not how you mean them. For example, let's take positivism. Do you really think that it is a significant force in modern politics? Or that it's the major force in the modern left? Most modern leftist movements do not strike me as positivist.

LGBT movement are more closely linked with Western liberal democracies, not with socialist states, so I don't know why you blame them on Marx.

Yes, single motherhood, disease, disrespect, hedonism, loneliness, lack of identity are good.

Somewhere out there, there is a man who is lonely because of you, and you could care less, if he cannot whore himself out and conform to the modern world then that's *his* fault and not yours. You see? Progress is always good and never has consequences.

The fatherless guys today who cant find a girl, should spend years of their lives trying to play the dating game and meet the standards of a society and women despite being conditioned to not care about standards.

What a wonderful world we have today.

but a society based on LGBT principles has never existed and never will. Christian society existed because it's not trying to fight human nature. There is no respect or stability with a society created by LGBT/marxists. It won't last.
Even the gay greeks knew their sexual desires aren't the foundation of a society
>. Do you really think that it is a significant force in modern politics
Absolutely. There is not a single political action that is not taken based first on authors who influence the academic class. The bathroom laws were created by Gramsci and later by the Frankfurt School. If you want to see what will happen in 80 years see which books are the academic class reading

>Yes, single motherhood, disease, disrespect, hedonism, loneliness, lack of identity are good.
None of this is Marxist.

>you could care less,

So you are saying he does care, don't you mean 'couldn't care less'?

>Christian society existed
And fell apart. And rather fast too. And it was never stable with constant wars, famines, extreme poverty, religious reformations, schisms and so on.

No, homosexuals among others are sexual mutations because they require civilizational technology in order to reproduce. Technology being paying for a woman's womb, a womb that could have been used by a healthy man but instead is sold to a homosexual couple who will usually not involve the mother in the child's upbringing.

Just because they can figure clever ways of passing on their genes doesn't mean its an accurate representation of fitness.

>but a society based on LGBT principles has never existed and never will
Are you going to give me an argument or is this thread just an excuse to flaunt your pure ideology like a political whore?

LGBT freaks already enjoy equal rights. And for decades
They want to enforce their behavior. And reading marxist authors we understand the vital role of the LGBT movement. Without them there is no hope for replacing Christianity-based family with their own view of family.

The right uses victim complexes but that's not really at the core of its philosophy.

Its one thing to use victimhood to inspire and another to have it built into the very fabric of your ideal.

That doesn't sound very clever or technologically sophisticated.

Quite a lot of people today are infertile, what about them? And what's wrong with using technology? Using technology and having a civilization is what makes us being above animals. It's what makes us human.

Im saying you're a fucking autistic piece of shit who cant read between the lines.

That clear enough for you?

I changed my post to: because I wasn't sure how you meant positivism and scientificism.
As for your other points...
>We are heading towards a dictatorship (either islamic or technocrat).
Islamic? Wut? The Islamic world is weak, divided, economically and technically backwards. They pose no serious threat to the West other than through immigration, and it would be absurd to believe that there's anything inevitable about that. Islamic immigration to Europe is already diminishing (and will probably continue to as the backlash against the migrant phenomenon rises), Islamic immigration to the US has always been minor.
As for technocrats, what makes you think that a technocratic dictatorship is inevitable given the current progression of events? I think it's more likely that we'll have a continuation of the current scheme, in which multiple technocratic institutions and powerful elites compete over power without any single one becoming dominant.
What do you mean by "technocrat", specifically?
Just living in some sort of EU bureaucratic state... well, that sounds about 100 times better to me than what you're proposing. Of course, I wouldn't want to live in a technocratic dictatorship, but I'm not sure why you think that's likely or what that would look like. If you mean "like modern society but with more surveillance everywhere and less representation of the popular will in politics", well, that doesn't sound good... but I support trying to head that off within a liberal framework. The sort of mass, revolutionary social restructuring you are proposing would be likely to open some sort of destructive populist can of worms. No thanks. To me that seems much more likely to lead to dictatorship than staying the present course.

>Christianity-based family
It was never based on Christianity, but on Roman law.

in a democracy it's perfectly normal for Christian in one side to advocate against gay sex and for homosexuals to advocate for gay sex on the other

What we see is the inversion of democracy. Gramsci's plan to replace current culture. Their utopia won't come. The socialist paradise won't arrive. But when that happens is already too late.. that's why it's common sense to eliminate them (or at least to live in segregation from such groups)

Why are you focusing on LGBT movements? Did Gramsci even mentioned gays?
>socialist paradise
Like I said, actual socialist states persecuted homosexuals.

