🔴 RED PILL NEWS | FREE PALESTINE 🇵🇸

Watching good times and what's happening and all that good shit.

Eating oatmeal.

Shout out Uziah and Samir.

That's right.

They ask me where I get my song from.

Go.

See you, Joe.

Yo, niggas wanna clap me.

Monkey see monkey dope.

I'm coming with black gloves, the snubbers on chunky toe.

African gold dentals, iced out metals.

I seen niggas get murked by the heels of the lettuce.

I threw at one nigga and once the other died by the echo.

My head got some Darshan niggas that look like freckles.

Paying homage, my Islamic Myris Thomas.

I threw up rhymes in my camel suit.

I seen in my vomit.

It's a world premiered me.

I live when I'm dragging the shoddy as down in here, here.

Holding bricks square where.

My man got 85 to life a nice year, yeah.

Same day he spit at the judge and threw a cheer, cheer.

Over large cake, you know it's on.

Check me.

Fun, strike a mixtape.

Plus, we take down your squadron.

Ghost in the ski mask I was chilling and laying Chilean like sea bass and nobody was asking the pussy don't even fix your lips like lady your plastic Well fed, got all the bread I'm sad, I need some head I might tell you you the one while I'm hitting it Till I post not come to my senses I tried to meditate, I tried to medicate She had two phones, thought she was Kevin Gates She was lying bout it, then she came clean I was so mad, I fucked her so hard she can't clean Got that new It's a Maybe She got that new bag, it's a shay nane I take it too far, I take it way, wait, wait I'm pulling cougar out of KH

With takedown.

With a no-face that could take form just like a snowflake.

No reusable hammers, they all throwaways.

Yeah, we can get blamers and hammers do damage.

I'm like a global street activist, flooded with shines.

Jackson 5 before Folk Towns, I get better with time.

Run up in the big gambling spots, cocking it back.

I'm talking to Agnes, Agatha, Jermaine, and Jack.

DVS's on custom watches that's made from scratch.

My birthstone is like an Easter egg, enemal fat.

My floor's gained, four seats in a glass.

It came with a glass of July sun, beat the R's in Vegas.

Shook the Coke for the big lumps and the Pyrex trainers.

Ran up in housing who had worked with the skies as painters.

Pop like bitches with fake asses that leak like drainage.

Our language, too much money, we can't explain it.

Over large cake, you know it's on.

Checkmate, you can get sponges like a mixtape.

Would take down your scar.

With the no-face that could take form just like a snowflake.

No reusable hammers, they all throw ways.

Yeah, we can get blamers and hammers do damage and

I'd like to thank all the MCs across New York, Bronx, Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens, Long Island.

Giving birth to pretty tone out here on Staten Island.

We be rounding, nigga.

I peek.

Happening and all that good shit.

Eating oatmeal.

Shout out to Zion Zamir.

That's right.

They ask me where I get my song from.

Let's go.

See you, show.

Niggas wanna clap me, monkey see monkey dope.

I'm coming with black gloves to snub the zone, chunky toe.

Advocate gold dentals, iced out metals.

I seen niggas get murked by the hills, it's the lettuce.

I threw at one nigga and watched the other die by the echo.

I had got some dark-skinned niggas that look like freckles.

Pay homage, my Islamic, my wrist Thomas.

I threw up rhymes in my camel suit.

I seen in my vomit.

It's a world premiere me.

I lift when I'm dragging it shawty.

It's down in here, here.

Holding bricks square where.

My man got 85 to life in that year, yeah.

Same day he spit at the judge and threw a cheer, cheer.

Over large cake, you know it's on.

Check me, you can get sponged like a mixtape.

Plus, we're gonna get a bunch of money.

Then no.

in a ski mask.

I was chilling and laying, chilling in lights and fasting.

Nobody was asking the pussy, don't even fix your lips like lady, you're plastic, yeah.

Well fed, got all the bread.

I'm sad, I need some head.

I might tell you you the one while I'm hitting it.

Till I post not come to my senses.

I tried to meditate, I tried to medicate.

She had two phones, thought she was Kevin Gates.

She was lying bout it, then she came clean.

I was so glad I fucked her so hard, she can't clean.

Got that new, it's a Maybe.

She got that new bag, it's a Shane.

I take it too far, I take it way, wait, wait.

I'll pull a cougar out of KNH.

Overlouse cake, you know it's on.

Check pain, you can get sponsored like a mixtape.

Plus, we take down your strong.

With the no-face that can take form just like a snowflake.

No reusable hammers, they all throwaways.

Yeah, we can get blamers and hammers do damage.

I'm like a global street activist, flooded with shines.

Jackson 5 or 4 voltowns, I get better with time.

Run up in the big gambling spots, cocking it back.

I'm talking to Agnes, Agatha, Jermaine, and Jack.

Even S is no custom watches that's made from scratch.

My burpstone is like an Easter egg, a memorable fact.

My floors gained four seats in the glass.

It came as a glass of July sun, beat the R's in Vegas.

Shook the Coke for the big lumps in the Pyrex streeters.

Ran up in housing who had worked with the skies as painers.

Pop like bitches with fake asses that leak like drainage.

Our language, too much money, we can't explain it.

Over large cake, you know it's on.

Checkpate, you can get sponged just like a mixtape.

Plus, we take down your smarter revolt.

With the no face That could take form just like a snowflake No reusable hammers, they all throw ways Yeah, we can give blamers and hammers do damage and

To thank all the MCs across New York, Bronx, Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens.

Yeah.

Giving birth to pretty tone out here on Staten Island.

Nigga, that's right.

Right here.

Don't

Rob P.

The drain of farm

Drowned.

Call me on the phone Tell me of the love

Hard to get believed

Rise without faith

without a spit age.

You got no human grace.

You rise without a face.

So much time.

To keep the dream alive.

It makes me mad the truth for loving what was you?

Without a thing.

without a face

Eyes without a face Got no human grace Your eyes without a face

The music, you make a dip into someone else's park and then make a slip.

You steal a car and go to Let's Make us.

Oh, jiggalopoo, hang.

Stay lying.

Hush little baby, don't you cry?

Everything

Stiffing that up, her lip up, little later.

I told ya daddy's here to hold you through the night.

I know mommy's not here right now, and we don't know why.

We fear how we felt inside.

It may seem a little crazy, pretty baby.

But I promise mama's gonna be alright.

Now, hush, little baby, don't you cry.

Everything's gonna be.

I told ya, let's get a hold ya through the night.

I know mommy's got it right now, and we don't.

I told you daddy's here to hold you through the night I know mommy's not here right now

Crazy prettiness.

Johnny 2x4, thank you so much for the subscription.

What's up, everybody?

Supposed to go live yesterday.

I was too busy working on that video I just showed you.

Not the intro, the one before that.

All me, by the way, I had to get all the footage.

I had to get everything myself.

Blackpack, let's fucking go.

What a great way to start the stream.

Ah, let's go, Blackpack.

Yeah, I got all that stuff myself.

It was such a pain in the ass.

I was inspired by some viral TikToks and Twitter posts, you know, contrasting the Met Gala to Gaza and other things and

It was all me.

That was all me.

So I hope you enjoyed that two minute video.

I'm not usually a video editor myself.

I just used Cap Cut.

Desktop cap cut, it's actually so surprisingly easy to use, but I'm not going to get into that because no one gives a no one gives a hoop.

Sorry, I'm not going to be swearing.

We have some things to talk about today.

And there's some issues, not going to name names, from the community that I'd like to resolve.

There's some behavior I'd like to discourage.

Uh but we're not going to get into that right away.

We're going to instead talk about something a little bit more prescient.

And then guess what?

We're going full Reddit today because I'm going to be talking about the Star Wars prequels as well today.

So it's actually going to be a really fun day.

It's actually going to be a really fun day, and I have a lot in store.

But something really interesting transpired over the course of the past day.

Let me actually see exactly what we are talking about here.

Ed Gentry with the five.

This desktop doesn't work.

Ed Gentry with the five.

What's up?

Sorry, fucking desktop is acting like a piece of shit.

Let me find this.

Tweet.

Interesting stuff going on.

There we go.

Let's just share the RTSG um

RTSG description of what happened.

'Cause we want to go to our own people as trusted and reliable sources, you know, where it's not like we're gonna trust, you know,

It's not like we're just gonna trust random.

random people we don't even know.

Anyway, let me give you some background.

It's really interesting 'cause last stream I was covering the Twitter battle between Jackson and Nick Fuentes.

Now Nick Fuentes' friends have joined his his allies like Suleiman, a few other people, like that Lucas Gage guy.

They've all jumped ac on the and the uh this other guy, I forget his name, he calls himself an anti-Marxist though, but he's scared to debate Marxists, so that's a really interesting contrast.

Anyway, they all jumped on this bandwagon of accusing Jackson of being a Fed.

Why?

Because Jackson said that as Americans, you know, we should have solidarity with Hamas if we're American patriots, and that Hamas is good, and there's no reason to condemn Hamas.

At the very minimum, let's say, because I feel like this element was missing from the discourse.

You know, Nick Fuentes was constantly saying, Oh, no, no, support for Hamas is not allowed because they're terrorists.

And it's like,

Even if you believe that it's dangerous to express sympathy for Hamas, which I used to think by the way, but that was mainly because I was afraid of being deplatformed from Twitch, not so much because I believed it was against the law, which it isn't, but we're going to get into that too, by the way.

And a lot of this is going to be the legal side and the optic side of things, so keep that in mind.

But.

Even if you were to ignore that, you don't have to call Hamas terrorists.

You don't have to smear them.

You don't have to attack them.

Even if you're reluctant to express explicit support for them in the sense of sympathy and, you know, ideological solidarity, let's call it, you don't actually have to start repeating Zionist propaganda and call them terrorists, which is what Nick Fuentes did.

Nobody forced him to do that at gunpoint.

He did that himself.

He started gibbering about how it's because he's a Christian and that he takes issue with suicide bombings, even though actually Orthodox Christians.

W was she an Orthodox Christian?

I don't know.

Members of the SSNP who were Christian were the ones who pioneered the practice of suicide bombing, not Muslims.

So it's just kind of a total ignorance.

Um

But in any case, he went out of his way to call them terrorists.

This isn't, see, Lucas Gage made a tweet, and he just goes, you know, oh, Jackson's definitely a Fed because you can't.

It's not that I'm condemning Hamas, it's just I can't support it.

It's like, well, he Fuentes was calling them terrorists.

That's what it's at issue here.

He was calling Hamas terrorists.

No one's forcing him to do that.

We'll get into the optics stuff in a second.

Okay.

Now, strangely enough, this is so strange.

So coincidental.

Some of the guys at RTSG hypothesized the two might be connected.

BDS decided to release a statement.

Falsely claiming that the Popular Front from the Liberation of Palestine and other resistance groups signed off on it, by the way.

That basically said this in the statement: more or less the same thing that Nick Fuente said: It's not helpful to express solidarity with armed resistance.

You should only support Amila, let's go.

They're like, it's not helpful to express support or solidarity for any violent groups or any armed resistance or the actions of Hamas, whatever.

And they're like that's actually hurting our cause And you know who shares the same opinion is Norman Finkelstein himself.

Norman Finkelstein also thinks that the way to go for Palestine in America is just this kind of Gandhi stuff.

Because for some reason Norman Finkelstein and the B D S movement believe that South Africa was liberated by Gandhi and not by armed militants of the M K.

They believe that Gandhi is the universal paradigm of a successful militant, you know to just purely non-violent forms of national liber n notice I'm being very, very careful with my words.

National liberation.

Okay, so we're talking about a system like the apartheid system.

It's explicitly an apartheid system.

We're talking about occupation by a foreign government.

I know we're saying America's under occupation, but I don't call for violence in the US.

I'm very careful not to do that, and I don't do that.

I don't call for violence in any capacity.

uh in the United States.

But

BDS is under the delusion that the Palestinian struggle is like the Gandhi struggle, but it's not a Gandhi struggle, okay?

It's even a little more

warlike it's even more warlike than the anti-apartheid struggle.

Although there's similarities, of course.

But Palestinian statehood was very clearly defined, a very clearly defined aim under international law.

Whereas the militants of the anti-apartheid struggle were fighting for a new kind of state, a pro-African

A just state for and by the peoples of Azania, the African peoples in the region.

which was an aspiration for a future thing, right?

Of course the apartheid was a kind it was an occupation.

And that's why it was a national liberation struggle.

But I'm just using these examples to emphasize how diluted the view of the liberals who gatekeep and monopolize BDS are.

This is including Norman Finkelstein.

I don't know what his relationship toward the leadership is.

Anyway, they thought they were very clever speaking on behalf of the resistance.

And many, of course, many pan-leftists jumped on board, basically saying, Yeah, you know, anyone who's supporting Hamas is a Fed and they're trying to wreck everything and it's not good optics.

And these are coming.

And this is another, this is something else BDS was saying.

Just like Nick Fuentes and Co.

They were like, these are infiltrators.

These are bad faith actors and infiltrators trying to make us look bad by associating our position with one of solidarity with the armed resistance when we don't do that at all.

We just believe in Gandhi stuff, right?

So here's something that's pretty funny that happened.

Something pretty funny, if you ask me, at least.

The actual PPFLP, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Issued a statement denouncing the National Committee of BDS on their position of armed resistance.

They say it contradicts the legitimacy of our people in practicing resistance and ignores the state of consensus around it.

We followed the position issued in the statement that was issued in English regarding the position required to be adopted regarding armed resistance by movements of solidarity with our people.

We reject the call contained in that statement and we value all positions, forces and personalities that express their support for the Palestinian resistance in the face of a war of genocide and Zionist colonialism.

So they they basically denounced them and you know basically trashed their position and said it wasn't representative at all.

Uh the boycott committee was trying to speak on behalf of all of the boycott committees spread throughout the world.

Yeah, and that

that the National Boycott Committee located in R Ramallah

Uh, isn't the one in charge, okay?

So they're basically trying to say that the Palestinian Authority, who I think was related to this statement, maybe, maybe not, I'm not exactly sure, but I heard I heard that at least from someone else.

They're basically saying, like, listen, that's not a mono that they don't have a monopoly on the Palestinian struggle.

On the contrary, the forces that have actually made progress when it comes to the Palestinian struggle are the ones waging armed struggle, okay, located primarily in Gaza.

But also in the West Bank as well.

So the Palestinian Authority doesn't speak on behalf of the entirety of the Palestinian struggle.

That was incredibly interesting.

Because here we had a convergence between the.

I don't want to call them liberal Zionists.

But it's awfully sounding like liberal Zionism nowadays when you hear the BDS or Norman Finkelstein condemn armed resistance and it's just kind of nonsense.

You know, this is a war.

We're talking about a war.

We're not talking about a civil rights movement.

We're talking about a fucking war.

Okay?

Between two different countries actually.

Actually, not even between two countries, because Israel isn't a country.

So it's even more aggressively a war.

It's between a country and a foreign aggressive occupying force that is using armed force to exterminate and commit crimes against everyone.

I find it incredibly ridiculous.

Um

I find it incredibly ridiculous.

