🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

I'm

A

A

A

A Oh, Oh, Oh,

uh,

Yeah,

I Oh, hi-kidstaking sing-a-ya-ya-ya-a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ya-ya-ya-a-ha-ha-a-ha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a. Yeah, I'm hiding,

I think, and yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, how are you, yeah, Yeah, I I think

I'm

I'm happy

and

I'm I'm I don't know. Ha-da-you-day-da-ya-da-ya-na-da-da-da-la-da. I'm I'm Oh, uh,

uh,

I'm a Yeah Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Hi,

and,

yeah,

yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, ah,

I'm not going to be

a lot of it. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh. Oh, oh. I'm Oh

I'm going to be. I'm going to

be

I'm and you know

the The The I'm I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm and you know

I'm

I'm

I'm Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah I'm

I'm

I'm and oh

I don't and D. D.

D.

I'm The The Thank you. The The Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh. Oh! Oh. Oh, yeah. I'm gonna make, think, my head of the

A lot of the

Aya Thank you. The hear of the voice from the great love from the world's in the world of are shone shone the world

Krochee

Krochevna,

God,

there is Kyrgy

and

Kyrgy

Kna

Noz

no

no no no no

and Rest and Rest and God God Jesus God

God

God God God

and the

beautiful

and beautiful and

long and long

I'm

my life

my I'm not sure my path I'm

I'm sure

voice

I'm from

I'm

from

he's

he's from

he's

in the hollent he said I'm I'm going I'm I from I'm

I'm

there's I'm on and great love they're not no longer

no

no no never

there

no

there

chis

chas

love

and

beautiful d'allel

and

I'm I'm notchino I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm beautiful, beautiful and Dalekan,

I'm

on night night night

I'm

I'm

I'm

sure

more

better

you never

you never never never never nobree. And in the no no and that's not beautiful and light

they're not

and be

no I'm in the world It's beautiful

D'Egras' D'Egras' God

Chimpsom Chus,

of my Slam,

the

beautiful D'Ole

D'O

Preetra

D'Oye

I'm

I'm not I'm going to voice I'm trying

a girl

I'm

I start

my name

my name

my

voice You know, Yes, we'll rally round the flag boys will rally once again, shouting the fact the cry of freedom, we would rally from the hillside together from the bay shouting the battle bride of freedom the union forever for now poitura down with the traitor up with the star while we rally round the flag boys rally once again shouting the battle crime of freedom We are speaking to

We are speaking to

draw by the brothers

God before.

Shout in to magic

by the freedom

and we'll still the place

in right with the middle of freedom

shouting to fight

by the freedom to the union for another bring a war chalbizabeth might be aubriot

so you're

young, and the man

rawhide

love

a man back

back back

and we come

and we

and the and again

and I'm going to

write

life

life

I'm free You know, The The President .

... The The President

The The and you know

the

I'm and the you know

the

I'm

the The I'm and you know

the

I'm

the The and the uh...

I'm

the

uh... The and the the

I'm

I'm I'm and the you know

the

I'm I'm and you know

the The The The I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And I'm not

I'm not.

I'm gonna

and

I'm and and the other people are a lot of

let me

I'm I'm and

I'm

a lot of

I'm

a

I'm

a lot I'm a

I don't

I'm I'm

a lot

I'm and the other people and the other people and see it.

And I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to

I'm gonna

I'm I'm I'm going to

I'm going to get to

No

I'm I'm going to

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm going to be able to be. Welcome, everyone for another late edition of the Infrared Show.

Not without good reason.

However, Hot take, what's going on?

Notice my mic

was a little lower than usual.

Blackpack, thank you so much, brother.

I see you. Thank you so much for that

as well. What's going on?

Hot take. Guys, I want to say a few things. What's going on? Hot take.

Guys, I want to say a few things.

This is going to be a test for clipping.

I want this to be a clip stream.

So I want you guys to really, really clip this stream, especially because I'm going gonna make it for clip related reasons Sciop Shorty what's going on man how you doing so suez wow wow Suiz. Wow. Wow. First things first before we get into the funny business, not funny business, the serious business.

We have a new setup.

I have a portrait I got.

I said I was going to get a portrait of someone special, and you can see who it is.

If you can't recognize them, hit the books.

But it is William Z. Foster.

And I also set up a bookshelf, which I spent all Friday putting together.

Not all Friday.

Just a good chunk of my Friday putting it together.

And, you know, there's a lot of books, and I displayed them very intentionally.

And if you can understand why, that's great.

If you can't, don't worry about it.

I also am not done with my display or setup.

I still have a few things here or there to be displaying and hanging up. But it'll be a great final result.

And you'll probably see that next stream.

It's just I didn't have time today to finish it because I was preoccupied with attending to various different matters

and things. But overall, I'm, what do you guys think? I shouldn't really be asking for your input.

It's a little bit unprofessional, to be honest. It's a little bit

unprofessional, but the black bookcase, I was so torn over it because that thing is wood,

but you can't even see it kind of looks black.

And I was going to get a dark brown wooden one, but I just thought black would be the way to go.

And I'm a little bit conflicted over it, but whatever, you know.

But at least my stream looks full now, right?

Right, right? I'm asking that

in a way

to ask approval, right?

Because I'm not actually

100% sure if it does.

But in any case,

you know, these are some of my

books, not all of them.

See, I have some, some problematic

leftist books that I, for example,

I have a book by Paul Mason, if you can believe it, that I got in

2015. I'm going to burn it. Probably burn that book. There's a few books I need to be burning,

all right? The Paul Mason one. I mean, Gijek, I, uh,

I'm not going to burn his yet.

Even though he's kind of crossed the line already,

he's got a,

there is a Gijek book on the shelf if you can see it.

But, uh, he hasn't crossed the line quite yet.

Oh, he has crossed the line. Sorry, but

it hasn't gotten to the point

where his whole

legacy as a non-political

philosopher can be repudiated

completely.

But anyway, that's my new setup.

And it's not exactly done, but yeah, that's it.

And today we're going to be talking about socialism but there's some breaking news before we get into it

and the breaking news is that it turns out that the terrorists who committed the terrorist

attack in m in Moscow at the Krakis City Hall have confessed that they were in fact under the employ of Ukraine.

Apparently Ukraine paid them nearly 11,000 U or the equivalent of as such each for their role

they were going to create a passage for their escape and they were promised compensation in Kiev.

I mean, this is a shocking revelation.

I mean, it is absolutely... We're going to look at Jackson's tweet because we support our brothers.

If you guys don't know, this, Jackson works for the CIA, the FSB, the CCP, Hamas, the Houthis, Israel, and the boogeyman all at once because he interviewed

Tulsi Gabbard one time

when he was like 17 or something

anyway

that's

that's not really news though because we all know that

because it's so obvious right

it's so obvious, right? It's so obvious.

Like, the guy literally, his ex-girlfriend dated Jonah Hill, right?

Jonah Hill is obviously a Fed.

Anyway, let's continue.

Your group of Plano

after

Terat

You're

For the

You

In the

Confolol

Ucast

In fact of

In fact

Of course

All

All

All

Terrorists

They're They're They're They're FOSB in the FACB in the four terrorists are the name

coordinator

Saitfulo.

It

he was

a lot

the

attack

Krocus

City

Hall,

snobd

armed

and

done

the

Marshut

Afto

we

said we

went

to

Ukraine

Kiv

and

there there Ukraine Kyme and there is a

million

ruby

I'm

going to

get in where

there

by there

money was

money

for one million of rubles.

For the obfished, gnarerarer,

per million rubles on each,

terrorists,

after attack,

were on the tracy

M3, Moscow, Kiev.

Nisles with a speed

to 170 kilometers

a hour.

Our silovic

were over the

point in the place of the town, the city of the commune. The Russian Ukrainian grinole hour of hours. Our silovic were this point. In the

local

the city commune.

The russies

of the

country

was a

141

kilometer.

Smartphoon

even in

put in the

publicly in the

information

is the

information

is

that

the

people

people

were

back from the that the bigglitsy to the last were the last yearnought on the other

sayfoulo said that

there will

you will be in the

country

who can

come to go to

and get to

in the

on the

on the there's there were there were there were there On the whole, okay. On the other side, for terrorists,

as it wasntil,

gottowed,

we're doing there's a

caridora.

