🔴 RED PILL NEWS | IRAN-ISRAEL WAR? 🇵🇸

Welcome to the Infrared Webcast.

We have a lot of important things we need to be discussing today.

A lot of things to touch base on.

I've extended an invitation.

We'll see if anyone takes that up.

Maybe, maybe not.

Doesn't matter.

We still have some business to get to and um I'm gonna be doing something a little

Unorthodox as far as

My style is concerned, I guess, my reputation is concerned, and I'm going to be engaging in some reflection and potentially even self-criticism.

Because I've thought long and I've thought

very thoroughly about

Certain aspects of my behavior, not so much in terms of the content, which I think I am still correct on.

I maintain that I'm correct in terms of the content, but in terms of form.

And why do I find this self-criticism important?

I find it important because I want to set the right example for you, because we're going to be launching an organization soon.

And organization is all about form.

It's all about form.

If you don't have form, your content is incomplete.

It's only half correct.

You can be correct in content but be wrong in terms of form.

And, you know, I'd like to just kind of concretely articulate where I'm coming from when it comes to.

My reaction to my experiences with students, student culture in general, my frustrations with it.

And uh just just uh clarify my position, I suppose.

Better than I did before.

Now, I want to say this because I think I was being a little bit unfair.

Well, I I don't think I was.

I just think I was recklessly speaking uh without filling in important context and being mindful of how bad faith actors will inevitably descend upon this and sp I I actually don't extend the bad faith fed actors who clip me out of context.

I don't recognize that they're human beings.

So I actually blame myself for not being uh formally aware enough.

Just in general, in general, I'm speaking in general.

And in particular, here, I just want to go ahead and say that, um

You know, I

me and Jackson, both of us, before the actual symposium

Where I spoke and delivered my speech in full, delivered some closing remarks.

Some students from the National Lawyers Guild in the back started heckling afterwards, yada yada yada, you know the story.

Then we got banned from campus.

The days preceding that, we actually decided to go and check out these students that were kind of hanging out outside, just in solidarity with Palestine, I guess.

And we were among them for two days, for several hours.

We arrived Friday at Emory.

As soon as we landed, we went right there to the protests.

It was very chill, chill, calm atmosphere.

Everyone was like dancing, whatever.

There was nothing.

It was about 150 people, I'd say 150 to 200 people.

Just on the grass, few hours.

Day after, it was the same thing.

So there was no issue there.

We didn't experience any issue.

Uh on the second day, I think at the end, uh Jackson and I, there is this people from outside the university, two people, one guy came and called Jackson a Nazi.

He wasn't from the university, and he retracted his accusation just after having a conversation with us.

But so that was the extent of it, actually.

The event, the symposium happened the day after that, just to get things clear.

And um

When when when the symposium event happened and you know, unbeknownst to me, this was actually a methodical organized thing by care, by the Stop Cop City people.

um some of whom have proven federal ties that I've been shown.

And the uh some students from the National Lawyers Guild.

These three teamed up to basically heckle the event

And you know, it was a kind of organized thing.

And and and that led to a degree and then talking to the organizers that were on the grass, representatives of various organizations, including Care, and there were some other people.

You know, we me and Jackson, we were very frustrated.

And I was very angry.

I was very angry in the heat of the moment because they were trying to spin something immediately in the heat of the moment that Norman Finkelstein left because of my speech.

So, you know, I was just kind of very angry, actually.

But obviously, this is not what I said.

It's just in terms of the form, this is how it's being spinned by bad faith actors.

And unsuspecting people who don't know about the background will see that and they'll get caught up in it themselves.

So I don't hate them.

You know, I don't, I used to be very harsh and say, no, no, no investigation, no right to speak.

But we live in the age of pornography.

We live in the age of the internet.

I can't expect people to read.

I can't expect people to do their due diligence to actually see if facts are being reported on correctly.

I expect that of you, my community.

I expect the excellency of you.

But in terms of...

Just random people, right?

I can't, I can't really expect that they're going to be able to actually know anything about you know, they were trying to spin it basically that I'm against all the students in general, that I that I was even against all the students at Emory who were protesting.

By the way, the main um newsworthy things that happened at Emory was Thursday before we came.

We came Friday.

When we came, it was just about 150-200 people.

It was all very chill, it was all very normal.

But in any case, I think I let anger get the best of me by wording things in a way that made it seem like, you know, I thought all of those students protesting were faggots or whatever.

That's not what I meant.

That wasn't what I was talking about.

But nonetheless, you know, this is what happens when anger gets the best of you.

You lose your formal kind of decorum and your formal tact.

And sometimes I'm too real for my own good.

You know, I've always been that way.

And one thing I can say is that

You know, it's not good to be angry.

And I'm going to talk about the anger issue in general, terms of.

My streaming career and all that kind of stuff.

And basically explain why you know I think it's time to mature from this kind of stuff.

And I've I've long thought that actually.

It's just now especially with things moving in the way they are, with the things we have planned, not just the event this month, a lot of other things, with the international connections we've made and all of the plans we have, which I can't even tell you about and stuff.

Um

But first, I was just talking about, see, we, this is, I have to explain this.

We were walking around and everyone was really nice to us.

Everything was so chill.

People were coming up to us, taking pictures.

It was just really chill.

It was just a chill.

There's no issues, right?

It's just that we were told like days later that, you know, people have come up to us and said they felt unsafe by your presence.

You know, someone was trying to say that there's a Nazi with a gun on campus.

They're just making things up, basically.

And it was just like straight up.

People were just like, who was doing this, right?

Well, we didn't know, but obviously it's not the majority of those people that were outside sitting on the grass or whatever.

Like, that wasn't the majority of those people.

The majority of those people were totally chill.

But there was a few people from Stop Cop City that were there.

I'd say like maybe three, four, or five.

There was some people from the IWW that were there.

I would say, I would put them as well around five.

And I think there was overlap between that crowd, the IWW and the Stop Cop City people.

You know, they were giving speech on megaphones that they brought talking about May 68.

Really nothing to do with Gaza.

But those were the ones that were spreading all of these like crazy.

They were saying there's a Nazi with a gun walking around.

The reason they were saying this is because they wanted to induce panic.

Because they couldn't just tell normal students that, oh yeah, Jackson and Haas are here.

Like I disagree with them about, you know, the relationship between Marxism and the national question or something.

Like that's not enough to cancel someone.

So they had to literally induce panic by just like spreading lies.

And so those were the people I was talking.

And it's just kind of, it was kind of a mistake on my part, a little bit, because they weren't even students.

That's the really bad part, I guess.

Those weren't even students.

Those were just people who came there trying to hijack it for their own purposes.

And again, they were like anarchists or whatever, IWW.

And it's like when you mix that in with CARE, who are pro-FSA, it's just a disaster.

It's just such a disastrous mix because it's like different factions who hate us.

If you're a principle, if you consider yourself left with forget that.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist and you have the minimum of some principles, you know, you need to understand that context.

It's not that we were, it was us versus the students.

It was some anarchists and it was care, right?

And then there were some people in the National Lawyers Guild.

But like, if you're a principled Marxist-Leninist, these people had an issue with us because we're pro-China, we're pro-Russia, we're against regime change in Syria.

Like, you can disagree with us all you want on LGBT things or whatever.

And like, to be clear, we did not go there.

To lambast students or disrespect them because of their sexuality or like whatever.

Like, I get that a lot of people are intimidated because I freely, you know, I freely use the F-word, whatever, but it's like, you know what?

I feel like a red line of mine is like, don't tone police me, don't police what kind of language I use.

Why don't you focus on the actual content, right?

We didn't go there with any hostility.

We didn't go there to lecture the students.

We just went there to observe and see what was going on.

And I can confidently say it was just a totally chill, totally peaceful, very calm thing that was going on, which makes it really outrageous that the university administration on Thursday before we came responded to it in the way they did.

These were literally just students sitting on the grass, you know, trying to be in solidarity with Gaza.

So I guess like I it wasn't really my intention to attack those.

It was really my intention to attack the organized private interests who were trying to like basically distract from Gaza and just like target me and Jackson in an extremely dishonorable way.

And the reason there's a lot of anger there is because we were walking around.

We walked around the IWW people.

We walked around the Stop Cop City people.

And it's like,

You know, it's it's it's I d i I just I personally I don't come from that I don't come from that honorless culture where like, you know, we have student organizers, that's what they're calling themselves, who who are the representatives of the protests.

By the way, you know, some people are saying, oh, why didn't you just talk to the media people there?

And it's like, you know, we weren't there to have an agenda.

We weren't filming it.

We weren't looking for interviews.

We were literally just there walking around, anecdotally observing it to see for ourselves what's going on.

Because all we saw was the media, right?

But representatives of the protests, you know, sat down with us and they're like, look, we don't think you're a Nazi.

They said that.

They said, we don't think you're a Nazi.

But some students are claiming you are.

Therefore, you can't speak at the quad.

Now, this is why it's really frustrating because the quad is not the same as the law school symposium I spoke at.

The quad is the grass outside where there's megaphones.

We were told that we were not allowed to speak there.

By the organizers in private, by the way, behind closed doors.

And they said, We don't think you're a Nazi.

We don't think there's anything wrong with you.

But these anarchists, these stop cop city people, like, they're going to cause problems if you do.

And they're going to, like, you know, they're going to just sow division and cause problems, and we can't control them.

And those people weren't even students, by the way.

So that's basically what we were told.

And I was really frustrated in the heat of the moment because online I've become very sagacious, if that's the word correctly.

I'm really indifferent to the internet at this point.

But, you know, there's bad faith actors who dedicate their entire lives to spreading lies about me and Jackson.

And they're literally just lies, by the way.

Just pure smear camp, anything, anything.

And they do it every hour, every second of the day, literally.

Like, not just every day, multiple times a day.

There's some people that dedicate their lives to this.

And it does open the can of worms of the question: what job do these people have who do this?

I mean, how do they pay bills?

Who's paying for this?

It does ask some interesting questions, but regardless.

You know, that's just on the internet.

So to go in person and to see that someone like that is among these people and is not showing themselves, that pissed me off because it was like, no, show your face.

Show yourself.

Confront me with these various accusations you have, alleging that I'm a Nazi, alleging Jackson's a Nazi, alleging this, alleging that.

Confront me with these accusations and actually explain why.

Because online, I can't get these people to get in VC and justify anything they say.

I can't get them to actually stand on business.

So, if I'm literally in front of you, like in front of your face in person, you can't just maintain that pretense.

This is my personal honor speaking, of course.

You can't just maintain that pretense without actually standing on business and justifying yourself.

You know, so that's that's what I found particularly outrageous.

I found it particularly outrageous.

That people like basically internet trolls were acting anonymous in real life, refusing to even disclose who they were, what their identity is.

But they wanted to like maintain that stance and that pretense as far as you know spreading rumors like on campus about there's a Nazi with a gun.

None of us had guns.

It's like it's crazy.

No one's accountable for the things that they're saying about us.

I don't expect people to have to be accountable for the things they say about us online.

Let's face it, we have, it's been proven to us that the internet is just a BS factory and all of these, everything these people believe is just a lie.

But in real life, it's just like I have a personal code of honor where it's like, if you're saying things about me and I'm literally here, you have to say them to my face and be accountable for the things you're saying about me.

Because like you can't just say things about me in person.

And you just, what, everyone just has to believe you because you feel that way.

I just found that outrageous.

Um I also found it outrageous that they didn't waste any time during the symposium to try and blame me for Norman leaving.

So there was just a lot of anger there.

And my self-criticism boils down to this: I shouldn't have gotten angry.

That's what it is.

My self-criticism is that there's no reason to just get angry over these things, there's no reason to actually allow it to piss you off.

This is how students are.

This is what student culture is.

Live from Langley.

Why did the Trotsky cross the road?

To talk to their handler.

Very true.

Thank you for the ten.

Um so that's very important that I uh

I clarify that, there's no reason to actually get angry over that.

Um

It's better to remain cool-headed and it's better to just kind of focus.

It's not good to dwell in indignation.

There's a religious undercurrent for some religions.

I mean, I'm a Shia.

I come I'm gonna do a religious self-criticism.

I come from a Shia Muslim background.

And, you know, indignation, moral indignation, it is like a kind of default stance and position in relation to the world.

and humanity and history because of the injustice that happened in the past.

But I don't think that should bleed over, at least directly,

In terms of what kind of position you should maintain when dealing with the real world, you should not just be morally indignant.

And I shouldn't just be upset.

Put it this way: I shouldn't just be upset at the dishonorable conduct of these people, this minority who in no way represented the majority of the students, by the way.

I shouldn't just be upset at their dishonor and just leave it at that.

No, it's as a Marxist-Leninist, as a communist, it's not the communist way to do that.

As a communist with a capital C, I should draw a concrete conclusion.

I should say they aren't capable of honor.

I shouldn't expect them to be honorable because this is their class position, this is their social position, and so on and so forth.

So there's no reason to be indignant.

You should just have a cold view that takes into account the concrete reality at hand.

And again, the only reason I'm doing this is because I want to set a good example for you guys, because we're launching an organization this summer.

And, you know, there's going to be disputes within that organization, and I don't want people to.

behave in a rash, vain, individualistic and angry way.

When things, you know, when you have disagreements or when there's issues, and it's not befitting of a collective organization.

And I want to set the right precedent by saying this.

Yes, dishonor within this community is much more serious.

You're absolutely right.

That's exactly what I mean.

We should take dishonor seriously, but we should know where to expect it from and where not to.

I don't expect dishonor among my community, but among you know, anarchists, among CIA-affiliated care people, like I do expect dishonor.

If you're going to lie about Duma and Assad's chemical weapons attack with his straight face, if you're going to be an anarchist,

A priori you have a mental illness, right?

I I don't know why anyone would expect honor from those people.

Those people dishonor their parents.

They dishonor everything, you know, even everything they claim to stand for.

So there's no reason to expect honor among them.

And I want to make that clear.

But, you know, to be fair to myself, again.

If you watch the whole thing, it's very clear what I meant.

Also, it should also be very clear, in no way did this lead me to denounce all of the student protesters in general.

I didn't do that.

I didn't denounce the people.

You need to appreciate the scale that we're talking about, okay?

The UCLA and the Columbia protests and the encampments, those are like really big things going on, right?

There was no actual encampment at Emery.

I know I called it that, but it wasn't.

There wasn't any tents.

It was just blankets on the grass about I'm being generous, I think, when I say a hundred fifty people.

I think it's like only a hundred people were there.

So it was a hundred people sitting on the grass and that's literally it.

Just chilling.

I if it wasn't a protest, you wouldn't know if it was a protest or not walking by.

Wallfacer, what's up?

A dialectic contradiction is that the anti-communists have no class.