>communist, marxist, anarchist and LGBT lobby
Miss anymore bogeymen there, schizo?

They are consequences of pursuing the Marxist ideal.

But of course, Marxists wont take responsibility for it, because it looks bad.

You see, the ideal is always perfect, even if it destroys everything we hold dear, as long as it doesn't explicitly prescribe it, then it is not responsible for influencing and setting the stage for such destruction in the first place.

>They thought the only way to achieve a full classless society is to destroy the ''bourgeois'' family and morals
but they didn't

>Did Gramsci even mentioned gays?
The intellectual glass he talked about leading the revolution was always very liberal when it comes to sex and morality...

>Just living in some sort of EU bureaucratic state... well, that sounds about 100 times better to me than what you're proposing.
But you're going to be living oppressed, treated like a fucking robot without any human rights. The human rights of the European Union is a transition. It's not mean to protect the people but rather protect the politicians.

>The sort of mass, revolutionary social restructuring you are proposing would be likely to open some sort of destructive populist can of worms.
I'm not proposing any reform or revolution, but it's illogical to let enemies from within destroy a society just because they read Marx and want to have sex like freaks. They don't have this right. 50 years from now they will blame people for not doing something to stop them. When that happens will be too late. Civilizations cease to exist but you can't give rights to people to destroy a society and deny the right of preservation to some people

This is where my beef with communism began.
After reading the manifesto i finally understood the "human nature" argument. Abolishing family is not just against human nature, it is against the natural order itself. No doubt families have evolved, but the very notion of abolishing family disgusts me.

Stop blaming Marx on everything you don't like.I support LGBT movements, and while they are obviously left-wing, they have nothing to do with Marx or early communists. Today former socialist states are the most conservative ones. Or was it "not real socialism"?

What is your argument in support of the idea that victim complexes are at the core of the philosophy of leftism?

>they have nothing to do with Marx or early communists
Perhaps that's why Karl Radek worked with Lenin making in Russia the first sexual revolution of the modern society.

How dare you speak to me like that on the internet? I will you find you and kill you for this you Marxist goon.

Aiming for making people equal is denying reality. The same goes for wanting to to eliminate social hierarchy. Denying biological determinations of sex and race and equating every group difference to social constructivism is denying reality.

>No, homosexuals among others are sexual mutations because they require civilizational technology in order to reproduce.
Wut
No they don't. A gay guy doesn't need to pay for a woman's womb to reproduce, he just has to find a woman who wants a kid and fuck her. It doesn't require any particular cleverness.
Even if they are "sexual mutations", so what? I'd much rather have Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, Michelangelo, and so on than the same number of random but unaccomplished heterosexuals.

So like I said, "real socialism was never tried" because after initial wave of sexual freedom they returned to the old system right after the civil war and Stalin some 10 years later even recriminalized homosexuality.

This is very true. A society that treats you as an equal to me rather than an inferior is a broken one.

You probably imagine yourself as someone at the top of this hierarchy, am I right? lol

I am actually, I'm the King of Denmark.

>but a society based on LGBT principles has never existed and never will.
No-one is trying to create "a society based on LGBT principles". There isn't even such a thing as "LGBT principles". Being LGBT is about who you want to fuck and what sort of gender you think you are, not about political principles.
>Christian society existed because it's not trying to fight human nature.
I have a sense that many Christian thinkers would disagree with you.
>There is not a single political action that is not taken based first on authors who influence the academic class. The bathroom laws were created by Gramsci and later by the Frankfurt School. If you want to see what will happen in 80 years see which books are the academic class reading
None of this contains any evidence that positivism is a significant force in modern leftist politics. You're also claiming absurd absolutes, such as "There is not a single political action that is not taken based first on authors who influence the academic class".
Seriously??

>On 19 December 1917, following the famous decrees “About Peace” and “About Land,” Lenin issued decrees “About Cancellation of Marriage” and “About Civilian Marriage, Children and Civilian Records,” which included a decree “About Cancellation of Punishment for Homosexuality.”
In Soviet Russia of the 1920’s, slogans of the sexual revolution came from the theory of communism designed by its classics—Marx, Engels, August Bebel and others. That theory suggested to break down monogamous families and to begin satisfying sexual needs through “free love.”