Our special

service were

factored

in the

USU

for reminery

in the

pregrinich

postelk

Chukuk.

The activity

of the

USSR in

demining

near the

border villages.

I don't think they mean the USSR.

I think this is a mistake in translation.

Kovka and Sopich Sumscoe

Mists'i, the gusoleil, the gusoleless, at the closest nonsilong Kovka and Sopich Summ's Kovlety

Gluckie,

Gustol Lest

from the

nearested

from Russia

to the

border of the

non-borses

there's

were to

get to shach

automobiles

and go

Pekhom

on the

same Sifalo

he said

I'm in the country in Kiev and when they're all the same Seifolo. He said, you know, you're going

to

the ground

from the

near a

distance,

you know,

go to

you know

I'm going to

you can

I'm going

to help

you.

You know,

phizano

and then I will say I'm going to say you know, physynogamy is real because, like, you can just tell this guy looks like a disgusting scumbagabag. Like, look what a disgusting,

this guy looks like. He literally looks like such a, it looks like a literally looks like such a it looks like a skeleton if it was a

he looks like skeletor or something like just a disgusting evil rat disgusting monster you know

just look at this sick fuck

Literally he went and he just fired on a bunch of civilians

And he's not breaking you know

He's he's not broken down and begging for forgive nothing.

There's not even any remorse in his eyes.

It's like these are aliens among us.

They're not even human.

They just disgusting monsters.

You know, 90% of our ops have this profile. They're just a little smarter about how they express it. The biggest manifestation of sociopathy is pathological lying, right? If you're too much of a coward or you're at least smart enough not to get caught massacring a bunch of innocent people, the outlet for your sociopathies you're going to just be spreading lies all the time. Just for the sake of just because just for the rush of being able to spread falsehood it's just like a source of power for them they feel like it is

right but it always comes to and already is in the case of us but it always comes to hit them really hard in the end.

That's why, you know, some of them just do what this guy did.

Then, not happened.

Terrorists are detained and are not yet yet You know what's as a person as a Fulot, as a second in the

short of

the

same

in the I'm

the

I'm

the

people in And actually the Communist Party in Zayuginov keeps saying bring back the death penalty.

These guys are going to be kept alive.

I mean, I don't understand.

I mean, look, I'm not here to lecture Russia.

It's a different country.

They have their own rules. They have their own rules.

They have their own thing going on.

But as an outsider, I fully agree with Zayuganov.

Bring back the death penalty and put a bullet in the head of these fucking animals.

Excuse my French. Put a bullet in their head of these fucking animals. Excuse my French.

Put a bullet in their head and put them down.

These people have lost the right...

I mean, forget a bullet.

Get a giant sword and behead them.

I know it's not the Russian way.

But, you know, it's just, it's atrocious.

I just get sick to my stomach thinking about how these guys are going to still be walking away breathing.

I mean, what, I mean, in any era of human history, I mean, Russia is such a humanitarian country compared to the U.S.

In the U.S., the police would have killed this guy, right?

These guys.

But people think Russia is some's some like brutal dictatorship.

They're not. They don't even have a death penalty.

You know, people don't know that. Russia does not have

the death penalty.

But they should.

That's what I'm saying. They really should have it.

You know? They really should have it, you know?

They really should have it.

This is just disgusting.

If they get the information they got out of these guys, really dispose of them, you know?

Even if they are sent to prison, still kill them anyway, you know, if they are sent to prison still kill them anyway you know just like have a guy shank them or something these guys should not be allowed to keep breathing you know after what they

did but this is just my opinion i'm kind of babbling like an idiot i don't really have any business telling russians what to do

with their uh with the evil scumbag criminals they catch terrorists

fact of enough to talk about

about the

non-persternment

of the country

in the country

in Crocus.

First,

was it's done

that the yomniumniques

not long to

have taken

back to restrave,

where, like,

say, say, where,

it's just hard for me to

it's just hard for me

to stomach

because I think it's like,

you know, imagine it's your

family.

Imagine your family is there.

And these scumbags are the ones

and, you know,

the one who's ultimately responsible is the one who needs to pay first of all which is ukraine which is the terrorist nazi state of ukraine the terrorist state of ukraine needs to pay for this terrorist attack.

And it's gone on too long.

They've been committing too many

terrorist attacks. They have a,

they've been doing it for a decade in the

Donbass. They're still committing terrorist

attacks in the Donbass, blowing up bus stations and killing civilians and flagrant acts of terrorism. They kill civilians like Darya Dugina, and they simply somehow got away with that. They killed that blogger in that cafe

in St. Petersburg.

And now that they've done this, enough is enough.

You know?

I'm not telling Russia what to do,

but I'm strongly suggesting,

I mean, just take Kiev and bomb the shit out of anyone who resists.

You know, Zelensky, one bullet for Zelensky, straight up. Bullet in his fucking head. I'm emotional i'm gonna calm down i want to be more

professional right but uh all the ukrainian leaders need to be tried for crimes against humanity

and these rotten

bandaris these rotten

azof scum

enough

is enough these cockroaches

need to be squashed

because I'm not Russian.

I'm not even Russian, but I'm looking from the outside, and I'm just so sickened.

I mean, you know, Americans would never tolerate this happening to them you know it's so just in our

country's to blame actually our country is the one that bears responsibility because we're

the ones arming these sick sick twisted, sick, twisted demons, these sick demonic Nazi scum in Ukraine.

And let me say what I couldn't say on Twitch.

I fully pray that Russia bombs Kiev into the Stone Age and massacres the Ukrainian government

Cateen style

I'm not good optics for Russia

I know I'm not their spokesperson

this is me as an American

me as an American. Me as an American. Russia isn't like this. I'm like this.

Right? You know, these sickos, they're literally terrorists. I mean, they're actually terrorists.

I mean, this is what they do.

And they do it in Moscow.

And it's like they're rubbing in their face.

Like, yeah, we can get away with anything, you know?

And now they're doing this.

You know, excuse me for raising my voice,

but enough is enough, man.

I mean, they're rabid frothing at the mouth, rabid dogs, and they're losing the war, and this is the type of stuff they resort to now.

With our tax dollars, key work,. Strong emphasis with our tax.

I mean, they're taking our taxes and funding.

This is what our taxes are doing.

Every clip of me is me yelling.

So let me calmly say this.

This is what our taxes are doing.

We are funding, in addition to the genocide in Gaza, terrorists to go and murder civilians

and massacre them in cold blood out in the open, and we're paying for it.

If every single American, I'm not hypothetically for legal reasons, if every single American just didn't pay taxes in 2024,

the whole thing, the whole criminal enterprise collapses instantly.

You know that?

I'm not telling you guys to do that because you will get in trouble.

But it's just if it was somehow collectively organized for the whole nation, that would be all it takes.

This is our tax dollars at work

it is so shameful it is so shameful

what a shameful country we've become what a shameful

I mean this is is disgusting. I mean, I, even when I came

back and I came to D.C. from, I was disgusted. I mean, what a disgusting, filthy country we've

become. What a filthy, disgusting country we've become supporting these Ukrainian scumbags in addition to the Zionists and Israel.

What a disgusting, filthy, filthy, disgusting, rotten to the core government we have.

And, you know, something needs to be done, man.

Just filth, filth, filth,

filth, corruption, sickness, evil,

Satanism.

And I'm thinking of Lindsay Graham, that disgusting androgyness, Senator Lindsay Lesbian Graham. Lesbian Graham.

And he's frothing at the mouth, happy and giddy about this.

And I'm thinking about these Democrat, Nazi scum. Yeah. you know russia needs to go gloves off man we've been i i haven't even been reporting the

smo because i don't know what's going on i don't know enough information but I really wish they just went

gloves off, finished the job.

I mean, they're smart. They know what they're doing. They have a

plan, but

but

but the thing is

there's, Kiev

is a demonically occupied capital.

It's literally like a capital of demonic, evil goblins, snickering and laughing.

And it's just...

The only solution to that

is the same thing that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible.

You know?

It's the only...

It's just like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where...

You know, he goes and he says, God, listen, don't destroy this city.

There's got to be some good people in it. And he went and there's just no way to save it because it's literally a demonically possessed capital.