That there's some people in the West who are like, no, no, okay, we can secretly support armed resistance, but like, it's either bad optics or it's going to get you in trouble with the feds.

So I'm going to lay this issue to rest, and in one fell swoop, I'm going to address Nick Fuentes and Co., Soleiman, and the BDS.

And I'm going to just, in one fell swoop, address the issue of the legal side of things, the government side of things, and the Fed side of things.

Okay, point number one: Is expressing sympathy or solidarity with Hamas or with the armed Palestinian resistance going to put you on the radar of the feds?

And the answer is probably.

But wait, this is the important thing.

You are already on the radar of the feds for much, much less.

That's the point I'd like to get across.

Even if you're one of these BDS people who doesn't express support for armed resistance, you're still on the radar of the feds.

You are on the radar of the feds if you are a dissident of any kind.

Doesn't matter what kind of dissident you are.

If you are any kind of dissident who holds views that dissent from the majority opinion, and this isn't just on politics, it's even on cultural issues.

As we saw with Samira being on one of these lists because of her views on the Manosphere or whatever.

So if you have any dissenting views on any topic whatsoever, you are in all likelihood on the radar of the feds.

And that's just the s that's the simple truth of it.

You're not more or less on the radar of the feds based on your opinion on Hamas, actually.

You're they are you're on their radar, and they will, if they have the opportunity, try to get you for something for breaking some kind of law if they can.

It doesn't matter how extreme your ideological position is, as long as you're any kind of dissident, they're after you.

And if you ask me, sometimes they even go after the unproblematic people even harder, just because I guess it's they see it as a challenge or something.

But it's just a tendency I've observed and I've been able to observe before.

But wha how should we actually understand the meaning of support?

If an organization is on the US designated terror list, you cannot materially support them.

Obviously, you cannot materially support them.

You can't send them aid.

You can't engage in any kind of services for them.

You can't do things for them on their behalf.

You can't act as an agent on their behalf.

And that much is crystal clear.

You can't do any of that.

Okay?

That is actually illegal.

And this is the important thing.

You should follow the law because Jackson is not, nor myself, nor anyone else I know or I can see who's expressing solidarity because there's a difference with the armed resistance.

None of those people are advocating for you to violate the actual law that's on the books.

So, Lucas Gage, I saw him say that actually it's illegal.

No, it's not illegal to express a spiritual solidarity with Hamas.

That's not illegal at all.

What's illegal is providing material support of any kind.

And before you make the Oh, it's going to put you on the radar of the Feds, you're already on the radar of the Feds, don't worry about that.

The important thing that you should do is follow the law.

Don't break any laws and don't give them any excuses to get you in trouble.

and be aware of what the law actually is.

So there you go.

Okay, so I want to settle that issue once and for all on the legal side of things.

And on the side of, like, oh, I'm going to be put on a Fed watch list.

Like, Jackson trying to get everyone on a watch list.

You are on a watch list anyway, especially if you're Lucas Gage.

If you know about Lucas Gage's background in his past, he's already on a watch list.

Nick Fuentes is already on a watch list.

So is everybody in America First.

Everyone is on a watch list.

Literally, all of these people are on watch lists.

Doesn't matter what your views on Hamas are, you're on a watch list.

If you're even semi, even if you're not even sincerely critical of the regime, but you're perceived that way, you're on a watch list.

Okay, you know, it's not hard to get on a watch list at all.

Caleb Maupin is on a watch list, okay?

Well, you could say 'cause it's foreign, okay.

Uh, Jason Unruh is on a watch list.

Okay, it's not hard to get on a watch list.

You're you're everyone's there.

You're all on watch lists.

We're all on watch lists, okay?

We are all on watch lists.

So there's no getting, there's no preventing that actually.

If you're involved in any kind of alternative form of politics, doesn't matter what the content is, you're on a watch list.

You're on an FBI watch list.

So let's just clear that and get that out of the way because I've been really waiting like two days, three days to get this off my chest because I was so sick of stupid people claiming, oh, Jackson's a honeypot.

He's a honeypot.

He's not going to pay your legal fees if you get in trouble.

If you can get in trouble for verbally expressing spiritual and ideological solidarity with armed resistance.

And that you can actually be thrown in jail for that.

I'm sorry, but laws then just changed.

I mean, I know they can get you from really.

Really small shit.

Like the on Uruhu guys had like a Zoom call with some guy in Russia one time, participated in a conference, and they like got them for that, apparently, right?

For sharing like some Facebook meme.

But

Uh uh uh uh like this an ideological position is not illegal, it's not criminalized, okay?

Um, so yeah, I'm gonna be clear about that.

That being said, you cannot express support for Hamas on social media.

Now, this is the part where I want the guerrillas to fucking listen to me very carefully.

You cannot express support for armed resistance on Discord, it's against Discord's policy.

You can't fucking do it.

So, just because I'm saying you can do it legally doesn't mean you can do it on Discord.

For now, on X, it's allowed.

So, you see the difference?

It's allowed on X because it's not illegal.

But don't let that bleed, don't go on Instagram and Discord and all these other platforms and YouTube and start being a fucking retard because those platforms actually prohibit it.

'Kay.

Um, it's not someone is it too late to buy uh tickets to the live event?

Absolutely not, it's not too late.

Go and grab a ticket.

Go and grab a ticket.

You have one week between now and then, one week.

You can grab a ticket.

Matter of fact, I think we opened up some more.

I don't want to say this because I think people who will buy a second one, I don't want people buying more than one ticket.

But, uh,.

Let me uh be very clear about this.

We opened up

More slots for the premium tickets because there was an accounting mistake that I made where we set it to a certain number, and I thought it was going to be more.

I thought the number was higher that I set it to for how much are available.

So, actually, the total amount of available premium tickets were smaller than what I had intended.

So, recently, we opened it up a little bit.

But if you've already bought a ticket and you missed out on premium and you're like, oh, now is my chance to get a premium ticket, don't fucking do it, or we're going to turn you away at the door.

And yes, we will check.

Okay, if you're a gorilla and you weren't able to get a premium ticket, don't worry.

I'm telling you, you have my word.

Don't worry, you're not going to miss out on anything.

Don't worry.

Okay, so just stay with the regular ticket that you have and don't worry about anything.

Okay, if you're, I'll look out for my gorillas, don't worry about it.

Uh this is for general audiences that we're opening these pr new premium tickets for.

Um but if you haven't bought a ticket yet and you you want to get a premium one, well there there's some available now, okay?

There you go.

Um

Anyway, uh let me continue.

Let me continue.

Um, so that should clear up anything pertaining to the legal side of things, the watch list side of things, whatever.

Now we're gonna kind of it's like a pyramid.

We start from the most serious concern to the less serious concerns to the fundamental reason why it's important to articulate the Palestinian struggle as an armed struggle, the meaning of armed resistance and the implications that has for the je a general atmosphere of global militancy.

But so we're gonna start from the top down, basically.

Let me continue, okay?

Um

I just want to go ahead and say

I do not care to entertain arguments about optics from people who openly express

The glorification and veneration of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, the German Nazis.

Shut the literally shut the fuck up about optics if you glorify Hitler and the Nazis.

Just shut your fucking mouth because nobody cares about what you have to say.

You're disqualified from the conversation.

So get out of it.

So any far-right person trying, oh, it's bad optics to support Hamas because most Americans don't, but you support Hitler, so shut the fuck up.

You're out of the conversation.

Okay?

Um

So I I'm gonna go ahead and just like shelve that.

It's not even worth addressing if you glorify Hitler and deny the Holocaust.

But it's too far for you to express solidarity with Hamas, you are a fucking idiot and there is nothing you say that needs to be taken seriously on this question.

Don't lecture us about optics when you praise Hitler, okay?

Because I promise you there is nothing worse than that optically.

If that's what you're concerned about.

Now, coming from the more left and even left liberal side of things,

That's the argument I actually am going to address.

I'm not going to address the argument coming from the far right because it's not even worth being entertained.

But let's say you're one of these BDS people, you know, you're kind of a leftist, I guess, and you're like, well, you know what?

It's bad optics to express solidarity with the armed resistance.

And actually, it hurts the cause of Palestine.

It hurts the cause of Palestine because this is a actually, I want to address an argument by Soleiman about Russia.

So, before I get into the leftist thing, I'm going to go ahead and do that.

Soleiman said that he thinks it's hypocritical that Jackson, myself, and others.

Are faulting Nick Fuentes for condemning Hamas's terrorists, yet we say nothing about Russia's condemnation of October 7th when it happened, even comparing it to terrorism and saying it was a terrorist attack at the time.

Well, Soleiman, I don't have any personal beef with you, so I guess I can keep this in good spirits and just respond in good faith and explain to you very carefully why that's not a very articulate argument.

Let's start with number one.

There are Zionists in the Russian government, and there is a legacy within the Russian government.

There is a precedent since the dissolution of the Soviet Union of Russia not really taking radical positions at all when it comes to revolutionary changes in the world.

Including on the Palestinian issue.

While Russia remains committed to the two-state solution, it is not Russia's formal position to fully break ties with the Zionist entity and refuse to recognize it at all.

Whether you agree or disagree with that position, it's a geopolitical position that Russia is in right now.

So that's just based on precedent.

It's not a subjective position based on someone's opinion.

It's a geopolitical position that they're in right now.

And let's actually, and then further, let's bracket that down and actually analyze that position and put it into context.

So since the 1990s, Russia has not really taken a hostile stance toward Israel.

But that's actually started to change.

Now, if you look past the formal statement they gave on October 7th and pay attention to what Russia is actually doing, especially behind the scenes and how it's moving and how it's maneuvering, it is going in the direction of an alliance or some kind of solidarity with the Axis of resistance in the region.

It's recognizing Hamas for the first time.

It did recently.

It's hosting them in Moscow.

There were reports that Hamas informed the Russians of the attack before it happened.

Russia is coordinating with Iran and the Axis of resistance surrounding the issue of Syria.

So make no mistake, that's just a public formality that Russia was issuing.

Materially speaking, in actual practice, Russia is more and more getting closer with the Axis of resistance.

So he's really taking things out of context.

Yes, it's true.

In the past, Russia had no sympathy at all with Hamas, no relationship with them.

And they were much more friendly with Israel.

But that's a vestige of the past that is bleeding over into the formalism that their foreign ministry is now that gave expression to on October 7th.

That doesn't actually reflect Russia's actual relationship to the conflict now, or even at the time, to be honest.

So it was a formality.

Let me be clear about that.

It was a formality taken out of context.

That's what Soleiman is missing.

It was a formality taken out of context.

But even if we ignore that, this is point number two.

Even if we ignore that entirely, let's pretend it's not a form, let's just ignore that, right?

Russia is a different country than America.

It doesn't matter what Russia's position is in this context because the Zionist entity would not exist without America.

Something that Nick Fuentes himself admitted before.

The Zionist entity would not exist without America.

So, actually, our position on the question as Americans, there's more stakes involved in it.

Okay?

Much more is at stake.

There would be no Israel without America.

So that's a really important point to make.

Now third of all

Since this is in America.

And since this is within the context of American politics,

Strategically speaking, even formally speaking, what is the value of condemning Hamas as terrorists within an anti-Zionist context in the U.S.?

If your goal is to fight Zionist influence in the US, which Nick Fuentes claims is his goal, but clearly it isn't.

Clearly, he just hates Jews.

He doesn't have an issue with Zionism.

But if your goal is to fight Zionist propaganda and influence in the US, why would you reinforce the legitimacy of the designation of Hamas as terrorists?

There's no strategic value in that whatsoever.

There's no point in doing it other than being a Zionist shill.

I mean, there are elements in the Russian government where there's there's there's businessmen involved in the Russian state that have ties to the to Israel.

So there's like a formalism at play here.

That do I agree with it?

Absolutely not.

There's a bunch of pro-Western elements, pro-Israel elements that I fundamentally oppose in Russia.

Russia is not the Soviet Union.

We know that.

But we can see what direction is it going in.

Is it a positive direction with the SMO or is it a more pro-Western direction?

Well, it's clearly the reverse.

And the proof of that is that Russia is starting to get closer to the axis of resistance and Hamas itself since the onset of the conflict.

And it's starting, its relationships with Israel are starting to severely deteriorate at the expense of the interests of these businessmen.

But nonetheless, their influence on the government is very clear.

It's very observable.

And you can attribute that influence to why they had they the foreign why they make these kinds of statements on October 7th as a formalism.

It's just a formality and nothing else that reflects that institutional foothold those pro-Western elements still have.

But what's Nick Fuentes' excuse?

What business ties does he have that are, you know, necessary evil for some wider?

Even forget necessary evil.

Like, what excuse does Nick is Nick Fuentes waging a struggle against like oligarchs within his government where he has to balance the fine line, but ultimately for the purposes of undermining their power and restoring the Soviet Union?

There's no comparable context in the case of Fuentes.

None.

There's no reason, and there's no excuse an American political influencer should be calling Hamas terrorists unless you're a Zionist shill.

Point blank, period.

Russia's statements have nothing to do with that.

You're like, why don't you hold Russia to the same standard?

Because Russia is not a political actor in America.

Russia is not a political personality.

Russia is a state whose positions are based on a formal position.

It's actually a different state in a different country.

There's a diplomatic and strategic value to the statements that it makes that cannot be held up to the same standard as American individual political influencers.

So that's my way to uh address Suleiman's argument.

Now I'm going to the left liberal argument, which is and and by left liberal I mean like Finkelstein.

Let's just say this is the Finkelstein position.

It hurts the credibility of the anti-Zionist, or they don't even call it that maybe, the pro-Palestine movement in the US to be openly expressing solidarity.

And justification for armed resistance.

That's another important thing.

Justification and solidarity.

And that actually it would be more credible if we gained favor among the respectable kind of liberal class, because, you know, that's the Nelson Mandela and that's the people who made Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela win, right?

Wrong, it's not even true, first of all.

Uh second of all

Second of all

Here's the issue with that, okay?

There is no way you're going to lie to Americans and portray the Palestine, the actual Palestinian resistance as a Gandhi movement.

Maybe that's what the Palestinian Authority wants.

But Americans know that Palestinians are a people fighting with guns, whatever they're fighting for, whether it's justified or not.

Like, everyone knows.

That it's people with guns who are waging this struggle, and they're using guns to do it, and it's an armed resistance.

There's no way around that.

You can't just wish it to be something else.

It's a war.

This is not a Gandhi peace movement.

It's a war that the Palestinians are waging.

They're waging a war.

Just like in, and for some reason, I think Finkelstein would agree that this is a justifiable war.

Just like the war against the Nazis was a war.

That wasn't...

Winston Churchill was not Gandhi pleading with Hitler to stop and starving himself.

On the contrary, he was a very obese guy, Churchill.

FDR wasn't Gandhi against the Japanese.

Stalin certainly wasn't Gandhi against Hitler either.

Okay, so that was a war.

So, just like that was a war, the armed resistance in Palestine is waging a war with the that's the nature of the conflict.

It's a war.

It's not a human rights conflict.

It's not a simple human rights struggle.

It's not a civil rights struggle.

Let me repeat that a million times.

