🔴 RED PILL NEWS | IRAN-ISRAEL WAR? 🇵🇸

Welcome.

Welcome everyone.

We have a pretty serious stream tonight.

Not a very light-hearted one.

It's a very serious topic we're going to be talking about and discussing.

But additionally, I have to warn you that JB Wolf, what's going on?

What's up?

We're not going to have a very long.

Going to be slightly shorter than our usual streams because I have a meeting right after that I have to attend.

Uh spoilers, it's about my visit

To other countries.

What's up, crass?

What's going on?

Anyway, uh

How are you doing, Kras?

What's up, man?

So, before anything, you know, on a more light note, I achieved a personal goal of mine, long-standing, a fitness goal, weight goal.

I finally got down to 175.

Syop Shorty, what's up?

I finally got down to my target weight of 175.

When I started this journey, I was at 207.

So, this is a big accomplishment.

I don't know.

I lost a lot.

It's a big accomplishment for me, you know.

Before I went to Moscow, I was about 190.

All right.

So, you know, I want this to be a message of inspiration.

And it got me thinking, you know.

We don't want to torture people.

We're not here to torture people.

All right.

We're not here to torture people.

We're here to inspire people.

All right.

I got a little chunky.

I d I don't know if I'd say fat, but it definitely on the chunkier side, okay, and I put my mind to it, set the goal for myself, and because of the willpower, because of the der determination, because of the belief, I was able to do what I set out to and cut severely.

And I want that to inspire those of you who may be struggling with that.

to uh follow suit and do the same thing you know

Let me give some advice.

If you're struggling, you know, if you're one of those fat people, you're struggling with food addiction.

It was never an addiction, but let me tell you some old wisdom, all right?

You choose what food you need.

Meaning, if you don't eat junk food, you don't need it.

You can actually be content having a nice grilled chicken or steak.

And it sounds bland and boring when you're on the heavier side, but once you start regulating your consumption and really just stop overindulging in this excessive sugar, excessive, you know, greasy food, whatever, you know, you can actually, you don't need it anymore, actually, you know?

But I think the biggest thing is I started doing cardio every day.

Started I didn't just lift, I started walking a lot.

So I'm proud, proud of uh myself, I guess.

For that

I just wanted to share that with you guys 'cause, you know

'Cause uh they let it inspire you, you know, in case you're a fat person.

You know, you have two there's two options.

There's always two options.

You could just get upset and be angry and be resentful and be bitter, or you could just

Or you're happy being what you are, fine, you know.

Or, or you could do something about it, right?

Anyway, uh.

I wanted to talk today about a very, I would say, a topic with immense weight and gravity.

um whose seriousness cannot be overstated.

Uh the sacred history, and yes, it's a sacred history, of the victory of the Red Army over German fascism, which is commemorated on this day, may ninth,

Today is the seventy ninth anniversary of the defeat of the German fascists at the hands of the Red Army.

the victory of the Soviet people, really, really against all odds.

Against all odds.

But what I wanted to talk about is more generally about the topic of fascism and anti-fascism more generally.

Because when you think about it, it's a little bit ridiculous how much the West has been able to monopolize the meaning of anti-fascism and fascism itself for that matter.

Somewhere along the development of the post war history of the West, fascism became identified with authoritarianism, with having strict cultural values, with having with strictness in general.

with strong men.

And even to a lesser extent, but a notably lesser extent, masculinity itself somehow becomes associated with fascism.

The West now has the audacity to try and call countries like Russia and Belarus crypto fascist or fascist.

And I want us to take a moment to reflect on the absurdity of this just for a moment.

In light of a very simple historical fact,

The West did not receive the brunt of the crimes or the atrocities

or the true face of fascism in the first place.

The overwhelming majority of the victims of fascism were in Eastern Europe and were in states that would later become Communist States.

Even Germany itself, half of it was a Communist State, half of it was part of the Warsaw Pact.

How dare the West, how dare these pseudo intellectual liberal scumbags contend themselves?