Yeah. a demonically possessed capital. You know, I was in Moscow, you know know weeks before this tragedy this not a tragedy this atrocity

happened and you know just you can just sense goodness

in the Russian people I think

you know they're just

people out with their families

completely normal

I mean it's it's not an accomplishment

to be normal, but just people getting on with their lives, totally innocent.

And Tobias.

Hello. This is Tobias. I'm glad you see things my way now.

Alright, it ain't the time for this, Tobias.

It's really not.

Absolutely not the time for this.

But, uh... but uh you know you just see that ukrainian flag that blue and yellow flag and you just want to vomit

it's like a it's such a demonic, evil, twisted, sick entity, you know?

Just vomit.

Enough is enough.

It's just the Gondonarer

and,

organized Ukrain's

with

the

government

It's

– It's just

those how lenient

the USSR was

The USSR was an extremely lenient state and government they were not brutal they were not a brutal dictatorship they would have been if i was in charge they weren't and i know this because they didn't round up every single banderists and shoot them in the head and pile them into a ditch.

Some of these guys managed to escape and worm their way back and look at the havoc that they're causing.

The Soviet Union was nowhere near as harsh as they had every right to be, cracking down on these banderous scum.

Russia is a very humanitarian country, so is the Soviet Union, to be honest.

No death penalty.

You know, they try wish they knew they knew they had a right.

They had a right.

They have a right to be brutal.

You have a right to have a right to have a brutal response to this kind of thing, you know? So this was on the So this was on their phones.

Picture from the phones of the detainees.

Look at this. Picture from the phones of the detainees.

Look at this.

Fah!

Fooi alaikum.

Foy alaikoui alaqum. Excuse my French being so dramatic

But uh

No I'm trying to be more professional now, guys. terrorists will lose in the end god wins you know that's what we you know what you know what they say they say anger is the way

the devil gets a hold to you you want to know why because when you're angry you don't have faith that

god is going to punish evil in the end

God will win

you know

God will win in the end

God will prevail in the end

these sick demonic

scumbags won't win

so law if you want to put it win.

If you want to put it in Marxist terms, the laws of history will prevail.

You can't stop the laws of history.

You can't stop the tide of history.

It will prevail in the end.

And things will be as they're meant to be.

I sincerely believe that.

Peripiske with this Seifu lo.

Symbolica nationalists,

the joltsin, a blue-sini propor,

it's more photo-nobor

a Korean-boevica,

a non-radical

Islamist.

I mean, it's just

crazy how there's still people

that are trying to both sides

of the conflict.

Oh, right.

Both Russia and Ukraine are bad.

Yeah. One side

are actual neo-Nazi

banderate

anti-human, sub-humans,

let's call them what they are, subhuman

scum.

And the other side are just normal people trying to defend themselves and that

that terrorist attack in that city hall russia has never done neither russia nor other

neither russia nor any-backed group in Ukraine

has ever, ever, ever done anything close to that.

So tell me who the good guys and the bad guys are.

One side are just people trying to defend themselves, defend

their lives, defend their dignity, defend their existence,

and another side are these rabid, frothing at the mouth, demonic

Satanists.

All Russia did is help out their brothers in the Donbass that's what this all is about

you know they were doing this stuff in the Donbass

and rush finally Russia stepped in and said enough

we're going to help out our brothers in the Donbass we're going to help out our brothers in the Donbass. We're going to help out

our brothers, you know,

behind enemy lines. We're not

going to leave them stranded to get slaughtered

and terrorized and

flogged and destroyed

and ethnically cleansed.

You know, I can see who the good guys are in this conflict,

and I could see that from the beginning.

But there's still somehow people who somehow think that this is,

you know, they'll try to use some Marxist verbiage and be like,

well, it's two capitalist countries.

And I'm like, you are such an idiot.

It's literally the Anglo box.

You're just taking Russia, putting it in the capitalism box, and you're taking Ukraine, you're putting it in the same box. You're just taking Russia, putting it in the capitalism box, and you're taking

Ukraine, you're putting it in the same box. So therefore, they're the same thing, really? You're

an idiot. You're actually a moron and an idiot, and you should be barred from speaking in public

and sharing your opinion in public for all eternity because you're a goddamn idiot.

I mean, you're genuinely an idiot and your tongue should be removed straight up.

And your hands, your fingers.

Gone.

You could stay alive, but all those things are gone.

Good luck.

Music. all those things are gone. Good luck. Imagine if it's your family.

Who does that?

Who does that?

Who does that?

Go to a city.

And it's so organized too. They all pre-planted. It's so who does that? Go to a city and it's so organized too. They all

pre-planted it's so who does that?

I mean, you have to understand in

Moscow they don't even have contingencies

to prepare for a thing like that because

it's just not even thinkable like who would

do that? You know,, who would do that?

You know, why would anyone do that?

It's beyond the threshold of the human.

It's not human, you know? Absolutely sickening.

Let's, uh... Okay, we have some other breaking news I have to cover, and then we're going to talk about Richard Wolfe and socialism. Apparently, something has happened i'm not sure what to think about this so iran has told the united states

that it will not strike Israel if a permanent ceasefire deal is reached in Gaza.

We've all been all, we've all been waiting the Iranian response and apparently Iran has said they won't respond to Israel's war crime and violation of international law and act of war when Israel bombed an Iranian embassy,

it's completely unprecedented, they claim that they will not respond to that as long as a ceasefire is reached in Gaza.

And apparently, the United States is now trying really hard to pressure Israel to conclude a ceasefire deal to prevent Iran from responding.

You know, I have a big mouth and I want to open my mouth because I've had it shut for too long.

And I don't care if I sound like an idiot. I have mixed feelings on it.

I'm not going to get emotional.

I'm going to respond to this calmly.

So I have some mixed feelings on this.

What Iran is doing is good in the sense that it's humanitarian.

And this just shows what a selfless country Iran is, to be honest.

Because you need to understand when a country strikes and bombs your embassy,

and you don't respond to that,

you are making such a sacrifice to the to the standing of your country in terms of whether you know how much respect your commanding from others.

But Iran's reasoning is that we're not going to act just on behalf of Iran, but the whole resistance.

So Iran is saying, okay, we're going to use this as a bargaining chip to help Hamas in Gaza and help the Palestinian people, which is extremely noble. It's an extremely noble thing to do. And you know, because of that, I really, really think all of these pro-Palestine people,

get on your goddamn knees and kiss Iran's ass.

I'm sick of this.

They're literally sacrificing

their own ability to save face

and defend themselves as a country.

Their embassy was bombed. You know how crazy

that is? What country

wouldn't respond to their embassy

being bombed? Iran is not responding

if a ceasefire is reached.

That's how much they're sacrificing

for the Palestinians and further resistance.

Wait, are you supporting Hamas?

Am I supporting Hamas?

I

unconditionally. I unconditionally

I unconditionally

believe

that Hamas

must and should get an unconditional victory.

I can't say I support them because they can twist that and make it seem like, you know, make it illegal.

But like, yeah, Hamas is good.

Hamas is good. Hamas is good.

And I'm sick of pretending they're not.

I mean, I've never been pretending they're not.

But Hamas is 1,000% the good guys.

And there's like basically nothing wrong with them.

I mean, what's wrong with Hamas?

Name one thing wrong with him. There's literally

nothing.

You support America.

Yeah, me too. I'm an American.

And you know what? Hamas are literally... Hamas are literally like...

Defending the Alamo right now. That's what they're doing. Hamas are literally just like the Patriots fighting the redcoats.

So, to be clear, Hamas are the patriots and Israel are the red coats.

So that's why I think Hamas are good.

Um,

but let me be clear about this

I mean when have I ever made a mistake about the

when have I ever made a secret of that?

I am sick of pro-Palestinian, self-reclaimed pro-Palestinian people, not giving the proper

respect to Iran, and how much Iran is sacrificing for Palestine, because they're sacrificing

a lot.

And it just, it's, it's honestly at this point, you know, everyone can do their geopolitical pragmatism.

Iran is doing this for ideological reasons.

Meaning they're doing it out of honor and principle.

Like, oh, no, Iran is just doing it to project power geopolitically.

And it's like,

what does that look like,

what does that look like concretely?

Like, what does Iran actually gain economically from this?

It actually suffers a lot.

So, yeah, Iran,

just like when the Soviet Union was arming anti-colonial forces and to no gain to itself, but just to further communism, like Iran is doing the same thing.

And I'm sick of people not giving them the proper respect and appreciation for that.

