Sorry for some of the weird formatting, steemit seems to be having some issues. I'm writing this in the likely irrational hope that you'll engage in an actual, genuine discussion and not just ignore my point and/or present nothing but fallacious arguments. Thank your for your time!

*** - **1** - >Everyone outside of the White Christian Male is of course oppressed. Why wouldn't they be according to Marxist theory.

Have you even read Marx? Your analysis of Marxism is entirely lacking; Marx focused on economic class. The Marxist understanding of class presents two classes in the present day (well, there are other, minor ones, but these are the main ones): * The Proletariat, the working class. They do not own the means of production. * The Bourgeoisie, the capitalist/ruling class. They own the means of production. As such, the Marxist theory on class can be summed up by the following: class is determined by one's relation to the means of production and capital. It is in the deeper analysis of class society where we see that your analysis of Marxism is incorrect. Marx says that the majority of oppression occurs due to this class structure. This happens for a number of reasons: * As the proletariat, the working class, doesn't own the means of production, they have little-to-no agency over their workplace and as such don't have power in the location they spend ~1/3 of their day. The power they do have, mostly from labour movements of the 20th century and post-WW2 reforms (the latter of which is the main case in the UK) is slowly being taken away, much of which was eradicated with the 80s' liberalisation of the market (with Thatcher and Reagan). * The extraction of surplus value is likely the most commonly used example of oppression on the proletariat. One is not payed according to the value produced, they are paid less than it (so the capitalist makes a profit). They are, therefore, not paid the full value of their labour. * Alienation, which is a fairly abstract concept (which is why Marxists don't typically focus on it), but it's important nonetheless. There are a number of forms of alienation, Marx categorises them into four groups: alienation from the act of production, alienation from the product, alienation from other labourers and alienation from one's "species-essence". For more information on these, even just the [wikipedia page on alienation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation). * Quite simply, the capitalist mode of production has resulted in a situation where there is dire global warming and climate change, threatening all of our lives. These are only brief and select examples, I recommend you read *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* by Engels as well as *Wage Labour and Capital* by Marx for more information on this. Intersectionality, however, is a separate theory developed after Marx (especially regarding modern intersectionaity). It is a development on a number of theories which preceded it, one of which is Marx, but it equally derived itself from other sociological concepts. It states, simply, that forms of oppression interlock and intersect. All it says, really, is that forms of oppression are not separate entities; they exist in the same world with same populations and are complexly interwoven.

*** - **2** - >A black woman has two supposed minorities and oppressions. As does a gay Jew. So who wins this battle?

There is no battle between these two. We seek not to count "points" between people but rather eradicate all forms of oppression via a united front. There are, however, people who do treat it like the oppression olympics, but few people do. Even with these people your analysis is flawed because you're counting oppression numerically (the amount of forms of oppression one faces) rather than weighing how oppressive each form is. Again, though, very few people do this and the intersectional academics never do (well, I've never seen one - there may be a few outliers).

*** - **3** - >They are so worried about who is more oppressed, they forget to live. Everything is about identity politics, hate speech and virtue signalling.

Uhm, no; it really depends on who you look at and you ignore the actual reason why we focus on identity politics and eradicating hate speech - it's because we *are* oppressed. All of us. Feminists say men are also oppressed. Men too are forced to conform to the same strict gender binary and gender norms as the rest of us. We seek to abolish these gender norms, which will liberate not only women but men too. This is not "worried about who is more oppressed", it is seeking to abolish those forms of oppression. (Side note: complaining about "virtue signalling" like this is, in and of itself, virtue signalling)

*** - **4** - >The alpha male is purposely oppressed in a Post Modernist society because the entire reasoning is to question EVERYTHING.