With the pretense to being able to be some kind of authority on calling others fascists and knowing the meaning of anti-fascism.

The West, the liberal world, the Anglo-Saxon world, didn't lift a finger to defeat German fascism in comparison to the sacrifices and the contribution of the Soviet Union.

That was a life and death battle.

And you want to know what the capitalist West was doing?

Speculating.

Newspapers were being printed every single day of that war, speculating about the impending demise of the Soviet people and the Red Army and the impending victory of Hitler's armies.

I mean Stalin he mentioned this in his speech.

He said some pseudo-intellectuals in Europe are trying to gas Hitler up and gas up the Nazis as some kind of invincible army.

You know, before the years leading up to the Great Patriotic War, and that's really what we should start calling it, to be honest.

But in the years leading up to the Great Patriotic War,

The anti-fascist war

You need to appreciate and this is what these scumbags who are constantly trying to weaponize and utilize the memory of Nazism and Fascism as a cudgel with which to attack the forces of illiberalism in the world today

Let's be reminded of the following fact, that in the years leading up to the anti fascist war,

What kind of position was the Soviet Union in on the world stage?

You need to understand this and appreciate this because it's not in our history textbooks.

It's not something we're taught on the history channel.

It's not something that we're taught on YouTube documentaries or whatever people get their information from now.

It's something you really, really have to read a lot of books and have a really, really deep familiarity with another country, Russia, to be able to understand.

But the Soviets were waging a really precarious, precarious diplomatic war to protect its territorial integrity and security.

It was facing aggression from the liberal West, and it was facing aggression, obviously, from the forces of fascism.

And it was really trying hard to kind of find a way to just survive in this extremely life or death scenario where at any moment all of these people might team up against you.

And that was the biggest fear of the Soviet leadership.

And they constantly tried, they constantly tried so hard to warn the Liberal West.

of the danger.

They tried to form so many security pacts and alliances.

It always, always failed.

They were rebuffed at every turn, and meanwhile Hitler was appeased.

The Soviets were totally alone.

They were totally alone.

I'm not just saying they were alone geopolitically.

On a fundamental historical and civilizational level, at the fundamental level of historical memory, they were alone.

They, in a way, are alone still even today.

Nobody is doing justice and giving voice to the truth in the West about what really happened.

And meanwhile, a bunch of fools, a bunch of neo-Nazi fools, are now stepping to the plate.

with the audacity to add insult to injury by now trying to redeem the Nazi criminals and say that actually the real revisionism committed by the liberals wasn't the way in which they downplayed the role of the Soviets and the role of the Red Army.

Actually the real thing according to these neo-Nazis

Is that somehow Hitler was actually good and that the real villain was the Soviets and the liberals alone.

And meanwhile, they lionize and they glorify the Nazis.

What foolishness.

What a pathetic, predictable foolishness.

Of course, this is the natural consequence of the exact intellectual and ideological context created by the liberals themselves.

They are the ones who handed the revival of Nazi ideology on a silver platter.

And these idiots, pseudo-intellectuals, trying to somehow redeem the phenomena of Nazism.

think that it's because that there are these red pill geniuses who are breaking the narratives when it's so predictable how they would draw that conclusion, based upon the mountain of lies they're standing on, thanks to generations of liberal historians, completely distorting, criminally distorting the facts.

Uh

The truth of the matter is this.

Truth of the matter is the following.

When Operation Barbarossa began.

The whole Western world was very confident that the Soviet Union wasn't going to last.

And even though the Soviets kept proving them wrong, even though the Red Army kept proving them wrong, at no point were they willing to open up a second front to alleviate pressure and help them out.

At no point.

So you had the Red Army basically carrying the entire war, with Britain playing a marginal role and the United States uh mainly focused on the Pacific theater.

So you see

After all of this happens, after thirty million die,

Thirty million of the Soviet people die and are killed.

After they've made such a tremendous sacrifice, they've literally gone through hell.

I mean, I went to museums when I was in Moscow.