I'm sick of them not giving them the proper respect and appreciation.

Because I was just going to say, you know, how dare America step in and prevent Iran from responding?

If an American embassy was bombed and someone told us don't respond

you think our government would listen

why I mean what gives

America the right to beg

even if they're begging Iran not to

respond what gives them that right their embassy

was bombed

and they don't have a right to respond. It's an act of war.

Now, Iran, be responsible. You'll be responsible, America.

We wouldn't respond if an embassy was bombed. A U.S an embassy was bombed a u.s embassy was bombed it's an embassy dude you know how

unprecedented that is a country a sovereign country not a terrorist group. A country

recognized at the UN, it's a fake

country, but it's recognized at the U.M.

Bombs in other countries' embassy.

And the U.S. is going telling Iran

not to respond, trying to

make a deal with them not to respond.

I can't, I, that's what I'm trying to say.

Like, I know I sound like an idiot, but Iran shouldn't even entertain that.

And I'm conflicted.

I'm schizophrenic.

Because, like, I know what they're doing, what they're doing, and they're coordinating with the resistance.

But it's like how dare

America try to fix this

city? There's nothing to fix it's war

it's war

it's war I mean

entire wars were fought for less

the battle between the war Entire wars were fought for less.

The battle between... The war with Troy was fought over some bitch named Helen.

Entire wars were fought for less.

And you're telling me that's not an act of...

Don't even listen to them.

Oh, no, no, no, Iran, don't respond.

You know, fuck you.

You funded Israel.

This is what they do.

Set the fucking world on fire, man.

I mean,

this is your dog.

If your dog comes on my lawn and bites my leg,

I'm getting a double-bearer shotgun and sending that dog to hell.

You come and beg me, your dog literally bit my child, and you're coming to beg me for forgiveness I will take a double barrel

and send that pit bull

straight to hell where it belongs.

Don't come.

I will get even more pissed

if you come and plead with me

to not do what needs

to be done. It literally bit my child's head

off and you don't want me to respond.

That's what's going on.

America's pit bull dog

literally bit Iran's child's head off

and America is running to

Iran begging Iran not to

respond.

What the hell is that?

What is that?

Yeah. you know just think about how crazy that is and it's it's hurting me just a little bit i'm a a little bit hurt by it because we are spoon-fed the image that Iran is an aggressive, irrational, you know, really violent, you know, scary country.

Oh, man. you know scary country Iran is led by pacifists I'm not trying to insult Haminae but he's almost like Gandhi

like the guy is an extremely peaceful you, he's so peaceful and he's so

all about peace and love and calming down and, you know, to be honest

kind of to a fault

in some ways

but we're

we're we're

we're spoon fed

such a twisted

distortion of the reality

that Iran is this aggressive,

rabid, you know,

really mean, scary country.

Iran is saying that they won't respond

to their embassy being bombed by another country.

Ah, man.

See, maybe I'm just not Islamic enough.

I am not, I don't have enough Islamic wisdom.

You know, there's half of me that's just kind of like a Zoroastrian

wizard

who's just a brutal tyrant.

You know, there's half of me is just

totally outside. To be honest,

half of me is totally outside the Abrahamic religion.

Half of me is a wicked, the wicked, violent kind of Buddhist who just says,

kill 90 million people, no problem.

Half of me is like that. Half of me is like that.

Half of me is like, you know what?

Rain down 50,000 nukes.

You know, the Abrahamics,

I'll turn the other cheek, and half of me

is not like that. I need to be more Islamic.

Because half of me, half of me is like one of these twisted Buddhist sects.

And I'm like, 80 million dead.

No problem.

Kill 30% of their population.

Clean with a katana.

Slice their heads off

don't be emotional about it

get it done

you think I'm joking but I'm not

50% of me is like that

and then 50% of me is sentimental

and whatever just like what the Bible wants.

It's a brutal world. It's a brutal, brutal world. It's a brutal world, you know? It's a brutal world. That's all I can say. It's a cruel, cruel world. It's a brutal world, you know?

It's a brutal world. That's all I can say. It's a cruel, cruel world.

It's a cruel, cruel world.

But, you know, I am not an Abrahamic supremacist.

I am Abrahamic to the core, right? I am. But I have such a deep and profound respect for the East Asian way of looking at the world.

And I'm not trying to say that it's that just pure cruelty and cold machine-like indifference.

But to me, I am a Muslim, but the context of my Islam is a very, it's just like Genghis Khan's. It's kind of like Tamerlane, like Timmer, he was Muslim, but he also had this kind of shamanic context from the Mongol Buddhist religion. And this is kind of my outlook, you know, like I'm, I am a Muslim. I am Abrahamic. But see, this is, this is what I mean. There's really two sides. Like, some people are Abrahamic, but their civilizational context is antiquity. It's ancient Greece. That's not my civilizational context in my heart of hearts i am religiously abrahamic but the deeper texture and

context is not from ancient greece it's from as, you know?

And ancient Greece is all about, you know, is all about the discreetness and tangibility of form and identity.

And that leads to a kind of morality, which takes things a little too personally, if you ask me. A little too personally sometimes.

Unironically, for example, I think the Soviet Union made a mistake during the Bay of Pigs that costed its existence.

And Mao was right.

They should have launched the nukes.

They should have launched the nukes.

Had they done that,

I wouldn't even be around.

I wouldn't have to be.

We'd be living in communism.

Had Che and Mao got their way,

and those nukes went flying there would be

we wouldn't be talking about any of this

we'd literally be living in communism

all these stupid problems

we'd be we'd be living in the wandering earth

that movie that's what we'd be living in we'd be living in we'd be living in the wandering earth that movie that's what we'd be living

in we'd be

nobody would even be talking about

politics at this point we'd be talking about

some engineer would be like

all right we got some geosysmic data

that's what people would be talking about

there wouldn't even

be politics anymore

we'd actually be like

in a way

better world

well but Haas

50% of the planet

would perish

shit happens son of the planet would perish.

Shit happens.

I mean, it's horrible on a personal level.

But the universe isn't personal.

Shit happens.

Mao was right.

You know what Mao said?

He's like, okay, let's say there's like a nuclear destruction of such a huge scale.

He was like that problem, that's not even like significant in the solar system.

He's like compared to the sun and other planets and like the storms that happen on Jupiter,

it says like nothing.

Who cares?

He said maybe it would be significant in a small part of the solar system but he said like it would be literally nothing in the galaxy literally

nothing it would literally be nothing how am I wrong?

How am I wrong?

I'm saying, listen, I'm not the evil one,

because at any moment a natural disaster can come and wipe out half of the world.

And it's literally no one's fault.

And it was literally no one's fault.

And there's no one to blame.

And we need to find humanity

in events like that

and not get angry and become

nihilus. You know, we need to,

I'm not saying we make light of it. We need

to make shrines and memorials

and honor the victims and actually glorify them in ways and mourn them but we can't take the event personally we can't blame something personally i mean that's

kind of where i'm coming from you know uh i'm a crazy person i understand You know?

I'm a crazy person.

I understand.

I understand.

But this is my ultimate,

the high point of my badness is that I don't believe humanitarianism

is the absolute

aim and object of life and existence.

I do believe that if the choice is freedom or sorry, if the choice is

slavery or death, the latter is preferable. You know who agrees with me? Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un agrees with me.

See, people will get sentimental and outraged by how I say this. But how am I wrong?

In the real Korea, millions of people are ready to lay down their lives in a nuclear war with the

South and with America to defend their honor and to defend their existence.

They're wrong and humanitarian's are right?

I don't think so.

Koreans are right.

I don't believe that Khrush Khrushchev was taking the higher ground.

No, he wasn't.

He was taking the lower ground.

And look at how much atrocities and evil sickness the West got away with after the Bay of Pigs, because Khrushchev blinked.

What gave America the right to blockade and embargo

Cuba. How many Cubans

have saw? I mean, look

don't take it with that.

You can literally have a loved one

get a disease and die. Who are you going to

blame? Who are you going to blame?

Who are you going to blame?

Who are you going to blame?

Che was right. Che and Mao were right.

Che and Mao were right, straight up.

And yes, I believe that. It's like if you're faced with an enemy that is so suicidal it's ready to take 50% of the planet with them should you submit to the enemy in the name of preserving life.

I'm not God.

