Category Archives: Links

Capitalism is a failure, and nature will not reward us for rationalizations.

Ian Welsh discusses how our future has been set by the failure of capitalism, and there’s really nothing we can do about this.

That’s where we are; the future is essentially set. We aren’t going to stop climate change, it’s doubtful we even can (it would, even theoretically, take massive geo-engineering at this point), so capitalism, and the political systems attached to it, like democracy and Chinese one-party autocratic rule, have failed.

It is that simple. And nature does not give a fuck if capitalism is the “bestest bestest system that we ever came up with” or if, qua Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

They have failed.

And what people are not getting through their heads is that they will be seen to have failed by those who have to suffer the consequences of our monstrous abnegation of responsibility.

They will be loathed; even as we who live in this era and especially those who were adults in the 80s and 90s, will not just be loathed, but treated as lepers, similiar to how we consider Nazis. (Yeah, I went there, deal.)

Chainsawsuit on: anti-antifa, militant Christianity.


From Chainsawsuit (1, 2).

Makeup is not just an obligation put on women, it’s also a way to stratify women.

okay I need to start talking about this because i haven’t seen any discussion of it and it’s bothering me a lot. Even as makeup is used as a tool to make women spend their money, time and energy focusing on their appearance and creating an image of what men find attractive (even if they don’t realize it because it’s encouraged and promoted to them as a normal and even self caring thing to do), i think there’s more complex issues created by the worldwide use of it, and I don’t think all of it was properly talked about.

Firstly, there are women who can’t afford makeup, who are forced to spend all they have on groceries and survival. And just like that, makeup becomes a sign of status. This might seem like a minor issue but it’s because women who are suffering from it are invisible and don’t get to talk about it. There are women who had to simply look at all shining, glamorous painted faces and remind themselves it was never going to be them, and it was because they weren’t worth as much. There are women who have been forced to take on the image of an “ugly girl” and adopted it as their social position, and couldn’t use makeup because it would cause additional humiliation, an “ugly girl” isn’t supposed to try and look pretty, they’re supposed to take the abuse and accept it. If they reach out to makeup it’s a sign that they recognize their own undesirability and would easily get abused for “pathetically wanting to look pretty when they’re not”. Some women were told since the day one they aren’t worthy of makeup, or that even makeup can’t save them, and have been told to keep away from it as they weren’t women enough, weren’t qualified or thin or feminine or desirable enough to even try, they’ve been disregarded as a human being and any sign that they want to fit in is quickly ridiculed as they’re forced back into their place.

Not being able to use makeup for any reason has become an easy way to get socially isolated in circles where makeup has become a regular, must-do thing, if all of your female classmates/colleagues/peers are wearing it, but for any reason you’re not, there is going to be avoidance, blank stares, subtle rejection from socializing, and that is coming from females. Men of course, will pretend you don’t even exist or act like you should stop existing and ruining their view. And that’s just how it’s going to be, of course, you still get assaulted and catcalled and are at the same risk of rape and murder, but add to it that you get zero to no positive attention, and you can’t do anything about it, as long as makeup (and/or fancy clothing) is out of reach.

Makeup has created an additional wedge between females of different social and personal statuses, and the more advertised and normalized it gets, the wedge increases too. 10 years ago minimal makeup was enough to appear attractive and “taking care of her appearance”, to fulfill these standards today you’d have to spend about 5 times as much money, time, practice and skill. Not all women have lives which would allow them this kind of time or resources, and the bar is getting higher and higher. Images with makeup so heavy women no longer resemble anything but plastic dolls are being promoted in every visual media available, and the appearances of the women in public are following suit, what’s with the women who can’t afford to look like that? They don’t get to fit in anymore. They don’t get to feel like they should be in public places. They do’t get to feel like they have the right to show off or date or connect or even desire as much as “pretty women” have. They often feel like they don’t even have a right to confidence. And that is exactly what’s making women who do use make-up so afraid of appearing anywhere without it, they’re scared of being that woman, to be seen like that, judged with those cruel standards and have their humanity revoked. Nobody wants to be subjected to that. But some women have lived like that their entire lives, and didn’t have a choice but to accept that fate.