What's up, Wall Facer?

Appreciate you.

So, you know, people are saying, oh, Haas got pissed.

So he started, he made that tweet where he attacks all the student protesters.

That's just not true.

I didn't attack all the student protesters in that tweet at all.

All I did was offer a constructive criticism, which I'll be vindicated on again in like six months or something or less.

You know, and you know, I don't.

Here's why, you know, some people have this attitude where they're like, you know what, Haas, you can't be critical at all.

Because, first of all, who are you?

You're just a streamer.

Or who are you?

You're just a guy on the internet.

You're not doing anything on the ground.

Well, first of all, me and Jackson did go on the ground at Emory to check it out.

We offered help.

We offered to buy food.

We offered, you know, whatever we could.

And we were told that we make some people feel unsafe.

So, first of all, I don't know what to tell you.

No, no, that's just a completely bankrupt argument.

But second of all, I think that anyone who is interested in revolutionary strategy has a right to chime in and offer criticism regardless of your own status.

I don't need to be involved in organizing to know the history of organizing, to analyze it, to understand the culture surrounding it, to understand its limitations.

Organizing is not being a mechanical engineer.

It's very, and also, I have tangential experience surrounding it.

But even if I didn't, the results speak for themselves.

Okay.

Let's just be generous and stay since the nineteen nineties.

Where is the fruit of the organizing, right?

It's very clear something is very wrong, and you need to show me how this time it's different.

In terms of those limitations, because I don't see how it's different.

I don't see what's different in terms of the same limitations that will always why is this different?

Why would this be different, even if it got to the scale people want it to?

Why would it be different from 2020 in terms of the limitation it's going to reach?

E even better yet, and this is a point I don't think anyone's addressed.

Look at the nineteen sixties themselves.

You think the Vietnam War ended because of protesters?

It didn't.

The protests during the Vietnam War had way more consequences for domestic politics than they did foreign policy.

Actually, foreign there was a huge continuity in terms of foreign policy.

I mean, Richard Nixon Wong, Henry Kissinger was in there, and obviously they pursued a very, very aggressive, anti-Soviet foreign policy, the same one that was responsible for the invasion of Vietnam.

So I don't buy it.

You know, I even see students self-consciously identifying with the Vietnam protesters.

Like, why would you want to do that?

The 60s and the 70s, student protests, failed.

Failed very badly.

Just because Hollywood romanticizes them doesn't mean that's what you want.

Oh, you know, it's like people.

Would feel like it's a success if they have the same.

This is what I reject, and this is why I think it's important to maintain the criticism.

And again, yeah, I'm a streamer, whatever, but.

But we can be a little rationalistic and just say it doesn't matter whose mouth this is coming out of, it's just fundamentally true, it's logical and it's sound, it makes sense.

Um

Why don't we just think about this for a second?

Why is it considered successful for these protests to have the same impact that Vietnam protests did?

Because I feel like it's a little revealing.

I feel like it reveals that some people just want to be part of a cultural zeitgeist that is remembered in Hollywood films 30 years or 40 years from now rather than actually tangibly impact anything.

Because to be clear, the Vietnam protests were not the reason the U.S.

withdrew from Vietnam.

That was all the Viet Cong.

The protests only really started having gaining steam internally after various strategic defeats and setbacks the US faced in Vietnam.

So those are the 60s student movement is nothing to idolize.

It's nothing to want to return to.

It's not, oh, just like they were doing it, I'm doing it now.

And it's like, well, they failed.

All of them became yuppies and sold out.

And it didn't lead to any real political change at all.

I don't know why people want to romanticize those so much.

And, you know, people who claim that, like, oh, what right do you have to say this?

See, this is also something I reject.

People who say, you know, Haas, can't you just give the students credit for so empathetically having solidarity with Gaza?

How brave of them?

How just of them?

It's not my intention to challenge their sincerity at all, but I also want you to bear something in mind when you say that, okay?

The United States is the one who's guilty of what's going on in Gaza.

If it wasn't for US policy, if it wasn't for the US regime, there would be no Zionist entity.

So our government is the one to blame in the first place.

And our government is only in power because of us.

And the last and final instance, this is an esoteric truth of politics.

You don't always say it all the time because there's a logic to it that's subtle, but we are the ones to blame.

Okay?

We are the ones who allow this regime to continue existing.

And you want to know who carries even more blame than the average person who just pays taxes to the regime?

universities and the students within them who are part of activist organizations.

You are literally part of the state machine.

I understand a lot of people sincerely, sincerely are protesting for Gaza and you know they're risking their academic status for it and that's very noble.

But 16,000 dead children is because of the US regime.

So, in other words, this is our country's fault.

So, if it's our country's fault, you have a class of people, I'm talking about NGOs and activists, who more or less get paid to be the moral conscience of the world.

That's the universities, they are a hub of contemplation, of self-reflection, and of being the pretense to the moral conscience of both our society and the world.

Okay?

So, forgive me if I expect the so-called self-proclaimed moral conscience of the world.

To have to protest and deuce and speak up and raise their voices about the genocide going on in Gaza.

Now I know a lot of this is the result, mainly the result of the work of Palestinian student groups over the course of decades.

I appreciate that and recognize it.

But I don't consider these students to be braver than Hamas.

I don't consider them to I don't consider it to be extraordinarily, you know, some superhuman nobility.

I don't see that.

I'm sorry.

I I'm sorry, it's it's something to be expected actually.

These are NGOs that have employees that get paid to act like they're the moral conscience of the world.

Do you expect anything less for them to call for a ceasefire in Gaza after thirty thousand civilians have been slaughtered?

Can you think about that for a moment?

Our regime is the one to blame.

These NGOs are part of the regime.

Of course we expect them.

To call for a ceasefire.

Even they find that contradiction to be intolerable, by the way.

Now, why am I mentioning this?

Because I'm not here to point fingers, and I'm not here to try and say that these protests is just a psyop by the CIA or George Soros.

That's not what I'm saying.

I really think this is a contradiction that these activists and these NGOs are being confronted with.

It's an insurmountable contradiction.

They have to call for a cease.

They have to.

The contradiction is otherwise intolerable.

It's just a crazy amount of cognitive dissonance.

So with that being said,

All I'm interested in doing, my role, what I'm interested in doing, what Infrared is interested in doing, is just drawing a concrete conclusion from this contradiction.

Meaning, instead of dwelling in the cognitive dissonance, instead of dwelling in the unhappy consciousness, I want to say yes, there is a contradiction of liberal human rights ideology clearly at play, clearly evident in Gaza.

Yes, it's very true.

How can universities be culpable in this genocide and not call for a ceasefire when there's supposed to be the moral conscience of the world?

That is a real contradiction.

But Haas is here to say, my role is to say, well,

It is a contradiction, but

That's just the thing.

They actually aren't the moral conscience of the world in reality.

The reason universities are indifferent to the genocide in Gaza is because liberal human rights ideology just disguises the concrete self-interest of the monopoly capitalist class.

And that's why the contradiction is there.

So I'm here to actually explain the contradiction scientifically and concretely.

Instead of just being indignant that liberalism has failed Gazans, I'm here to tell you that liberalism itself has failed in general.

Liberalism itself is false.

You shouldn't be surprised at it.

You should draw a concrete conclusion.

And that's the beginning of that many, many revolutionaries in history began from even less, right?

A disappointed liberal can become a revolutionary.

I don't think most of them will, but it's definitely possible that some could.

That does play a role in people becoming radicalized in general.

It's just making the step from cognitive dissonance, which is based on being disappointed, to overcoming that disappointment by.

Understanding concretely

Why that is, right?

And that's really the angle that I'm coming from here.

I'm not coming from an angle of trying to preemptively judge all of these students because the protests are being led by regime-aligned NGOs, and they are, by the way.

Um these are regime aligned, and besides maybe some of the Palestinian groups, in general, these are regime-aligned NGOs that are leading all of this stuff.

But it's a real contradiction, that's the thing.

It's not a psyop.

You see, again, it's just really interesting because.

We are being called psyops for very less.

I I shake I um I speak at Daniel Burke's conference one time and that's enough to attach me to everything Lyndon LaRouche has ever done in his life.

But these regime aligned NGOs can be leading the protest and that somehow doesn't sully anything.

That somehow isn't a blemish upon anything.

So to be clear, this is my position.

My position isn't really to write anyone off.

It's just to, and I even said this at my speech, it's really just to point out that.

It's time to draw a concrete conclusion.

It's time to draw an actual positive conclusion.

Now, why am I saying that?

Oh Haas, you're just a streamer.

I agree.

I'm just a guy on the internet.

But you know what?

I actually have a reach.

So, I don't believe that I'm addressing the whole nation.

I don't have the pretension that I'm addressing all of these students.

They will probably never know who I am.

95% of them will never know who I am.

I mean, I won't say never, but right now they have no idea who I am.

I'm talking to my own community who does listen and respect what I say.

because they've gained valuable insights from me.

So, yeah, I mean, what I say does actually matter as far as the community that I've cultivated and that we've cultivated here.

Um, I don't know.

It's like it's such a ridiculous thing to say.

Like, I I'm not claiming I'm in a position of being able to address everyone simultaneously, but

I I just reject this notion that, you know,

It's enough to just go out there and do something.

Like I just don't agree with that.

I think there's a phenomena objectively happening because of an objective contradiction in a specific apparatus of the ruling hegemony.

So, regardless of what I say, the protests will happen or they won't happen.

And I have no causal relationship to it at all in terms of the things I say.

But I do have a right.

To want to um

Critique them for the sake of going forward.

You know, what do we do going forward?

And how should we analyze, how should we expect them to develop?

How should we expect these to develop?

And I think it's clear.

A phenomena cannot be carried on the basis see basic dialectics.

The moment of the negation of the negation sublates the instantiation of the contradiction itself.

And to translate that into terms, um

Anyone can understand.

Eventually there's a deeper rationality of why

Liberalism is facing this crisis, this contradiction.

The contradiction will acquire a form that sheds just the negative aspect of the shortcoming of liberalism.

It will take the form of a positive conclusion.

For example,

Instead of just being indignant at the uh US regime, you should also

say that America is an occupied country and we don't have popular sovereignty to begin with.

The US regime doesn't speak for international human values.

It doesn't speak for the moral conscience of the world.

It actually isn't any of these things.

As a matter of fact, it's a that our country itself is occupied by the monopoly capitalist class.

So you see how that transition displaces the previous form of the contradiction.

Before you're just faced with the immediacy of the contradiction, why is the US, the self-proclaimed world police, doing nothing about Gaza?

Why are all these university establishments and institutions not divesting from it?

That's the unhappy consciousness.

But once you're actually able to appreciate a positive conclusion,

Suddenly you acquire a position, a strategic position.

Where which is a revolutionary one actually.

This is the transition from infantilism to a matured revolutionary perspective, based into some kind of revolutionary strategy.

So I just want to help people make that transition and nothing else.

It's not that I'm putting an end to the protests or calling for them to come to an end.

I have no ability I have no discretion when it comes to that.

But I can influence some people who don't know how to go forward after these inevitably fail.

And that's really my role here.

That's really

What I'm seeking to to do here.

Guys, Aeon Animus is not a leftist.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure he's like a pro-Nick Fuentes guy, and his criticism is that we're not friendly with Nick Fuentes enough.

So, you know, I just, yeah, yeah.

I just, it's not exactly, you know, it's not what I said.

I didn't say anyone who has any problem with me coming VC.

I said leftists specifically will have an opportunity to critique me.

I didn't say, you know, I didn't say that, you know, people to my right should do that.

Anyway, um

So, I hope that puts it into perspective, actually.

We want people to mature, or we want to just.

We're building something that is more, how should I say, resilient than this is this is another issue I have.

I have an issue with movementism.

And how I'm going to define that is like if just because something is immediately on the news and it's just this mass, seemingly this mass phenomena somehow means it's going to spontaneously culminate.

And it's not true.

The limits to what's going on, if you're a Marxist, if you're if you have the pretense to being a Marxist-Leninist, a communist with a capital C, it's not your job to tail behind some kind of student protests and just be their cheerleader.

It's your job to tell people things they don't want to hear, not because you're arrogant and you know better than them, but because you're acquiring the courage of being able to analyze soberingly and scientifically, making an analysis of in the long term, how are these going to play out and how can we prepare for that?

That's what your job is as a communist.

Your job as a communist is not to just be excited by anything that ha I mean, look, guys, 2020 happened, all right?

The sixties themselves happened.

I'm seeing some of these activists.

It's literally in their tents, just like Vietnam, we're doing it for Palestine now.

And I'm like, yeah, but but those protests in the sixties were not effective for Vietnam and 70s.

Those weren't, you know, that didn't put an end to the war.

Again, I think there's some I can't dismiss everyone's sincerity, but some people, you have to admit this.

Whether it's 2020, whether it's this, whether it's any campus protests, some people are just like Kendall Jenner and they just want to be part of some kind of failed history that they can reminisce upon 30 years from now and romanticize themselves within in some Hollywood movie.

This is an ugly cold truth.

And I don't understand why this is so shocking and controversial.

It's just true.

You know, some people do just want to be like Kendall Jenner and just want the romanticism of being a part of something that they know will ultimately fail.

If you're interested in being a part of something that that will succeed,

Then obviously, you need to be very receptive.

Not only receptive to criticism, you need to be engaging in really brutal self-criticism.

Really brutal self-criticism.

Really, put it this way, and I want you to quote me on this.

This is my quote that I want you to walk away with.

All right.

The quote that I want you to walk away with.

If you are a student and you're serious about challenging the US regime and challenging US foreign policy in the long term, you need to be even more brutal on yourself

Then reality is going to be on you in five or six months.

You need to beat that brutality to the chase.

You need to be more sobering, more cold, and more brutal and critical upon yourself than how the actual events themselves will be on you as they play out.

Instead of doing this as a good person for three or four or five more months and then running up a wall and failing very brutally and disappointingly and then going home and then 30 years later romanticizing yourself in a film you should beat you should already see that coming and beat it to the chase and yeah that does require

That does require a degree of getting out of the immediacy of the moment.

And in a very cold, brutal way, again, what Badu says, subtracting yourself.

I'm not saying subtra I'm not saying go home and stop pro that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying, emotionally speaking, subtract yourself from the immediacy of the excitement that you have right now and start thinking about what is going to happen.

Um, because you know this isn't going to last forever.

So, and here's what I'm trying to say: people, when confronted with the ability to do that, who refuse to, and even get angry at me and say that I'm scolding students and I'm speaking down at them and I'm attacking students, those people are only in on for this because they know it's going to fail and they just admitted it.

You're basically saying the only reason you have anything to do with this is because you know it's not going to actually succeed and it will fail.

That's my perspective.