I don't know if I have the answer to this.

But force me into that situation,

and I know what my choices, you know?

That's what I'm trying to say.

Like, I could be wrong.

But, like, that's my instinct.

My instinct is, hell no.

You know? Hell no. Yeah. hell no you know live in slavery i'm life is precious don't don't be frivolous about life because there's a difference

in your personal life and the life of your loved ones

and your close ones and your families of course you need to take that seriously of course you

can't take that lightly you know know, don't get it twisted.

I'm talking about something at a very large scale.

I'm not talking about life as we experience it at our actual level of experience.

There's no way to take that lightly.

And if you take that lightly, you're a disgusting sociopathic scumbag.

But when it's such a vast scale, when it's literally a planet colliding into the earth what can you do can you take that personally there needs to be a way to morally persevere through meaningless tragedies. That's the point I'm trying to make.

And I just think in a situation like the Bay of Pigs, if the imperialists deign to make that into a nuclear war, that's a meaningless tragedy.

And of course, they bear the blame. But the choice has to be made to defend your sovereignty.

You know?

It's a philosophically interesting conversation and i'm open to being challenged on it but this is my outlook you know but then on the other hand put it this way on the other hand, put it this way, on the other hand, if someone puts a gun to your head and says, enter a life of slavery or your whole family is going to be wiped out and you, every single one of us would save our family's lives

wouldn't we I would

unconditionally

so it's like the personal

the scale of morality at the personal level and at the geopolitical level and at the geopolitical level and at the cosmic level are just totally different.

Maybe that's what Iran did.

I don't know if it can be personalized like that, though, you know?

I don't know if the analogy holds.

Because one is ontological, and then the other is just like, see, see, one is just you sacrificing yourself, which is a no-brainer.

All of us should be willing to lay down our lives for our families.

If you're a man, right?

That's a no-brainer.

It's not hard to just sacrifice yourself, but sacrificing your existence, which means you're not just sacrificing yourself, but your country, your ideology, your political cause, your state, your party.

That's a different thing to do.

When you sacrifice those things in the name of humanitarianism,

I think that's something immoral, actually.

I think it's immoral to sacrifice something whose scale encompasses the lives of billions just to preserve life for its own sake in the short term.

Iran is immoral. No, I'm not saying that. But I don't think that's what Iran is doing analogously.

I think Iran's doing something else.

I'm just saying analogously, I don't think that's what Iran is doing is just like, you know, oh, it's just like selling itself out to help its family.

I don't think that's what it's doing.

You know, for example, like, if you were a leader and you had to choose.

50% of your people die or 5%.

You know, that's on you

if you choose 5%, but you have to choose it.

Right? And you can't take it personally.

Because you need to think about what's best for your country not what's best for your personal conscience you know this is what I'm trying to say If Iran struck back, if Iran struck back immediately, it would be 50% though.

I think the issue is, you know, like I said, I'm divided.

Because on the one hand, we don't live in an international situation of, sorry, we don't live in an era of international relations defined by Westphalian sovereignty, where every country has to, you know, defend its sovereignty directly and you have to respond or else you're not sovereign.

Because Iran's sovereignty obviously extends beyond the traditional form of Westphalian state sovereignty.

And therefore, Iran is kind of playing this bigger strategy that does involve these other allies it has in the region,

who it's coordinating with, which kind of subsumes and goes beyond the nation state, not even just the nation state, but just Westphalian sovereignty in general, right?

So there is that angle as well, that it's a long game. It's a bigger strategy.

But like I said, I'm conflicted.

You know, ultimately, obviously, Iran knows best.

And I'm just kind of making these arguments for purposes of demonstrating, you know, just thinking about it more critically, I guess.

Just thinking about it a little more critically I mean, but it's like they're backed into a corner because it's like, you know, they can't respond without being totally eviscerated and destroyed and having Israel lobby everything they have at them.

So all it can do is this protracted kind of war of attrition, just draining Israel, you know.

But the big lesson from this, guys, is like the pro-Palestine crowd.

If you're claiming to be against Zionism you really owe Iran a big big

thank you I'm sorry but you owe them a big thank you I mean what they're doing the

sacrifice they're making is just crazy.

Anyway, guys, on a lighter,

I want to show you the worst optics for communism and Marxism I have ever seen in the past year, or let's say the past few months which is also an achievement now uh i want

to provide some context richard wolf is a person that i defended against destiny.

And I actually suffered a lot for doing that because that's when I got canceled for the OIGR stuff.

Because I beat Destiny in a debate about Richard Wolfe, where I defended him.

And Richard Wolfe recently deigned to throw shots at us.

To be fair to him, he just didn't know who we were, what he was talking about.

But... or what he was talking about. But

then this clip was posted

which got 2 million views.

Jesus Christ, I don't know what started that.

Anyway, I want to provide some context.

Context 1.

This is about a PlayStation.

But that's not why this is bad optics, because replace PlayStation with a vacuum cleaner or a camera or a TV or a kitchen appliance, a new fridge, a new

toaster, a new coffee machine, literally any luxury consumer good. And think about the optics of what Richard Wolfe is saying and how appealing socialism sounds

when he describes it.

So let's just watch the video.

Final question to you, Professor Wolfe, under your system of worker cooperatives, would I still get my PlayStation 5?

Absolutely.

You'd have to struggle a little bit for it.

You'd have to talk to your fellow workers.

You'd have to talk about the distribution of income.

You'd have to compare your desire for PlayStation

against all the other interests of all the other people. It wouldn't be something you worked

out on your own with your particular boss in any way. It would have to be a democratic decision. You'd have to come to terms with that the

way you do with democratic decisions now in our society to the extent that we have. Oh, no, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Guys, tonight I wasn't acting very no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Guys,

tonight I wasn't acting very professional.

I'll improve next time.

But can you imagine that?

You want to get

some kind of luxury good.

Imagine it's a fridge.

And you have to weigh your desire, you have to explain yourself

to your colleagues about why you want it. He's making the current society seem like a utopia

where if you just have enough money, you can just go to the store and buy it and you

don't have to like explain yourself to anyone you just go to the store and buy it like and it's

no one's business but your own he's making the current system we have right now sound like a utopia

and i'm sorry system we have right now sound like a utopia.

And I'm sorry,

what he has done is even worse optics for socialism than like the crazy transgenders or whatever.

Like this is the worst.

This is the biggest optics disaster for communism and socialism.

I've seen in like the past four or five months.

Because how can someone say this?

How tone deaf are you?

I want to buy something, but I have to explain myself to my colleagues

at work who are going to democratically

how humiliating is that?

And it's like where, because the line between luxury goods and goods you actually need is so blurred, like a bidet.

I just got a bidet recently.

Do I have to ask my colleagues to democratically vote

if I can wash my ass

how humiliating

is that

well you technically don't need it

but it would kind of be convenient

you know like that's what I mean is always a gray area.

It's just absurd.

It just makes the current system seem so much better,

where you could just go to the store and buy it.

He's, like, making problems out of nothing. Richard Wolfe, the problem with consumption today

isn't convenience. That's actually a great thing. It's great that technology has made it convenient

for electronics to be accessible to people. That's not the issue we have.

The issue we have is wastefulness. The issue we have is efficiency of production.

The issue we have is less accessibility than there could be.

The issue is affordability, things like that.

And more importantly, the issue is being able to have electronic goods without having to worry about debt the issue is like planned obsolence or whatever

where like i don't know how to pronounce it, where they actually plan for their product to go bad after a certain time. These are some issues you can bring up. But you just made an issue out of nothing that makes capitalism, quote unquote, look really good. So this is where I want

you guys to start clipping and whatever, but we're going to talk about how would you actually

get a PlayStation under socialism? For real, and this is the real answer, right?

How would you get a PlayStation under socialism?

Now, before I start talking about this for the clippable moments,

obviously I'm not a fan of gaming and gamers, but it's just like to answer the question, you know?

It's not about gaming.

It's just in general.

Let's just let that be any other luxury.

How do you get a PlayStation under socialism?

Simple.

You use your smart device,

which could look like anything at this point in the future.

It's not even necessarily a phone anymore.

It could literally be, you know,

something that's

like some got some glutton funny glasses or contacts you wear.

Caleb Maupin.

I have a B-Day 2. We are B-Day brothers.

