It’s hard for americans to shake essentialist views about race and come to a Marxist understanding –

• Their conservatives have essentiallist racist views

• The liberal 白左 aren’t interested in coming to a correct view – “Our dogmatists are lazy-bones” – they’re interested in showing off how good a person they are by howling idealist noises on social media

Both their propaganda mills are pushing them to divide the working class based on race; getting to a correct, structuralist understanding of race is hard.

Also Americans are insular and can’t understand that the world ≠ America

Mao is definitely the best path out: the Little Red Book, the Mass Line, On The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among The People.

Mate you are not American

I think about this quote a lot with regard to the hexbear-type thing of trying to make this hybrid of socialism (i.e economic reform) and american identity politics. Like trying to mix Maoism with this “KKKracka lol” stuff

It’s not just this one quote either. A core idea of Maoism is to unite people along class lines only. See also On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.

Appealing to the self-interest of the voters who hold it

he is acknowledged to have had an above-average sense of fun

oh yeah coz you are Norwegian and Thor Heyerdahl is Norwegian

Oh nice quote thanks for this

Didn’t like 30% of people in Arnhem Land die violently?

Though maybe that’s internal clashes?

My source for the data: Keeley (1996), Gat (2006) and Bowles (2009) Source that my source quoted: Warner, A Black Civilization, pp. 157–8 Comment: Warner estimated 200 violent deaths of a population of 700 men. total population was 3000 but he mentions no violent mortality of women and children. Bowles (2009) calculated the number for adult mortality due to violence/warfare. Keeley (1996) also quotes a share of violent deaths of 28% for the male Murngin population (his source is Harris 1975. Culture, People, Nature. 2d ed. New York: Crowed.)

Thor Heyedahl had a version of that theory

Nuts are significantly more land intensive per calorie than grains

I don’t really agree.

Grains

• Call oats 4 t/ha, 389 kcal/100g
• Call rice 3.9 t/ha, 129 kcal/100g
• Call wheat 3.5 t/ha, 389 kcal/100g

Nuts

• Chestnuts get 8 t/ha – https://www.fao.org/4/Y4351E/y4351e0c.htm – and have about 196 kcal/100g
• Almonds get 4 t/ha – https://www.permaculturenews.org/2012/02/25/perennial-staple-crops-of-the-world/ – and have a mighty 578 kcal/100g
• Hazelnuts get 2.27 t/ha (2000lb/acre is conservative) and have 628 kcal/100g

Ranking in kcal/m²/year

• Almond 2312
• Chestnut 1568
• Oats 1556
• Hazelnut 1426
• Wheat 1152
• Rice 503