I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that request.
I’m completely speechless now, it’s clear that my brief review’s underlying thoughts were completely overlooked, and I wonder what the purpose of writing it was. Without understanding anything, I started attacking, and I can only say that without profound class hatred, such things cannot be done.
Additionally, this “long article” not only has hollow language and unclear logic, but also lacks factual material, making it no different in essence from those two paragraphs.
17 Likes
That’s how it is. Void shooting, even the animal protection hats are here.
3 Likes
The leader and writer of the “Revolution” Society, Honghua Lanman, is a thorough pragmatist. When he sought to portray himself as a pioneer of women’s liberation, he fabricated a new term, “public wife system” on the internet, asserting that capitalists in the prostitution industry used the internet to instill the “public wife system” ideology into all classes of society, which led to moral corruption and women’s oppression among the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. Moreover, when defending the pastime of dog abuse for entertainment among leftist friends, he completely omits how Pan Hong exploits the inherent flaws of petty bourgeoisie ideology, using the internet to boost his video traffic and dog training business, further deepening the backwardness of petty bourgeoisie thought. Could it be that Honghua Lanman only sees “reactionary pornography” and not “reactionary violence”? Are there no proletarians poisoned by pornographic ideas, and no proletarians poisoned by violent ideas? However, Honghua Lanman claims to oppose Pan Hong’s dog training from the standpoint of an employee in Pan Hong’s circle. This is undoubtedly a good cover, because as long as he brands himself as “proletarian,” he can erase the class nature of Pan Hong’s dog training, claiming that although Pan Hong is a capitalist, the dog trainer is proletarian, and “regardless” of that, he is removing the bad dogs. But we must ask: who is Pan Hong training the dogs for? In rural areas, dogs are mostly used for guarding the home, unless they are malicious dogs owned by landlords—such dogs rarely bite people without being killed immediately. Urban workers probably also do not want to bear the cost of raising vicious dogs. Since the treatment of vicious dogs by the working masses is to deal with them swiftly, who then needs to train vicious dogs into obedient “pets” to bring them home? I do not exclude the petty bourgeoisie who have deep feelings for their pets and hope to keep their dogs alive and continue to keep them as pets. However, anyone who truly cares about dogs would not choose to subject their beloved dogs to violence in Pan Hong’s circle, causing them suffering. The economic source of Pan Hong’s dog training ultimately comes from cooperation with capitalists who breed and sell dogs, or from training the pets of capitalists. Can training such vicious dogs be said to be for societal harm? The likes of Honghua Lanman would answer: “Yes.” He seeks to uphold Pan Hong’s interests, which produce violent spiritual opium, and thus defends the videos of dog abuse shot by Pan Hong and his staff, rather than cheer for the working people to kill the vicious dogs outright.
23 Likes
This continues the “revolutionary” society gentlemen’s carefully crafted black propaganda, where the dry materials and flimsy theoretical basis they cite are precisely as dull and chaotic as their impoverished brains.
I found that this group of gentlemen who tout themselves as standing on the “proletariat” position, in forums exposing the crimes of Chinese colonial invasion of Africa, condemning the restrictions imposed by capitalist universities on students, surprisingly fall silent and reach a “consensus.” Once they start criticizing the bourgeoisie for poisoning and numbing the masses with spiritual opiates like the 二次元 (2D culture), video games, etc., they often oppose the opinions of the “revolutionary” society gentlemen, then they close their eyes and talk nonsense like feverish patients, reacting as if withdrawing from addiction (even though lsep has never taken any substantial actions to attack or restrict their “freedom”).
15 Likes
I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that request.
27 Likes
It’s hard to say whether the people under Pan Hong are truly workers. Claims about increasing labor intensity should be backed up with evidence.
7 Likes
They don’t need any evidence to speak; from slandering us with the “chastity theory” to attacking us as “animal protection,” they never need to present any evidence or logic. As soon as they open their mouths, they start spouting nonsense.
6 Likes