>The 20’s sexual revolution was accompanied by the slogan “Get Rid of Shame!” There were more and more “new formation people” obsessed with ideas who walked naked in the street, saying publically that shame was the bourgeoisie past of the Soviet people. On 19 December 1918, a parade of lesbians took place in Petrograd as the city celebrated an anniversary of the decree “About Cancellation of Marriage.”

>In Moscow, nude demonstrators walked around Red Square, wearing red shoulder bands and demanding that the rest of the Russian society should join them. The mastermind, who inspired the naked proletarians, was Karl Radek, a loyal son of the Leninist party and Lev Trotsky’s close friend, who led the columns of nudists as they marched along the sacred Kremlin walls. “Yes, in the lead of that banya-like parade was Karl Radek, an experienced Bolshevik and Lenin’s favorite. Moreover, he walked completely nude around his apartment, scaring little children of his sister he lived with…” You are mistaken if you think that the vulgar fashion only affected the capitals. Similar events occurred in many cities of the Soviet country.

mirnov.ru/arhiv/mn985/mn/22-1.php

>They want to enforce their behavior.
Wut
How?
What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?

kek. This

And yet it is one of the justifications used by homosexuals use to prove their fitness.

>BUT WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE PEOPLE HURR DURR

How many fucking times have i heard this counterargument?

So because outliers exist, therefore general trends don't matter, is that what you're seriously implying?

You're not "above" anything, despite the technology used, if it were to disappear tomorrow or even a millenia from now, humans would still revert back to their natural state.

Not everything produced by humans is automatically "natural" by extension, pollution both genetic and ideological is produced by too much sheltering.

Sheltered people who feel weak in the face of nature, seek in technology a deliverer who will save them from the consequences of their own being, save them from death, but all technology does is buy time. How sad it must be to delay your fate and rely on machines and ideas which hide and turn weakness into a strength.

But nature cannot be fooled for long, you forget that the most resilient form of technology of are the strong fit creatures who have stood the test of time, and will do so far beyond any human construct.

>moral relativism
>Marx
why should we take you seriously?

>Monogamous family is financial oppression.
Orly?

>Lots of samefag marxists trying reddit tier damage control
>oh seriously? lol
>dude what? haahha
>C'mon!!!! marx didn't say this

>And yet it is one of the justifications used by homosexuals use to prove their fitness.

You aren't making any sense. How does it require advanced technology? That was the claim I was replying to, not whatever other random thing you wanted to say in response.

>But you're going to be living oppressed, treated like a fucking robot without any human rights. The human rights of the European Union is a transition. It's not mean to protect the people but rather protect the politicians.
The modern EU is the freest large-scale society in human history, other than the US. What makes you think that this will inevitably turn into some sort of dictatorship? I don't get it. Europe was much closer to being controlled by dictatorship at almost any point in its past than it is now.
>but it's illogical to let enemies from within destroy a society just because they read Marx and want to have sex like freaks.
But they're not enemies, most of them have never read Marx, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex like freaks.

But you're posting on /his/, that means the white guy in that picture is you, kek.

Why are you tards always obsessed with black men's fucking habits?

Homosexuals who feign heterosexuality, still have an effect on their offspring by having a less synergized relationship with the mother. There is always a consequence for having such a predisposition.

>unaccomplished
So you think that maintaining a genetic line through time is not an accomplishment in itself?

Words, pictures, sculptures might resemble reality, but at the end of the day, it is blood that can only truly represent reality.

Communists will always prevent real progress
Thanks to them we are now discussing about legalizing necrophilia and incest, LGBT education for kids and trans-humanism instead of improving our communities

Yes, this is not about LGBT movement. Gay families can also be monogamous.

What about lesbian moms?

There's no need to feign anything, you just find a woman who wants kids and tell her that you're gay, then if she's up for it you impregnate her. It's not like love between heterosexual mother and heterosexual father was common for most of history. I don't see how gay father plus straight mother is any worse than, say, drunk straight father who beats you plus straight mother. But the latter was extremely common until recent times.
>So you think that maintaining a genetic line through time is not an accomplishment in itself?
Only a very minor one. More importantly, gays don't threaten it. Gays aren't stopping straight people from reproducing.

Modern Homosexuals use adoption or surrogate wombs as a means towards maintaining the image of fitness, despite lacking the traditional Father/Mother relationship which has been the most effective form of child-rearing through time.