And during the battle of Moscow, how many how many people were starving?

How many people became homeless?

I mean, it was so, so devastating for them how much they sacrificed.

Do you wanna know what these scumbag capitalist pieces of shit in the West did?

Excuse my French, I'm gonna try and stop swearing, of course.

But you want to know what they did after the war.

They tried to somehow equate

The Soviet

political system and ideology with fascism itself.

They tried to say that because of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, actually it was the Soviets who collaborated with fascism.

People like Hannah Ardent,

try to uh develop this idea of twin totalitarianisms, of totalitarianism in general, somehow trying to make an equation between Soviet Communism and Fascism.

This is what set the precedent for the false, fake, and phony anti-fascism of the liberal class, the liberal ideologists, the capitalist class, whose ideologists today culminate in retards.

Sorry, we're not going to be swearing.

It culminates in.

pseudo intellectuals, let's use that word, like Paul Mason.

these British liberals, these British Trotskyites and uh anarchists, these Rohava leftists, whatever you want to call them, somehow contend themselves with the view that actually

Real anti-fascism is also anti Stalinist as well.

What do these idiots know about anti-fascism?

What were they doing?

What were their ideological forefathers doing to fight fascism?

And you know, right now I'm not trying to exaggerate it because it hasn't gotten directly political yet.

It's still just an ideological struggle we are waging.

But there are some parallels.

I don't mean to exaggerate it and say it's the same political struggle, but there are just structural parallels in terms of the factions at play here.

We are single-handedly fighting against the resurgence of neo-Nazi ideology and defending the honor of communism and communist history.

Meanwhile, the successors of Trotskyism, panleftism, whatever you want to call it.

Contend themselves not only with not doing anything to combat this disinformation, these lies being spewed by the neo-Nazis.

They're labeling us as the neo-Nazis instead.

So instead of the people actually praising Hitler, they claim we're the real fascists, that the real fascist threat in America is coming from us.

It's not coming from actually the actual people who uh defend slavery, who consider black people subhuman openly.

Who consider non-white people to be subhuman, who openly glorify fascism, openly glorify Hitler, that's not neo-Nazism, according to them.

We are.

So all of the ferocity they direct against us, I mean, this is exactly what the Trotskyites, with the anarchists, and what the ultra-leftists were doing in the nineteen thirties.

And it was the Stalinists, our forefathers, who were doing everything in their power.

to build popular fronts to confront this threat.

To face it head on.

And geopolitically, how that manifested was the Soviet Union's.

own own geopolitical

Nightmare basically.

It was a nightmare to navigate where on the one hand they have to fight this fascist threat, this is right next to them, but on the other hand, what is Britain doing?

What are the liberal elites in America doing?

What is the Western world doing?

They're also harassing and doing everything in their power to sabotage and undermine the Soviet Union using what?

Using instruments like Trotsky.

Both in terms of the international communist movement as well as in terms of geopolitical intrigue.

So we need to appreciate.

The wickedness, the absolute wickedness of this scenario historically.

Anti-fascism, there is no memory of anti-fascism.

Anti-fascism has nothing to do with the virtue signalling liberals engage in uh against Hitlerism and Nazism.

Superficial liberal anti-Nazism has nothing to do with authentic historical anti-fascism.

Authentic historical anti-fascism was not liberal, it was actually illiberal.

Authentic historical anti-fascism was communist with a capital C.

It was Stalinist, if you will.

It was led by Marxist-Leninists who were building.

the most advanced forms of statehood and civilization to date at that time in the history of mankind.

Who yes were authoritarian, who yes did have a so-called totalitarian culture, if we just define that as a society premised upon a specific the specificity of a vision, the specificity of a shared and common future, the specificity of shared values.

and a shared political reality.

Yes, they were dictatorships, and they were the only forces of anti-fascism in history.

The Soviet Union wasn't being supported by Bill Gates or the equivalent of Bill Gates at the time.

They weren't being lent a hand by anyone.

They weren't receiving the sympathy of the intellectual class within the West.