I'd love to see how it's wrong.

I'd love for someone to tell me how it's wrong.

Leftist and show Q.

All right, let me see.

Alright, yellow parenti, let's see.

Hello?

Hello?

Yeah.

Hold on, I can barely hear you.

Put up my headphones.

Okay, can y'all hear me?

Yeah.

Hello?

Yeah.

Hello?

Yeah.

Can you not hear me?

Okay, did you Yes, did you see what I wrote?

Or no?

Uh where where did you write this?

In the VC chat.

Uh okay, let me see.

Give me a second.

There's a V C okay, V C chat.

Hold on, give me a second.

Not sure of him saying the relation to gender roles in the DPRK.

uh would like to address his misogynistic view along the lines of men are naturally born to rule and lead, while women are naturally born to be domestic.

So are you referencing Hegel's quote there?

'Cause it sounds like the Hegel quote in the philosophy of right about

Uh about uh women's places in the home and man's places in politics or something.

Is that what you're referring to or?

I'm referenced so a clip where you said this.

I don't know if you were quoting him, I just remember seeing this clip.

Can you can you can I do you rem remember what clip it is?

'Cause that would be better context.

I d I don't.

It was a while ago.

Sure.

But you were talking about gender roles in the DPRK.

and said something about that's the reason they have held together is because they have stuck to these gender roles or something like that.

Sorry, I don't mean to call you a liar, but I kind of doubt that's exactly what I said, but because we don't have the the clip here, I guess.

Also do you not think this, is let me just ask that?

Uh I'll I'll explain my view um because I think that's really just simple it's very misleading.

So to start I mean to be fair this probably a one minute clip at the most.

Right, that's how most of these things are to be honest.

Unfortunately it comes with the job but uh I'll explain my view.

So I don't know if you've heard the song about the woman singing I can do anything you can do better that kind of thing.

The one from like the fifties?

Yeah.

The woman singing that.

Yes.

I actually don't.

I don't necessarily think it's wrong, actually.

I think.

I think in any given um civilization

Well, let's just talk about for the communist view in a communist society, right?

The communist understanding in the modern world.

Formally speaking, you cannot say that women cannot do this just because they're women.

Technically, anything a man can do, absolutely anything a man can do, technically speaking, besides like, you know, certain biological, whatever.

But technically speaking, anything a man can do, a woman can also do.

Meaning, if a man can be president, so can a woman.

If a man can be general secretary, so can a woman.

If a man can be an astronaut, so can a woman.

If a man can be a doctor, so can a you see what I'm saying?

So I don't believe in the exclusivity of roles based on gender.

I agree with the communist view.

And as a matter of fact, as the USSR proved,

Many, many women showed themselves to be exceptional, very capable scientists, doctors, engineers, and people involved in the space program, and so on and so forth.

So it's far from my view to say that only men can be leaders and women have to subordinate themselves to the homemaking role.

That's not my view.

But I guess where my view becomes maybe a little bit problematic, and I guess this is semantical.

is insofar as women can do anything man can do, that's only that's only within the context in which they are treated the same as men.

In other words, they are treated as men in a sense, not in a degrading sense of, you know, their their femininity is not respected, but just in the sense of if I have a woman at my work actually, my community is a great example of this, actually.

So there are there is uh women in my community, actually.

And I treat them the same way I treat men in my community, right?

But I'll take their word for it.

Well, I do.

I don't treat them differently.

Everyone gets treated the same regardless of their gender.

But that effectively means the same rules that apply to how men treat each other get extended to women in this case.

And I don't find that to be a problem.

That's completely fine.

Women, so rules such as what?

What do you mean by that?

Just for example, if we have a workplace and I talk to you and you're a man, it's going to be very professional.

There's going to be a coldness that separates us because I'm talking to you based on some kind of formality.

There's a formality that conditions how I enter into association with you that is based upon a respect for some kind of collective protocol of association, which is a more or less uniform standard.

Now, I could become your friend.

And we could tell jokes and whatever, go beyond this formalism on a personal level, uh but but I don't have to do that, right?

And there's always going to be a boundary there of respect, uh, distance, respect based on a distance.

Now, again, I don't think women should be excluded from that at all.

Here's my issue with contemporary US feminists, if you want to call them that.

I don't really care about the terminology.

I think some of them have an issue and say that's not enough.

You also need to treat me as a woman, meaning you need to acknowledge my feelings.

You need to acknowledge my specific womanly perspective, etc., etc.

And to me, this is where I take issue because.

The minute you treat a woman as a woman beyond just respecting her boundaries, you've actually crossed a boundary of intimacy, not necessarily only sexually, because this is also within family, right?

But nonetheless, you've crossed a boundary of intimacy, which I don't think can be institutionalized.

I don't think that an institution can treat women as women in any positive sense.

I think there can be ways to respect and acknowledge their femininity as an otherness.

Like, for example, they should have maternity leave.

For example, maybe women should be cut some slack if they're, you know, they have some cycles.

I don't know, whatever, if they're menstruating or something.

Maybe, I'm not even necessarily saying that can't be done, but ultimately.

Women will just be treated the same as men.

The minute you start treating them as women in a positive sense, you've crossed a boundary of intimacy, which I don't think is p again, I don't think it's possible in an institutional setting.

So that's my disagreement.

To very uh b to to basically um

Enter into association with them in such a way where you are attending to their feeling, extreme sensitive feeling, in an extremely close manner.

You're acknowledging their femininity in a positive sense, which basically is either a sexual relationship or it's a family relationship, to be honest.

Like, that would kind of be sexual harassment if you think about it, to be honest.

And one of the reasons it's see, this is kind of a paradox of sexuation in general, male, female sexuation, is because a woman can treat a man as a man without it being sexual in a positive sense.

All she has to do is just like respect some kind of impersonal code of association, and that's it.

She's treating him as a man.

But for a man to treat a woman as a woman positively, notice I say positively, because you can take into account someone is a woman and respect their boundaries in a way that you may not for a man.

Like, just in the sense of, for example, maybe you can avoid certain crass jokes.

Maybe you can be more forgiving toward them if they're kind of.

Uh, pregnant or something.

Like, there's ways to acknowledge the barrier that's another barrier that's there beyond just the formal one.

But positively speaking, to intuit with the female sexuality, to really interpolate and address a woman as a female subject in particular, you are basically crossing a boundary of intimacy in a way that's not true in the reverse case.

When a man, when a woman treats a man positively as a man, she doesn't have to cross a boundary of intimacy.

But the reverse is true.

When a man treats a woman as a woman, for example, I'll give you, it sounds weird what I'm saying, but it'll make sense when I give you this example.

Let's say we're in a uh formal organization.

We're all treating each other in a very professional, businesslike, respectful way, whatever.

But then, let's say you're a female, you're a woman, and some guy comes up to you and he just goes like, you know, I I'm something of a male feminist myself and like, you know, I really, really uh like women and their persp like, don't you think that's kind of creepy a little bit?

Uh, yeah, well, usually the motives there when some man walks up to a woman and says these kind of things, his motives are uh to sleep with her in general.

Usually, it's not just to be like, oh, I'm on your team, you know, whatever.

But it's, I feel like women are uncomfortable by this, not just because of that, but also because there's there's something intimate in them, their femininity is being put on the spotlight in a way they would just prefer to avoid.

Like, I don't want to be put on the spot right now just because I'm a woman.

I would prefer you just treat me like anyone else, right?

And that's so that's what I mean when it comes to the difference in terms of leadership.

It's not this simplistic notion where I say women cannot have roles that men have.

It's more that you have to acknowledge there is more to femininity than just you have to acknowledge that boundary.

You have to acknowledge that difference.

And that difference should be acknowledged on a cultural, societal, civilizational level.

I mean, it is recognized at that level, but.

I uh there there are attempts, for example, um

There are attempts by some feminists to turn organizations, to turn activities, even protests in some cases, into kind of extensions of the feminine intimacy, where it's all about a kind of immediate warmth, it's about some kind of like shared fe uh how should I say, shared deep connection, where it's just this immediacy of affects, which I think is doesn't belong to the realm of politics or organization at all.

Uh what what do you mean immediacy of affects?

Explain that a little more.

I think that an organization should not really be about, more or less, it shouldn't be about making you feel good.

It shouldn't be about attending to your feelings.

It shouldn't be about making you feel warm and friendly and comfortable.

It should be about an impersonal solidarity based on comradeship, based on a shared, mutual, shared struggle.

And that struggle should always be the focal point that unites you, not the kind of circle jerk, if you will, of just, oh, you know, there's a circle of us 15 people.

We love each other so much.

No, the focus should be on a shared external outside thing, right?

And.

I think that's not that's a kind of very controversial view in today's America American landscape, and you will be called a kind of Chauvinist, patriarchal Chauvinist if you insist upon that view.

Even if you don't make any criticism of feminism, even if you don't say anything about gender, if you just say, guys if you if you introduce that coldness, that cold abstract abstraction of just like no, this isn't about us being friends, let's have some kind of impersonal organization, you are considered somehow problematic and so on and so on.

Does that does that make sense?

I don't think I think you I think it is possible to treat women in a positive sense, like you were saying, without crossing that intimate ba that intimate barrier or whatever.

And I think that's something that we need to work out and figure out how to do.

I don't think it's impossible.

So but do you think that you don't know how to do it or what?

Or how do you do it?

I think a lot of people don't know how to do it.

I think I would know how to do it.

I think a lot of straight men in particular have issues doing that.

Because like you were saying, the male feminist types always make women uncomfortable.

There's a reason for that.

It's because they're not just doing it in order to sleep with them.

So what would be a example of like treating women differently than you would just treat men, for example, in an organization that you think would be acceptable?

I mean, I think like you said, tree uh attending to their specific needs, their specific um

Like their specific feminine needs as a class in society.

I think that's very important.

Okay, but to be more specific, because I'm not trying to, it's not a gotcha, but don't you think that kind of sounds intimate just off the tongue?

Like attending to her specific feminine needs?

I mean, I didn't mean, I mean, I mean, I understand, but it's just like even this kind of slip of tongue reveals what I'm talking about here.

But what do you have in mind more specifically?

Do you mean like just like things like maternity leave or again something specific to their biology, like menstrual menstrual?

Definitely, yeah, maternity leave, things like that.

Their roles and relationships, how they're treated within the organizations.

I think that's whether their positions of power.

Because when it comes to maternity leave, I think that would that would classify that would that would qualify as a negative.

You're treating it in the negative, basically saying, literally, it's a leave.

It's a maternity leave.

Or even if it's like, okay, she's on her period right now, like I'm not going to, I'm going to cut her some slack.

That's another negative relation because you're basically saying, you know, I'm not going to go there, but you have the right excuse, but I'm not going to go there, right?

I know what I'm saying maybe sounds vulgar.

I don't mean to offend.

But that would be a benefit you're giving that you wouldn't give to a man.

Like giving them.

I don't necessarily think that's the issue.

But I think the issue is that that's it's not an issue for me, but that's still negative.

It's not a positive.

You're not addressing them in a positive sense of their femininity.

You're just kind of acknowledging a boundary rather than crossing that boundary and dressing them in that way.

Okay.

I think the main thing you did address pretty well though.

The part about the for the clip that I had seen.

Yeah, yeah, because um And if I could find it, I I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, you also need to understand that usually from those kinds of clips, I operate, I used to operate on a principle of just like, I don't really care what anyone thinks.

There's always a good faith that my community gets what I mean.

But I've become more optically aware, I guess, where like I'll be like, okay, let's there's some people that may hear the way I'm saying this and draw a radically different conclusion than what I mean.

And maybe it's not fair to them that I just insist upon expecting good faith from them because, again, good faith is something that always has to be earned rather than the default, unfortunately.

So, you know, it may have come off that way, but I've always maintained the position that I agree as a baseline with the modern.

Sorry, it's not simply a matter of agreement.

I acknowledge the irreversibility of modernity when it comes to gender relations.

You cannot.

arbitrari you can't just exclude women from roles formally just because they're women.

My criticism has always been that even after we um touch base on the as far as modernity is concerned,

There are still observable differences between w men and women that manifest, including in the Soviet Union, including in the DPRK, including in China, and those are not necessarily the result of oppression.

Those are not necessarily the result of some kind of failure to address women's needs.

There is a difference between men and women, and how society deals with that difference, of course, changes across history, but the difference itself is never overcome.

Okay sorry, I was looking for that clip so I I can't find it.

Yeah, I mean is there any other eclipse or anything you'd want me to uh address or?

No, I think that's good.

Uh, if you don't mind me asking, what do you think did you hear anything I said about the students just now, or?

They I heard a couple minutes a couple minutes of it.

Yeah.

No, yeah.

Again, the clip is uh I blame myself because the form of the delivery, but it's out of context to make it seem like I was talking about A, all of the students in general, and B, all of the students at Emory when I was referring to a few specific dishonorable bad faith actors such as Care.

I don't know if you know who that is.

I'm not sure who your position is.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Syria.

The Council.

Yeah.

Care and then I don't know if you're familiar with them, the IWW.

Not what they used to be, obviously, but they're an anarchist group, Stop Cop City, and

Those people were basically.

We went.

See, a lot of confusion is surrounding that.

Because people are saying, oh, what about when you spoke?

And some people heckled.

These are separate things.

The thing where I spoke at was a symposium, and some people from the National Lawyers Guild were heckling me at the end.

But the thing I was talking about in that clip was something a small, maybe 100 people, 150 people sit down on the grass with blankets.

I'm saying that because there was no tents, it wasn't an encampment.

And there was a few people there from outside mainly actually who even though me and Jackson were there peacefully, we were just talking to people just anecdotally trying to get observations.

They we later find out that they constantly were complaining to people that you know we made them feel unsafe, that we uh that there's a Nazi with a gun on campus to cause panic in a really dishonest way.

So that was my anger and frustration at these kinds of people who just couldn't straight up come up to me and just be like, hey, you know, this is the problem, or like, we didn't have a problem with anyone.

So I was very angry in that clip, obviously.

But even that's a good example of how things I say can get really misconstrued.

I mean, I don't know if you knew this, but you know, a lot of people were trying to claim that I was against the student protests or turned against them or wanted them to come to an end, which just isn't true.

I did see that, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I made a thread, which, I mean, not a thread, I made a post which was pretty long, and people just kind of clipped the post unexpanded without the see more part.

So it was like these protests will amount to nothing, see more.

But if you actually see more, it says if they just remain on campus indefinitely.

So it's kind of ridiculous.

Do you think they've amounted to anything yet?

I think immediately, of course, they're amounting to something.

It's a national phenomenon.

It's on the media.

It's getting people thinking.

It's making an impact in terms of, and I said this in the post, it's exposing the willingness of the regime to suspend our civil liberties in order to enforce its foreign policy.