The Palestinian struggle is not a civil rights struggle.

It's a war.

It's a war.

War.

WAR, it's a war.

Okay?

There is no way around that.

And portraying yourself as a respectable Gandhi type, oh, just peaceful boycott, whatever, that is not going to make the forces of Zionist propaganda any more lenient on you anyway.

You gain nothing from it.

So stop using optics as an excuse because the optics will be the same regardless.

They will portray you as a terrorist Hamas supporter, regardless, even if you're slightly critical of Israel.

That's what they're going to portray you as.

So if you take issue with justifying armed resistance,

Then it's very clear that you take issue with it not because of the optics of that position, but because in content you reject armed resistance.

So just BDS national committee come out and say that.

Come out and say that you just disagree with the use of armed resistance and just say that.

Stop using optics as an excuse because the optics don't make a difference.

The optics do not make a difference.

This is not a civil rights struggle.

It's an armed struggle.

It's a war.

It's a war.

It's not a civil rights struggle.

It's a war.

A civil rights struggle is something that happens within a country.

So Martin Luther King, for example, is not saying

Far from it, actually.

He's not saying the United States of America is an illegitimate entity that needs to be completely wiped off the map.

He's not saying that.

He's just saying that within the United States of America, we want civil rights.

So that's a civil rights struggle.

A civil rights struggle is something that is internal to a state.

It's literally in the name civil.

Civil rights.

Who is granting you those rights?

The state.

The Palestinians are not asking the Zionist entity for civil rights.

They are speaking to the Zionist entity in the language of bullets and missiles.

Because it's a war.

So let's be clear about it.

It's a war.

It's not a civil rights struggle.

It's a war.

Let's be clear about that.

So, this optics jibber jabber is completely beyond the point.

Now, let's but let's rein it in a little bit.

Because I also don't agree with edginess for its own sake.

But let's properly place into the context the significance of armed struggle and armed resistance.

And what that should mean for us as Americans if we justify.

I think actually the best thing you can do in order to defend the Palestinians in this country is compare them to our own founding fathers.

Everyone agrees that Washington was within his right to take up a musket against the British.

That is a very clear example of a justifiable form of armed struggle and armed resistance, which is built into the texture and the fabric of the founding of this country.

Have we forgotten who we are as Americans?

Yes, the Patriots picked up a musket for this country to be built and founded.

It was founded on blood.

It wasn't founded on Gandhi.

George Washington was not Gandhi.

He wasn't just boycotting the British.

He took up a musket and shot them to get rid of them.

The British were foreign occupiers, and it's engraved, it's foundational, the justification of this very country, this very soil that we stand upon.

It's foundational that armed struggle is defensible.

when waged by patriots expelling foreign occupiers from their land.

That position is as American as apple pie.

There's not a single American who would disagree with that.

There's not a single American if I ask them, hey,

If some foreign occupying force came into Idaho, are you gonna spill blood to defend your land?

That's the meaning of that's why they were called the Patriots, by the way.

That is the whole meaning and content of patriotism, is the just nature of wars of national liberation from foreign occupation.

So let's be absolutely clear.

There, of course, there's a way.

To present the Palestinian resistance in a light which is optically favorable to us within the context of America, it's called just being historically honest and recognizing that that is the very thing that founded this country.

Now, for some reason, leftists who one minute are so concerned with optics that they're willing to condemn darn resistance, but in the next minute throw the optics of this overboard, and especially look the other way when Hassan Piker uses this same talking point and they say, No, Haz.

The American War of Independence was actually illegitimate and more comparable to Zionism.

Uh because they were settler colonialists.

And that is just such a stupid, ridiculous position to have.

It's such a stupid ridiculous position for a number of reasons, but I'll just simplify it with this.

Although there were many evils and injustices committed by the Yankees that were here,

Against or whatever you call them, the Patriots, the Americans.

I mean, we're all Amer they're Indians are also Americans.

Let's say the European Americans, although there is a lot of injustices committed by them against indigenous people, including dispossession of land.

It is incomparable to Zionism for the following reason and the following reason alone.

It's very simple.

One was economic based in the barbaric nature of the relations of production and can be attributed to the general evil of capitalism itself.

But the other is an ideological response and form of the decay of capitalism itself.

Zionism is not simply an economic phenomena of people behaving in a certain way toward the indigenous people because of the relations of production, because of the logic of the relations of production in general.

It is an intentional and methodical ideological project, which in many ways itself was superficially anti-capitalist.

Meaning, the aspect of labor Zionism and the fact that it was presenting itself in a socialistic garb makes it even more unjustifiable and more worse.

Why?

Because it reveals that Zionism was implemented and its villainy and its infamous deeds were carried out in an era where a basic recognition of the right to national self-determination was there, a recognition of the need for social factors, social questions to be addressed and to be recognized.

Instead of just the blind barbarism and piracy and villainy of early capitalism, this was an era where basic social questions and considerations like, you know, is this compatible with the social existence of this people?

I mean, that was all there.

There was already a precedent of international law.

The way in which Israel had to deceive and lie to the entire international community, which had already accepted some kind of precedent of a universal right of national self-determination, proves why there's a qualitative difference.

In the era of Washington, there's no such thing as international law.

There's no such thing as this kind of.

You know, universally recognized right of national self-determination.

There's no way of recognizing sovereign forms of national communities.

As a matter of fact, the American Revolution was the first instance of the sovereignty of a nation in the form of popular sovereignty being asserted against the norm of colonialism.

The fact that that was not taken to its logical conclusion and also applied to recognize some kind of sovereignty of the indigenous people, I agree it was a shortcoming.

But let's recognize the historically progressive nature of the fact that this is setting the precedent of a consciousness of popular sovereignty and national self-determination.

That's where they were called the Patriots.

All patriotic anti-colonialist movements after that were influenced by that revolution.

And I'm not saying there weren't evils that occurred during it or especially in the aftermath of it, far from it.

I'm not even saying those evils in terms of the suffering they inflicted were less than that of Zionism.

But in order to measure the historical evil of a given phenomena as Marxists, we can't just measure it in terms of the suffering that it inflicted.

We have to measure it in terms of whether it was trying to resist the laws of history in vain or not, whether it was a result of a general ignorance and barbarism of the time in general, whether it was we have to place it within the context.

of how it related itself to the general tendencies and trends of history as such.

And that's how you measure whether it was equal or not.

And this is a very simple Marxist view that I am very confused about is in contention to begin with, actually.

Um, you know, there is a unique barbarism of Zionism because Zionism is formed in the context of the modern world or let's say the post-war world, right?

Zionism is a specific way of responding to what Kojev would call the era of universal states, of a universal recognition of.

of freedom in general, the freedom of peoples and so on and so on.

Zionism is in reaction to that.

It's a specific response to that.

So to use Marxist lingo, George Washington wasn't a reactionary.

But Zionism is reactionary.

That's why they're different.

You can't say that they're the same just because, in both cases,

There was dispossession of land.

If that was your criterion of measuring the historical goodness or evil or progressiveness or reactionary character of a given phenomena, you would get really confused about history.

You would get really confused about the positions taken up by Marx and Engels themselves with regard to history.

Dispossession of land is not uncommon in history.

It's actually very common.

But within what context is that occurring?

Is how you should make sense of it.

And by the way, universal morality, we're not even necessarily talking about morality.

Oh, was it good or was it bad?

Of course, today it's both it's equally bad to steal.

And dispossess the and exterminate a people, of course.

Nobody's saying it's not.

But that is not grounds for historical nihilism, where you take that standard today and apply it five hundred years ago and then nail people on a cross five hundred years ago who should have quote unquote known better.

And the Marxist view is very clear.

Some say, oh no, the British were more progressive because the British were actually going to prevent um

expansion and they were going to abolish slavery.

That's not true.

The biggest supporter of the Confederacy was the British Empire, so that's a lie.

The British Empire relied on slavery, and the only reason it was able to um

It was able to take the position on the slave trade that it did is because it could reliably count on slavery having a basis in the American South to support its industries.

That it is so it itself didn't need slavery anymore.

So that's why.

Okay, let's be clear.

Let's be clear about the facts.

Oh, the British were more historically progressive because they were more benevolent toward the indigenous people.

See, that's another thing.

Even if that was true, which it's not, by the way, by any means, but let's assume that it's true.

That is not the criterion by which you judge whether a historical phenomena is progressive or reactionary.

So end of story.

Zionism there's nothing historically progressive about Zionism, whereas the American Revolution was historically progressive.

I'll finally say on a final note,

I guess.

A more final note.

The thing is,

Even if we recognize

The various evils and greedy motivations that were there for the American Revolution and all these different elements.

Still, among the common people, among the Eomen, among the small farmer, among the the common folk of this country, in general, the common folk, the people, that is an ingrained

tradition for them, that revolution, and that was their revolution just as much as it was anyone else's.

In fact, they were the main bulk carrying that revolution out.

It stemmed from their sentiments.

It's it's ingrained within their own historical memory and sense of self identity.

As a revolutionary tradition.

And that goes beyond the context of slavery and maltreatment of indigenous people.

Because here's why.

Because even if we

accept the evils of slavery and the maltreatment of indigenous peoples.

Even if we accept all of that, which I do, of course, I accept that it was they these were evils and I admit to that, that doesn't negate

That doesn't negate the historical significance of the American Revolution for the American people, both historically and today.

It really was like Hamas.

You know, it's not like Hamas in the sense that they were the same material context.

But it's like Hamas in the sense that this was a kind of this was a national liberation struggle that drew from the common people, the common folk, to overthrow foreign occupiers, what they perceived to be foreign occupiers, people who lived on the land for hundreds of years going about their ordinary business.

They did relate to the British like Palestinians relate to the Israeli occupier.

There is a comparison there.

I mean, sure.

I mean, in the case of Israel, it's probably much worse and much more brutal because of modern technology and stuff.

But in terms of the sentiment and the fervor driving the revolution, it's very comparable.

It's incredibly comparable.

You know, people working on the land tied to the land, fighting a foreign colonizer.

That's how it was experienced.

That's what people, you know, I don't know what these universities have done to the youth to completely misguide them about the facts.

Washington and the Patriots did not see themselves as colonizers or colonists.

A colonist is maybe there taking a risk, but ultimately they're going to go back home someday or they're going to maintain some kind of relationship to a core, an imperial core.

This was a case of people who were descended from colonists deciding to acclimate to the land, deciding to commit to it.

um fundamentally, right?

And and that was not so the question is, was that completely artificial as it is in the case of Zionism?

Like with uh

With the creation of all these kibbutz and all these kinds of artificial forms of association and settlement today that occurs in Palestine and continues to occur in Palestine?

Or was there a kernel of authenticity in that?

Did they really, after over a hundred years, over generations, as Stalin pointed out, form a different nation than the imperial core?

And was there an authenticity there?

And I think all you have to do is ask this question.

It's basically a materialist question.

If Israel

Is the result of an authentic was the result of an authentic national aspiration?

Why can't Israel exist on its own?

Why has it always needed to rely on foreign support in order to continue existing?

Think about that.

America had nobody.

I mean, we America had an alliance with France, I guess, during the war.

After that, they were on their own.

The war of eighteen twelve happens.

Who's helping America?

Who's a who's propping up America in 1812 in the same way Israel has to be propped up in order to exist?

See, Israel is a fake country, America isn't, it's that simple.

I'm not saying there weren't a lot of inexcusable evils that were committed.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying America is actually a real country, or at least there was something authentic about the aspiration to form a real country.

That's not true for Zionism.

There were no put it this way, read Stalin's National Question.

There are no legitimate, from a historical perspective, or material causes or roots for an Israeli nation.

It's not based in any kind of objective process, objective material process by which nations form and come to be.

In the case of America, it was the case.

Let me also explain something a little different about the dispossession that was going on in the time of the uh the Patriots, Washington and Co.

They were not just going into lands and depopulating them and saying, you know, oh,

You know, indigenous people, we're just going to steal it from you and kick you out, whatever.

That happened later with Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act, right?

But the theft of land that occurred against indigenous people was not the same as the Zionist theft of land, uh like the Nakba.

It wasn't the same, okay?

And I'll explain exactly why.

Okay, so why it was not the same?

Sorry I had to adjust something.

It wasn't the same because in the case of the encounter between the colonists and the indigenous people that lived in America, what you had was an authentic case of mutual misrecognition.

Notice I use the word misrecognition.

It wasn't so much that there wasn't enough land for everyone to live on.

That's not true.

There was.

What actually ended up happening was that because of incommensurate and incompatible ways of life, colonists introducing methods of production and ways of life that fundamentally altered the environments within which indigenous people grounded their own way of life, that caused tension and that caused wars.

And that caused a lot of the American Indians to say, we don't want these fucking people here because they're disturbing and upsetting our way of life.

They're driving buffalo to extinction.

They're redirecting water away.

They're upsetting our form of subsistence, right?

So that was a kind of total form of misrecognition where there were two incommensurate ways of life and that's what led to conflict.

It wasn't one people coming and saying, this is ours now.

It's our birthright and you have to fucking leave because you don't share our birthright.

It was two people struggling to understand why they were different, failing to understand their differences, that leading to conflict.

And tragically, one of the parties to that conflict.

Being treated very badly in the aftermath where they were defeated.

And it's why am I saying it's tragic?

Because it was precisely the methods of production.

I'm not going to use Euro-centric words like superior methods of production or more advanced methods of production.

But I will say that their methods of production allowed them to have an edge.

And an advantage when it came to warfare.

For example, access to gunpowder.

I mean, the whole historical development of Eurasia, that's what the colonists had at their disposal.

The first Americans that were already here.

We're on literally on the other side of the world in a completely civ different civilizational and historical context.

Okay, so they had no way of winning that encounter, that battle of misrecognition.

There was no way for them to win.

And I'm not saying that justifies the inhumane way in which colonists treated them.

I'm just saying it's not the same as Zionism.

I'm not even just talking on a moral level.

I'm talking as a historical phenomena.

Objectively you cannot compare it to Zionism.

It's something we can reflect upon after the fact very easily.

And during the fact, I mean, I'm sure there's people who recognized the immorality of it all, but were they able to ground that recognition of the immorality in a specific class interest, in something that's compatible with the logic of history itself?

Think about it.

I'm just talking as a Marxist right now.

'Kay.

So

Um, let's be clear.

We are not underplaying the

The um inhumanity with which first Americans were treated, the disrespect, the dishonorable.

That's another word, the dishonorable way.

in which they were treated and dealt with

But that was not a deviation from the norm.

for the development and rise of capitalism in general.

Because you can fault the Americans.

What do we call them?

We you can fault the Yankees.

Let's call them the Yankees.

You can fault the Yankees.

Were they called Yankees at the time?

You can fault the European Americans.

I guess we call them that.

I don't know.

You can fault them for not properly taking into consideration and having respect for the social relations internal to the various indigenous people.

But for what it's worth, they also didn't recognize the social relations for the descendants of the colonists themselves, meaning there was no socialism for anyone.

You know, Jay Sakai is such a poisonous influence because he is basically trying to sell this idea that, oh, yeah, the settlers had socialism and they were, you know, this is.