You know, Caleb, all I have to say to that is, how did that fat bitch fall down in that fight?

Anyway, thanks for the five, though.

Anyway, thanks for the five, though. Anyway,

how would you get a PlayStation under socialism?

It's simple.

You would order one,

and that's it.

You'd press a button. Huh? you'd press a button huh you just press a button yeah and i don't have to pay for it

yeah you just press a button and you get a playstation wait a second how good what if i press it a million

times here's a thing i know a i

is a buzzword but your consumer profile your consumption output profile the ability to calculate

the cost and the resources all of these things can be handled by

algorithms and artificial intelligence.

So if you are abusing the system and ordering 100 Playstations, or trying to order 100 PlayStation's,

that is going to be a form of data that is picked up and registered by the algorithms,

and you'll obviously be prevented.

And then the question is like, well, don't some people deserve to have more than others because

they use resources more productively?

Yes.

And that's exactly why, again, how algorithms work is that they can actually measure that. So if you're

taking, if you're ordering raw materials and you're producing more output than the input

in terms of the resources you're consuming, you will have access to have more resources allocated

to you because you're using them efficiently.

And if you create an enterprise, I mean, there's so many ways to imagine it.

If you just want to consume

a PlayStation, you know,

everyone will more or less have

the same consumer

profile may be

related to their productivity

and their contributions.

If you want to start

an enterprise, remember enterprises are

not necessarily profit-based.

They're just forms of economic

association and productive association.

Then, by default,

all enterprises start out with the same

opportunity to have the

same amount of resources. Now, the

ones that use them more productively

and efficiently and effectively

that's

measured and recorded on their profile

their enterprise profile

and they're allocated more resources so you see with

a i and algorithms we don't even need to talk about what socialism is going to look like we don't

need to talk about how we're going to organize it technology Technology has outmoded the need

for any kind of economic democracy whatsoever.

We don't need...

Put it this way.

It's capitalism that's too democratic.

We have boards of shareholders

and we have this huge managerial class and all of these like people who sit around

HR departments and people who sit around and do nothing for a living, you know, micromanaging

production at all these levels.

We can literally clean sweep, fire all that, get rid of all that, wipe it all out, and automate the whole damn thing. And have it so that the need to make decisions by human beings diminishes to a much, much smaller level than what it is now.

So Richard Wolfe is talking about the opposite of socialism.

Socialism, if you read Marx and Engels, this is the guy doesn't read Marx and Engels.

I'm sorry, Richard Wolf doesn't read Marx and Engels. This is the guy doesn't read Marx and Engels. I'm sorry.

Richard Wolfe doesn't read

Marx and Engels. Because if he did,

he would know, what did

Engels say? Socialism

is no longer, at a certain

stage in its development.

The rule of men over men, it's just the administration of things.

So in socialism, the need to politically determine production diminishes to zero at the higher stage of communism or whatever. That diminishes to zero.

There is no need to democratically decide anything about production, anything.

This is why Marx and Engels said democracy is boozoa that in the higher stage of communism

democracy too disappears because production itself

accounts for its premises

labor becomes life's

prime want

you don't need to democratically decide

anything about the kinds of

things we consume

that is registered at the level of production itself,

and production is tailored to the consumption patterns and the way of life

and the form of labor and the production patterns of society as it is.

Love it or hate it.

That's what communism is all about.

Communism is not about controlling

and adding more layers of bureaucracy to production.

What communism is about is actually getting rid of the red tape and bureaucracy, which we have now with this huge managerial class and just replacing it with technology.

I just think it's such a profound tragedy. He said something so profoundly stupid. Yeah, what a

great way to sell socialism to people.

To get a PlayStation, I have to literally beg my colleagues who then humiliate me by having a Democratic vote.

Imagine if I lost the vote.

Imagine that.

Imagine if we were work colleagues. This is like some fat woman and some like asshole guy you hate. And they convince everyone to say no. And you don't get a place.

How corrupt. That's such a recipe for disaster. It's not even funny. Can you imagine such a preposterous situation?

It's such a preposterous situation. Charmel, it's retarded to pretend that communism is when no money. What?

First of all, in a sense, it's retarded because communism is just a movement.

It's just a process. Communism isn't a final state of society.

But Marx and Engels did vaguely describe a society fundamentally transformed by the communist historical tendency,

right?

At a much later stage of development in history where they did say that money will be outmoded completely.

And that was a prediction they made, which I agree with.

Those already no money.

Yeah, in a way, sure.

I don't know about that.

I think there is money, but it's just not commodity money anymore.

It's not the money of classical capitalism.

It's a different kind of money.

It's a socialized form of money.

I agree.

Money is still necessary because of the world market remember that because of trade between sovereign countries and sovereign nations that's where there's still exchange value because China can't determine America's production directly because we have completely different laws and we have completely different.

And even for Russia and China and for Russia and Iran and China and Iran, they will conduct business

in the form of trade because they have to find a way to have a fair economic relationship

that doesn't give one party political power over the other.

And one of the reasons I've always been skeptical of the adversity to markets that Marxists in the contemporary age have.

Not because I think markets will exist forever.

I don't actually.

And I'm going to talk about that.

But because I think they need to appreciate that markets, it's neoliberal jargon but what they mean by markets

are really decentralized

forms of economic control

and economic production you cannot preemptively account for the entirety of the content

of a mode of production or economic life by an absolute plan that accounts for everything.

You can't do that.

So I think people have this adversity to markets because markets are chaotic,

but that's actually what makes markets good, if anything.

The problem with markets is they're not chaotic enough, actually.

And what I mean by chaotic is not random what I mean by chaotic

is

forcing

the mode of production

uh forcing the mode of production to account for its premises.

And why would I call that chaotic?

Because it's like, for a mode of production to reproduce itself at the level of its real premises,

it has to be in a way open to both the content of what that reproduction entails and what those premises are in a way that cannot be rationally accounted for beforehand. There's a room of contingency. Thank you so much, Smudley. I appreciate you so much. There's this level of contingency where social association in general needs to be constantly replenished, constantly reproduced, from the ground up, over and over again.

It's never just like socialism wins, and then it never has to prove itself ever again.

No, it needs to constantly, constantly prove itself economically, constantly have skin in the game, right?

And, you know, it's so cool because in the age of the information economy, which is what we're living in,

we can simultaneously have a highly, sorry, not a fully integrated economy, fully socialized economy, where everything is interconnected, while simultaneously decentralizing control, economic control, and the content of economic association.

And we can do that with algorithms and AI, which can be sensitive and respond to contingencies and changes at lower levels and aggregate

them into higher levels so that the whole thing comes together so that's such a

neat cool thing, actually. And, um,

you know, the, the issue with bureaucracy is that when an institution gets the conceit,

that it knows everything on the ground, there's people on the ground who want to just get things done.

They know what to do to get things done.

But then there'd be a rocker's just, no, no, we can't do it because if you do that, it wouldn't fit in our grander scheme and our grander plan.

And we have to check with the higher upsups and we have to and and and that is a

problem that can be solved that that markets in China for example solved but only because

markets were a primitive form of the information economy, whose form today is going to be fully digital and fully based on AI, and it's a consumption information economy, we're basically spontaneous, I'm not using the terms correctly, so just forgive me, but spontaneous forms of production and economic association will be able to

form in relation to demands

and in relation

to what people want to consume

in ways

that do not have to be mediated by

institutional bureaucracies.

While simultaneously by institutional bureaucracies, while simultaneously harmoniously being part of a greater hold,

rather than being the anarchy of production,

represented by capitalism, which is on its way out completely.

So I think that's

that's

really what I mean, you know?

I think that

I think that, I

think that

I don't know why Marxists

self-proclaimed Marxists aren't talking about these

kind of things

because

saying that production should be more politicized and when I say politicized I don't mean

made politically sovereign I mean like made a sight of political contention and disputation.

That is the opposite of progress.

That's literally reactionary, you know?

It's everything people hate about today's capitalism actually people hate this idea

people hate the power that hr departments already exert on the content of their products

you think people want hr the equivalent of like an HR department, given absolute

dictatorship to force us to democratically decide if we can buy Charmin toilet paper rather

than cardboard toilet paper? You know, it's just kind of ridiculous.