So I did acknowledge that.

But in the long term.

Well, and if you saw today, the Biden administration, they paused some arms shipments to Israel.

So very minor.

But it seems out of character for them.

I'm not, I mean, the aid that was just approved by Congress.

It's pretty hefty, you know?

Thirty billion dollars.

Right, and they well they I just they paused something.

That's all it was was a pause.

So it was very, very annoying.

I don't think anything has been paused.

I mean, Israel is just now going into Rafah.

They've just taken the Rafah border crossing actually.

Right, and so Biden is pissed because he told them not not to do that and they did it anyway.

Yeah, I mean it's clear this is a disaster for the Democratic Party and for Biden, but

To be clear, the US regime has not paused anything in terms of its aid to Israel because of this.

It's trying to save face by in public kind of they paused one ammunition.

I'm just reading this thing.

They paused one ammunition shipment to Israel, and that was it.

Right, but you can see how that's just to kind of save face domestically and has no tangible impact on the US's aid to Israel at all after we just gave them 30 billion, right?

Right.

But it is an interesting rhetorically, at least, optically, they're thinking about they're having to do something as minor as it is.

I mean, I've acknowledged that it's definitely worrying them.

I've acknowledged that even if even without that pause of that one arms shipment.

See, the issue is, I don't want to look at this in an activistic paradigm.

Like, these activists did this and they accomplished this goal because they did this.

I think it's more like, I take a more objective view in terms of there is an objective contradiction in the Democratic Party.

And you may not like how I phrase this, but within the kind of faction of the hegemony or an aspect of the hegemony, which is the universities and the NGOs affiliated with them.

And in part, they have risen in rebellion because of the, I mean, even people in Biden's administration, some of his.

Some of the people who work, I don't know what they're called again, but they quit after October 7th and stuff.

Like AIDS or something like that.

Yeah, White House AIDS.

They quit.

They couldn't tolerate it because, and that's not necessarily because they're activists.

It's because it's the unbearability of the cognitive dissonance that, you know, on the one hand, you claim to be championing universal human rights and the moral conscience of the world.

And it is, on the face of it, simply unjustifiable.

And it's just causing an immense cognitive dissonance in people.

And it's an objective contradiction.

And I acknowledge that.

I think it's a crisis.

It's a moral crisis within the Democratic Party within the U.S.

And I was very clear very early on that I think that is not only irreversible, it's obviously irreversible, but it's a positive development.

And I am by no means interested in ameliorating that crisis and trying to bend that contradiction back into shape or whatever.

All I I actually think, you know, people think that I turned on the students, but I think the opposite happened because usually my position is that

Student activists are completely irredeemable.

That that was my position previously.

And I in no way am interested in addressing them in any capacity.

I don't have much charity or good faith toward them.

But because of these protests in particular, I decided to open up some good faith and say, okay, if assuming the sincerity, which I'm not I'm not going to dismiss.

I can see clear limitations to where this is going.

I don't think I'm going to put anything to an end.

That's neither my intention nor something I think I can actually do.

But I want people to be prepared in terms of their consciousness, in terms of their outlook, in terms of their understanding for a more longer-term perspective.

And even if I can get only a few people to read what I say and say, hey, that makes sense.

You know, maybe I'll keep that in mind as I go forward.

And then on its own, if it fails, which it will, let's be honest, in the long term, there's a way to learn from it.

They're not going to divest.

They are not going to divest from Israel anytime soon.

None of them.

So I think that's exactly it.

See, because I know they're not going to divest, I'm just kind of more interested in basically saying, like, okay, this deserves an explanation.

Why won't they divest?

Instead of just like being disappointed in them for not divesting, I think it's possible for a new kind of revolutionary subject, not to be too LARPy, to emerge, which acknowledges the objectivity of the contradiction in the sense that it says, of course, they're not going to divest.

They're part of the imperialist hegemony.

It's not in their concrete self-interest to divest.

They're part of the ruling class.

And I feel like that can create a new kind of revolutionary position, which is strategically aware and more kind of.

strategically mature in terms of how it understands going forward how to operate and how to move.

I mean there's not it's not necessarily totally new.

You know, for example, in uh Russia, there were plenty of student movements whose failures actually formed the context of the rise of Marxism.

Before Marxism was popular in Russia, there was just all these kinds of anarchistic, nihilists.

There was the Narodniks, of course.

To give them the Nerodniks more credit, they were obviously way more organized.

But the failure of these spontaneous student movements inspired a minority of them to actually help form the Russian revolutionary social democracy itself, the origin of the Bolshevik Party.

And that was only when they were able to adopt a level of maturity and consciousness, which the only reason I'm writing the way I am about those students is because I think some of them might be capable of it.

I don't think most of them will, but maybe some of them.

So that is a charity that I extended toward them that I didn't previously.

And it's kind of surprising to me.

Again, but, you know, the truth is, there's bad faith actors, and I can't say if they're feds, but I just find it strange that some of them, it seems like this is their job.

They do it multiple times a day, and they just never get tired of it.

I don't know how they pay their bills or who's paying their bills.

Like protesters?

No, no, just people online trying to claim that, oh, Haas has just turned against the protesters.

He's calling for them to come to an end.

You know, Nick Fuentes actually said the same thing.

Interestingly.

Nick Fuentes joined the chorus of these.

Bad faith leftists, let's call them, and saying the same thing, which I just found very bizarre.

Yeah, well and going back to the students, it's the same thing with the Vietnam protest.

It did radicalize a lot of people, but ultimately didn't lead to a true revolutionary party.

There were revolutionary aspects of like the student the SDS organization, the Students for a Democratic Society, they had revolutionary tendency some of them had revolutionary tendencies that they were stamped out eventually.

And it

They turned into the hippies that we see today.

Yeah, exactly.

That's exactly my criticism.

I don't like seeing some people immediately romanticize these things and be like, oh, this is just like Vietnam again.

Because the Vietnam program.

Yeah, exactly.

Precisely.

So, you know, to me, criticism is not for the sake of complaining about them and wanting them to come to an end in vain.

Criticism is about offering an analysis and a perspective that maybe some people will allow them to mature beyond the kind of immediacy of the excitement of the events.

it can contribute to something you know more long term.

You know, it's not true even that the Vietnam protests could be entirely dismissed either, but there was an inability to draw the lessons from them correctly and apply them in a way that can move beyond

You know, I I I think well so actually I have actually so I have a TikTok and I I just post printy clips on the on my Tik

Take me.

But I just posted one that he has where he talks about um what happened after those movements and how the drug traffickers came in and COINTELPRO came in and just destroyed that entire movement.

Yeah.

And that's and that's exactly what happened.

Ex exactly, and you know, I think one of the I I think I just have a criticism of like movementism, because I feel like there's the excitement of this mass phenomena, and then it clearly it'll come to an end, and then there's a demoralization where people are like, All right, pack it up, go home, it's over.

Whereas I think the Marxist perspective is supposed to be especially the Marxist-Leninist perspective, but even just a normal Marxist perspective.

I think that is more kind of like based in, no, well, actually, most of the work is done in silence.

And it's as Lenin says, there's weeks where decades pass, and there's decades where weeks pass.

And whenever some big thing happens, I mean, we're not in a revolutionary movement, obviously, with the students.

We should really put that into perspective.

It's not a revolutionary moment.

It's not enough.

I don't know if you'd agree with this.

It's not enough, obviously, for universities to rebel against the regime.

Because as long as the regime has a foothold in the general masses, they'll always have leverage against the universities.

And one of the points I made was they're using the culture war against them.

They're trying to tell people outside these universities, oh, look, these people have blue hair.

So it's just this kind of, they're really hedging their bets on leveraging non-students against the students.

And unfortunately, as long as.

The let's maybe rebellion, I don't know what to call it.

As long as the phenomena confines itself to students, they're going to be isolated by the regime itself.

I'm not even saying that to attack them or criticize them.

I'm saying it to say it's clearly a strategy the regime is employing.

It's basically trying to turn this into some nonsense culture war divide.

Where I don't know if I don't know what your position on this is, but I personally think that it's in the concrete self-interest of many Americans, whether they're on the red or the blue side, but even those on the red side, even those who are on the opposite side of the culture as students, to basically agree with what they're doing.

I mean,

I I find it tragic and absurd that some Americans are being psyoped into turning against the students just because of some cultural differences.

When they would fundamentally agree on the issue at hand if they were actually educated about it.

Because every time they're educated about

Like the the counter protesters at Old Miss, they are not protesting in favor they don't give a shit about Israel at all.

They see these these liberals protesting for Palestine and the very opposite of that.

We're for America.

And America's

Yeah, yeah, I mean, no, that that's that's true.

That's also true, you know, there th even on the campuses there's people on the opposite side of the culture war thing and you know, if those people were given an opportunity to actually understand and know about what was at stake here, I think all they know Yeah, I I think there would otherwise be agreement maybe.

But, you know, even beside 'cause those are just like frat boys or whatever, but even if um you discard them and their potential completely.

Which I don't necessarily think is fair.

I think there's p I I don't know why some people were saying like, Oh, all the frat boys are privileged rich and it's like, ah, maybe some frats are like that, maybe most, I don't know.

But it's clear to me, I went to college, not all frats are uh privileged kids, some of them are are from working class families, but regardless, yes, it's an example of a cultural divide.

But even beyond the campus, it's like

You know, um, there's no reason they want the people that go into the frats want to be in that class.

Like, that's their goal.

Usually, their goal of being in a lot of these frats.

Well, I think that's true for all students.

All students want to ascend.

I mean, that's why they take on well, whenever we're talking about students, we're talking about the four-year college, not not trade or even community colleges.

But for the four-year college, almost all students are trying to uh ascend in terms of their class status.

Otherwise, they wouldn't pay for pay for education.

Yeah.

But in any case, you know, um

the culture war boundaries in this country, they're geographic, you know, there's the flyover states, there's the coastal, whatever.

They're generational, that's another thing, young versus old.

So there's all sorts of kinds of differences that are there that are

That are being exploited because of the confinement of these to the campuses.

And it's, you know.

People really misunderstood me because they're trying to say that I'm telling students, oh yeah, leave.

And just quit.

And it's not really what I'm saying.

I'm saying that once you begin to come upon the limits of this, and that will play out by itself, I don't need to be there.

You know, maybe consider instead of quitting and becoming a yuppie like the 60s protesters did, maybe consider that the strategy needs to be more.

more uh refined.

Maybe you need to reach out to people outside of your familiar uh your familiar uh culture and environment.

So really that that's just my position.

It's just a kind of

Just a kind of uh very mild constructive criticism.

I was very uh angry at uh

those organizations at Emory that very dishonorably

Uh, attack Jackson and I.

I think another thing people have a problem is that I use slurs and stuff, and you know.

I don't do gotta go I don't go out of my way to, but obviously in the heat of the moment, you know.

I but also you were just criticizing the um

Uh, them making the students a culture war issue, but then you go and using all these slurs make it seem like you're also playing into this culture war issue.

I don't, I don't necessarily see, I don't know if you saw that South Park episode.

Um, I probably have where like he's he's like, like, I don't know, I don't want to offend you by using the word, but he's like, you know, the F-word, uh.

It's not reaction.

Yeah, so they say snaggets refers to people we don't like not to gay.

Yeah, like a Harley driver who's being loud, you know, like and like I get it, I get it, but like it just doesn't work.

It just doesn't work in real life.

I think it depends who you're talking to.

I think there's plenty of people who don't really care and use it the same way I do, which would generally just mean someone who's dishonorable, actually.

But in terms of like actually attacking sexual minorities and like actually I don't really think that's something I was doing.

I wasn't attacking gay people.

I was just kind of

But whatever.

I think that's one of the things I really there I I will o there will always be a minimum of leftists attacking me because of that, because I just kind of won't compromise on the uh political correctness aspect, which is fine, but the reason I die on that hill, to be honest, is because

It's not that I think people should say whatever they want.

I think the N-word hard R is unacceptable generally because there's no context really where that means anything good.

It's just kind of very improper, always inappropriate.

But I just, you know, people say I fetishize rural workers too much.

And really, when it boils down to it, when it comes to leftists, I've always wanted them to just stop being so comfortable.

with whatever conceits of the mind they have.

They should stop being as comfortable as they are with the culture they've created amongst themselves.

Because I think as you would agree, that culture has not actually led to any tangible development of an independent politics.

And when I say culture from the mainstream duopoly or whatever.

And when I say main when the liberals have fully, yeah, the liberals are fully on board with all that shit.

Yeah.

And by the way, I'm not even just saying liberal culture.

I'm talking very specifically about an ideological culture where people have kind of refined ways of talking to each other and just kind of ways of lying to each other about the real world just to reinforce their respective ideas, I guess, and their respective communities based on those ideas because they're fundamentally insecure ideologically.

And they feel like if we start using these bad words, if we start telling these sober truths, you know.

Then that will undermine the integrity of our communities that are very, very, that have a very tenuous basis in this kind of allegiance to these ideas.

But I think that, you know, if you're going to be a communist in the 21st century in America, you have to have a degree of confidence in the truth of communism, the raw, the bare truth of communism, that to me is more resilient than that.

You know, it has to be more.

Anti-fragile, if to use that kind of word.

Like it needs to kind of really appreciate the real world, not just the world we create together as communists, to feel good about ourselves and our beliefs, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I think so.

As in, like, the truth of communism wouldn't be deterred by exactly.

That's precisely homophobia or something.

Yeah, or like, or like, you know, you need you need to, like, um, acknowledge the real world in the sense of, like, it this is how people speak.

Like, this is just, like,

Many, even things that people say politically that are wrong, or at least see, I always believe in a sense the masses are always right intuitively.

It's just that there's sometimes false consciousness, right?

Whereas the kernel of their position is correct, it's just that it's being articulated in the wrong way, oftentimes.

That's what false consciousness is.

To um serve a class interest unbeknownst to them that's contrary to their own.

But I don't think people's feelings are wrong.

I don't think people's intuitions are what's wrong.

I just think the way they draw political conclusions from them is oftentimes wrong, because it's always dominated by whether it's uh Republicans or Democrats, it's always dominated by the ruling class.

So, you know, um

I I don't know, I just think I I I really oppose po I think it's really just the political correctness I I'll I can't reconcile myself with, to be honest.

The tax.

I mean, but that is still at the cost of alienating a lot of people.

I I agree, but I think it's worth it in the sense that

I mean, I don't think you're going to win over rural workers just by being against cancel culture and stuff like that.

No, you won't.

That's just step one.

There's like a million other steps.

That's just step one.

Winning over rural people or MAGA people, for example, I mean, that is a that I mean, it's not something that happens right away just by how you talk or how you posture, how you signal to them, culture word.