No favors were being done to them either in the years leading up to the Great Patriotic War, during the Great Patriotic War, or afterwards.

They were totally alone.

They were vilified as pariahs, they were vilified as tyrannical, bloodthirsty monsters.

Through and through, they were compared to the Nazis.

Now they sometimes they were cast in an even darker light than the Nazis were and considered more of a threat.

This is what they had to deal with.

And obviously

The situation, I mean, it's w this is just some internet stuff we're engaging in.

It's obviously completely incomparable.

But but to me it's very easy to understand that dilemma.

If we simplify it, it's very easy to understand it on a at least on a superficial level, I guess.

It's very easy for me to understand.

You know, put it this way, um give me a moment.

Put it this way.

Just like how I don't get any favors done to me um by rejecting anti-Jewish sentiment, by rejecting neo-Nazism, that doesn't make me any less canceled, as you guys are well aware.

That doesn't that doesn't get that doesn't make it any less convenient for our liberal enemies to smear us and equate us with na with Nazis.

I don't get any brownie points for it.

I'm not going with a flow.

I'm not I'm not following some kind of crowd.

I'm not doing something that's considered acceptable by society or by the I should rather say not by society, but rather the hegemony.

It's really hard to think about what it would mean to be anti-fascist outside of the context of the hegemony, because it seems like the hegemony is superficially against fascism.

It's just actually not an actual reality, either historically or even today in practice.

The Soviet Union did not gi win any favors through its anti-fascism.

It's not like it was treated any better.

It wasn't scoring any Brownie points.

It wasn't being considered.

You know, if Twitter existed, let's put it this way: if Twitter existed in the 1930s.

Stalin would have been uh considered the same as Hitler.

As a matter of fact, Twitter would probably be pro-Hitler, actually.

They would try to spin him as somehow progressive and Stalin uh they would compare Stalin to Putin.

He's problematic, he's a tyrant, he's an authoritarian monster, he's uh Soviet society is regressive and it's restrictive and so on and so on.

Now why why is this important to bear in mind and why do I bring this up?

I bring this up and I bring this historical context up because I don't want us to lose sight.

On what's important.

What's important for us is not constantly defending ourselves against all of these smears and accusations.

That's that's a dead end.

I mean, we should we should clear the record just to help people who might be misinformed.

But the and at the end of the day, people who want to know the truth will learn it on their own.

That's just the truth.

People who care to know will find out, but we should just make it easier for them to find out, obviously.

But what's really going to prove whether or not what we're doing has any historical value, uh has any historical significance, has any enduring significance, can acquire the pretense of being political.

is being able to hold our own.

and fight against the revival of these various different far-right ideologies.

What's going to actually prove that we're about it is if we actually not just engage in anti-fascism, but carry that red flag on our backs, no complaining about other people using the same symbols as us, no complaining about how how much we're victimized, no complaining about how we're not being treated fairly based on what we have done.

But a willingness

and an insistence to carry that red flag on our backs up the hill

without any hesitation, without any lagging behind, with the utmost and fullest determination.

Carry it single-handedly, even if we carry it alone.

Carry it even if it's discursively inconvenient for us.

In terms of not addressing

Any particular

community saying this or that about us.

We have to honor this history.

We have to honor this legacy.

And we have to do it.

in a in a an uh to an extent in a solitary manner.

We have to do it without expecting to be congratulated for it.

No one's going to give us brownie points for what we do, for this work that we set ourselves

The task of committing.

You think Stalin did the work that he did with any kind of guarantee?

that he was going to be immediately congratulated on the contrary.

He said, when I die a pile of rubbish will accumulate and pile on my grave, but the winds of history will blow it away.

Piles of rubbish.

are being thrown upon us now.

Why should we let that deter us?

Why should we be like that Space LaRouche guy

And say, well, you know, nobody's patting me on the back for being a communist, so he's just gonna go and run and join Nick Fuentes and join the far right.

That's not the attitude of a man.

That's not the attitude of someone with honor.

