It truly and overwhelmingly is something a white boy Maoist could’ve written. Many of their other articles are also heavy, heavy stinkers. Often dogmatic even, with this one reeking of chauvinism.
Here’s an example:
“W przypadku zwycięstwa Hamasu mamy skrajnie reakcyjny, teokratyczny kalifat zbudowany na zasadzie średniowiecznego szariatu, w którym prawa kobiet porównywalne są z prawami zwierząt domowych.”
“In the case of a Hamas victory, we have a reactionary, theocratic califate built on the rules of medieval sharia, where the rights of women are comparable to the rights of livestock”
spoiler
“Zwierzęta domowe” could either mean pets or livestock. I didn’t know which to choose exactly but I presume they meant livestock.
I don’t feel like translating the rest of this “both sides baaaaad!!!” nonsense, not to mention the idealistic bullshit sprinkled within. Use deepl if you want to bear this cognito hazard any further.
Nonetheless, “the institute” has been a major source of disappointment for me. They don’t give me good hopes, seeing as many of their older articles praised “chairman” Gonzalo, to only recently have them purged.
Call me a sectarian but when someone calls themselves a Maoist near me I get sceptical, thanks to all the bad shit I’ve read that they wrote. Even outside of the stuff published by “the institute”. They remind me of “Orthodox Marxists” and “Left Communists”, an intellectual sect worthy of little attention.
That’s why I preface this by saying it could’ve only be written by a white boy Maoist. Someone considereding themselves a communist despite lacking much of the Marxist critical analysis process. The other thing is that I know, is that supposedly people from “the institute” are “heavy into reading and studying theory”. This single text shattered that idea for me.