That's not really what's at stake.

What's at stake is being able to hold your own, debating and confronting the influencers that they respect.

You know, these people who are listening, whether they're priests, you know, evangelicals, whether they're like conservative influencers, right-wing influencers, being able to hold your own.

And establish yourself as an alternative authority to those people takes a lot more, right?

Because the end of the day, nobody cares that you're just culturally on the same level as, like, they don't, they don't even see that as political, right?

You go to some job sites where people are very politically incorrect, that's the default.

That doesn't make them dispose to your ideology whatsoever by itself or your political position, because that's just like the default, right?

So, speaking the plain truth or talking in plain ways.

I don't know.

I I just think leftists need to be less comfortable with the alternative society and culture they've created amongst themselves.

And really refine their ability to always seek to ground whatever political community they're trying to create in its material premises contrary to that community.

Now, in plain English, that means you need to be less sensitive, you need to be more resilient, you need to be more able to constantly self-criticize, to constantly think to yourself, how do I bring this person to this level?

What does it take to do that?

What does it take to speedrun that?

What does it take to speak in a way that people understand?

Um

Based on their own experiences, based on their intuitions, and based on what makes sense to them.

Because I think the issue with leftists, it's not that they're critical of you know rural people, let's say, it's not that they're critical of their ideology, that's all very well and fine.

What I reject is the way that they're critical of their senses and their sensibilities and their intuitions.

Because to me, there's a lot of wisdom in those sensibilities and intuitions.

So what's an example?

I think, for example, there's a lot of wisdom in the intuitive distrust of what they say is big government.

There is a kernel of truth there that leftists should probably be speaking to in some kind of way that understands why they have that, why they reserve that.

I think when it's just that that leads to many politically wrong conclusions because too many people are dominating their consciousness at the overt level.

So it's leading them to be against healthcare or whatever, universal healthcare.

Well, because they go for the Republicans who are also big government.

They just call themselves small government.

Yeah, that's also true.

Yeah.

I mean, I guess Rand Paul could be considered a small in favor of small government, but he just has a private industry to take the place.

Also, that's just kind of something off the top of my head.

I also think that their intuitions and sensibilities as far as the just even the way that they are suspicious of and reject leftists themselves, there's a kernel of truth in that as well.

I think that sometimes leftists are trying to enforce materially unconditional communities of culture and language, which are not really based on anything material in terms of like, okay, but who's paying for this?

And I think that sounds like a conservative trope, like who's paying for this?

But when you think about it, it's like, who's paying for this for your ability to maintain this worldview so comfortably and so at a distance from the spontaneous and you know uh

Unrefined.

Kinds of consciousness people have.

Who's paying for your ability to be so insulated and so comfortable ideologically?

What's paying for that?

What is that based in?

I think that a lot of the sensibilities and the intuitions are correct.

Spontaneously, obviously, you know, there's issues of foreign policy and so on and so on.

But in general, I think it's always important to have good faith.

And it's important to understand the deeper wisdom behind the super b as long as you can understand the deeper wisdom of the masses, you can wrest from them the hold that the class enemy has uh maintained over them.

And that's not just recognizing their wisdom, it's also building authority.

Because if you just recognize the wisdom without the authority, you know, you may be correct, people may like you, whatever, but will they respect you in the same way they respect power?

Probably not.

So then I have one more question before I go.

Yeah.

For you.

So I keep seeing your followers.

I don't watch your streams.

I just mostly use Twitter and TikTok.

I don't watch any streamers, really.

Sure.

But I keep seeing your followers talking about you creating an organization, a movement, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But I've yet to see anything concrete in that respect.

As far as I can tell, you've just been streaming and creating a social media platform.

The organization they're talking about, I think, is the one that's launching this summer.

But so far, our strategy has been the C, it still is, the CPUSA.

That's the main.

I don't know if the 2036 initiative where we wait for the elections to come up, and at that point, we basically ascend to power through within CPUSA.

Yeah, yeah, by basically earning a good reputation within the CPUSA, going along with whatever Taryn Five and the dominant Sims.

And then when the elections come, get elected and then.

You know, that's where the new organization, I don't even know if I should call it a new organization, but that's where the organization.

So, you plan to join CPUSA?

No.

Okay.

I I'm I'm not allowed to join the the current C P U S A.

Are they are they having they're having outside elections then?

No, they're having elections which we're going to be inv it's it's a s it's a s it's not entryism, but it's a kind of like uh

I use my platform to basically unify forces around

restoring and taking back the CPUSA.

Mainly restoring it, taking it back.

Um, but the leadership has engaged in delaying the elections.

They've engaged in some uh

We argue illegal practices, which we're going to

Reveal to the public soon and so on.

So I'm not in CPUSA, so I guess I'm not super familiar with how they operate.

What do you mean elections?

So elections that you could participate in not being a member?

No, no, no.

I it's a I I think there's confusion.

My followers have joined the C P U S A but have not revealed that they're my followers.

Okay.

So you don't intend to start your own organization?

No, we are.

We are starting our own organization.

Doing both of these things.

this summer, but it's going to be very related to the uh CPUSA elections that are upcoming.

Okay.

But um

The reason I didn't start one earlier, and the reason it's always surrounded the CPUSA is because we believe in a principle called the One Communist Party principle, which basically I agree with that.

It's an introspection about the nature of sectarianism in Western leftism in general and what it actually takes to found a party.

And in our view, to found a party requires.

the acknowledgment of something fundamentally impersonal, something fundamentally irreducible to your ideological your particular ideological position, and it's something objective.

And we see the CPUSA

in terms of the historical legitimacy that it has, in terms of the circumstances surrounding its founding and its history with Foster and so on, as still objectively the Communist Party in the USA.

It's just that uh it's being led in the wrong kind of way.

But we consider that an important stage of maturity.

Uh to basically obey the party.

while simultaneously disagreeing with it privately.

That's kind of a Marxist-Leninist uh

culture of democratic centralism, where to be a communist, you don't it's not just a confessional, it's not just you have a specific world view and ideology and you act upon that.

No, it's also the ability to be part of a collective organization

And submit to that collective authority, regardless of your particular opinion, regardless of your particular view.

So there's a formal aspect of being a communist, not just in terms of the content of your belief.

There's also a formal aspect of what it means to be a communist, right?

A communist is not just one who has X, Y, and belief.

A communist is one who is part of a communist party.

That's the Mar, I don't know what your affiliation is.

That's the Marxist-Leninist view of what it means.

So this is why we've been focused on the CPUSA.

And they won't let you join CPUSA?

Not me personally, no.

But my followers...

Have you tried?

Like they've like outright said?

Yeah, and they denounced me and lumped me in with Caleb Maupin in November of 2021, actually.

But since then, I've basically encouraged my followers to continue stay in the party, join the party at all costs.

And basically they have delayed the elections and they have they have themsel see I threw a curveball at them that in no way the precedent of party organization is prepared for.

So the way they responded to my strategy itself circumvented the democratic centralism of the party.

which is going to have consequences this June.

Uh you know, they um they published an attack on me tonight.

Very interesting.

I'll have to check that out.

Um but basically they uh

They have delayed elections by a year.

They've um engaged Joe Sims and his gang and others, they've engaged in very kind of shady behavior.

Uh with financing, I've been told.

I've been given some receipts.

In terms of um how they're going about the election, there's just a kind of whole case we're building against them.

But yes, we are launching an organization.

In June that is going to be responsive to this dilemma.

Okay.

Uh I think with that I'm gonna go ahead and go.

But it was an interesting conversation.

Sure, no problem.

See you later.

So uh let's actually check out the CPUSA's article.

Uh wow.

Super interesting.

This as uh I don't understand this.

This is just incredible.

This is just um against I thought this was mainly against Midwestern Marks, but let's see what they're talking about here.

Alright, let's see.

Against patriotic socialism.

I wasn't aware that people still use this phrase.

Uh b but here we are.

Commonly known among Communist Party members, the phenomena of pat socks has arisen in recent years, but has its roots that go back before the twenty twenties, even all the way back to Browderism.

Okay, well, if it has something to do with Browderism, it has nothing to do with us, which was fought against by CPOC members, most notably figures such as Williams.

I think they're changing the definition of PATSOC to be convenient to them.

The leftist definition of PATSOC is anyone who endorses the Marxist-Leninist view of socialist patriotism and applies that to the United States, meaning an acceptance of proletarian patriotism for the United States versus Jay Sakai's view, which is that it's just the United States is just settler colonialism and there's no way to be patriotic for this country, this specific form of the nation.

That's so so William Z.

Foster fully, fully agrees with our view.

He is a pathsock by the leftist definition, but the CPSA is just changing the definition.

And very, I guess, uh using uh Memphis, Facebook.

Very, very uh good of them.

Memphis Facebook Aesthetics

Alright, very well.

Let's see.

The phenomena is liquidationist.

Wow.

As it calls for the dissolution of the party, as infrared has done.

No need for any proof.

They could just say whatever they want.

No need for any proof.

Just say what you want.

And then it's just true, I guess.

Who is this?

Elijah Jones.

You know, it'd be funny if this was a gorilla who's doing Takia.

That would be hilarious.

That would be hilarious, because this is just like okay, and has a transphobic, ableist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Indigenous character.

You know, the transphobic, maybe you that's fair because of the things we've said.

Um we don't whatever.

Uh ableist, I don't okay.

Anti-Semitic is interesting.

I don't know where that's coming from.

And anti-Indigenous.

Wait, are we anti-Indigenous because we reject

Jay Sakai because William Z.

Foster is also

Jason doesn't Jason Kai talk smack about William Z.

Foster?

So I don't see how that squares, to be honest.

Don't see how that squares.

The social phenomena puts above all social media puts above social media influence as its main figureheads, with many calling on the members or followers of their respective accounts to commit mass entryism in the Communist Party.

and other organizations.

The Pat Sock movement is inspired by figures such as Lyndon LaRouche.

Um

Why is LaRouche even mentioned?

Why is that the f first of all, I will admit something.

Uh because I was influenced by Kantbot and the parapolitics Twitter people like Kantbot, I did actually say, Yeah, yeah, LaRouche obviously I read him and he said some interesting things.

The idea that he's a figurehead though is ridiculous, first of all.

Second of all, let me go on record saying something.

There is nothing LaRouche has been correct about that Michael Hudson isn't a million times more correct about.

If anything, you should call us Hudsonists.

Our view about productivism, our view about these kinds of things, that's all Michael Hudson, not LaRouche.

I think LaRouche's main thing for us maybe is a he offered some support.

His people offered support as far as critiquing the green movement and degrowth stuff, but some people like Fox Green take that into directions we don't agree with, like critiquing China's policy of uh ecological civilization, which we actually agree with China about.

So, no, he's not a figurehead.

Michael Hudson is far more of a formidable influence, million times more of a formidable.

We are Hudsonites.

I can say that very confidently.

We are Hudsonites.

As a matter of fact, my upcoming book.

LaRouche has no n my magnum opus, in other words, there's not a trace of LaRouche in it.

But Michael Hudson's research and Michael Hudson's articles and Michael Hudson's books figure very, very prominently in what I'm writing.

So no, we are Hudsonites.

We're not

We're not really with LaRouche.

I mean, L LaRouche versus Hudson, we are one million percent Hudson, you know?

The leading neo fascist politician in the United States.

But isn't he dead or is he not dead?

I'm pretty sure this guy is dead.

He is dead.

Unless he's secretly alive.

He died in twenty nineteen.

So this is just extremely amateurish and ridiculous.

Ridiculous.

This guy is dead.

I don't know how he's a leading figure of anything when he's in the grave.

And now band R T commentator Caleb Maupin.

A person that has met with LaRouche multiple times.

I didn't even know that myself, and has invoked or extolled most of his ideas, as well as being an admirer of Earl Browder,

Okay.

In recent years the Patsock outlet Midwestern Marks has also acquired quite a following and have even been um

promoted by such outlets as In These Times,

We have yet to call out patriotic socialism for what it is, which is national socialism in a new garb.

I contend that we need a the thirty-second convention to also stress the issue of ableism, especially in regards to autistic and

But don't you think this is a little uh self-serving?

You know, because I think it's kind of silly, because I think

I think it's true that the m majority of people fixated on LaRouche and notions of patriotic socialism are autistic, especially the LaRouche part.

I think that I agree that there's an autistic crisis of disability, but I think that figures into the over-exaggeration.

Of LaRouche's relevance for us.

Thank you, Emil.

I think a lot of the

Exaggeration about LaRouche's relevance is coming from autistic workers, quote unquote.

So it's a little too on the nose and a little too on point as far as what we're talking about.

Indigenous land stewardship, okay, and the wider land back movement and trans liberation.

Imagine if Stalin was reading this.

It's just like insane.

Like, what are you even talking about, dude?

This is like this is insanity.

Isn't this a Communist Party?

What is this?

Jesus Christ.

Like, even in the 1960s, if someone told you this would be what the Communist Party is saying, they'd be like, huh?

That desperate, huh?

Can you just admit, guys, that you failed to reach the masses?

Yo, CO2 is good.

What's up?

Can you guys just admit that?

And I'm not even saying, I'm not blaming trans theories for their failure to reach the masses, although it's playing a part.

First, you failed to be politically relevant and reach the working class.

So you decided that.

you know, your your revolutionary subject is gonna be like some fringe sexuality, or it's gonna be some fringe marginal group because you fail to actually do what a Communist Party is supposed to and actually have a base among the working class itself in general.

All of which Pat Sox attack on a daily basis.

That's not true.

I don't attack trans people on a daily basis at all.

I don't even know if it's a weekly basis.

I think it's more of like a maybe once every two months kind of thing.

I don't know.

Because that will strengthen us against the threat, against infiltration, against dilution of our beliefs, and take the fight to this budding Pat Sock movement.

So what are you gonna do, like post clips about me on Twitter?

That's all you've ever done, by the way, is post clips about me on Twitter.

It's all you've ever done.

And to be honest, I kind of feel like a lot of the people who are stupid enough to like be impacted by that

never were gonna make it anyway, to be honest.

Having documents stolen by Pat Sock forces, as happened in New York City, that's just the tip of the iceberg, dude.

Come on, cannot be allowed to happen again.

And the possible federal connections, such as those with this, is just like complete libel.

There's no footnotes showing any sources, are also noteworthy.

What is this fan fiction?

This is just fan fiction.

This is insanity.

I'm sorry.

How is this not crazy?

We've had to expel many such people from the party, as long as the new lavender scare ramping up against trans folk in the USA remains a prison house of nations.

You know who I'm going to send this to?

Our friends in China.

I'm going to send our friends in China this article and just tell them, hey, look what we're dealing with.