That's the attitude of someone who's looking for social validation, who's looking for brownie points, who's looking to be congratulated by some established pre-existing ideological community.

Instead of doing the work of helping build their own, instead of building one that they consider is true and honorable and righteous and correct.

Nobody is going.

We're not going to have the media praise us and congratulate us and pat us on the back.

And, you know, that's not going to happen.

You may have been raised.

Thinking that the media is ultimately anti-fascist, but it's not.

This work that we do.

We're going to have to do it.

With faith only in one thing, and that's the masses.

Faith in the masses.

Faith that we may reach the masses.

Faith that we may establish a dialogue with the masses.

There's no pre established ideological community.

There's no hegemony that's gonna reward us for the virtue we engage in.

When our organization launches this summer,

We're going to be doing a lot of indisputably good deeds.

Indisputably good deeds.

But we're not going to be congratulated for them.

But we're still going to do them.

We're going to do them anyway.

Because our integrity is not defined by what others say.

Our integrity shouldn't be defined by what others say.

And you know, with that being said,

Do not double down upon the straw man that other people create for you.

When it comes to the things that make infrared controversial,

You shouldn't lose your integrity.

You sh we shouldn't renounce our integrity.

We shouldn't adopt and exaggerate aspects of our position to such an extreme just because this is the cross that others decide to crucify us upon.

In other words, let's talk about problematic language I might use, like retard, the R word, right?

If someone has a problem with us because I use the word retard, that shouldn't signal to you a

you know, a a a grounds for like exaggerating that to such an extent where you just decide to just say it all the time, going out every way just to say it, just to distinguish yourself from them and to trigger them.

Because you know what?

That's ridiculous.

We don't really care that much about that word.

They're the ones who care about it, right?

So why go out of your way to double down?

Just what are you proving?

You're allowing others to define what your integrity is.

You're allowing your integrity to somehow be compromised based how based on how others react to you.

And that's completely wrong.

It's completely wrong.

We will do what we need to do based on our understanding, and that's it.

We don't have to explain ourselves to other ideological communities.

We only have to explain ourselves before the masses.

And by the way, I want to say something else.

The viciousness with which someone decides

to approach us.

Just be you should not measure someone's significance in terms of a worthy adversary, just in terms of how hostile they are toward us.

I want you to think about what I just said very deeply.

Someone is not more of an enemy just because they're more hostile to us.

It's based on what that hostility is based in, who that represents.

what power it represents, what force it represents, and what work we need to do

To wrest it from them.

That's how you should calculate it.

You shouldn't calculate it in terms of, oh, this guy really hates us a lot.

So we're going to take note of that.

And listen, someone, you could forget politics for a moment.

You could just be going to the gym and someone really hates you because they're jealous of you or whatever, but they really, really hate you and can't stand you.

You are a weak person if you allow that to define who you are.

That person doesn't even know you.

They're going through their own psychological problems and they're projecting a lot of things upon you that actually have nothing to do with you.

So the same f exact thing is true when it comes to infrared.

Someone is not a worthy enemy just because they're hostile to us and just because they hate us so much.

When you recognize that hatred, you in a way elevate it to the status of something meaningful, when in reality it's really not meaningful.

99% of the time, people like that CPUSA guy, Matt Hunter what is his name, Matt J.

Hunter?

I mean, Noah did quick work with that guy, but it's like, look, that guy doesn't matter.

He has a problem with us because he has a psychological problem that has nothing to do with us.

You know, fighting that guy

is not going to secure the integrity and strength of our position.

Holding our own when debating people on the far right is what's going to secure the strength and integrity of our position.

That's what's going to do it.

I mean, why don't you think about it for a second?

It's really easy to just defend ourselves from people like Matt Hunter.

Of course, it's easy.

We have all of the facts on our side.

It's really easy.

But is it actually easy to convince non-communist audiences that communism is correct?

Is that easy?

Is it actually easy to convince apolitical people, non-communist people, people who sway conservative in their outlook, which is most young men in this country?