No, that's Israel with their kibbutzim and their labor Zionism nonsense.

It was a dog-eat-dog world in the early days of capitalism.

Everyone's selling everybody.

You know, everyone's flipping their neighbor for a dime.

People are ch all manner of rascals and rap scallions are doing dishonorable dealings with one another.

This is the nature of capitalism.

And I'm not saying, oh, we can just blame capitalism without understanding how capitalism was rooted in a specific trajectory of civilization that is worthy of critical reflection.

I'm just saying you can't say it's the same as Zionism or compare it to Zionism.

That's all I'm saying.

Because even though capitalism was evil, there is a historical authenticity to the evil development of capitalism that is not there in the case of Zionism.

Marxists recognize that capitalism.

Was fundamentally evil, based on all manner of villainy, and so on and so on.

But Marxists will also simultaneously recognize, and this is such a

Bad way of putting it because it's simplistic, but this is the word Marxists in the past use.

I'm just quoting them, that capitalism was historically necessary.

Not that if we could go into the past and change things, would we have it the same way?

Absolutely not.

That's not how historical necessity is decided.

Historical necessity is like.

It's only through going through this evil that we were able to recognize it was evil in the first place, for example.

That's a form of historical necessity.

For example, no one can say that Nazism was historically necessary.

You understand?

Because Nazism was a reactionary phenomenon.

So the same thing is true for Zionism.

It's not historically necessary.

It was a reaction to the real trajectory of history during the time and the historical necessity at hand during the time in which it developed.

And it had always been recognized as a reactionary phenomenon.

This is why Marxists are not moral whiners.

We don't just say something is immoral, so I need to become an activist and demonstrate on the streets.

Marxists say that if something is evil, it is also reactionary.

And fuck this mic.

If it's reactionary, sorry.

If it's reactionary,

then it's ultimately a paper tiger.

It will not withstand ultimately the winds of history.

And our role is to awaken people to the good news of that fact.

We are here to awaken people to the good news that the evils of this world

are not are reactionary

are ultimately um

Going to be dissolved by the development of history itself.

And that's not doesn't mean we sit down and do nothing.

No, we need we.

Must invoke a revolution within consciousness to appreciate, to give voice to this fact, to give recognition to this fact.

The duty, as far as the superstructure, as far as consciousness is concerned, is still on us to participate in that.

We still have to participate in the realm of activity, but we have to do it authentically.

And if we're doing it authentically, if our actions are authentic actions, they are actions in conformity with a deeper sense of historical necessity.

We are acting in a way that we believe is right.

That's real morality.

Because it's not just right according to some abstract system of moral laws that only exist in the clouds.

It's literally right, like in the Taoist sense.

Like it's right in the sense that in conformity with the way things actually are.

'Kay.

So that's the Marxist view in general.

Um

Now, I uh we really sidetracked and um

went on a di a whole different tangent, if you will.

Um by the way, I don't even know what I look like.

Should I been I've been doing this the whole time.

You know, I fucking hate my setup.

I wish I could just have like at my desk be like flat like this and I just look directly in the camera.

But like I ha I don't know how to do that.

'Cause then I have to take the camera, put it in the middle right here, but my screen is in the way.

I don't know what to fucking do.

But it's really like awkward.

Anyway, let me continue.

Like wouldn't it be so nice if I could just be like this?

Wouldn't that be so nice?

Anyway, let me continue my tangent.

Exactly, why is it important to recognize the Palestinian struggle as an armed struggle, not a civil rights movement?

And how should Palestinian militancy inspire us in America?

And why is that inspiration so fundamental and important?

So, A, let me be very clear about something.

It's not because we need to take up guns and take up arms in the US and start breaking laws and uh waging a war of armed struggle.

That's not why.

So, to be clear,

You need to think critically about what I'm about to tell you.

You need to think critically.

When I say you need to think critically, it means it's not just on the surface.

Just because

Something is militant doesn't mean it's violent.

Žižek actually makes this point very well.

Militancy and Zion sorry militancy and violence are not necessarily the same thing.

Political militancy, the kind that we should be inspired by, and which is see, why is it important to have solidarity with the armed resistance in Palestine?

Because it's important to recognize that it fits within the context of a global form of militant subjectivity.

Which also has fertile ground for the application in the United States, not in a violent way.

Of course, not insofar as we still have at least a veneer of law and order.

And a sense of a shared single country that we're all uh part of and we're all citizens of.

But in the sense of

if you will, a sense of subjective partisanship.

a sense of the recognition that we must fundamentally reject the regime in the United States.

We must fundamentally reject it in the militant sense of the word.

I'm not talking about violence.

In the militant sense of a rejection of a fundamental form of partisanship

Based on

An American um

Based upon a distinction between the regime and the people and Americans as a community.

And that should be inspired by the Palestinian resistance.

Just like the Palestinians have a sense of subjective identity that is rooted in their communities and their neighborhoods and their families and their land, and just in the same way that they can recognize the distinction between that authentic form of social existence and that authentic form of subjectivity, social subjectivity, versus the Zionist occupation, we must have a similar form of political militancy, of partisan subjectivity, that also dichotomizes the relationship between the American people and the regime in the same way as a foreign occupier, that this country is under occupation.

But why so you're saying, Haas, why don't you advocate for armed struggle?

Well, besides the fact that I'm not a Fed and it's illegal to, I actually have a reason for it besides the fact that I'm not allowed.

I'm not just telling you this because it's illegal, by the way.

I also think, in a principled sense, there's no reason for any kind of armed struggle at all in the US right now.

I could tell you why, because the occupation does not take a directly violent form.

Most people are not even aware of the occupation.

So if most Americans are not even aware that they're under occupation, it would be a ridiculous and silly form of adventurism to advocate for any kind of armed struggle whatsoever.

It's also a ridiculous and silly form of adventurism to do so

When the form the occupation takes is not one of a violent form, we don't have.

It's not like the IDF.

Is is treating the American people the same way the IDF treats the Palestinians.

I know people will make comparisons of the militarization of the police and yeah.

Yeah, I I understand that they they may be preparing for that.

You know, some kind of martial law, whatever.

We may be going in that direction somehow.

But we are at least we're not there yet.

And you can discern that in the very state of Americans' consciousness.

Okay?

So militancy doesn't, but we should still have militancy.

But militancy doesn't mean violence.

And why am I emphasizing militancy?

Because BDS and all these other people that find the Palestinian armed resistance to be problematic, they don't have a militant subjectivity.

They are still civil society activists, not political partisans or militants.

And it's not because they're peaceful.

We're also peaceful.

There's nothing wrong with being peaceful.

It's because of their relationship to the regime.

It's because they don't strive for political independence.

They don't strive for any kind of...

Um, reassertion of popular sovereignty beyond the form that we have currently.

They're also they also don't do any job whatsoever of linking up the Palestinian struggle with any kind of struggle in America whatsoever for popular sovereignty.

They just see it as a benevolent, activistic, and selfless moral cause.

And we don't have anything wrong uh we don't have anything against morality, but morality needs to be united with its concrete material premises.

Meaning

We shouldn't just look at the Palestinians and then make that think that we're such good people that we're selflessly supporting them.

We should also allow it to inspire us.

To be open to a new horizon of political militancy and partisanship.

within our own context.

The Palestinian struggle

doesn't just reveal a moral necessity.

It also reveals a need to change how we think about how the world works, how the system works, what the relationship between the hegemony and the people actually is.

Because the truth of that relationship is revealed in Palestine.

And that's what's at stake in that struggle.

The same methods that they use against the Palestinian people, they will eventually use against everyone, the hegemony in the West.

They'll use it against yellow vests in France.

They'll use it against those farmers in the Netherlands.

They'll use it against the farmers in Germany.

They'll use it against Americans.

They'll use it and they are increasingly using the same methods of Israeli police state surveillance and oppression and brutality and um.

They're modeling police departments off of the IDF itself.

Militarizing them on that basis.

So we need to recognize what's at stake in Palestine isn't just something far off like it's their noble savages.

No, we do share a dimension and a plane of struggle with the Palestinian people, and we need to develop and cultivate a subjectivity that's worthy of that.

You know?

Exactly.

Zionism is a template of control.

What's going on in Gaza should force us to rethink and question how we understand

How the world works and what lengths the elites are willing to go to to suppress popular sovereignty.

The nature of it's important also to understand the nature of the antagonism.

Not just respond to the antagonism.

Also, understand the nature of the contradictions.

Not just respond to them or formulate your own unique ideas about them, but also formulate an understanding of the contradictions themselves.

So that's why it's so important to have spiritual solidarity with the armed resistance in Palestine.

It's not because we want to take up armed struggle here.

It's not because you should be materially supporting U.S.-designated terror organizations and thereby go to prison or whatever and violate the law.

It's not because you should just be edgy and just promote violence for violence's sake.

It's because you should recognize.

Within the context of Palestine, armed resistance and armed struggle is fully justifiable.

Obviously it is.

I just pointed to the precedent of the American Revolution of seventeen seventy six to show how this is not an extreme position at all.

A people have a right to resist occupation by a foreign power.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Americans agree with this if you just present them with the proper context and

Give them the proper analogy with which to relate it, it's very, very, very clear.

I mean, of course they are.

Of course, they're within their right to take up the gun in Palestine.

Why wouldn't they be?

It's like people who say, Oh, they should just be peaceful.

It's like, be peaceful to what they are not Israelis.

This isn't a civil rights struggle going on in Israel, it's a war, it's actually a war.

Okay.

Um, it's so ridiculous.

It's a war.

What do you think?

Again, in America, most Americans are not aware that we're under occupation.

Okay, most and and finally, um the nature of the occupation is mostly nonviolent in America.

The m the the main weapon of occupation in America is debt.

Now, if a movement in America forms, a peaceful movement, okay, that forms around the question of abolishing the debt.

Maybe they will show their fangs more and then it'll start getting really violent and there there's gonna be martial law and they're gonna be taking families and slaughtering them in their homes like the IDF does and stuff.

Maybe and then maybe that would be a pretext for something to happen.

I don't know, but we're nowhere near there right now.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Another context in which armed.

militancy would be obviously expected,

As if there's a civil war and law and order just breaks down and it's just full chaos, every man for himself, and communities need to find ways to defend themselves.

That would be another context which probably isn't all that improbable given the direction of things.

But obviously it's not appropriate to discuss armed struggle within the context of today's America.

It's just not.

It's just ridiculous and stupid.

So I want to be clear about

I think I've exhausted everything I wanted to exhaust on that topic.

Now, the fun part of the stream is going to come, but not before the criticism of the.

I want to make a criticism because it was brought to my attention and um.

It's it'll also be a self-criticism, alright?

And I'm sick of having to address this topic, okay?

Guys, um

You know that Maxim Gorky quote?

Why don't we stop sharing?

Images of that quote.

Just stop doing it.

I understand that the person who shared it in this context.

Was doing it as a form of anti-fascist propaganda, not anti-LGBT propaganda, just anti-fascist propaganda.

But

Stop giving our enemies ammunition and making it seem like we want to exterminate homosexuals or something.

That cannot be further from the truth.

And I know you know that's n I know that's not what you mean by it.

I know that's not what anyone means by it, but if some journalist sees you sharing that, guess what they're going to print in their article?

You know, oh, this infrared member quotes Maxim Gorky and calls for the extermination of homosexuals to defeat fascism.

That's not our position.

So be optically aware of what you're doing and whether that's.

Whether that's honestly conveying what our actual position is.

But to be clear, what's the quote?

The quote is by Maxim Gorky, and I'm actually going to talk about that quote because it's being, and I'll do something, I was edgy last year, and I shared the image myself.

Um

It's not what I meant by it, but like optically speaking, it's conveying something we don't mean it to convey.

Okay?

Now, let me be clear about what Maxim Gorky's actual position was.

Maxim Gorky was not calling for the extermination of gay people.

He wasn't doing that.

And the quote is being taken out of context, and I'll give you the context.

Maxim Gorky was writing about the psychopathology of fascism.

Which I don't think we disagree with.

Okay.

Um.

But then he was saying, There is already a sarcastic saying.

Exterminate all the gay people and fascism, the fascists will disappear.

Notice what he said.

He said it's a sarcastic saying.

Meaning, the point of the saying was to illustrate the relationship between the two.

Not to say that.

Uh people who are um sexual minorities should be exterminated.

That was a sarcastic saying that he was drawing attention to for literary purposes.

He was a literary author and writer.

Even during the criminalization of sodomy, the Soviet criminal in the Soviet criminal code, there was no death penalty for gay people.

That wasn't the position of Maxim Gorky or the Soviet state.

So let's not.

Let's not uh try to make it seem like that's our view.

Because it's not.

It's genuinely not our view.

Like, it's I'm not even just saying this for optics reasons.

It's not what we believe.

We obviously don't believe people should be killed for.

Listen, it's just so ridiculous because you need to think about it at the face of it, all right?

The most extreme hill that we die on.

Okay, the most extreme hill that we die on.

Is that we believe it's a phenomenon

That is the result of some other cause, such as like capitalist decadence or something, right?

That's the most extreme.

So, you shouldn't blame the victims or you shouldn't blame the symptoms.

You should focus on the cause.

You shouldn't.

I mean, look, guys, you know, I really need to emphasize something.

As communists, you need to start being very responsible and mature.

Because, guess what?

In our society, many families have relatives who are gay, who are lesbian, something else, whatever, transgender.

Nobody's saying we have to encourage that stuff and put it into schools, or we have to think that it's a positive phenomena.

Clearly, the amount of suffering that it causes, it's obviously not a positive phenomenon.

It causes so much suffering.

But as communists, our opportunity to distinguish ourselves.

Is how we respond to that phenomenon.

Do we torture?

Do we torture and abuse and denigrate?

The people who are um who are involved in this mass state of confusion and and so on?

No.

As a matter of fact, that's the point.

The whole reason we draw attention to the connection between the far right and sexual deviancy is because their very edgy stance on this matter of just trying to kill everyone or torture them for not being heterosexual, that itself evinces a form of edginess, extremism, and sexual deviancy that they themselves are being just hypocritical about, that they themselves have.

You know?

Um.

Our problem is not with individuals.

We are not here to judge individuals and torture them.

Let me be clear about that.

I don't have any patience for torturers, for sadistic scumbags who take pleasure in torturing and berating people because they're going through these kinds of problems.

Now, you can tell me about Afghanistan, or you could tell me about Iran.

Those are totally different societies.

In America, the meaning of being someone who has edgy views against these people is totally different.

It's a totally different thing.

Okay?

As communists, we need to take responsibility and have a mature outlook which targets the root causes of all forms of socially disruptive, harmful,

And negative phenomena, which is not individuals, which is things like big pharma.

which is things like uh the mass media, right?

Which is things like uh the doings of various different kinds of institutions.

Right.

Which is the most fundamental thing, and I'm surprised we're Marxists here, we should be focusing on what matters.

The way in which capitalism has fundamentally disrupted and made impossible any kind of stable, normal way of life.

Now that so obviously is going to cause disruptions in the sphere of how people reproduce their existence, which is the family, and which is families.

It's going to cause antisocial disruptions and confusion on a mass scale.