I think they would really, really be interested in this and just be like, wow, we don't have this in China.

This is kind of crazy.

I don't know.

What do you guys think?

Uh this is just kinda crazy stuff.

Just insanity to be honest.

We can also fight the Patsock threat by supporting and amplifying our support for the land back movement.

You can do anything you want, but June is coming.

Okay, you can do anything you want, literally anything, but June is coming and you can't stop it.

And yeah, we're in your party.

And no, you can't tell who.

I don't I don't know, guys, you need to realize this.

We are actually Marxist-Leninists.

So, those of us who are in your party, you will never know who they are because they will never, ever, ever reveal what they really think and what their opinions really are because you've banned them.

You've banned those opinions.

So, all they're doing is obeying democratic centralism and obeying your rules.

As a matter of fact,

If you wanna find infrared people, I'm gonna give it I know they're never gonna listen to these words, so I don't care, but it's like it really is the loyalists.

The Joe Sims loyalists, like that's infrared people.

Like the people in the party who are just goody two-shoes following the rules, that's my people, okay?

Go ahead, ban everyone who follows the rules, see what happens.

It's kind of crazy, you know.

Because, like, what could they do?

Ban everyone who follows the rules?

Well, that's our guys.

They just follow the rules.

They don't talk about their real views about land back or any of that stuff.

They don't open conversation.

No, they realize that you guys are mentally ill and there's no reasoning with you, and you just ban all dissent.

So they've submitted to the centralism, and that's it.

It's not entryism.

Entryism is where you try to join and influence it or jeer it in a certain direction.

All we're trying to do is get elected.

We're not violating any rules, okay?

Everyone's following the rules.

And once they get elected, they will have discretionary power to change policy according to the rules of democratic socialism itself.

So there you go.

Uh yeah.

Anyway, further steps can be taken.

Edit the party program to call out MAGA communism as movements that must be combated and aren't allowed in the CPUSA.

K.

Sloganeering and repeating explicit Padsock talking points are grounds for expulsion.

But then you have to ban William Z.

Foster's literature from the party.

For example, saying white supremacist phrases such as We must secure the existence of our people for the future of our children

Yeah, I think that's reasonable because it's a I clicked the link.

And you want to know what they linked?

A photoshopped

Tweet of Jackson.

This is actually f I don't know if this is deliberate malice or it's ignorance, but can I sue can we sue them or something?

This is so like.

Just so, like, oh my god, you didn't even do your homework.

Can someone tell this guy, like,

No one cares.

Nobody cares.

They're just guys.

When I say it's like lies, like, this is what I mean.

It's just like, what are they talking?

Infrared called for the party to dissolve.

What Jackson.

We must secure the existence of our I mean, I I here's what I'm interested in.

Like, does this guy know he's lying?

Like, is it on purpose or what?

Do you guys think this is on purpose?

This is actually a fake tweet he never made.

He never made this tweet.

It's photoshopped.

Uh, does this guy know?

I don't know.

It's just I've really for a I uh pan leftist, I just see them as fascist collaborators at this point.

I don't really expect any moral integrity from them, but I'm I am I am uh

Very much uh impressed by this level of moral corruption and willingness to just lie, sharing photoshop tweets.

Certain patriotism or nationalism such as the Indigenous Land Back Movement or fondly looking back on proletarian movements through US history.

is one thing

For example, proletarian or working class patriotism, not as Americans, but as proletarians, could be emphasized.

Don't be angry, don't be indignant.

Concrete conclusions.

Concrete conclusions.

The party is this way because it's led by people who are senile.

They have dementia.

Whoever approved this had dementia.

They didn't even know what it said.

It's a circus right now.

That's okay.

We're going to recover from it.

Not gonna get angry, gonna be calm.

Concrete conclusions.

Concrete conclusions.

Um I find it I don't know if this is part of the trans liberation, if this is like a trans only thing.

I don't want to be transphobic, but I'm pretty sure proletarian patriotism is proletarian patriotism for America, if it's in America.

It's not saying proletarians are a country.

It's not saying the proletarian class is itself a nation.

I'm not sure where that reading of the national question came from.

But I'm pretty sure proletarian patriotism in America is a proletarian form of American patriotism.

Not

not being patriotic only for the proletariat itself, that's not patriotism, that's just class consciousness.

There's no patria at all there because you're not specifying any land at all or any nation or country.

I don't know what the proletarian nation is besides what Mussolini said.

Uh Mussolini claimed Italy was a proletarian nation and uh Britain was a bourgeois nation and that class struggle is uh in like between nations now or something.

I don't know if where this notion of uh the proletarian nation comes from except Mussolini.

Uh

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but will continue.

The class struggle and fight against fascism takes precedence.

Waving the American flag a genocidal symbol is not okay.

Okay, you're saying that, but you have to understand you're overturning party precedent, historical precedent, by a very long time, and you just should be aware of that.

Invoking, you should take responsibility for that in the full and really have the courage to muster and say, you, Elijah Jones, are more wise and smarter than William Z.

Foster was, and just tell Joe Sims that's what you think before he approves this.

Invoking American symbology is not okay.

Joe Sims has an American flag on his bookshelf, by the way.

The people within the United States are increasingly unpatriotic to the American state.

That's fine, but the state is not the same as the country.

There's still a country with its own history that's called America in the United States.

It's not just the regime or the government.

I don't know what you're talking about.

And their roots as proletarians shall be emphasized over their Americanness.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It's just not Marxism-Leninism, though.

This is just kind of Trotskyism.

Marxism Leninism says that class struggle takes a national form.

So to emphasize proletarians, you're talking specifically about, yes, specific form of Americanness, the proletarian Americanness.

That's this Marxist-Leninist view.

That's Stalin's synthesis of Leninism.

You're talking about some kind of Trotskyism or something.

I don't know.

I would listen or read to Lenin's great and underrated work on this issue.

Referring to the Communist Party USA, uh you really

Really, Lenin's work bellicose militarism and the anti-militarist tactics of social democracy.

Aha.

So you're talking about colonialism and militarism, and you're conflating that with patriotism.

I don't know why you're doing that.

What about what Lenin says here, in your view, justifies overturning all party historical precedent and and all Marxism-Leninism and socialist patriotism?

Nothing.

Maybe he uses the phrase patriotic.

Let's see.

Ah.

Ah, this is w there we go.

So he's referring to uh the patriotism of the French.

Ah, the working men were the Communist Minutesu, that attitude of Volmer strikes at this basic principle of international socialism is also true.

But it does not follow from this that Hervey and his followers are right in asserting that it is of no concern to the proletariat in what country it lives.

The fatherland, the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.

He wait, so Lenin's saying the opposite of what you imply he says?

He's actually emphasizing the importance of a national context?

The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the political, social, and cultural conditions of its struggle.

Consequently it cannot be indifferent to the destinies of its country.

But the destinies of the country interest it only to the extent they affect its class struggle, not in some virtue of bourgeois patriotism right, but but for the proletarian patriotism.

This is just Marxism-Leninism.

So I think he's just focusing on the usage of the phrase patriotic in this article, before Marxism-Leninism developed its own conceptual relationship to patriotism, which happens uh after the Soviet state is created, obviously.

The word patriotism used to be a prerogative in these circles because it just referred to loyalty to the actions of your state.

But as far as this broader question of what relationship the proletarian class struggle has to the nation as a historical um

reality and to the to your people in the

And the um country, that was elaborated upon later.

Um it just wasn't a focus at this point.

So, right, so he he links an article by Lenin that completely contradicts everything he says.

Lenin's um negative uses of the words patriotism in no way

refer to waving the flag of your country or having a sense of pride in your homeland or your country and its people.

Rather, he was talking about a specific political position in relation to war and the militaristic policy of the state.

So there you go.

I would listen, okay.

Well, Lennon contradicts you directly, referring to the Communist Party USA.

In the geographical sense of the term, as is the case with other Communist parties, that's not true because you could also say it's Turtle Island and it would still be the same geography.

So why do you still say USA?

is one thing, talking of American citizens is one thing as well.

But ultimately we sh must try to abolish the bourgeois American state that oppresses us.

That's fine.

You can abolish the state all you want, but there will still be a nation called America.

There will still be an American people.

There will still be a country called America.

And it will still have the history that it has.

So this is just very t he's trying to basically trick Joe Sims.

We're ultimately not American patriots.

At best, we are working class patriots.

Again, I think he's confusing country for class.

It's kind of ridiculous.

This is just a Mussolini nonsense statement.

We must also have our own official education program.

Warn others of the dangers of fascism.

So they're now we're now a primary contradiction for party leadership, or at least factions within the party, by the way.

And right chauvinism as well as right deviation.

We need a craft and education program that's anti-PATSOC and stresses the history of the CPSA post-1956.

Why not pre?

Why not during the reign of William Z.

Foster?

In the thirties.

Tony is a loser you mean after they uh denounce Stalin and go with Khrushchev, is that what you're talking about?

We need to continue to show this.

We cannot have the plat socks controlling the narrative about the CPSA and reducing everything about it to what Errol Browderer.

Uh wow.

What the hell?

Who's talking about Earl Browder?

You know what I think they're talking about?

I think they're talking about.

Earl Browder's loyalty to FDR and the kind of patriotic rhetoric that came with that.

As if that has something to do with us, which it doesn't?

S

Male chauvinism and anti femininity is a huge problem in our society.

Let's see the link.

Okay, he just links another CPUSA article.

That's great.

Uh and MAGA communists like Jackson and serial sexual abuser Caleb Moppin exuded this problem in spades.

Recently, Jean Weiwei, who has seventy three thousand subscribers at the time of this writing, promoted such personalities as Jackson Hinkle,

Friend and promoter of Caleb Moppen, I don't think that's true anymore, and uncritically promoted American communism as well, as well as referred to the specter of illegal immigrants coming to America.

Why did you even mention this?

Why did you even mention Jong Weiwei?

What was the point?

You didn't even explain to anyone who he was besides the fact that he had 73,000 subscribers.

What was the point of mentioning him?

What relevance does he have to you?

We're sending this to our Chinese friends, by the way.

We're definitely sending this to them.

Because I don't even know.

Like, this is so ridiculous.

This is just so silly.

I'm embarrassed for this party.

This is embarrassing for them.

I suggest you take a look at Dom Shannon's work here, elucidating on the culture war and the crisis of culture we're living through.

Many influences are too tied to Internet algorithms created by platforms and companies.

TikTok may be banned.

A friend of mine was doxxed by a social media influencer and this is ultimately dedicated to him.

Why are you acting like your friend died and he was killed?

This is in dedication to my friend who was doxxed.

RIP Fallen Soldier, you can no longer be an anonymous troll.

Uh I don't understand this.

Why are you acting like he died and this is like a memorial?

What do you mean?

We gotta love the CPUSA content.

It's always comedy.

It's always comedy.

What is this?

A friend of mine was doxxed and this is dedicated to him.

Your did your friend die?

Is he dead?

What happened to your friend?

Pouring out for the homie who got doxxed.

Poor one out for the homie who just got doxxed.

Smoking on that docks pack, I guess.

Yeah, Volk Volsk, young adult fiction.

What is this?

What is this?

What is this?

This is a little ridiculous.

You know?

Not to be transphobic, but what's going on?

Hmm.

Someone I don't recognize is in ShoQ.

Hello?

Hello.

Anyone there?

Yeah, can can you hear me?

Yeah, what's going on?

I don't know.

This isn't really a debate, or it kind of is.

I want to talk to you about.

It's like a really specific thing.

Just about uh, you claim that like Allende was sending people to Colonia Dignidad.

I'm open to it, but I just like everything I've seen is like it's more about Pinochet was sending people there.

Is this not this is not what you're interested in?

It's cool.

Wait, I never said Allende sent people to there.

What are you talking about?

Or you didn't say Colonia Dignidad, but you were I think it was that stream where you exposed the Socialist International.

It was a while ago.

You said like he was sending dissidents somewhere.

I don't know what it was.

It was something like weird medical experiments.

I just assume that's what you're talking about.

I don't remember at all.

Okay, then I don't.

Uh maybe there's nothing to talk about.

All right, see you later.

Alright, see ya.

Alright.

Uh that was interesting.

Yeah.

Oh man.

Oh man.

Um

Give me a moment.

Nah, I'm not laughing.

This thing about pouring out for the homie who just got doxed is the craziest shit.

It's some of the craziest shit I've ever read, honestly.

Elijah Jones.

I'm gonna ask my people who this guy is.

Uh, just so like it's just out of curiosity.

Like, who the hell is this crazy guy?

Pretty pretty wild.

Pretty wild stuff.

Yo, what's going on?

Uh

Epistate

He is obsessed with uh

Return to Hegel.

Guy in there's a JQ guy in show Q.

Well, okay, we'll bring him up.

Ugh.

Alright, we'll bring this guy up and then that'll be the last.

Yo, Red Saffron, what's going on, man?

What's going on, Red Saffron?

Alright.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm anti-Semitic according to the C the USA, so according to them, we won't disagree on anything.

Yeah well.

Yep, okay.

Yo, hello.

Alright.

Yo.

Yeah.

Hello?

Hello?

Alright.

Yo, hello.

Okay.

Hello?

Just uh go into your Discord settings.

Go into your Discord settings and fix it.

Hello.

Settings, mic.

Fix it there.

Hello?

Go ahead and unmute and undeafen yourself.

And they're gone.

I will wait.

We'll wait a little bit.

No dude, stop using that fucking word.

Oh my god.

I'm gonna have to ban some people.

You guys are such fucking idiots.

Like, are you guys retarded?

You guys retarded?

Nobody talk about doxing at all.

Fucking delete all that shit.

Jesus Christ, fucking people are retarded.

Oh man.

Alright, anyway.

Yo, hello.

Hello?

N hello.

Fuck, I can't hear you.

Sky Atrol.

Hello.

Man, I'm sick of being technical support.

I'm sick of being technical support all the fucking time.

You know, I should just straight up.

Just like ban people like this.

Fuck.

Yo Darg, what's up man?

Hello Yo, dog, what's up?

Yo, hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Oh, let's go finally.

I'm so sorry about that.

My bad.

Yeah.

Alright, alright, hos, thank you, thank you for having me on, sir.

Thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Yeah, so I guess, um, I I don't know, we uh I'll I'll go ahead and just talk about what I was gonna talk about.

Maybe it's it's not even a disagreement, we'll see, but I'm just I'm just a little confused as to why, um,

You never just you if you're if you're going against Israel, why don't you just come out and be against the people who are promoting and pushing forth Israel and the international Zionist agenda all over the world?

Like why are you why are you so afraid to be like oh it's not it's not it's not j it's not the Jewish people, it's the Zionists, it's not this, it's not that I stand with my Orthodox Jewish brothers.