If I’m seemingly presenting makeup in this writing as a privilege, that’s not what this is about. Women who have lived their entire lives without makeup already know that attention makeup gets is superficial and shallow, and cannot be compared with actual connection to another human being, it’s just attention to a painted face, an image that someone is selling. Even so, it can be addictive, and affect their social standing, job prospects, sense of belonging and community, and personal sense of worth in society.

What I’m trying to say is that it is not fair. It’s inhumane to force appearance-based social system on females. It’s ridiculous to expect from women to sell their appearance in order to get positive attention and humane treatment. It’s inhumane to make them preform an image if they want to be a member of society. It’s inhumane to rate their worth based on that. It’s inhumane to want that image more than you want an actual person. It’s inhumane to make them compete and set the bar higher and higher. It’s inhumane to write off females who wish to have no part in that competition or have been unable to participate in the first place. We’re all worth positive attention. We’re all human beings. We all have value. We all mean something.

This is why I want to fight so bad for rejection of makeup. I know for a lot of women this would mean losing a lot, sometimes losing their entire lifestyle, because they might not have even realized just how much of what they’ve got was only because they kept appearance it was required of them. But it would reduce the wedge between us. It would help show them that we refuse to compete anymore. That they don’t get to rate our worth anymore. That if they want to know us, they better look at a human being that we are. Our unpainted faces show so much more of us, they show our years, our experience, our wisdom, our struggles. We aren’t around as a decoration or for the sake of their view. We’re here to fight anyone who would dehumanize us. I think this is worth more than anything they could ever give us in return for reducing us to “pretty”.

Antinatalist cockroaches?

From The Onion: Cockroach Worried About What Kind Of Kitchen Cupboard He Leaving To Children

NEW YORK—Expressing concerns over dwindling resources and the preservation of the environment for future generations, an adult male American cockroach was reportedly worried Thursday about what kind of kitchen cupboard he was leaving to his children. “I look at the state of this cupboard right now and see how young my nymphs are, and I’m terrified there won’t be enough graham cracker crumbs left when they’re grown up,” said the insect, adding that he sincerely hoped his offspring would have the same opportunities to safely skitter around in dark cracks and crevices behind the containers of flour and rice that he had always enjoyed. “Sometimes I lie awake wondering whether the Quaker Oatmeal Squares will still be here when I’m gone, or whether my generation has been too wasteful with the brown sugar leaking out of the plastic bag. After all, this cupboard is the only home we’ve got.” At press time, the cockroach was reportedly grappling with the ethical dilemma of bringing several hundred children into such a cupboard in the first place.

Wondermark on: poverty, work ethics, the “good ol days.”



From Wondermark (1, 2, 3)

Procreation is morally irresponsible.

A short introduction to antinatalism, by Ayman Hidan.

The great bulk of people have a biological disposition towards optimism, for on a subconscious level our brain only cherishes the good memories and tends to forget about the bad ones. But life is not as splendid as it seems to be. Approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunger, 3.5 million people die every year in accidents and about 40 million children are maltreated each year. Thus, we know from fact that the human life can be tragic for most people. We spent most of our time discontent of what we have in the present, and we’re perpetually attempting to get to some point in the future which never seems to arrive. As soon as we achieve something, our mind finds something else into which it can get its teethes, for the sole and only purpose of feeding its cosmic hunger.

But the sad truth is that hordes of people never ponder upon the big picture, and breed for biological, social and sexual reasons. They’re led to believe that they should breed because they can, they bring a child into existence even in the worse conditions in fear of winding up alone for the rest of their lives, or some other various reasons which are not in favor of the future child. But the question is, why do intelligent people like you and me, have to put a child into this world, given all the harm that will certainly befall him or her?