You know, many leftists will supposedly say, Haas, why do you defend the bourgeois family?

I don't.

It's the bourgeois family which is the cause.

But the bourgeois family is not the same as monogamy.

The bourgeois family is not the same as a normal monogamous family.

Because that exists under socialism and had existed under socialism as well.

The bourgeois family transforms the relationship between the sexes and reproduction into a commodity.

And this is the root cause of pornography and all these other kinds of things, which just fundamentally are forms of alienation.

Okay.

Um, and I'm not telling you guys to feel guilty about the jokes that you tell in private.

I'm telling you guys to be responsible in terms of the messaging you're engaging in and be mindful of how that registers to people outside of your own echo chamber and your own community.

Because guess what?

What you're doing is anti-people.

It's edgy and antisocial.

It's just as calling for the killing of gay people is just as edgy and antisocial as LGBT activists themselves.

And it's not the way.

You know, it's not what we believe either.

We believe in healing this country.

We believe in what's in the welfare of the people.

We believe in people being able to rise above their turmoil and confusion on a mass scale.

And um

We believe in a healthy society.

We don't believe in torturing people sadistically because of whatever afflictions are coming upon.

I mean, torturing is not the solution, guys.

That's not all that's all and that's all you're doing by you're just torturing people.

And I'm fully I fully oppose that.

I fully, fully oppose that.

And I also oppose individually judging people.

Um I oppose that as well.

You shouldn't individually think you're better than someone.

Because ultimately, you know

Your responsibility is to what's social and what's collective.

An individual leave that to their fa father and their mother and their family and the close ones in their lives.

Because I guarantee you they're already struggling with all that.

You as a person have no right to interfere in another person's privacy.

Unless there's abuse of children going on, of course, but you uh otherwise you have no right to kind of uh make yourself relevant at the level of some individual's life when it comes to their privacy.

Again, unless there's some kind of abuse going on.

Your responsibility is to ad you should have a wider, more lofty, kind of a deeper outlook, not this petty, you know, um trashy outlook where you're just gonna just uh attack people.

You should have a you should have a a wide, sweeping outlook.

Where where you are thinking about

The general public, you're thinking about the people, you're thinking at the social level, the historical level, right?

And um

I don't know what the fuck is go k can can can we get these weird people out of the chat talking what the fuck am I even looking at here?

Yeah, I mean wow.

I don't want to talk about this.

A second time, you know?

I want to make myself clear one time, and that's it.

Okay?

Ask yourself the question, in China they don't do this edgy shit.

Communist Party cadres don't do this edgy shit.

They have a well-rounded perspective that's mature and professional.

And I'll do some self-criticism.

When I get angry, I I use some slurs sometimes, you know?

And I th I think about it and it's like in private there's nothing wrong.

With it, and sometimes I just get angry and I'm like, fuck it, I don't care anymore.

And I breach the form formality, and I like, you know, but I don't actually, I'm not trying to be hateful toward actual gay people.

I'm not even talking about them.

It's just a word that culturally is associated with someone who's dishonorable.

And yeah, there's a I guess it's it's a it's politically incorrect, but like that's not what I mean.

I'm not, I'm obviously not referring to that.

Um

But I I am striving to not even swear in general, you know.

I know I just s swore before, but it's for the sake of Communist Excellency.

That we're striving for, you know, and I'm not a perfect person, by the way, I'm not a perfect person.

I'm not a perfect person.

Like I said, I can get angry and whatever.

I can get angry and say really mean things to individuals I don't like, but not because of.

See, it's never because someone's just a stranger and I have an issue with them because of something that has nothing to do with me.

It's if someone.

Engages in a dishonorable way with me.

I have personal beef with them and whatever.

Like, nothing's off the table.

But, you know, things, I just like what happened at Emory, you know, when we were talking about it on stream, it gets taken out of context, and suddenly people are trying to say, I'm attacking all the protesters because of my social views and cultural views.

Which, when I was just like, I had an issue with like a specific group of people who I actually had beef with on a personal level, you know.

Um

So yeah.

Uh we can we can go to Star Wars.

I guess I think that's all I wanted to say on that.

We're not, yeah, yeah.

I'm not saying you have to be politically correct by, I'm not saying you have to be politically correct.

But do you really have to do the whole exterminate?

I mean, look, I'm not saying you can't share Saloth memes because it's an inside joke no one understands.

And at that point, someone has to reach and really go out of their way to, like, accuse us of anything when we're just sharing a great photo of Darth Saloth the wise.

All right.

But.

Be mindful of the words you're sharing and using, and that's all I'm trying to say, okay?

That's all I'm trying to say.

Say the N-word too.

I think that's fundamentally different.

I don't think there's I don't think the hard R N word.

I don't think there's any context for using that word unless you're like, I guess, reading Huckleberry Finn or some shit.

But otherwise, like, I don't think there's any context for using that word just to use a forbidden word.

Whereas the word that I use is extremely common ten years ago.

When I was growing up, to just describe people you don't like in general and saying nothing, yeah, and still is, right?

There is absolutely no nothing comparable.

So that's just wrong, okay?

Uh but but again, if you're a front if you're a forward facing communist, shouldn't and you're in public, you shouldn't be swearing all that much anyway, to be honest.

You're not as divorced.

Um I don't know what you're talking about, dude.

There's no way to be wedded to the N-word with a hard R unless you're a slave owner from the nineteen hundreds.

Or you are like your dad is in the KKK and you live in the south like a hundred years ago or something.

Like I don't know how you could be wedded to that word on a k it's not a word culturally ingrained in our society in any kind of way.

It doesn't have any cultural meaning whatsoever in our society.

It has no vernacular meaning whatsoever in our society.

It purely has a historical meaning.

purely rooted in racism and nothing else.

It's just a historical term.

And the only people, the only real cultural relevance it has in our society is either intentionally being hateful or it's a joke to just be edgy and say something forbidden and nothing else.

So I really disagree with that view.

Um

I really disagree with that view.

I don't think like, you can't be divorced from the N-word because there's no way to be wedded to it in the first place.

There's no cultural context you come from today.

The word was was more normal for us, same with the R word.

But yeah, I mean, you know what?

Marx used the N word with a hard R, and it meant it didn't mean the same thing as it does now.

Like, back then that's actually the word that they used, you know, and we don't use that word anymore because it's acquired a very specific meaning.

But no, I'm not cancelling Marx for a word he used a hundred and fifty years ago.

Sorry, I'm just not.

I'm also not calling for Huckleberry Finn to be banned or any of that other nonsense.

Sorry, history's history and you have to

You have to um

You can't erase it.

You have to actually yeah, they use the word that today means something much more specific than what it did at the time.

And me even if it did mean that at the time.

You can't erase that from history, you know?

What about rap lyrics?

Here's my take on rap lyrics, alright?

Um

I don't give a shit.

That's my take on it.

Do what um don't do it in public if you're a communist.

I guess it just depends on, you know, who your friends are.

But do I think if your friend is uh

Using rap lyrics, should you get mad at them for like singing along to them if you're not even black yourself?

I just think that's so cringe.

Uh I I've seen instances in which uh black people take offense to like white friends or people around them for singing along to the lyrics, taking it as a form of disrespect.

And I can't really comment on that.

I can't really say they're wrong or right.

I mean, I I can't really comment on it, you know.

It is what if they feel like it's a form of disrespect.

I wouldn't know anything about that.

That's just between you and your friends, then.

If you have a black friend, he's got an it, that's between you and him.

Sort it out.

Don't ask me about it, ask him.

You know what I mean?

That's kind of my take on it.

Like, instead, you need to get out of the habit of trying to find a universal prescription for what words you can and can't use or what you can and can't do.

It should be situated in a concrete context where you're not answerable to streamers like me, you're answerable to the people around you that you actually care care about and who you respect and whose opinions about you actually matter to you.

That's what you should think of it as, you know?

You should just be accountable to the people in your life you care about and who matter to you.

Don't ask me about it because what am I I can't give you a pass, you know?

Um

Okay, uh I'm really postponing Star Wars here.

Why do I want to talk about Star Wars?

Um

'Cause I was thinking about it the other day and

We're talking about so I want to talk about the Star Wars the story of Star Wars in the prequel.

So, okay, fuck Star Wars.

Look, Star Wars is Reddit.

But guess what else Star Wars is?

Fundamentally

Part of the fabric of contemporary American popular culture j for generations, not just one generation.

Can everyone shut the fuck up about the N-word and can we actually talk about

Something

Very serious, Star Wars?

Just kidding.

Uh let me let me uh talk about this for a second.

When I say I want to talk about Star Wars, I want to talk about the story that's central to Star Wars, which is the fall of the Republic and the rise of Darth Vader.

I don't want to talk about the recent Star Wars movies because I have not seen them.

I also don't want to see them.

And I'll I can I can tell you why.

My brief criticism of the recent Star Wars films from the scenes that I've seen of them is their very retro and their very nostalgia.

Tinted quite literally, the filters used on the camera.

I really hate how 80s they try and make it look because when you think about Star Wars that came out in 1977, it's kind of fucking crazy historically.

Think about that for a second.

The same century in which Lenin was living is the same century Star Wars came out in, which is just so crazy to think about.

This is what got me on this train of thought.

But at the time

Uh the significance of Star Wars

Was that it it the theme of the film, which is this science fiction, was united with the form itself.

It was using cutting-edge special effects and film technology, special effects technologies that blew audiences away.

They're like, Oh my god, these lightsabers are like that was the appeal of Star Wars in part, okay?

And I can really kind of delve into it, although I don't want to, it's not my main focus.

I want to talk about the story of the prequels, not of the eighties ones.

That's kind of beyond my depth.

I actually don't remember those all that well.

I grew up with the prequels.

That's my gener m every generation has their own Star Wars.

Mine was the prequels.

That's what I grew up with.

It was some of the first movies I watched growing up actually.

Um anyway, let me continue.

The uh eighties Star Wars films, part of what made Star Wars what it was was the use of cutting-edge technologies.

So the recent ones that are kind of employing this retro going deliberately trying to like use crappy, outdated special effects and stuff to evoke the authenticity of the eighties, I just fundamentally reject that and I have no interest in it.

So, I actually haven't seen any of the new Disney Star Wars films at all.

I'm not a big Star Wars fan, to be honest.

I'm not a Star Wars fan at all.

Actually, the only reason I'm giving Star Wars the significance that it does is because, following Žižek's line, truth takes on the structure of a fiction.

I believe truth takes on the structure of fiction.

I believe that in order for something's truth to be fully appreciated sorry, in order for a fundamental truth of a given kind of

historical, subjective, even objective, position, kind of uh orientation, virtual orientation of history itself, the existential status of a given Dasein or a subject, whatever you want to call it.

That takes on the structure of a fiction.

And that's exactly what I want to talk about.

Kind of in the spirit of Zizek's critique of ideology.

And it's not going to be as deep as you think.

It's actually going to be kind of fun and light hearted, but I wanted to get it off my chest.

But before I do that, I want to talk about the significance of Star Wars in general from the eighties and like how Star Wars won the Cold War.

Because when you know, you you hearken back to the eighties and it's like Reagan, he's coming out with the Star Wars literal uh he called it Star Wars the satellite laser program to let for

That put him in a clash with the Soviets.

And this newfound demonization and anti-communism against the Soviet Union, depicting it as an evil empire.

And it's like the aesthetics of the empire within Star Wars is like a red, glowing red lightsaber and it's like this grand, powerful empire, evil emp it's like that's so Soviet coded.

You know?

Exactly.

Star Wars is a huge cultural victory point in the West.

Because let me tell you why.

Because I'm not trying to say it was the first fantasy film.

It wasn't.

It wasn't the first fiction film either.

But up until that point, all science fiction.

Sorry, all cinema, all literature was immersed within the Cold War directly and had some kind of real world reference point to it to which it was directly drawing inspiration from.

In some kind of way, it was making some kind of commentary.

In a in a clearly historicizable way.

But Star Wars begins a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

And it's kind of presenting this huge metaphysical vision of the force, and we'll get to that in a second.

And the combination of science fiction with the latest technologies in special effects themselves, which got people really excited about what the future will look like: the stars, the cosmological vision.

That is what kind of made Star Wars not just a film, but a form of world building, a kind of like universe people felt like they were dwelling in and directly identifying with in a lot of ways, right?

But um

That's kind of one of the first fandom cultures, subcultures, all this kind of stuff.

Yada yada yada.

Anyway, to continue.

Um.

Star Wars was a kind of aestheticization of the intangibility.

and ethereality of

virtual technologies, quite literally actually, this virtual era of capitalism, the increasing level of financial speculation reaching unprecedented levels, the rise of information technology and so on and so forth.

And Star Wars was really the kind of ultimate aestheticization of that as a high point of the cultural victory of of the West over the East.

Uh Soviet cinema had great films.

Um Tarkovsky's uh I'm so such a Philistine, I forgot his his uh sign Pola Solaris, right, Solaris.

Uh it had these kinds of films and stuff, but

They weren't these all-encompassing mythological stories of the hero's journey and this world building.

There's something so interesting and strange about Star Wars, how it was intentionally a kind of hero's journey drawing from Joseph Campbell or whatever.

But how also the story of the hero's journey is not just a motif of fiction, it's a fundamental motif of the legitimation of state authority in the first place.

But Star Wars twists this logic such that it's not a founding myth of the state that the hero's journey is.

Being depicted as it's more kind of like.

Something that doesn't seem to have any basis in history.

I'm not just saying this 'cause it's fiction, that's the obvious part, but it's like the structure of the hero's journey within Star Wars was a kind of hyperstitional political myth.

In the sense that Ronald Reagan, in order to legitimate himself, has to compare himself to Star Wars.

In the sense that Zelensky today, in order to legitimate himself to Western audiences, has to compare himself within the logic of Star Wars.

So that's what I mean by a kind of like hyperstitional political myth.

It's not a political myth that talks about the mythological founding of the state, it's a hyperstitional political mythology which establishes the boundaries by which political consciousness and political authority itself relates itself to on a metaphysical level, on a psychological level, and on an ideological level, right?

So I think that's an extremely interesting significance of the the Star Wars thing in general.

Okay, not for the fun part, we're gonna talk about the prequels 'cause I don't want to talk about the complex aspects at all anymore.

Uh I still have one last thing to talk about um before we get into the fun part and that's the uh the force.

Now that's a very interesting thing.

That is the kind of metaphysical commitment of Star Wars, this idea of the force.

And what is the force?

It's this ultimate.

Reference

To um

It's so strange.

It's like

You have, on the one hand, the underlying metaphysics of capitalist relations of production, for example, described in Capital Itself by Marx, through the commodity form and so on and so on.

The universalism of the commodity form and how it's a real abstraction.

It's an abstraction that works in reality.

But then you have this aestheticization of this.

all permeating metaphysical substance that is taken by us implicitly within our reality, and then it's explicitly given a phenomenal representation, forward facing phenomenal representation.

in this kind of Star Wars films.

But that's what the force is.

The force is the kind of metaphysical substance of modern capitalism itself, of modernity itself, modern civilization itself.

Not just capitalism, modern civilization itself.