But here's the kicker, right? It's like, okay, so communism was only possible because of computers? No, actually. The communist system, let's call it that, that the USSR had, that Mao's China had, that all these other countries had, it worked, it actually did work really well for what it was intended for. It's just that a new historical era emerges after that one, which is based on, thank you so much Joshua, which is based on,

thank you so much, Joshua,

which is based on information

based economics

and

consumer economies,

and consumerism,

and light industries. there's something called heavy industry heavy industry is

like the production of steel and timber and wood or whatever and oil and charcoal and chemicals

i mean the soviets were great, the Soviets were great at that.

They were great at that.

They were unparalleled.

Everything heavy industry equipment, they've wiped the floor.

But light industry forms as a layer on top of that foundation where, okay, after we have this foundation of heavy industry, we can creatively apply the resources we extract from that to produce consumer goods on a mass scale, you know, to produce automobiles, to produce

this, to produce that. And at the

secondary level, it's a higher and

more complex form of

planning. You know,

American corporations would visit the Soviet Union and they'd be like, you know,

the Soviet Union is one big corporation.

And that's actually true. The Soviet Union was run like a heavy industry cartel from the 1920s or the 1930s.

The advanced level of economic planning and information-based economics represented by the post-new deal and post-war light industries never took hold in the Soviet Union because there was this battle against a

bureaucracy and Stalin was fighting them and there was also other things as well.

But that never took hold in the Soviet Union.

And it could have.

And how could it have done this without markets?

Through computers.

At least as early as the 19... See, the Soviet Union was chilling from the 40s to the 60s. They were doing really well. The 70s is when the stagnation began, right? Coincidentally, at the same time, the 1970s, they could have implemented computer technologies to plan the entire Soviet economy way more efficiently, way more productively, and solve the crisis of light industrial consumer goods production and allocation and literally

became more advanced than the West. And Paul Cockshot has written books about this. Paul

Cockshot tried to convince the Soviet leadership of this and failed.

The architects of Oghaz tried to convince the Brezhnev government to do this, and Brezhnev government said no.

Why did they say no? Because it would have destroyed

the bureaucracy.

It would

have destroyed

the political

order in

the Soviet

Union and the

political stability.

It would have

led to rapid

social change

which the

political order

was not adapted

to.

But materially it would have been possible.

It's just at the spiritual level, it wasn't possible, right?

Yeah. and you know and also why didn't china do this China didn't have computer China did not have the ability to produce computers at this time

on a on a mass scale. It couldn't, it simply

couldn't. It needed, trying to actually still need it to industrialize more at the primary

level. The national industrial system created by Mao did not complete China's industrialization.

And one of the justificatory causes of Deng's reforms was the acquisition of Western technology.

So people are like, well, why doesn't China just do that now?

Maybe it is.

Thank you so much, Raphael.

I mean, maybe, have you ever thought about something?

Maybe China is transitioning into that.

I mean, look at China's apps, like WeChat and like how everything is centralized in one app, all the data, all the consumption.

I think China won't do

that immediately

because there is

the issue of

the world

market.

Right?

But China

is trying to

accelerate

the development

of the world

market and the

productive

forces at the global level,

probably because it recognizes that this is what's necessary to overcome markets entirely, right,

to lay the foundation for that. Um...

But I am a Dengist.

Okay, whatever Dengist.

I support Deng Xiaoping thought.

And I agree that the role of markets in China, I mean, it's a great and beautiful achievement and accomplishment, but markets in and of themselves are not eternal.

And as a matter of fact, what is a market?

You know, when we think of a market, we think of entering a fruit stand, sorry, we think

of entering a marketplace and everyone's, all these vendors are there that have fruit stands and all these different kind of stands selling stuff like a bizarre right and it's basically just individual sellers selling things to people and trade happening and bartering happening and that's a market right but

all a market in today's context refers to is a form of data collection, a decentralized form of data collection, not individual trade, but decentralized data collection.

But yeah.

I mean, like, neoliberalism is a huge myth.

There's no return to classical liberal economics.

What really happens is that we have a new information economy, which is taking an archaic form, wearing the corpse of 19th century liberal capitalism.

Because we don't have the institutions to adapt to the new relations of production that have emerged from the 20th century.

Capitalism and classical liberalism is just the costume that the new information economy wears.

It's a themed costume.

But it's not actually the reality. Anyway, guys, I've talked a little too much.

And I'll see you guys on Tuesday.

You know, I'll address something really briefly about leftists talk.

I mean, guys, we don't really need to respond.

Okay. respond. I think you guys have been doing a good job, but let's not lose focus

that we really need to be responding to the right wing right now.

Thank you so much

CO2. Appreciate you.

I mean, those leftist

gate, or I should call them. C.O.

What's going on, man? I should

really call them Pan-Leftus.

Those Pan-leftist gatekeepers

they're on their way out.

If you see Hassan's recent, like, Discord logs, he's, like, talking about how upset he is, that he's losing viewers.

So, like, that's why he's attacking Jackson

and kind of losing his mind

and I just kind of think

with what we have planned this year alone

I just don't think we need to lower ourselves

to

to really care about that stuff

it's like okay let

let Carl Bajer

um

scream about LaRouche

I I literally forgot about LaRouche.

I literally forgot about LaRouche altogether.

Like I forgot that that was a thing for like two months.

And I saw that.

I was like, wow, that's kind of like some... That's nostalgic honestly for like two years ago when i guess

that was like a thing people were saying um um yeah I saw that I just don't think we have to care about them all that much

I mean like I know you guys saw like pamphlets started joining in on some of the hate against Jackson.

And I just DMed him.

And apparently Jackson did, too.

I didn't even know about that.

But, you know, I told him, like, listen, I think you're a good faith guy, you know.

And it was basically a misunderstanding. And, like, listen, I think you're a good faith guy. You know, and it was basically a misunderstanding.

And, like, you know, he was cool.

Like, people like pamphlets, I do care.

I feel like it's like this, guys.

If you want to care about leftist opinions, care about the people who have potential,

who agree with us on, on like 90% of things.

And if they disagree with us about culture, you know, I don't really think that's a primary contradiction.

Now, I maintain my views on culture, and I'm not, I'm not saying I'm compromising them, but that's not the primary contradiction, all right? Um, Pamphlets is like a cool guy who,

who's trying to defend communism

in a very just like simple way

and I just think that's kind of

you know with so many people spreading lies

and like myths

about communism killing a billion people

and being so it's such a failure

and that you know Russia's bad and China's bad it's

like you know he's kind of doing good work and we don't really have to care if they disagree

with us on some culture stuff because that's not like what we that's not

like what we

that's not something we really care about

that much ourselves

to be honest

we we care about

Marxism

Leninism

I think that's what people

need to understand

we're not right-wingers.

We're just Marxist-Leninists.

We don't believe that

we are in some pan-leftist

basket with Trotskyites

and anarchists and democratic socialists and social...

We don't think that there's this like pan-leftist...

No, we're Marxist-Leninists. We're communists with a capital C.

There's no... we're not allied to other leftists.

There's no such thing. there's no such thing.

There's no such thing as a general left.

A left-wing position refers to a position with an actual concrete subject at a specific point of time.

What a left-wing looks like in America is not really clear right now because there's no established left wing position at all in America in any form. There's no international left. There's no global left. There's no such thing. There's no pan-leftism. We are Marxist-Leninists. We do obviously occupy a left-wing position in the U.S., but that doesn't place us in, it's not a spectrum.

That's my issue with politics.

That's what actually I'm going to say.

Politics is not a spectrum.

There's no political spectrum.

There is a right wing and there is a left wing.

And there's no spectrum.

Meaning, we are the left wing where Marxist-Lennon is.

If you're an anarchist, if you're a tro-you are objectively objectively a right winger and in terms of how actual politics works you are on the right because because being left wing or being right

or being right wing is not about your ideology.

It's about what position you're communicating in relationship to power.

What position do you communicate in relationship to political power right now?

Specifically in the form of hegemony and the imperialist hegemony, what position are you communicating objectively?

For example, if you attack Jackson Hinkle, you are a right-winger. Because it doesn't matter what ideological justification you have for that. Objectively speaking, you are communicating a position in relation to power that the number one anti-imperialist voice and the number one voice for Gaza in the U.S., the number one voice for Palestine in America.

And that's literally how the enemy see, how the hegemony sees it, that that guy needs to be taken down and targeted and attacked.