Capitalist work contracts are exploitation.

people seem to have trouble understanding why i’m an anti-capitalist, so i’m going to try and put it into simple, real-life terms.

i work at a restaurant. i make $12 an hour, plus tips. minimum wage where i live is relatively high for my country – the national minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and has not been raised since 2009. before taxes, working full time, my yearly income is about $22,000 a year. ($25,000 if you count tips)

at my job, we sell various dishes, with an average price of about $10-$15. we get printouts every week detailing how much money we made that week; in one week, our restaurant makes about $30,000. (one of our other locations actually makes this much on a daily basis!)

i’m not going to go into details, but after the costs of production (payroll for employees, rent for the building, maintenance, and wholesale food purchasing) are accounted for, the restaurant makes an estimated profit of $20,000 per week.

this profit goes directly to the owner, who does not work at this location. the owner of my restaurant has actually been on vacation for a few months, but still profits from the restaurant, because they own it. i have met the owner exactly twice in my year of working here.

to put this into perspective, the owner of this restaurant earns in 2 days what they pay me in one year. and that’s just from this single location – the owner has several other restaurants, all of which make more money than the one i work at. this ends up resulting in the owner having an estimated net worth of tens of millions of dollars, even after accounting for the payroll for every single worker in their employ.

now, i have to ask you: does the owner of my restaurant deserve this income? did they earn it? did their labor result in this value being created?

the naive answer would be “yes”; the owner purchased the location and arranged for the raw ingredients to be delivered, did they not?

the actual answer is “no”. the owner may have used their initial capital to start the location, but the profit is a result of my labor, and the labor of my co-workers.

the owner purchases rice at a very low bulk price of about 25 cents a pound. i cook the rice, and within a few minutes, that pound of rice is suddenly worth about $30. the owner did not create this value, i did. the owner simply provided the initial capital investment required to start the process.

what needs to be understood here is that capitalists do not create value. they use the labor of their employees to create value, and then take the excess profit and keep it.

what needs to be understood is that capitalists accrue income by already HAVING money. the owner of my restaurant was only able to get this far because they started off, from the very beginning, with enough money to purchase a building, purchase food in bulk, and hire hundreds of employees.

that is to say: the rich get richer, and they do so by exploiting the labor of the poor.

the owner of my restaurant could afford to triple the income of every single person in their employee if they felt like it, but this would mean that they were generating less profit for themselves, so they do not.

the owner of my restaurant pays me the current minimum wage of my area, because to them, i am not a person. i am an investment. i am an asset. i am a means to create more money.

when you are paid minimum wage, the message your boss is sending you is this: “legally, if i could pay you less, i would.”

every capitalist on the planet exploits their workers for their own gain. every capitalist, even the small business owners, forces people to stay in poverty so that the capitalist can profit.

Why have liberals bought into the genderism of the transcult?

Susan Cox discusses the resurgence of the bigoted, pseudo-scientific belief in “male brains” and “female brains,” and its hallowed history.

In a recent episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy’s Netflix show, he explained that that a person could have “a male brain in a female body,” saying, “It turns out you can’t tell the gender of a brain just by looking at it.”

Thanks, Bill. Good to know that, just like Victorian era scientists said, I might have a male brain in my female body. As a woman in the male-dominated field of philosophy, with sharp logical skills and no interest in fashion, who has rejected marriage and children, I could be viewed as an anomaly within my sex – exhibiting a “masculine mind” by some strange mistake of fate. Victorian scientist Herbert Spencer would blame this on my neglect of “the maternal functions,” arguing that if my body had produced milk for my “due number of healthy children,” I would then possess the naturally feminine “mental energy.” Science!

Spencer’s explanation for the existence of gender nonconforming women sounds ridiculous today, but it was necessary in order to support the idea that men and women were inherently different. “That men and women are mentally alike is as untrue as that they are alike bodily,” he wrote.

Our historical amnesia is troubling. We seem to have forgotten that the idea of innate difference between male and female minds was used to exclude women from political and intellectual life, and to deny them basic human rights of self-determination in the not-so-distant past.