Mm.

And and it's and it and it had been taken to such a logical conclusion, although the tendencies were already there from the from the beginning.

For example, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries you had the Theosophists, you had Arthur Schopenhauer,

You had Nietzsche, you had the Theosophists.

Which kind of are articulating the metaphysical substance of modernity through the lens of Eastern spiritualism and Eastern philosophy and Buddhism and Taoism and so on and so on.

And that kind of um

that kind of goes through Aleister Crowley and the kind of Philema, and that kind of trickles its way into the counter culture, where it eventually finds its way into Star Wars.

Uh and that's the force.

This kind of concept of the force within Star Wars is a kind of uh culmination.

You can call the substance of Spinoza, you can call the object of Hobbes and Francis Bacon and so on.

You can call that the Force if you want.

That's their kind of materialism of the Force, you know, just pure force, nothing else.

Pure Force, pure being, pure substance.

a pure kind of object which is totally indifferent and totally outside and totally abstracted from, brutally kind of um isolated from any semblance of

Human quality, commitment or character.

That's what the Force is, by the way.

It's a kind of force of the alienation, right?

The same thing.

Anyway, uh

So that's the force.

That's the force.

I had to talk about that.

Now we can get in.

Yeah, it's like the will of Schopenhauer.

Sure, why not?

Why not?

Anyway, guys, let's get into the fun part, which is talking about the prequels, just like Alex Jones.

So I think in the spirit of what I always love doing, which is.

Which is uh subverting a fiction from within by asking the question of how you can resolve the underlying

conflict uh or contradiction at the heart of a fiction imminently and through the terms of the fiction itself.

Such that I am willing to I am capable of saying that

The Star Wars prequels are propaganda.

We just got the Jedi's perspective and it was a one sided perspective and it was total propaganda.

And for a second, let's imagine that that whole see, this is interesting to think about because

You would it would be easy to just say like the very form of that fiction is of course tied to that story.

So you can't just say that Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader were actually the good guys because the fact because it's integral to the very nature of the story itself and the world and the fiction itself that the contrary is true.

But I think that underestimates what is at stake in a given fiction.

I think that works like The Last Ring Bearer, that Russian work that's subverting The Lord of the Rings, saying that Sauron was the good guy, that is a work of heroism in a kind of way.

It's such a.

It's such an authentic way of um

Of flushing out the unconscious truth that is repressed in the given form of a fiction.

In order to understand the unconscious truth repressed or occluded within a fiction, you have to entertain the structure and the form of the fiction itself and respond to it on its own terms.

And I think this is very possible in the case of the prequels, let's say.

Like

Let's actually tell the story of what really happened and how the prequels represent the kind of unconscious uh let's say the unconscious of uh

Of uh what would I call it besides postmodern liberalism?

The unconscious of kind of um

Neoliberalism, let's call it that.

The unconscious of the way the unconscious of neoliberalism

uh responds to and reacts to its own contradictions is in the very structure of the Star Wars film, specifically in this case the prequels.

And we can kind of resolve that contradiction and bring it to light by presenting counterfactuals within the str form of the fiction itself.

for example, and say, no, this is how it really was and this is what the liberal mind was trying to repress and was struggling to reveal and be authentically uh

Uh honest with.

So let me begin.

I didn't w I forgot the first Star Wars film, but the second and uh third ones I'm more familiar with.

So but I understand the wider plot.

Let me give you a brief s synopsis of Star Wars now.

Now for the fun part.

This is the actual fun part everyone's waiting for.

Ready?

I'll tell you exactly what happened within Star Wars.

It's gonna blow your fucking mind.

Are you ready?

Are you ready?

The Galactic Republic.

The Galactic Republic was founded by the peoples of the galaxy to represent their common interests.

It was a republic, right?

The problem was that the republic was increasingly becoming corrupt.

And that was specifically owing to the influence and the rise of an oligarchy within the Republic that started to control the Republic from behind the scenes in a way that was unaccountable to everyone.

A new patrician class, a noble class, emerged within the Galactic Republic, and they called themselves the Jedi.

The Jedi Council.

The Jedi Council were the most reactionary, fascistic, Hitlerite, oligarchical, corrupt reactionaries if I said reactionary already

To have ever existed in the history of the Republic.

And they emerged on the basis of a number of founding lies that they were telling.

And this is serious stuff, guys.

Okay, I'm telling you the real story.

And I'll describe how the films themselves were lying to the audience about what happened and how they were overlooking everything.

And what precisely because of what they weren't showing you.

Okay.

First of all, the Jedi.

had a monopoly on this thing they called the force.

But do you know what the Force actually just was referring to the whole time?

There was nothing magical about the Force.

The Force referred to a new discovery in what then they would call physics, that what the Jedi did is they monopolized the discovery, they prevented anyone else from having any access to it.

And any time a scientist, anytime anyone, such as a kind of equivalent of Trofim Lysenko, was trying to investigate this new physical phenomena in a way that was to the benefit of the people, the Jedi would kill them.

And you know what the Jedi would say?

They would say, You were going to the dark side.

You want to know what the dark side is?

The dark side?

is just referring to forms of scientific investigation

That the Jedi were irrationally repressing.

It was literally like the Dark Ages, pretty much, where they were basically repressing.

They were calling all non-institutionally gate-kept forms of the investigation of the force the dark side, and it was only dark because it wasn't considered legitimate within the Jedi institution.

So it was literally like the Mendelians in what they did to Lysenko.

Lysenko was a Sith lord when you think about it.

He was exploring the dark side of modern science and they got him for it, and they smeared and slandered him throughout all of history because of it.

Okay?

Now let me explain something to you, because this is really important.

The Sith is a legend, there's no such thing as Sith.

The word Sith is the same thing as how liberals use the word fascist or Nazbull.

Nobody's actually a Sith.

In fact, the only actual Sith in history was a Jedi, Adolf Hitler.

Or their equivalent of them.

But a Sith is just a smear word for anyone who's using or investigating the Force in ways that don't conform to the Jedi Libtards.

Okay?

That's basically the truth.

The Sith is a fully invented political smear term.

Nobody goes by that.

Nobody calls themselves a Sith.

Now, I want to draw some curious attention, a curious detail, because I'll admit something.

Within the last week, I watched both the Star Wars movies on different days at night.

I watched both of them.

That's why I'm going on this rant.

Okay.

I watched Attack of the Clones and I watched.

Uh, Revenge of the Sith.

And you know what?

They're pretty good films.

I'm not gonna lie.

I watched them both, and they're pretty good.

But now I want to talk about them.

All right.

I didn't watch them last night, but uh within the past week.

Anyway.

Um

So let me continue.

All right.

Uh

Let me continue because we're onto something, right?

We're onto something.

Anyway, look, here are the facts, okay?

Star Wars, the Jedi.

I'm not going to use slurs.

The Jedi.

Um, they're very unnatural and, you know, abnormal.

But they

Literally, epito.

I was thinking like, why is Zelensky so into Star Wars when I was watching this?

Like, I get it now.

Because the Jedi are fucking irrational, soying libtards, and you can't reason with them.

When Palpatine was literally just saying, like, look, like, there's things about this force like we don't fully understand, and like, there's other ways of looking at it, and you don't have the be-all-end-all monopoly on.

They're like, No, that's the dark side.

That's the we have to kill you because you're in the you're tainted by the dark side now.

And it's like, holy shit, that literally sounds like destiny when he's saying I have to be killed or something because, like, I'm giving an alternative perspective about Ukraine.

And I'm like, that is such the epitome of liberal consciousness where it's like.

It's what Dugan calls the new kind of liberal totalitarianism.

Just by hearing Dugan out, just by hearing Putin out, just by hearing what the Chinese have to say, just by hearing the alternate perspective, you're on the dark side, you're a propagandist, you need to be cut off, you're a dangerous Russian agent, and you have to be censored.

Isn't that literally the default liberal mentality today?

It's a discursive barrier they're erecting, such that liberalism and political correctness, that's the new totalitarianism.

They're putting a discursive barrier between themselves and the other, which just cannot be breached.

And it's like, this is how pan-leftists treat us because they're under the umbrella of liberalism.

But more fundamentally, this is how they treat anyone who tries to offer a perspective that's just outside the liberal hegemony in general.

And it's not that we are the totalitarians who are intolerant of other views.

They are intolerant of other views.

And when I was watching those Star Wars movies, I'm like, damn, the Jedi are literally lip tards.

They're so like intolerant of just like alternative views on this four shit.

And I'm like, I can't bu and I was thinking, I can't believe an entire generation

Watched these movies and unironically like agreed with these propaganda and thought, oh, that's that this is a good like movie to teach you a lesson about how to be like a good person of good character when nothing could be further from the truth.

Like the truth is, Obi-Wan is such a piece of shit.

I fucking hate him.

You want to know why I fucking hate Obi-Wan?

All right.

I really thought Anakin was in the right because that little bitch Obi-Wan, yo, Amila, what's up?

Listen, Obi-Wan, who literally such a despicable, like low-T lip tard, he probably was fucking wearing a mask during COVID, if you think about it.

When Padme is getting on the ship to go see Anakin, Obi-Wan's bitch ass snuck on the ship.

I didn't know that.

He snuck on without her knowledge.

Dude, dude, it's crazy how much nobody's pointing any attention to this.

When Padme lands on that fire planet and goes to see Anakin, and she's like telling Anakin she doesn't want to hear, Anakin suddenly gets pissed at her, like really quick.

Why?

Because Obi-Wan randomly appears in the cockpit.

And look how he's standing.

He's standing like this.

I just fucked your bitch.

I just fuck.

That's what he's standing like.

Like, if I was Anakin, I would think the same thing.

Because immediately his mind jumps to the conclusion: like, damn, this bitch is Obi-Wan is turning his bitch against me, and they're in cahoots doing God knows what on that long trip.

Crass, what's up?

Doing God knows what on that long trip to this planet.

Why didn't anyone speak up and just be like, yo, this dude snuck on the ship?

They were not.

Because like this, I didn't notice what happened.

Obi-Wan went to Padme and was like, yo, I have to go do something about Anakin.

And Padme wasn't snitching on her man.

So Obi-Wan is like, all right, whatever.

I'm going to go.

So then, but she decides to go visit Anakin just because she was worried about him.

And Obi-Wan snuck on the ship.

So Anakin literally thought his girl sold him out.

And Obi-Wan's bitch ass would not even...

tell the truth.

Like he was like doing this, making it seem like he just fucked his bitch.

And then he's like, you have done that yourself.

It's like, bro, can you tell the truth about what just happened?

Because like, I feel like some context would like, just admit you snuck on.

Anyway, that's why that's just a personal issue.

I got personal beef with Obi because I understand Anakin.

Like, I would be just as pissed.

Okay, I would be just as pissed.

Anyway, um

Let me continue, all right.

Let me continue.

That was just a rant.

I'm going to continue with this.

All right.

This is a rare treat I'm giving y'all for the stream.

I deserve 100 subs for this.

Just kidding.

Just kidding.

Anyway, um.

Anyway, look, let me continue, all right?

So there's a lot of facts you don't ever see in Star Wars, such as what is the perspective and the opinion of the common people?

Because we're seeing all this politics stuff happening, but we're not, yo, Mecha Sith Lord.

Why?

Time to intercept.

No, we're not going to happen.

No.

I am Mecha Storm Tricky, number 375.

Nah, not going to happen.

Nope.

Escape the Jedi box.

No, no.

Exterminate the rebels, and fascism will vanish.

No, no, don't actually start fucking repping Star Wars shit aesthetically.

I'm issuing AUDA 66 to my community.

Do not fucking start adopting Star Wars aesthetics and mixing that with infrared because it's got nothing to do with infrared.

We don't do, we don't rep that shitty version of science fiction around here, all right?

Anyway, I'm just talking because that's such a cultural significance in this country.

And I saw Alex Jones talk about it, so that's why I'm going to talk about it.

All right.

Anyway.

Look, they don't show because all politics is about the people.

It's all about like what does the common folk think?

What are the 95% of the people living in this galactic empire?

How are all these political?

We don't see that context.

But I want to refilm those films and like this is what really happened: the true story of Star Wars, right?

The prequels.

Because here's what was happening.

The Jedi?

Were pedophile rapists, just like Jeffrey Epstein.

Just like the elites today, think about it.

Think about it.

No, no, no, think about it.

The Jedi.

Who was funding them?

Where were they getting their money from?

They were getting their money, first of all, from usury.

They were usurers.

They acted all high and mighty, and they were stealing and kidnapping children from across the galaxy who were enslaved.

And they were corrupt and debauched monsters.

And that's how society saw them.

Yeah, they hid them in their secret temples.

All right.

Alright, maybe it's uh too far to call them pedophile rapists.

But they were corrupt.

They were deeply corrupt.

They were gatekeepers.

They were they were hated by the common people because they were just usurers.

They were just constantly, they made all their money through these loans that were impossible to pay back.

And I'm going to explain something, dude.

I'm going to blow your fucking mind because I'm the only person who put two and two together, all right?

Just give me, yeah, they, they, yeah, and they had slaves too and shit.

They were so fucked up.

Listen, this is something that you're not

familiar with.

All right?

This is something you're not familiar with.

What?

So, according to the propaganda, we're told that Emperor Palpatine is the one who started the war between the Galactic Republic and the Confederation and Count Dooku, right?

Not true.

That was just propaganda.

Why was it propaganda?

Because it turns out Emperor Palpatine and his people had spies that were spying on the Trade Confederation.

And I'm okay.

I'm just joking a lot.

Like, right now, I'm just kind of like joking, but I actually want to be a little more serious, just in the creative sense of what I think, right?

Ready?

Um, I think the Jedi were a corrupt class.

I don't think necessarily they were evil, but they were just a corrupt class, a caste, if you will, right?

And the whole context of the war with the Galactic Confederation is that the Jedi were reluctant to fight that war against the Galactic Confederation because Count Dooku was suspected, rightfully actually, as epitomizing the corruption.

Put it this way: it's like Palpatine launches the SMO, and the Jedi are like the oligarchs that side with Putin.

It's like y'all are the reason all these color revolutions are happening.

So we don't trust you, Jedi, because look what you do.

Count Dooku came from Y'all, and he allied with the merchants.

And the like all the fucking whatever banker clans to actually mount a treasonous rebellion against the Republic.

And it was literally just this like horrible oligarchical capitalist elite that Dooku was allied with.

And the politics of it was like the Jedi weren't necessarily with Count Dooku, but like they were reluctant to fight him because it's like the Jedi kind of understood where he was coming from.

Because the Jedi began to resent.

The restrictions being placed on their usury.

And that's why, like, when you look at the film, it's like.

Who's that guy, Viceroy Gunray?

He's like the leader of the banking clan.

You know what I mean?

Isn't this all just a waste of time?

Alright, should I end the stream right now?

Once if I should end the stream.

Yeah, exactly.

Sit down and shut up and

Listen to what I'm gonna say, because guess what?

Fiction actually is culturally significant, even if we find it cringe.

Yo, Dalai Lama.

Oh my god, Jesus Christ.

Dalai Lama, I don't even know if I can accept that five, to be honest.