For example, if you're in

Palis... Think about it this way. For all the people

bad Jacketing Jackson,

I'm just going to, like, chuck a nuke

at them, and they won't recover. And I'm just

going to do it once, all right?

If you lived in Palestine,

you would be saying the same thing about Hamas.

You would say that, because I don't like Hamas, actually Hamas is Zionist, and I'm the real resistance.

But Hamas is objectively the one fighting Zionism.

And then what if someone said, oh, but Hamas was created by the Mossad to fight the secular left, the secularist PLO, which is an argument people make sometimes.

But that doesn't mean Hamas isn't fighting Israel right now.

And that even has more truth to it than the claims that are being made by Jackson, which are demonstrably false.

And how do you know they're false? Because none of these people will actually make these claims in a live setting where either Jackson or myself are there to respond to them, where they could just be dismantled in two seconds.

You know, I saw this one guy being like, well, Jackson, how did he surf with Tulsi Gabbard when he was like a kid?

Because he lived in Orange County.

His ex-that same ex-girlfriend literally started dating Jonah Hill like a year after they broke up.

It's a small world in Orange County, okay?

And, you know, well, is it a coincidence that Tulsi Gabbard's a sci-op officer?

So I looked this up myself because, like, people kept saying this.

Oh, Jackson's connected to a

sci-op,

Scott.

It's such a disingenuous

claim.

Because Tulsi Gabbard

in 2019 and

2020 at the time

Jackson was interviewing

her wasn't even

an unactive duty.

She wasn't part

of any

sci-op, whatever, so that's just nonsense.

Second of all,

Tulsi Gabbard wasn't known for that.

I wasn't born yesterday.

Tulsi Gabbard was known

for being

skeptical of regime change in Syria.

And that's why everyone listened to her, and that's why she was controversial, and that's why she was a thing, because of her view on regime change in Syria.

That's why I have uncles who liked

Tulsi Gabbard at that time

not even knowing really who she...

I mean, if you go deep into

her background,

she's an extremely problematic

person because she's like a Hindu

Hindu-Tha, Modi anti-China problematic person because she's like a Hindu Hindu

Modi anti-China

whatever

but just rhetorically what she was

saying and getting in trouble for

about regime change in Syria

was and how she

met Assad or whatever

like that's what she was known for

the idea that she like represented

the interest of feds

at that time at least

in anyone's eyes is

non unless you think that

you know the it's

it's and this is another thing she

she later joined the sciop division

of the US Army

so do you think she was acting as

an as a on behalf of

US Army psychological

operations to go meet with Assad and speak out against regime change in Syria?

That sounds like nonsense.

Also, it sounds like these people aren't even educated about how the deep state works.

The CIA and the U.S. Army are not the same thing d o d and cia

actually clash and are not united actually they're the different departments of the deep state

compete with each other and they're different factions, and they fight each other.

As far as U.S. Army Psiops being deployed domestically, obviously it's a thing, but does the U.S. Army concern itself? Does the U.S. Army concern itself? Does the U.S. Army Scyops division is that

is her role tasked with like

focusing on like

stuff going on on Twitter

because I think that's a different

I think that's more DHS

am I wrong?

I think even the Air Force gets

in on that too, by the way.

I don't think people know what they're talking about

when they're saying these things, you know?

There's like a bunch of different intelligence agencies

doing all these different stuff.

But it doesn't even matter because

when Jackson met her and he met her to interview her by the interview was literally on his channel before it was deleted um if if she was acting as a sci opop agent by being critical

of regime change

in Syria, how

would Jackson

have known that?

How would my

uncle have known

that who liked

Tulsa Yabbard?

How would anyone

have known that?

It's just

such a stupid thing

to say.

And I just think that's literally it.

Is there anything else that's claimed?

That's it.

That's literally it.

So it's just nonsense.

But like I said,

if you attack Jackson Hinkle,

you are a right winger and a fascist collaborator and an imperialist shill.

And I know you have an ideological justification in your mind,

but objectively, that's what you're

doing. Objectively, you're communicating

a position

in relation

to the powers that be,

objectively, where

you are trying to

delegitimize

one of the most popular

anti-Zionist voices

on social media.

Your reason doesn't matter.

That's what you're doing.

See, that's how the Army thinks, too.

The Army doesn't care about ideology.

The Army thinks in terms of pure

results and pure objective

operations. That's how

intelligence agencies and the Army

thinks. If you're

communicating a position that's meant to delegitimize one of the most popular and effective

voices against Zionism, you are a right winger objectively. That's what a right-winger, objectively. That's what a right-winger is doing.

Objectively, you're running cover for power. You may have this crazy theory, this crazy

paranoid conspiracy theory that like, um, actually, it's like 40 chess.

Like Jackson's actually only the most popular voice against the genocide because he's trying

he's actually in the long term

like 10 years from 5 years from now

he's going to

sheepdog all of these new supporters

into some imperialist agenda

okay like well well, but like,

but that, but there's nothing objective or tangible about that claim.

Like, okay, but where is he doing that?

Where is he actually doing that?

You are hypothesizing that this is going to be the consequence of what he does because you think that progressive cultural issues are the most important thing in the minds of Americans, and that if Jackson is saying

things against progressive cultural issues,

that delegitimizes

there is... That's the argument that Hassan

and his fans were making,

that, like, Jackson is

delegitimizing

the Palestinian resistance by associating them with anti-woke politics.

But this country is more or less split probably 80-20, where 20% are pro-woke and 80% are against it.

Guys, am I wrong about that?

Like, where does this idea come from that?

Cultural progressivism is particularly wildly popular in this country.

On university campuses, that's true.

But is that true for the majority of people?

First of all, no.

Second of all, it's going in the opposite direction now.

So actually, by doubling down on this

woke, whatever you want to call it,

you're the one who's wrecking.

You're the one who's harming the optics of a cause.

You know, if a regular American

thinks that Hamas are a bunch

of woke scolds who want to cancel

them and

you know, teach their

children

bizarre

views about sexuality and like groom them i think that's going to

demonize hamas a lot um secondly you know i live near Dearborn and Hamtramck where members of the Arab American community were attending school board meetings outraged at the sexuality, the hypersexualization of their children in the schools.

That wasn't the result of a Jackson Hinkle sciop. That was literally an organic response.

And I'm sorry to tell you this, but the facts are the majority of the people in the world resisting U.S. imperialism are not really a big fan of American cultural progressivism. They're just not.

Like, yeah, there's exceptions. Cuba has its own thing going on. And I'm not saying it's a

it's universally true. I'm just saying in general, it's not

really that popular.

And I feel like I'm underselling

it, because if you talk to the Chinese,

if you talk

to Russians, if you

talk to Iranians, if you talk to people

in the Middle East, I don't know what to tell you, dude, if you talk to Iranians, if you talk to people in the Middle East,

I don't know what to tell you, dude.

If you go to Lebanon and act like you do here,

you'll disappear.

I'm not even trying to deem...

I'm just trying to tell you,

like, you need to understand.

You come from a different culture. Jackson isn't offending anyone except you. He's literally only offending you. No one else. That's all I'm

trying to say. Okay. So that's all I'm going to say on it to be honest it's not even really worth

addressing um yeah though the woke era is coming to an end that's why we don't really

focus on anti-woke politics because it's pretty much over.

Now they're kind of like they're basically, it's been over for a minute, to be honest.

Now what they're doing is

they're pivoting to

like a fake based messaging where they're

like, you know, actually, you know,

we're going to go back to having a masculine

U.S. Army and we're going to kill

all the black people in Haiti because it's based.

I mean, that's pretty much the orientation now of the U.S. government.

It's basically Malay.

It's like Malay from Argentina.

You know, like that's the orientation now.

Yeah. from Argentina, you know, like, that's the orientation now. Because the woke stuff didn't work.

They tried it, and it just, it was like they were, it it's like what is it called when a corporation is like

testing if a consumer will like the product

what is that called again

they were market they were focused

testing the woke stuff it was a disaster

so now they're they're

going to overcorrect in the

opposite direction.

And just like we were against

the woke stuff, we're going to be against this

nonsense too, you know? Focus

group testing, exactly.

But in any

case, you know, that that's pretty much it.

You know, I think we covered everything I wanted to cover.

I'll see you guys Tuesday.

See you guys Tuesday. See you guys Tuesday.

Bye bye-bye.