This is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the term "alpha male" comes from a study of wolves in captivity (captivity as in they were in a zoo or that sort of thing). Furthermore, these were wolves who didn't know each other and were stuck together in this situation. This is a flaw in your reasoning because we are neither wolves nor are we in captivity (in the same sense of the word) and human power structures and relations have existed and aren't just being formed now. The concept of "alpha males", when applied to humans, simply doesn't exist. Secondly, postmodernism simply isn't the dominant ideology. In the US, the GOP hold the majority in most federal governmental structures and the GOP is even further from postmodernism than the Democratic Party is and in the UK, the Tories have help power for quite a while, something only really broken up by the "New Labour" movement which eradicate the principles of the Labour Party (such as Clause IV). Neither the Tories nor the GOP are postmodernist; it is these who dictate the legislation of these countries as well as a number of other things. What is postmodernism? It is, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, "a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power." These characteristics, particularly skepticism, subjectivism and relativism are not characteristics of the mainstream political parties. They are, for example, moral objectivists. Thirdly, your reasoning simply doesn't make sense and is, in fact, contradictory to earlier points. You say that this (fabricated) concept of an "alpha male" is oppressed because we question everything, but surely if, by questioning everything, we come to the conclusion of oppressing "alpha males" (which we don't) that'd be the logical and reasonable thing to do. We question the existing systems, but our conclusions thereof do not lead us to "purposefully oppressing alpha males"; our conclusions are that we need to eradicate these existing systems of oppression (which, as mentioned earlier, in fact oppress men, too) in order to elevate all people to an unoppressed existence.

*** - **5** - >Everything becomes a reason for hate.

No, we eradicate hate. It is not with hate that I would willingly violently liberate my comrades, but with hope for a brighter future and love for them. And along with my comrades, I seek to liberate you from the power structures which oppress you for the same reason.

*** - **6** - >Everything becomes a reason to question morality and the very existence of God. Nothing becomes about reasoning. Nothing becomes about fact finding. Nothing becomes about Christian moral standing or the institution of Church. Nothing becomes about the essence of God.

This section is pure rhetoric. There is no "essence of God". There are no gods. Is something moral because "God" says so, in which case morality is arbitrary, or does "God" tell us something is moral because it is fundamentally so, in which case a higher power than your god? Here is just one contradiction of typical Judeochristian theology (which I know you have due to your use of "Luciferians" and "God-Fearing Christians"). I, along with the majority of my comrades (except Egoists, I guess) probably share a similar morality to you. We do not believe theft is moral (in most cases) nor do we believe murder is moral, along with many other things. Yet we see both of these things happening, and it is there where the earliest critiques of Capitalism arose. It started off as a moral endeavour; we saw capitalism exploiting and killing those in the third world just as we saw it stealing from those in the first world and third world alike.

*** - **7** - >The very existence of a President who wishes to restore Law and Order, Church and God, Honor and Justice, our Veterans and Patriots is vile and abhorrent to these demonic people.

Yes, and we oppose Trump for other reasons as well. The manifestation of this "Law and Order" you speak of is racist (black people are arrested disproportionately, killed by the police disproportionately, etc.) and holds many other deep-routed oppressive tendencies. We're only just seeing reforms which allow for things like homosexual marriage, but we still have a long way to go with many issues such as trans rights. "Church and God" needs not be restored. It is still the dominant theological ideology, in the west at least. It will remain that way, as much as that saddens me. Furthermore, the president has no right to "restore . . . Church and God", there is meant to be separation of Church and State for a reason. There has never been "Honor and Justice", this has been a lie told to you. There has only ever been people killing people and otherwise oppressing them. "Justice" has always been a tool of the ruling class to further oppress the working class. It is merely part of the maintenance of class society and oppression.

*** - **8** - >The reality of Civil War looms in the UK which is approximately three months from when it is supposed to depart from the EU. As the Luciferians try to ignore the people's wish, the true Patriots become restless. Any reversal of their 2016 decision will most certainly bring on a Civil War in England.

Untrue. Very few people want a civil war and far fewer are willing to fight, nor would they be able to. While I'm not saying it isn't possible, it really isn't "certain". The chances of it happening are very low (and I'm saying this as someone who live in the UK). The vote in 2016 was not representative of the people. For starters, leave didn't get 50% of the eligible voters' vote and secondly a great number of people have changed their mind. Furthermore, a number of leave votes were in retaliation to Cameron, who only got power in ~2015 on the promise he'd hold a Brexit vote he opposed.

*** - **9** - >We hope neither happens. But, in March of 2018, we sit back and observe just how close our world rides the line of Revolutionary and Civil Wars. We know the possibility is there every single day.

This is, in fact, a central part of Marxism. It says that revolution is inevitable; that capitalism will eventually collapse and something will replace it. We hope that it is Socialism, but it could equally be a regressive system. We too observe its downfall, and out of its ashes we hope something beautiful will rise.

*** Thank you again, Ira.