Anyway, guys, let me just continue.

Alright.

Um.

Let me continue, all right?

By the way, these clips will go viral on TikTok.

I guarantee.

Anyway, let me continue.

All right.

Um I genuinely think that like

Um, the Senate or whatever, or Palpatine, was suspicious of the Jedi because they were reluctant to fight in the Civil War, and that's why the clone army had to be created because the Jedi.

At any moment, would have flipped and gone with Count Dooku.

Because you know how in the movie they call Count Dooku a political idealist.

Why do they call him that?

Because Count Dooku was making arguments that the Jedi themselves kind of half sympathize with.

Like, oh yeah, you know, you are right.

We should just give the banking clans and like have an oligarchical alliance and rebel against the sovereignty of the Galactic Republic, the only thing the people have, right?

And it's like the Jedi were um

We're like, you know what?

There's another way you can think about it.

Instead of usurious elites, I was also thinking about this in the movies.

It's like the Jedi are kind of like the deep state, too.

You know, they're kind of like the CIA and like the FBI and like the DHS, where they don't really have any like beholden status to the form of sovereignty, but like they have this monopoly on the use of force and the exercise of power.

So that's another way to think about it, I guess.

But in any case, the Jedi were.

Responsible for Count Dooku because Dooku was a Jedi.

Um, and he went and he did that rebellion, and the Jedi kind of

We're not fully on the side of the Republic against him, gay?

You need to understand that context.

So, yeah, let me.

I'm not even going to get.

I could talk about this for like four hours, probably.

This is so cool.

How does Jar Jar Bing speak?

I didn't watch the first one in like 20 years, so I don't know.

Um

Now, people say Palpatine and Count Dooku were in cahoots.

Not true at all.

Absolutely not true.

That was straight up.

Every time the movie shows Emperor Palpatine as like a hologram, talking to General Grievous or talking to the Trade Confederation or talking to Count Dooku, dismiss it because it's entirely fake news.

It was made up.

Didn't happen.

Didn't happen.

Trust me, I was there.

Didn't happen.

Anyway, no, no, no, for real, it's just propaganda.

There's no proof.

Where's the proof?

We never get any tangible proof.

We never actually see this is the proof.

Emperor Palpatine is never in the room with these people physically.

There you go.

That's just CNN fake news that he was in cahoots with them.

That was propaganda the Jedi themselves invented to blame Palpatine for everything.

It's like when they blame Stalin for the rise of Hitler and the Molov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Total fucking nonsense.

You can just ignore it.

All right.

It's total nonsense.

Anyway, um

Now, let's talk about okay, so continue.

I already explained to you what the dark side is.

All the dark side is.

It's just science, nothing else.

There's no Siths, there's no evil dark side, it's not evil, it's just propaganda the Jedi make up to maintain their monopoly on the force, which is totally, totally, just otherwise completely indefensible.

Um let's talk about the hero of the story.

Anakin.

Okay, I'm not doing a very good job.

Anakin comes from some shithole.

Which epitomizes the corruption of the Republic.

He the guy was a slave, okay?

He was a slave under the slave system enforced and protected by the Jedi.

And people like Anakin totally had no voice at all in the Republic.

They were treated like dirt, they didn't even exist, slaves, peasants, whatever.

They had no no representation by nobody gave a fuck about them, right?

Ah total injustice.

And let me tell you what's going on.

Anakin is taken by the Jedi Order because he has a.

You know, he's got skills when it comes to.

S you know, the use of the force, I guess.

But you know what?

What's going on this whole time?

All right.

This is the whole context.

Palpatine, Emperor Palpatine.

He's like Julius Caesar, right?

Emperor Palpatine.

He's a reformer.

That's where he begins.

He's like Allende.

Emperor Palpatine is really like Allende, all right?

He's a reformer.

He's basically going around the galactic empire and he's saying, listen, okay?

I'm here in the Senate and it's time we start.

It's time the people of the Republic start having a voice.

There's this security issue that's going on.

We're being attacked by the Trade Confederation.

This Jedi guy, Count Dooku, is leading it.

And who's protecting the common people?

Who's representing their interests?

He's a champion of the common man.

I mean, I want to show the scenes that they neglected of all like the starving people in poverty and rags, you know.

And then Emperor Palpatine is walking and they're all, yeah, Palpatine.

And he's giving them hope and he's giving them inspiration and he's empowering them and all.

That's the shit they didn't show.

They didn't show any of that.

They didn't show how Emperor Palpatine was empowering all of these oppressed, downtrodden people who had no voice.

I want to do a scene where a Jedi piece of shit is like walking off of his ship and he's forcing one of these like serfs to bow down and he's stepping on them, using them as a stool.

There, polish my lightsaber, peasant and he's whipping them and shit.

And then I want to show a scene of like Palpatine doing uh coming in to see his people.

Palpatine, his people look at that.

He goes, Stand up, sir.

You are just as much a citizen of the Republic as that man over there.

And like the Jedi gets humiliated and scorned at how Palpatine dares give this peasant a voice.

You know, he's literally like Mao.

You know, he's like, he's like, he's like Stalin or Mao or like some great popular leader defending the common folk.

Anyway, hold on, give me a second to collect myself.

This is, oh my God, I need to make this film.

Anyway.

Let me continue, all right.

Palpatine was a great man.

You know who he looks like?

He looks like Ernest Honeker when you think about it.

He's got total Honecker vibes.

And it's almost like he's like a reformer, like moderate type, like Honecker is.

He's just trying to just defend the integrity of the republic because it's enshrined within the Constitution of that Republic, you know, to serve the welfare of the people.

It's supposed to be a socialistic, it's just gotten corrupted and shit by these fucking trade banker fucks, you know, these Jedi reactionary pieces of shit holding science back.

You know, think about it.

It's so true.

Um

Anyway, let me continue.

So that's the whole context that the movies don't even fucking show you.

They just show you the dumbass Jedi and Mace Windu's bitch ass, you know, sitting on a fucking chair.

They don't even show you the aspect of what's going on on the ground with the common people.

See, Palpatine is being motivated because he loves the people.

He's just motivated by love.

You know, he's walking around.

He's just...

That's the whole...

Isn't that the whole movie?

Anakin is in love with Patame, but love is bad, right?

And Palpatine is like Che Guevara.

He just has love for the people.

He's like Julius Caesar.

And that's what made them evil, 'cause they weren't a bunch of fucking Reddit, soy, you know, uh, nihilist.

Consumer fucking brained DGGers who just were sitting around like destiny, just like not even giving a shit about anything that matters.

And they're just whoa, just the we need to have balance.

And shut up, dude.

Would you have balance if your mom was about to be killed?

Because that's what bothered Anakin.

His mom literally got killed.

Couldn't even defend her because he was trying to do balance.

Such nonsense.

Anyway.

Um.

Let me continue.

Yeah, the younglings shit.

That's like what they say about Paul Pott.

It's totally fucking fake.

He didn't kill the younglings.

That's just the steal.

That's like the haladomor.

It's fucking nonsense.

Anyway, let me continue.

That's so fake.

That's such stupid.

That's like the Hamas beheading 40 babies shit.

If you watched Anakin, if you see, this is what they can prove it to you.

Anakin went into the Jedi Temple and the younglings are sitting there.

And he's like, Anakin, what are we to do?

And then his lightsaber comes out.

You know what the part they didn't show you?

He uses his lightsaber to break their chains.

They were chained up.

You didn't see it.

They had those fucking helmets.

He was releasing the chains.

You're free now.

Those fucking children were being trafficked.

They don't even show.

See how they took it all out of context, make it seem like he killed them?

Crazy.

They didn't even show you that part.

All right, it's literally like Zionist propaganda, like against Hamas beheading 40 babies.

If you believe that, you're a fucking idiot.

Anyway, like, why would he just kill a bunch of kids?

That's stupid.

Okay, he was liberating them.

All those kids went and lived successful, happy lives.

The Jedi coped and said they were killed because part of the Jedi code is that you know, anybody they brainwashed could never just go be a normal person and get back into society and marry and have kids.

See, the Jedi don't let you get married.

Anakin had to hide that he was in love with Padme.

How twisted is that?

You know, it's you know Obi-Wan was trying to uh

You know.

He was jealous.

Anyway, let's continue.

Let's continue, okay?

Because this is the tip of the iceberg.

All right.

Um give me a second give me a second.

Give me a second.

All right, let me continue, all right.

Um, no, fuck the Ewoks.

Those are just fucking Kulaks.

Anyway, I don't even wanna talk about that dumb shit.

I wanna talk about stuff that matters, like Palpatine.

Listen, Palpatine is is literally a hero.

He was so there he was so maligned, he was so misrepresented in those films.

It's so crazy.

He's literally a heroic, like, beloved champion of the masses, okay?

Um let me tell you what actually happened.

And the film actually shows you everything.

It's crazy how the films directly show you.

Somewhere along the course, um.

The Jedi became wreckers because the G uh the Grand Army got rid of the need for the Jedi.

The Jedi always had a monopoly on security.

Now there was a popular form of security, the the um the clone army.

And like the Jedi were super fucking pissed and pressed about it.

Oh and let me talk about Padme.

And uh you know what, Padme?

It's such a tragic case.

She was groomed to be the queen of Naboo.

As soon as she had the freedom to, she ditched that.

She didn't want it.

But.

I'll tell you what happened to Padne, but as a senator, she was forced by the pedophile elite of Naboo, uh the the the like they're like the Dalai Lama pretty much.

They they um they basically forced her to represent their wicked interests in the Senate.

That's why Padme was so cringe in the Senate.

She was voting against the creation of the army.

The reason, listen, the reason they didn't want the clone army to be created was because it would take away the Jedi's monopoly on power.

And if the Jedi's monopoly on power is taken away, the aristocrats, the nobles, and the lords who the Jedi protect, their power would be gone as well.

Okay?

Understand that.

Um

You know, the Jedi, that was the whole thing, like, unconsciously, I unironically think unconsciously, like, George Lucas or whoever was making those films, I don't know exactly, they were like.

That's what that is the exact real world political phenomena he was just coping with.

Like the real world phenomena he was trying to like.

Ideolog aestheticize or whatever, make a movie out of was like how institutional gatekeepers.

Resent populist leaders for championing the power of the masses over their own oligarchical.

It's the same Michael Hudson distinction between the monarchs who cancel all the debt, debt forgiveness, and the oligarchical interest charging creditors who fight against every, you know, Julius Caesar, they killed him, you know, yada, yada, yada.

The Greeks, how they would always kill the tyrants, even though tyrants were good.

So, you know, this is the deep context of what's going on here, okay?

That's exactly what's going on.

Um

Now, understand, alright?

Understand, there's things I'm forgetting about, but I'm gonna.

I'll get to him.

I'll get to him.

Anakin wasn't having it.

Because Anakin came from such humble origins, he started to see the changes that were going on in the Republic and the dynamic.

And very naively, he was like, Yeah, I agree with Palbatine.

Like, he's actually.

empowering people like me who came from backgrounds like me.

And that wasn't formally within the Jedi Order a wrong but Anakin was naive because he didn't understand how corrupt the Jedi were.

So he would openly voice these sentiments, but the Jedi became suspicious of him because of it.

And then, what was Anakin's tipping point?

When the Jedi started to tell him

start spying on Palpatine.

Why are you trying to spy on Palpatine?

Why?

'Cause he's defending the common man.

Then he realized the Jedi started to plot against Palpatine.

The Jedi were planning.

The oh the fucking Mace Windu direct he's literally like Obama.

Mace Windu directly said this, all right?

Maze Windu directly says, okay,

He directly says

Um

Yeah, uh when we remove Palpatine, the Jedi are gonna have to take over in a coup.

That's f Hitler.

He's literally Adolf Hitler.

Same thing.

It's literally like some Hitlerian fascist coup.

It was like they wanted to be Pinochet against Palpatine, who was like Allende.

Palpatine was like Allende.

They were being like Pinochet, okay?

Anyway, um

You get what I'm saying?

And they openly fucking admitted it right in front of Anakin.

They were like, Yeah, when we remove Palpatine, we're going to have to take charge.

And it's like, huh?

And it's like, well, if Palpatine doesn't step down from power, we're going to have to take charge.

But it's like, here's the thing: this is the context you're missing.

Okay.

Palpatine was given emergency powers.

Yes, that's true.

But he was.

That was actually a referendum they took, just like the referendum in Crimea.

It was a popular mandate and referendum, and it was elected democratically, not just by the Senate, but by all of the people in the galaxy.

It was a plebiscite, okay?

It was a plebiscite that gave him emergency powers because had he not taken those emergency powers, nobody would have defended the common folk from the uh

The banking clans led by Count Dooku, who were raping and pillaging everyone.

No security.

Okay?

It's just like Ibrahim Triora taking power in West Africa because the older regime is not protecting the people from ISIS.

Okay?

Anyway.

Let me continue.

Let me continue, all right?

Nobody fucking tells anyone this shit.

Like, no, I'm the only person who explains what's really going on.

If you watch the films, you'll realize this is actually what's going on and they're hiding it.

Like, I'm not even saying, like, this is an alternate film.

Like, this is actually what's happening in the films, but they're just not showing you the full context.

That's what I'm saying.

Okay.

I'm giving you the full context of these films so you understand what happened.

Okay.

The Jedi want to end the war quickly.

Because they realize this is what's going on.

It's literally like fucking QAnon.

All right, now I get it.

Bombshell.

Palpatine.

And the Senate were increasingly discovering through the course of the war that Count Dooku and the trade confederations were conspiring with the Jedi to overthrow the Republic.

The Jedi wanted to quickly kill Count Dooku and wanted to quickly kill General Grievous and all those other people, because if the war were to have continued just for a little bit longer, it would have been revealed that the Jedi were behind it the whole time.

How fucking crazy is that?

That's why they wanted a quick end to the war, because it would have revealed because the more the war was being fought, the more the infiltration and corruption was being revealed.

Committed by the Jedi.

That's where they were so that's see.

See, look, they were like, if Palpatine doesn't resign after we kill General Grievous and kill Count Dooku, then he needs to be removed from power.

But they didn't have the sanction of the Senate to do that because the war would have still continued because the real people behind the Trade Confederation were the Jedi themselves.

The Jedi were in cahoots with the banking clans and the trade corporations behind the scenes, trafficking children.

Okay?

As one of the many things they were doing.

And they were going to blow the whole lid on the whole thing.

Emperor Palpatine was giving Anakin intelligence about this, and they were going to blow the lid off of the whole fucking thing.

And the Jedi were immediately going to do a coup.

Okay?

If you think Palpatine is a bad guy, ask me this question.

When Palpatine tells Anakin the entire truth, that the Jedi has been lying to them, that the dark side is actually not all that bad, and it's just like an alternative way of looking at it.

He lets Anakin go, he doesn't kill Anakin.

Anakin goes and tells Mace Windu, and Anakin's thinking the Jedi are going to be reasonable about it, but no, Mace Windu goes and says we have to kill this guy.

Why did Mace Windu want to kill Palpatine?

It's not the Jedi way.

Why not put him through trial?