Is that easy to actually make Communism something reasonable and sensible to them?

Forget communism itself, because of course communist consciousness is only reserved for the most advanced segments of the working class, meaning the revolutionary intelligentsia usually, and then only then it branches out.

But Communism is always for the minority in terms of who has the ideological outlook.

China today, only ten percent of the population is in the Communist Party.

The rest probably don't think about communism all that much as an ide as an idea or as a

As a word, as a term, as a theory, that's it doesn't really occ it's not really of immediate importance to them in their everyday lives.

So, even forget that, just forget the direct word communism for a moment.

Is it easy to convince?

All of these audiences

of the content of our position is correct?

that actually

Jews are not the enemy that actually

The enemy is the monopoly capitalist class.

Actually,

You know, we shouldn't be opposed to China.

China isn't our enemy.

Of course, it's also the anti-Zionist position.

We shouldn't be

sacrificing our children's wealth for Israel.

Is that easy to con no, it's actually not easy.

It may be easy on a personal level, but in terms of on a discursive level, establishing that position as legitimate on an ideological level in the sphere of information warfare, that is not easy at all.

It's actually extremely difficult.

You know, I kind of feel like if you're just spending all your time responding to mentally ill people like Matt Hunter, you're just j it's just circle jerking.

You're just jerking yourself off.

You're not actually testing your mettle in any kind of way.

That's the word.

You're not testing your metal.

You're not testing your metal.

That's what you need to be doing.

Proving your worth, proving your ability.

You know, it's one thing to

get into disputes with crazy people about the battle.

But heading into that battle head first and fighting in it is a totally different thing.

And this is exactly what we need to be doing.

This is exactly what we need to be doing.

We're not fighting for a discourse.

We're not fighting for a pre-established community.

We are fighting to restore authority to the name of communism.

We are fighting to restore authority to the history.

Encompassed by the word communism.

We are fighting to restore authority.

to the cause of the working class and the working class alone.

We are fighting to restore authority to the cause of labor.

That's what we're fighting for.

We're, to put this in simple terms, we are fighting to put respect on the name.

of our position.

Because at the end of the day, you can get caught up arguing with some blue-haired people, whatever, but you won't get anywhere.

At the end of the day, whoever wins that argument

Whoever gets more likes, it doesn't matter.

Because in this country, communism is still seen as a joke.

People laugh at it.

Even they.

See, the pan leftists are actually fascist collaborators because even they don't take communism seriously.

They laugh at the pretense of being a Marxist Leninist with a straight face

Actually, seriously, Marxism, Leninism, Communism with a capital C, all of that is outdated.

And if you really knock on the door,

and get far enough into actually inquiring upon what self-proclaimed Marxist Leninists mean in the academic context who LARP and call themselves this, what they're really talking about is some kind of decolonial anarchism.

Where they they just think that, like, you know, oh, listen, you know, I just uh

I ultimately think that that was all in the past and that now we need to kind of redurn return to uh the immediate kinship relations that I'm projecting upon indigenous communities pe for the sake of Mother Nature or whatever.

So you see, that's actually what their position is.

They don't even take seriously Marxism-Leninism in the twenty first century.

They think it's a joke.

I mean all all of all of the established ideological communities in America agree that it's a joke.

People don't even I mean, they can't even fathom that I'm serious when I say, Yeah, communism, Marxism, Leninism.

It's just so baffling and bizarre to them.

It doesn't matter whether these people claim to be leftists or claim to be right-wingers, it doesn't matter.

They all have some kind of meta-ideology which is at a cynical and ironic distance from Marxism-Leninism historically.

So the meta-ideology of the pan-leftists, for example, is uh

Anarcho-primitivism or whatever, anarcho-indigenous fetishism.

That's actually what they believe.

It's just that some of them think that, okay, we're anarcho-indigenous fetishists, but we also believe in using authoritarianism and temporarily utilizing modern technology to realize that goal.

So it's just kind of like that it's not really, they're not really Marxist-Leninists.