Like I I I'll tell you like a specific quote you had when you were debating these other um like Orthodox LARPer guys, and I agree they were LARPers, they were they were a piece of shit, but um uh you want like you want like I s my my Orthodox Jewish brothers stand with me or stand with um uh the the base side of the world against every global issue, but I mean do you really think that Orthodox Jewish people do not stand in support of Israel, do not support like the virility and the strength and aggressiveness of Israel?

Um to answer your question about why I don't

Uh, claim that uh Zionists are the same as Jews.

The reason is because I'm not a Zionist.

Uh it's part of Zionist ideology to conflate Judaism and Zionism.

And I don't share the Zionist worldview.

I don't agree that when the majority of Zionists are actually Christians and one of some of the most powerful Zionist forces in the world and in America are evangelicals who are not Jewish at all, I don't think it's accurate or correct to say that it's a Jewish, primarily Jewish phenomenon.

I mean, sure, that's definitely true, but where did the um the Zionism of the evangelicals come from?

It wasn't just spontaneous.

They didn't come up with it, um, on behalf of Christianity, or else I mean, Israel would be a Christian state.

Obviously, the Zionism of the of the evangelicals had to originate from Christianity.

I think you misunderstand um evangelical Zionism because it's based on a prophecy.

They don't want Israel to be Christian.

They w they have believed that the Jews are all gonna be uh they're gonna kill the Muslims and they'll kill each other and then Christ will return.

That's basically what they think.

So they don't want it's not that they're trying to evangelize and turn Israel Christian.

They think it's part of a prophecy.

So and it and many people find it convincing, you know?

So you know.

Evangelical Zionism, just like uh Jewish Zionism, Jewish religious Zionism, is really a uh form of evangelical religious Zionism that's not Jewish.

It's actually a sect of claims to be a sect of Christianity.

Which has given

Given that case, why are why are the ov like why are the majority of Jews even in the United States the majority of Jewish people um are in support of Israel?

I think the statistic is something like eighty percent of Jewish people say Israel is essential for them, it means um a lot to their Jewish identity and you know as as we've seen in these recent protests, many, many just average everyday Jewish people are incredibly passionate about Israel.

So I mean are are you are you denying that there is like a like a a Jewish effort to strengthen and build Israel?

No, I think Zionists have played a huge role in trying to dominate how Jewish identity is shaped in the US and in the West.

So it's no surprise that the majority of Jews in the US are pro-Zionist.

But where I disagree with you in claiming that Judaism is necessarily Zionist is I think you're writing all of those people off, where I think the majority of them are pro-Zionist because they lack education.

They're brainwashed their whole life to support Israel.

And there's so much money, millions, billions of dollars that goes into brainwashing them.

by Zionists trying to dominate Jewish identity in America,

Many of them just aren't exposed to the truth, and oftentimes when they are, they become anti-Zionist.

So even though the majority of Jews in the US are Zionist, I reject blaming all the Jews or saying all Jews are Zionist or making it about Judaism because at that point

You're basically writing them off and saying, you know, there is no way they could ever um.

disentangle from that, which I think actually harms the anti Zionist cause.

I mean I I would kind of say though um I I feel like I feel like there isn't really a way they would disentangle from it because uh uh you say well the well the Zionists have manufactured this love for Israel amongst uh Jewish people but I mean don't you think it's it's a natural feeling of of patriotism of nationalism for them?

Is it is it unnatural or surprising that a Jewish person would care deeply about their own country, their own homeland?

The reason I don't think it's natural is because so much effort has to go into brainwashing them to be pro-Zionist.

If they were just naturally pro-Israel, there wouldn't be all these institutions and there wouldn't be this huge attempt by Zionist forces to basically brainwash and convince them of that.

So I don't see it's natural at all.

Secondly, um

Although the majority of Jews in the US are pro-Zionist, so are the majority of Christians.

So I don't see what your point is.

Sure, but you could argue that a Christian having a highly patriotic stance to a country that's not his, I mean, you could argue that is artificial and manufactured, but can you really argue that a Jewish person having a highly patriotic stance towards Israel is artificial?

I mean, is that really genuine?

Do you really I think it is artificial because if it was natural, like I said, there wouldn't be so much effort that goes into brainwashing Jews into being pro-Israel.

Jews who are pro-Israel in the US genuinely believe in Zionist propaganda.

It's not that they're cynically conspiring, you know, to help Israel save face.

They actually believe, you know, the 40 beheaded babies and all this kind of stuff.

And secondly, you know, I don't understand what makes Jews less American than Christians.

That's something I also don't understand.

Many maybe you might want to make the argument that the only real Americans are wasps, in which case you're also writing off the Ellis Island Italians and Irish and stuff.

But those are the same the the Italians and Irish are just as Americans as Jews are.

Sure, I w I would I definitely wouldn't make the case that um all the only Americans are was.

Um but but I mean the the reason that many people say that Jews are not as American is because uh Jewish people just it's it seems like Jewish people have a dual allegiance.

For them, Israel is uh equally as important, if not more important, than America.

I feel like they care more about Israel than America.

I mean a a gu a guy like Ben Shapiro goes to Israel and says um and they ask him why aren't you coming back to Israel and his response is basically that uh well because I'm doing important bio work on behalf of his Israel here in America and I mean like the whole crowd cheers.

But I think the same loyalty is also evinced by fanatical evangelical Christians if not more loyalty.

So the question of dual loyalty should not just be pinned on Jews.

You should ask more generally why is there a conflict of loyalty?

Why isn't everyone loyal to the interests of the American people?

Because I think when you uncover that question that there's certain people not fully loyal to what's best for this country and what's best for the people, you realize it's not a Jewish thing.

The majority of these disloyal people are non-Jewish, they're in power, and they're our ruling class.

For example, the decisions made by ruling financial institutions about economic policy in this country evince more of a loyalty to global capitalism than to the needs of the American people here at home themselves.

And why is that?

Why why do we spend so much on aid to Ukraine, for example, than we do for at home?

Why are we entangled in Taiwan?

Why are we entangled in Korea?

So when you start asking these questions about the conflict of interest, it's no longer about Jews being disloyal because they're not American enough.

It's more about the fact that this country is occupied by a ruling class that has no loyalty to the people.

That it governs.

Sure, and that's that's definitely true.

That's definitely true, I agree with that.

Um, but I guess the the only thing I would say is that, you know, you you mentioned like Wasps and um I mean what like Anglo Saxon Protestants.

I uh I I I agree that they're uh most of them are Zionists because of the Zionist propaganda, because of the Zionist infiltration, but uh I mean you don't see like um um American American people of English descent being more loyal to England than the United States in the same way like you mentioned Italians and and these other immigrants like I uh like Irish.

I mean you don't see Italians and Irish caring caring about Italy and Ireland as much as Jews care about Israel.

But you do see them sometimes caring about Israel just as much as Zionist Jews care about Israel, Zionists themselves.

And the reason for that is because Israel is just a proxy for the interests of the ruling class.

I think that the reason why certain people are less loyal, for example, to England than they are the United States as you mentioned in the case of WASP, why aren't they more loyal to England than they are to the United States?

Well, because it's not immediately in the interest, foreign policy-wise, of the US ruling class.

to prop up England in a way that clearly comes against our national self-interest.

I'm sure that if England's interests were ever threatened,

That would be I mean, World War One was a perfect example of an Anglo-Saxon ruling class that cared more about the British Empire than at home, as a matter of fact.

But whether it's Britain, or whether it's Israel, or whether it's Ukraine, or whether it's Taiwan, or whether it's South Korea, it doesn't matter.

There's clearly a conflict of interest, and it's not based in any specific race, racial loyalty, or something like that.

It's based in the fact that the ruling class, the interest of that class, is different from the interest of the American people.

It's based in enforcing

A global economic system, which sometimes does include putting the interests of these other countries before our own, because they're more important.

As far as maintaining that global economic system.

All right, I got you, got you on that, that's definitely true, but um you know the it's it's for me it's just a it's just a little hard to accept that uh j our our argument, our side, um, like me and you and the anti-Zionist is that the Zionist entity shouldn't exist at all.

Like Israel as a nation shouldn't exist at all.

Wh why why would why would Jewish people on en masse get behind that?

Why would they not support um the existence of their own homeland?

And and um who's to say who's to say the opposite isn't true, who's to say that they support like they support the existence of Israel uh in s uh against the existence of Palestinians, against the existence or the stability of the nations surrounding Israel.

I I feel I get the feeling that most Jews or mo most Jewish people, definitely those in power at least, are uh because of their ethnic um solidarity with Israel, because of their ethnic uh obligations, are are very like viciously pro-Israel.

What I disagree with is that it's a natural ethnic solidarity.

I don't think there is anything like that.

I think that the cultural difference between Mizrahis and Eshkenazis, the cultural difference between American Eskenazis and Russian Eshkenazis, these are such vast differences that I don't think it's possible to have an instinctual ethnic loyalty like you're describing.

I think the Jewish identity that's tied to Zionism that you're talking about is the result of an ideology.

But nonetheless, sure, I guess it does help, obviously, to tie Zionism to Jewish identity.

It makes the ideology more real and more immediate.

It's a specific way of dealing with Jewish identity, I guess.

But, you know.

Will it be difficult for the majority of Jews in the US to come to terms with the dissolution of the Zionist entity?

Probably.

But it's not down to them.

Even if all Jews in America, or let's say 80% of Jews in America, were convinced to be anti-Israel, maybe that would have a tan a big impact, it'd be a crisis, but ultimately that's not why Israel exists, that's not why Israel continues to receive aid.

Israel continues to receive aid and exists because it's strategically in the interest of the ruling class for this to be so.

Definitely, definitely, but don't you think um and may maybe you can refute this or give a counter argument, but guys like uh Ben Shapiro and uh Dennis Prager and uh Dave Rubin, they they play such an important role in um in skewing public opinion here in the United States uh on behalf of Israel.

And you know, and there's there's people like uh there's those people, but I feel like there's there's a lot lot more people, a lot more people involved in business and finance and politics that we don't see.

Those are just like the the people at the very top that are visible visible to us.

Uh d don't you think it it's important for um for the American public opinion to be behind to support Israel?

And um given that, wouldn't wouldn't it be a natural conclusion that uh Jewish people, Ameri Americans of or uh uh Jewish Americans uh with with who have a e ethnic Jewish identity are naturally going to be um let's say soldiers, soldiers of that of that Israeli mission who are going to carry on the task of skewing American public opinion?

If that's the if it's natural, why is there such a sizable minority of Jews who are anti-Zionist?

They're a minority, but they're a very prominent minority.

And there's an even bigger portion who are very critical of Israel nowadays and don't feel really that attached to it.

So I just disagree with this idea that there's a natural ethnic loyalty or whatever.

I think there's an artificial loyalty that's the result of brainwashing and an ideology.

And if you get to the root of the source, you mentioned Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro.

Yeah, they play a role in that definitely, and as far as public opinion too.

But sit down and ask yourself: is their position just being pro-Israel?

Because last time I checked, there's also a lot of other things they preach in part of their propaganda.

They also have economic views.

They also have political views.

They have ideological views.

They preach support for Ukraine.

They preach support for NATO.

They preach support for the U.S.'s offensive posture against enemies of the regime in general.

As a matter of fact, Israel just seems to be downstream from all of that, too.

So.

I think you're basically saying, like, you know, Jews are here.

There's a conflict of interest because it's in their ethnic self-interest to support Israel, whereas it's not in our interest as the rest of Americans.

And that's just what I disagree with.

I don't think it's in Jewish self-interest to support Israel because I don't agree with Zionism.

That's Zionist ideology.

And I think not necessarily you, but a lot of right-wing influencers who are trying really hard to.

make the anti-Zionist cause an anti-Jewish cause, agree with the basic premise of Zionism, that Zionism is good for Jews, that Zionism and Judaism are the same thing, and that ultimately their the s solution to the so-called Jewish question is Jews having their own independent state, specifically in the Middle East.

So

I don't agree with any of those premises.

I actually think uh Zionism in Israel has been a disaster for the Jewish people and their tradition as a religious group and as a culture.

I think it's devastated many of the local national forms Jewish culture has taken, whether it's in Germany, although obviously the Nazis did m more damage on that front, whether it's in Russia, United States, France, Britain.

There are so many national forms of Jewish religious culture that existed that kind of were totally eliminated and destroyed.

Enmity on part of the Muslim world, which never had an issue with Jews, was cultivated by the existence of the Zionist entity.

Suddenly a huge amount of anti-Semitism now exists among Muslims and Arab peoples that didn't exist before.

um hostility and enmity toward Jews is also being uh cultivated as a result of Israel's actions.

I don't agree that Zionism is good for Jewish people.

I mean, I think that's what Zionists themselves believe, which they're increasingly unable to demonstrate actually.

Sure.

But um le let me just ask this as a follow-up, I guess.

How do you envision convincing so many Jewish Americans who are ethnically Jewish and many of which are influential or in positions of power?

How do you envision them to ac accept that stance that Zionism isn't good for them to not continue to advocate for I don't think my focus is convincing Jews who are in power of that.

I think rather it's the Jewish majority who's not in power that I think I would be more interested in educating on anti-Zionists.

Never stop winning.

You guys are on the right path.

I don't think that's possible.

How's the to get Jews en masse, the normal Jewish people en masse to become anti-Zionists?

Actually, I do think it's possible.

I think that I think if many Jews are part of the working class, majority of Jews are not part of the ruling class.

And I think that Jewish identity.

can be made compatible with America more so than uh

Israel very easily.

Um

I think American Jews who live in America are more American than they ever will be Israeli.

I think their Americanism is more authentic than Zionism could ever be.

I think they are Americans.

This is their culture.

This is their national context.

And I think.

that anti Jewish sentiment harms that cause actually because it's reinforcing the Zionist view that Jews have no home except Israel.

And that's not true.

America is also the home of American Jews.

And Russia is also the home of Russian Jews.

I see.

So because, you know, Jewish people have always have always been a diaspora group.

Uh do you uh would you say that let's say like the strategy or like the the um the mindset should be let's let's get Jewish people to become um integrated or to love like the different countries that that have been they've been dispersed throughout um their entire lifetimes rather than focus on their homeland and like like the aggressive like the aggression of uh I I think I think the uh Soviet position was correct uh on Jews.

I think that was

That was uh that was I mean uh the anti-religious policies, obviously there's much room for criticism across the board.

But when you ignore the anti-religious policies and just focus on the national question, it's not so much assimilationism and destruction of Jewish identity as much as it is, you know, making Jewish history within nations compatible with uh with uh uh a national identity and patriotism.

It's

More of a fusion of Jews with their national context rather than them sacrificing their Jewishness.