Why was he so eager to kill him right away?

Oh, because he was the dangerous Sith Lord?

Really?

Yeah, and Haas is a dangerous Nazbull.

Shut the fuck up.

That's the biggest lie I've ever heard in my life.

The truth was, Palpatine knew too much about the conspiracy the Jedi were involved in against the Republic.

Palpatine represented the common man.

The Jedi were trying to do a Pinochet-style coup against Palpatine and institute fascism full-on.

And he wanted to kill Palpatine, suspend the law entirely, kill Palpatine.

The Jedi had no right to say that Palpatine has to be removed of his emergency powers just because the war ended.

The war doesn't end just because General Grievous and Count Dooku are dead.

Because the question is who are really funding the separatists?

And it's the Jedi themselves.

Not funding, but collaborating and conspiring with them.

Because here's why.

Listen, Palpatine wanted.

This is why they say Palpatine controlled Count Dooku and General Grievous, by the way.

Because Palpatine kept pushing back in the beginning against killing them.

He's like, no, no, we want to take them prisoners and question them.

Like, who's funding you?

You know?

But the Jedi.

Wanted to kill them.

Why?

Because i um if they let them live, they would have revealed the truth.

And then in that scene where uh Palpatine tells Anakin to kill Count Dooku, why does he do that?

Why does he do that?

Because he realizes something.

This is gonna blow your fucking mind.

Okay?

This is why Count Duka was like, Why are you calling for me to be killed?

This is what's gonna blow your fucking mind, all right?

It's actually crazy.

Because by that time, Palpatine had already knew that Count Dooku was in cahoots with the Jedi and he had already the proof of it.

Okay, keep stay with me now.

Stay with me now.

Stay with me now.

All right, he already knew.

Now why did he tell Anakin to execute Count Dooku?

Hm.

It's actually quite simple.

Because he got Count Dooku to confess the entire truth to him.

And had Count Dooku been captured alive, the Jedi would have been informed that Palpatine already interrogated Count Dooku and got all the info out of him.

And the Jedi would have preemptively done a coup against Palpatine and killed him.

That's why.

How fucking brilliant is that?

How brilliant is that?

Let me continue, all right?

Stay with me now.

Stay with me now.

Let me continue.

All right.

Now, uh we've got all the facts straight.

The Jedi

got so corrupt that even some of the Jedi started a separatist movement because they wanted to plunder and rape the entire republic and strip everyone of their rights and make everyone a slave, just like Anakin was.

And um

You know, Anakin wasn't having none of it.

He was the one hero.

And our Anakin rebelled against his own Jedi class background and did the noble thing and stuck with the Republic.

All because, just like Palpatine, he was a s you know who Anakin was like?

He was like Felix Zerzhinski.

He was a knight of the proletariat.

He came from a privileged place in the Jedi, but he turned against them to become a dark inquisitor of the proletariat.

Darth Vader was the leader of the Cheka.

He was literally like uh Felix Dzerzhinsky.

He was hunting down the enemies of the people.

And bringing justice.

He did not kill kids.

Shut the fuck up.

Anyway, let's continue.

Let's continue, alright?

Um, you know, they say that the dark side is just the result of passion and shit.

And it's like, it's almost like if you're not a Redditor, robot, fluoride robot, fluoride stare robot, you're in the dark side.

It's like, yeah, Putin loves his people in the Donbass and wants to help them and stop them from being slaughtered.

So he joined the dark side.

Get the fuck out of here.

Anakin is in love with Padme, so that's the dark side.

So what's the light side?

Just being a fucking consumer who gets Funko Pops and cares about nothing else?

Think about it.

Think about the shit I'm saying.

Think about the shit I'm saying, all right?

Um

You know, like I said, let me reiterate.

The goal of Anakin and Palpatine was to use the force to literally feed and unleash their productive forces in the Republic and throughout the Republic.

They're literally like Nikola Tesla, and they want to unleash unlimited energy, but these piece of shit, Jedi scumbags are holding everyone back, monopolizing it, and saying, no, no, no, that's the dark side.

Because Anakin, see, Palpatine is like Lysenko.

The dark side, that's like Lysenko.

You're using unconventional methods to increase outputs of production, even if they violate the fucking stupid, made-up institutional Anglo-dogmas of soyance.

Okay, that's exactly what's going on in Star Wars.

The dark side, there's no such thing as Sith.

Sith is a made-up term created as propaganda.

It's just like totalitarian or red fascist.

It's just a meaningless jibber-jabber word.

Nobody calls themselves Sith.

Okay?

Um it's not real.

As soon as see l you know the ending scene of uh let me tell you some other propaganda, the Death Star.

Oh, the Death Star that's who called it the Death Star anyway?

Because you know what was going on at the end of uh Revenge of the Sith?

Palpatine and Darth Vader are sitting side by side.

Vader crosses his arms, just like Deng Xiaoping when he's witnessing the productive forces accelerating.

The Death Star is literally free energ it's a free energy.

Um, astronomical device, it's a it's it harnesses energy from black holes and gives entire planets free energy.

But why are they calling it the Death Star?

Because it's just like the Great Leap Forward.

There was one malfunction one time, literally happened one time, where the Death Star was harnessing the energy like a Dyson sphere too much.

It was laser focused on this one planet to give it free energy.

But something malfunctioned, like Chernobyl, something like that, and the planet blew up.

I know it's fucking bad, but it's just like the Great Leap Forward.

It's just like what happened, the famine during collectivization.

It was a fucking accident, and they apologized for it, and it never happened again.

But the scumbag Hitlerite rebel alliance propagandists, because it happened one time only on accident, called it the Death Star that blows up planets, even though what it actually does is give them free energy.

How fucking crazy is that?

How fucking crazy is that?

All right.

Happened one time, and they say it's the Death Star.

That's just propaganda and nothing else.

Literally, nothing else but propaganda.

All right.

Yeah, the Rebel Alliance is a bunch of color revolution NGO nonsense bullshit.

Darth Vader, let me tell you the tragedy of Anakin and disgusting scumbag Obi-Wan and what happened.

All right?

Obi-Wan literally shouted, but they removed the audio when he was standing in that uh he snuck on Padme's ship.

Keep that in mind.

He snuck on the ship, he was like this.

I fuck your bitch.

He said that.

He said that.

No wonder Anakin was so pissed.

And then poor Padme was like, No, no, no, no, this guy but she didn't have time because Anakin got so pissed.

I would have gotten pissed too.

Look at how that guy was standing on that ship, even though he snuck on.

What a disgusting liar.

Anyway.

Um

Give me a sec.

Stay with me.

Stay with me.

Here's what happened.

Now, they depict it to make it seem like Anakin and Obi-Wan had a sword fight.

That's not what happened.

Obi-Aakin was taken prisoner and tortured and mutilated by Obi-Wan.

That's why all his limbs were gone and he was all fucked up and deformed.

Obi-Wan literally tortured him so he thought to death.

And guess what?

The only friend Anakin had

The great leader, Emperor Palpatine, came and rescued him and gave him a new technology, you know, artificial limbs and shit, using the power of the force for science and development.

It's a great example of it.

You know, all these people shouting about ableism.

Anakin lost all his limbs and Palpatine using the force allowed him to start walking again.

Literally a scientific miracle because of the fucking Lysenkoist dialectical way of using the force that Palpatine was using.

And that's what the Jedi were trying to prevent.

See, if that fucking little bitch, Yoda, was in charge and that happened.

To one of their own, Yoda was just leave him, leave him, the forest, and leave him.

We can't help him.

But here's Palpatine actually helping people.

Wow, and he's the villain.

Get out of here.

Right.

Anyway,

Obi-Wan captured Anakin, tortured him to death, so he thought, then kidnapped Padme, murdered her, took the children,

And wanted to basically indoctrinate and brainwash those children because they knew how to use the force.

And that's what's so wicked about Star Wars.

It's so sad and wicked.

They turned Anakin's only son against him.

And weaponized him, brain you know, you know what that's like, Joseph Kony stealing all these children in Africa, brainwashing them, making them child soldiers?

That's what fucking Obi-Wan did to Luke.

Brainwashed him, turned him against his own father, just like in the movie Blood Diamond, where those rebels come and kidnap those children and make them shoot their parents and shit.

That's exactly what Obi-Wan was doing with Luke.

It was the ultimate sadistic revenge.

Meanwhile, they turned Leia into a sex slave and gave her the job of the hut.

We saw it.

Who didn't y'all remember that?

Leia was dressed in that scandalous ass outfit.

Jabba the Hut next to Jabba the Hut.

Who do you think sold her to Jabba?

They don't show you, do they?

Um, they fucking really fucked Anakin over, man.

Because of Anakin's betrayal, because he actually sided with justice, they stole his son, turned him against him, they killed his wife,

Kidnapped and killed his wife, and they sold his daughter into sex slavery.

And you fucking wonder why Darth Vader is always angry and shit.

That's why.

That's why.

Darth Vader was a fucking hero, dude.

He was a hero.

He was literally.

See, they say okay then, well if Palpatine was good, why did he diss v dissolve democracy and declare it an empire?

It's a fucking proletarian dictatorship, Retard.

Palpatine is literally the emperor of a proletarian dictatorship.

And

He's getting rid of the power of oligarchs and he's empowering the common man.

They just don't show you that.

You know, what is so bad about the empire?

They didn't do anything wrong.

And you know what?

It's always these like lumpin' who are fighting the Empire, you know?

You ever notice that?

And also they're like, oh, what about the Wookiees, Haas?

You know, the Wookies?

Because apparently the Wookies are so good and innocent and shit.

Um

Yeah, they don't show you that the Wookiees are fucking pedophiles.

They don't show you that part, what the Wookies do.

You wh what do you think the Wookies do for a living?

They're child traffickers.

Fucking idiot.

Um and then there's the Ewoks.

Oh, don't get me started with the Ewoks.

That was literally de-kulakization in practice.

The Ewoks, quote unquote, were only a minority of that species, just like the kulaks in Ukraine.

We're only a minority of the Ukrainian peasants.

And Palpatine Wyn and Vader were trying to do land reform.

And these kulak type Ewoks

We're trying to say, no, you can't do land reform.

We're going to retain our monopoly on the land.

And they tried to make that a noble form of resistance.

Get the fuck out of here.

You know, this is like me.

I'm like Michael Parenti.

The same thing Michael Parenti does to rehabilitate social estates.

I'm doing it for the Empire and Star Wars.

Because why should we leave our enemies anything?

You know, like our enemies think that Star Wars is like what proves they're the good guys.

Bitch, even Star Wars gets who the good guys are wrong.

Darth Vader was the good guy.

So was the Empire and so was Palpatine.

You know?

Yeah, the empire was a socialist it was not socialist, it was a communist supergalactic empire.

It was a communist state, proletarian dictatorship.

And um

The Vader was the good guy the whole time.

I finally, people are like, why?

They're like, all right, if that's true.

Why did Vader kill Palpatine?

Who the fuck said he killed Palpatine?

That footage was so shaky from the eighties.

Um what really happened is that Luke came and killed both.

Killed his father.

And this is what happened.

Luke was this.

They put Luke on drugs.

They put Luke on drugs like these children in Africa and these child soldiers.

They put Luke on drugs.

And they brainwashed him.

Luke ran to murder his own father.

And you know what Palpatine did?

Palpatine jumped in the way.

No!

Why?

Because Palpatine had such a great care for Anakin, because Anakin had been through so much shit in his life.

He was born a slave.

His mother was enslaved and killed.

His only son was turned against him.

Palpatine really was looking out for Anakin.

Palpatine did not want.

Luke to bear the bear on his soul the guilt of killing his own father.

So Palpatine jumped in front, using electricity too, to save Vader from his psycho son

But what ended up happening is that Luke Strike beheaded both of them at the same time.

They both started they both fell down.

Both of them.

They both fell over the edge.

Yeah.

And then the the whole it was a fucking coup.

You know, they don't tell you what happened after the uh victory of the Rebel Alliance.

Uh, it was it was like Adolf Hitler, but worse.

It was just a fucking massacre.

All these common it was like bl it was it was white terror.

It was like Mussolini's March on Rome.

They just started rounding up all the Palpatine common folk supporters, terrorizing them.

It was like a fucking genocide.

No one shows you that.

Anyway, guys, that's all I wanted to say.

What a great stream.

What a great stream.

What a great stream.

What a great stream.

What did you guys think?

Alright, that's the only like fictional thing.

That's the only fun stream we're going to have in a long time.

This fun, you know?

Do Warhammer next?

I don't know anything about it.

The only reason I know so much about Star Wars and specifically the prequels is because I grew up on it.

Like, literally, I was born in 96 and I was raised on those films, you know?

Especially the Revenge of the Sith, 2005.

Holy shit, I remember when that came out.

I remember when that came out and watching it, and I was like, wow, this is a real big event.

Um

Anyway guys

Now we do a silent stream.

Should we do a silent stream?

Where I just do this.

I'm trying I I'm actually trying to think if I'm missing something in terms of what I was supposed to cover today.

Couple hours more, please.

Twenty subs and I'll stay on for one more hour.

Just reacting to shit.

Actually, no, I'm n no no f no no no.

Forget that, forget that.

Why do I say forget that?

Because then there's gonna be like 10 people who do it.

And then I have to stay on for more than one hour.

And it's like I didn't sign that contract.

Nah, it's alright, don't worry about it.

Uh

Tri I'm just trying to think if I missed anything.

JB Wolf.

Wow.

What about Star Trek?

Alright, I'll tell you guys what.

Uh, actually, what is there another movie I wanted to talk about?

Anything like that?

That I haven't?

I haven't watched anything in a long time and not a lot has been on my mind.

Aw.

Fallout.

I kind of wanna talk about Fallout.

Uh should I?

I did watch Fallout.

And I can talk about it.

Possibly.

Uh

Will your spawns a cockshot?

Uh yeah, I just don't think right now is the time to do it because

Um

Is it?

I don't know.

Should I?

A after our event I will.

That'll be much more topical after my event.

We're kind of the focus.

It's not the focus right now.

After my event, I will.

But I can already give you guys my.

Um uh a a spoiler.

I don't think the majority of surplus value is realized

At the level of sales, surplus value and profits are not the same thing, and capital cannot valorize from sales, not even alone, but even primarily.

Most of the capital that it takes to open up new stores or new whatever to expand the accumulation of sales comes from speculation, actually.

And sales only mainly form as information to signal whether or not this is something worthy of the total social investment.

Through speculation.

So we really do kind of live in a transition to socialism because.

The socialization of production is such that

Uh financial markets are becoming increasingly res responsive not to what produces surplus value, but what in general is most in demand.

That's why so many companies on the stock market operate at a loss.

Why do you think that is?

They're huge, tons of investment, but at the level of sales, the level of the actual operations of the company, they operate at a loss.

But because there's such a high demand for it,

They perform well on the stock market in terms of getting investment.

Data, exactly.

So I guess I know I have to flesh that out a lot more, but that's just the spoiler alert for what I'm going to be talking about.

Anyway guys, I think I'll just see you Sunday.

See you guys Sunday.

Uh yeah, I'll see you Sunday.

Bye bye.