In the sense of actually appreciating this as a unique method and unique outlook and a unique integration of history, they don't see it as that way.

They don't actually they're like, What are you crazy?

That's that's from a hundred years ago.

That's what they'll say.

They don't actually take it seriously, right?

So the urgent task set before us is that we actually need to restore legitimacy and authority and credibility to Marxism-Leninism, to Communism with a capital C.

Because if we don't do it, no one will.

Look, the CPUSA, the leadership, do you think that they're doing it right now?

The content of their position is really just to vote for Democrats and nothing else.

I would love for anyone to explain to me if they have if there's any other content to what their position is, except fear mongering about one of the electoral outcomes.

their position effectively amounts to this.

If the election goes in this direction,

then it will make our ability to disseminate it will make our ability to build a communist movement uh much harder.

So, you see, it's a bluff.

They're like, okay, we're a long road from being able to build a communist movement, but we need to vote for Democrats because they'll just make it easier for that to eventually happen.

But if this happens, it'll never be possible.

And it's like, you could tell that's such a bluff.

If you're going to build a communist movement, just do it.

I really, I, I, I.

I highly suspect

that a republican presidency is not a more difficult environment to build a communist movement in than the warlord era of China.

or Czarist Russia for that matter.

I find that extremely dubious.

I find that notion extremely dubious.

You know?

There is no context in which communism

as a form of praxis is impossible.

And communism is the real movement of history.

It doesn't matter what context you're living in.

It has a context.

It makes a context for itself.

It imposes a context.

I want to let you guys know that I have to go in exactly 10 minutes.

Ten minutes, I gotta go.

So yeah, this is gonna be a short stream.

Um

But yeah, what I'm trying to say with all this guys is that

We need to make sure that we're focussed on the right thing and not get sucked into the dead end of just constantly, constantly arguing with crazy people and mentally ill people.

What is the value in that?

What's the use in that?

Let me explain to you why.

Pan leftists don't represent any authority.

by themselves.

They defer authority of uh uh ultimately to the Democratic Party, but there's no actual center of authority you're negotiating with when you're arguing with pan-leftists.

There's no center of authority you're vying power and control over.

You know, appearing unproblematic.

To the unreflexive

Fuck.

Uh hold on.

I mean, so okay.

Anyway.

Uh I I have I have a meeting.

In nine minutes, uh about

Plans, travel plans, but um

There's se there's some confusion about the timing, it seems like.

What was the big news you and MWM were talking about on Discord?

Uh

That's a surprise.

That's a surprise.

And everyone knows there's a new organization coming, but that's not actually that's not actually really what we're talking about.

It's way more specific than that.

It's way more...

Surprising than that.

I don't know.

It l it's a process that's being set in motion.

Uh

Tomorrow I think you're gonna see

The ep what is what is it called?

Is

The prelude, the prelude to it.

Mm-hmm.

Prologue, that's exactly the word I'm looking for, prologue.

Ed that will just be the prologue though.

That's not the exciting news, it's just the prologue.

But

If you guys knew, you'd be really excited.

I'll just tell you that.

If you knew what's going to happen in the next few months, you'd lose your mind.

That's how sick it is, all right.

Anyway, we're not going to talk about it anymore.

I really wish I had more time for this kind of lecture about Victory Day.

Because what I really want to talk about is.

Is the kind of two different understandings of anti-fascism, the communist versus the liberal one?

Liberal anti-fascism, and I put it in quotation marks because it's not real anti-fascism, is kind of based on this, it's a way of repressing and bypassing a recognition of the communist alternative.

So the liberal will basically say it's either liberalism or it's fascism, and then that's it.

So it's a way for liberals to repress the contradictions of liberalism themselves and the way those contradictions are resolved by communism.

So, this is why pan-leftists, for example, and fascists have this sick, twisted, BDSM relationship with each other, where

Pan leftists basically recognized the far right as a true sovereign independent authority.

And that's it.

They recognize it as the real authority.

Anyone trying to build authority in general to them is fascist.

Anything that escapes the immediacy of these

uh circular communities they build.

The communities of affects, communities of emotional relationships, communities uh based on making each other feel good about themselves, communities that are just based on

uh a shared discourse, an echo chamber, right?

That's not an authority.

That's not an authority.

The authority upon which those kinds of communities rest

Is actually the authority of the bourgeois state, the authority of the hegemony.

But that authority itself isn't aestheticized ideologically until it's fascist.

And you know, a lot of these NATO, NAFO, NATO aestheticizers you see on social media, that is a beginning of fascism in a way, right?

Because what they're doing is they're taking the authority of the hegemony.

And they're basically aestheticizing it.

They're taking this super political form of power.

It's non-negotiable politically.

It's not within the polis.

It's a power higher than this.

And what they're f and even though they have no they're they don't participate in that power in any capacity, they're reifying it, they're worshiping it almost like a cargo cult.

And they're basically turning it into uh it's a form of the recognition of authority.

which is outside, obviously outside of the democratic form, the bourgeois liberal form.

So it's the beginnings of fascism, actually.

It's a recognition of authority.

That

Is not reciprocated in any kind of way.

There's no reciprocation.

It's a superstitious view of the authority of the bourgeois state.

Yeah, hell hell divers.

Sure, sure.

I mean, that's exactly it.

It's a way of trying to make the authority of the state something immediate to you, something immediately enjoyable and relatable to you.

Even if it takes the form of a parody, as in the case of the game Helldivers, even if it's a parody like Helldivers or Starship Troopers, it's still being made immediate to you in a way that you find immensely enjoyable and you just like it.

Even though you're making a parody of the ideology, the political ideology of that authority, the immediacy of that authority to feel seen.

This is the obscenity of dystopian fiction, by the way.

Because actually, Americans love Hunger Games.

We love dystopian fiction because we want to feel seen by authority.

We want to feel recognized by authority and interpolated by it in some kind of way.

Now that is not by itself inherently fascist, of course it's not.

But the difference between Communism and Fascism is that the recognition is reciprocal.

Not only do you are you recognized by authority, but you bear responsibility for that authority as well.

And the way in which that responsibility returns to you.

is indirect and it's inadvertent, but you still see it as yours.

The Soviet people see the authority of the state as theirs.

Even if it's not immediate, they're not directly voting on it, it's theirs.

They see these great dams being built, these great mega construction projects, and they say that's ours, that's our work, our labor, our country, our motherland.

But in the case of fascism, that respond the element of the responsibility is not there.

But but you are somehow seen, you are recognized, and you can recognize.

the authority.

I need to talk about this for another hour, but I can't.

I need to talk about this for another hour because

I don't like this kind of gibbering about fascism in philosophical, transcendent terms, authority.

I don't like that in general.

And you should be suspicious of that.

Take it with a grain of salt.

Because, of course, fascism is the dictatorship of finance capital.

But we can observe how.

There is a culpability of liberalism as an ideology, if we just understand it in ideological terms, in fascism.

There's a culpability of panleftism in fascism as a historical phenomenon.

Because when you reject the authority of the party of the proletariat, when you reject the authority of the proletariat as a class, as an organized form of political power,

even in the name of liberalism and preserving liberties as the Liberals do, there is still objectively an authority

of the state that's there.

It's still there.

It's just not yours.

It's not it's not the one suspended in this dialectical process of class struggle, um at least in an overt form.

So, eventually there's Freudian slips.

Eventually there's Freudian slips and liberals realize that

There

Liberty, their so-called freedom, their open society does have boundaries.

And even if those boundaries have to be enforced in the most contradictory, ridiculous way, uh worthy of a parody, whatever, there is still a satisfaction liberals find in it.

Anyway, guys, I'll have to leave you on that note and leave.

But I'll see you guys.

See you guys.

You know, I'll see you around Sunday.

Maybe earlier.

We'll see.

We'll see.

Um anyway guys.