Uh and if they want to do that they have the freedom to do that obviously, but

There's uh room for

You know, um

maintaining Jewish identity beyond Zionism and beyond

you know, this trope of ruthless cosmopolitanism, Jews are have always had a national context actually, and have always been rooted in a national context.

Um, just because they haven't always been able to assimilate in nations in ways that

Was expected of them doesn't mean they weren't already part of those nations.

It just means that there was a lot of.

remnants of feudalism and class distinctions that and religious religious distinctions that uh

made them different.

But for example, in England,

British Jews simply became British.

It's just like they were also Jewish, sure, but that didn't make them any less British.

I think the same is true for France as well.

Sure, there's always been tensions because of the religious distinction, but French Jews are French.

Russian Jews are Russian.

American Jews are Americans.

Religion is one thing, but it's not the same as a nation and a country.

They shouldn't be confused.

They're related, maybe, but they're not the same thing.

Sure.

And I and I guess the question the the question would be is that um the that integration, those efforts to nationalize the Jewish people, will it be effective enough to get them to let go of their of the idea of Zionism, of the idea of

Oppose Zionism and Zionist institutions and Zionist dark money and so on and so on, which brainwashes the majority of American Jews to be pro-Zionist.

That's what I think it should be targeted against the hegemony in general, not just the Zionist aspect, but the whole hegemony and all of the interests bounded up within it, Zionist and otherwise.

Once you can have that,

I think uh it's just a question of uh

Of once you can detether entire masses of people in the United States, not just Jews, but entire masses of people, from this kind of stream of propaganda and brainwashing, that opens a vacuum.

And obviously, that vacuum can only be filled by a revolutionary American movement.

I mean Jews are here are already American.

remove the brainwashing and the Zionism disappears.

They would just be normal Americans like anyone else.

Same thing with evangelicals.

Zionists.

Mm-hmm.

To maybe maybe push back just a little bit, uh d uh don't you think some uh given the fact that eighty percent of Jewish people right now at least um are pro-Israel, say that Israel is very special and important to them, would they push back on that a little would they push back on the idea of anti-Zionism, of getting rid of the Zionist institutions, of getting r uh rid of like the Zionist influencers like Shapiro, Prager, et cetera?

Maybe not uh right now, but I don't think the majority of Americans agree with that either right now.

That doesn't mean we should compromise our principles.

It neither means that we should say all Jews should be written off as never being able

To be persuaded, and neither should you say no Americans can be persuaded because the majority are.

I think that.

I think that um

Yes, yeah.

I mean, we I get called an anti-Semite all the time because of what I say, because for some Jews who call me anti-Semitic, being a Zionist is the same as being Jewish.

But I shouldn't I shouldn't respond to that by agreeing with him and just saying, Yeah, you're right, I hate Jews You know, that's not the solution.

The solution is to maintain your own principled position and if some ignorant people call me anti Semitic, let them.

Um

You know, I think my position has spoken for itself.

I mean, I have every opportunity to be anti-Jewish.

actually.

I probably would get more followers.

I would probably be more accepted in many communities.

Um

I am treated as an anti-Semite regardless.

I don't get any benefits from.

uh from having a principal position on this, by the way.

I don't get any benefits from it in terms of like ho uh how much I'm punished by the hegemony.

Uh E Emory University, Care and other organizations and the university claimed I was an anti-Semite.

Um

So institutions still call me anti-Semitic.

I don't I don't get a pass.

I don't get more acceptable and less cancelled.

You know, but um

But a principled position is a principled position.

Well yeah.

But um w wouldn't couldn't that be an example of how actually for uh Zionism is important for Jewish p if they say if they say that you're anti Semitic because you're anti Zionist, doesn't that um prove that for a Jewish people Zionism is an important part of their identity?

For Zionist Jews, Zionism is an important part of their sense of Jewish identity.

Yeah, that's true.

But but is that the result of nature and ethnic instincts, or is it the result of brainwashing?

And I think it's the latter.

I mean, I guess we we can have like an empirical way to answer that question and um I mean your case is definitely valid.

Um

But I'm l let me just let me just give you like a like a little example of of this whole like like the Zionist Israel Jewish population situation.

I mean you uh you know about Birthright Israel, where um they take just every everyday average Jewish people.

You could be like a quarter Jewish or yeah, it could be a quarter Jewish or whatever and they'll bring you to Israel and they'll uh they'll basically tour you everywhere for free, free everything, everything's paid for.

Yeah, it's it's kind of a kind of a way to get ethnically Jewish people, ethnic Jewish Americans that may have never even been to Israel their entire lives to get them on board with the Zionist agenda, to get them to love Israel.

But I think I'll I'll give you a hypothetical.

Let's say ISIS was just as powerful as Israel and did the same thing to Muslims.

I think they would also have the same ability to brainwash Muslims, pull at their heartstrings and get them to be pro-ISIS.

Obviously the difference is that ISIS doesn't have the legitimacy or the money that Israel has.

But if you can see my point, it's very easy to brainwash people by manipulating their emotions based on their identity to get them to support things that are not necessarily consequent from ha just that identity alone.

Just because you're Muslim doesn't mean you have a natural inclination to support ISIS.

So I think the same thing is true when it comes to Jews.

Sure.

Let me let me make uh make up like a little hypothetical um to like explore this idea.

Let's say I believe you're you're Lebanese, right?

Yeah.

You're Arab?

Yeah.

So let's say the shoe was on the other foot and Lebanon was like this ridiculously powerful imperialist country and it was bullying the people around it.

Let's say it was like it was like bullying like the Jewish population or whatever.

The same way Israel bullies Gaza and or genocides, genocides them.

And let's say you I mean as you are, you're like a Lebanese American living in the United States.

Do you do you think you would have the moral clarity, the awareness to look past that and say, no, no, guys, actually the state of Lebanon is not a good thing.

We shouldn't support Lebanon.

We shouldn't be on the side of the Lebanese government when they're committing such terrible acts.

I think I would be a bad example because I'm an example of someone who became a radical leftist for many years and I completely rejected all aspects of my identity.

So I probably have a lot in common with Jews who became anti-Zionists in that regard.

So that was an example of me being able to look past

my immediate identity and assume a position in no way naturally consequent from it or spontaneously consequent from it.

I think many anti-Zionist Jews have shown the same ability.

So I agree that the having Jewish identity makes you more

Um

more vulnerable to Zionist propaganda and brainwashing.

I don't disagree with that.

But I maintain what I said previously.

It's that doesn't justify uh conceding to Zionism the equivocation between Jewish identity and and Zionism.

Yeah.

Uh well that's that that's definitely fair, yeah.

Fair point.

Uh anything else?

Um, I mean, no, not really.

I think that was I think that was a good conversation.

I think that was productive.

Sure.

See you later.

All right.

Thank you, Oz.

Okay.

Alright, uh

Think I'm going to bed.

Don't think there's anything else.

Is there?

Is there?

Is there?

Patreon

Buck it, let's do it.

Let me see.

This is like gonna be a hundred

Let me just see how many uh two more I don't have time for the Shoku right now.

Patreon essay.

I don't think anyone.

Um, wow, there's a lot in here.

Wow, wow, this is bad.

Alright, we're gonna do it anyway.

Fuck it.

All right, we're going Patreon Q and A.

I don't have the energy to thank you.

I do, but I uh but I will do it briefly, all right?

I'll just say, for example, Orvo's up first.

Orvo, thanks, man.

That's all I'm going to say.

I'm not going to say thank you for being a Patreon.

I'm going to say thanks, man.

All right.

All right, let's go.

There's a lot here.

There's a lot.

Actually, there's not that much.

This is crazy.

Why didn't you guys?

You barely asked anything.

All right, let's just do it.

Orovo, thanks man.

I understand why we're pro-AI and against reactionaries who want to hold back innovation, but how is this consistent with opposing technologies such as Neuralink?

Should we really embrace Neuralink?

Very good question.

If Neuralink works, and I think that's the issue, I am skeptical of whether Neuralink works.

But if Neuralink works, we should treat it the same way we treat any other kind of technological innovation under capitalism.

We shouldn't oppose the technology itself.

We should rather oppose the um

The monopolization of it and the exploitation of that new technology by the ruling class, not in terms of its ability to control us, which I don't think is possible,

And I'll specify why I think that is actually.

Maybe I should talk about that.

But more it's more so in terms of their monopolization of the technology.

Just like how the Internet, for example, is used for pornography.

It's used all kinds of decadence and corruption as a result of capitalist so-called civilization.

So the same is true for Neuralink and other technologies, but the point is not to oppose the technologies.

Now, I don't believe I don't trust in the ruling class's ability to control us.

I think that there is a, let's call it, a newetic field, a newetic horizon that the ruling class is limited within itself, which restricts its ability to even formulate the necessary intentions with which to enslave and control and dominate the rest of the population.

Without those intentions,

themselves without the masses themselves being culpable in those intentions.

What I mean by this is that there is no real red line in which the ruling class stands on one side and the rest of society stands on the other that creates a relationship of total control by one

in a way that is totally um unmediated by the masses themselves.

In other words, no no the ruling class is not omnipotent and it's not smart enough to simply

Avoid the contradictions that inevitably befall its attempts to control society.

Whatever form, whatever medium with which the ruling class wants to control society, will itself be subject to the logic of class struggle.

And I think Trump is a great example of that.

Obviously, in terms of the overt ideology and the overt talking points, not much separates MAGA and Trump

From what the ruling class hegemony itself says.

And yet, it's unable to avoid the logic of class struggle somehow, in terms of the distinction between MAGA and Rhinos, or MAGA and suburban Republicans.

So that's an example of how total control is impossible.

The control will always yield to some kind of form of class struggle.

That it itself cannot preemptively account for.

So I'm never worried about the ruling class having too much control over us and too much of an ability to manipulate us with algorithms or whatever.

They are simply not that smart.

They are not themselves above the class struggle.

They're not above the same contradictions of society we all face.

They are themselves a symptom of that contradiction.

So that's this is what separates me from the parapolitics people who, for example, make conspiracy theories about myself and Jackson.

They they're trying to establish some kind of subject outside of class struggle, some ability to totally manipulate and totally control and totally deceive.

I I I disagree with that.

I think that even if you totally deceive, the form of contradiction is still inescapable.

Avon, thanks so much, man.

Seems to be a problem people being only thinking beyond the death of the author and on the other hand a view of the author is everything and he and his work are equally cancellable.

What are y what are the problems with both of these and how do we approach the relationship between the work and the creator?

Um

The author's work is definitely related to their own personal, let's say, psychopathological symptom, psychosexual symptom, whatever.

Those two things are directly related.

But you cannot treat the outcome of an author's work as though it's the same thing as his own personality or his own personal ailment.

Because although those two dimensions are related, they're related only indirectly, not directly.

Meaning the outcome of an author's work is not in direct continuity with their personal psychopathology.

There's always a discontinuity at that there.

And that discontinuity needs to be acknowledged.

Form is the best example of this.

If I go up to you and shake your hand and I don't know you, you may hypothesize in many different ways going in the back of your head.

Why did I shake my hand in the way that I did?

Why was my grip too hard?

Why did I shake for that long?

Why was my grip that soft?

Whatever.

You can think those things.

But you don't have a right to bring these issues up when I shake your hand.

and say, hey, I know you have some specific psychopathological symptom that led you to shake my hand in this way.

That would be ridiculous because we all acknowledge that when we enter into the realm of form, there's a discontinuity with our own personal pathologies.

It's a form of respect and acknowledgement for a protocol of association, not immediately continuous with our own personality and our own personal experience.

So, that much needs to be acknowledged when it comes to the author itself.

Um.

The two are related, of course they're related, but you cannot reduce my problem is reductionism, you cannot reduce one to the other and thereby treat it as though it's the same thing.

So that would be my vague answer.

Benign, what are your thoughts on the Huns and their significant world history?

I haven't thought about it much.

What is your primary critique of Aristotle and on the flip side, what is Aristotle's greatest contribution?

My primary critique of Aristotle is that he is um

He is represents the ultimate false materialist reification of Plato.

Um

On the other hand, what I like about Aristotle, I don't know if I can talk about his greatest contribution, I'd have to think that one through.

Uh but what I do like about him is um

I do appreciate

The reorientation represented by Aristotle back upon

back upon imminence,

The re and the reality of imminence, right?

Um

Not necessarily in the Nietzsche sense or whatever, but I think that there is something there.

Which is clearly not in Plato.

I don't know, it's just low IQ response.

Paperwind, what's up?

Thoughts on the Black Panthers, Young Patriots, Rainbow Coalition, being a form of proto-mod communism?

Do I don't agree with that?

What can we draw from the fact

Uh as the false the new left is the false paradigm of communism.

I think the problem is rainbow coalition itself.

The notion of the one and the many is at stake there, which I think is false.

Maybe it's related to Aristotle question.

It's a false notion of the one and the many, according to which a one can be formed as just a it's coalitionism, just a kind of amalgamation of differences.

And that's kind of what I reject.

I reject the politics of multiplicity for the sake of multiplicity.

I think that

The problem with this kind of coalition is there was no center point, there is no center of gravity that grounds the multiplicity in a unique primary contradiction, if that makes sense.

And this is probably why these coalitions are tenuous and uh unstable.

Avant, how do you see your time at law school now?

Uh

Part of my personal history, I guess.

Uh, Scuba Tanky, what's up?

Which philosophers should I read in order to get a better understanding of Marxism?

Probably Hegel and Kant first.

Agar, what's up?

What do you mean by ecology is the name of class struggle today?

Uh do you think that ecology is the name of class struggle today?

No.

No, not the discourse of ecology or the name of ecology.

I'm referring specifically to this kind of

struggle over um

struggle over living being, struggle over almost the passivi struggle in the modern time, struggle was a kind of mobile subject

Going out of your place to do something, right?

Whereas the class struggle in the era of ecology is more of a kind of struggle endangered and generated by the cyclical groundedness in one's way of life and one's living being and the land upon which one lives.

So, for example, the Palestinians.

represent a new arena, a new form of class struggle in the West Bank and so on and so on, just by existing.

Just by existing and living and going about their daily lives and routines and so on.

So this is kind of what I'm talking about.

One's in the chat, we're still here.

Chad is dead.

Did it freeze?

No.

All right.

Avant, how come you have copyrighted music on your YouTube, like on stream intros and videos?

I just get demonetized.

Yeah, I don't make ad revenue.

Paul, what's up, man?

What's so great about the New Deal?

It it objectively was a significant event.

Uh in the national history of the United States, uh that's a kind of greatness.

So what do you mean?

When it comes to the New Deal, you have to have a descriptive kind of objective view of its significance.

It's not about good or bad.

It's irreversible.

But what I think what the New Deal uh represented was um

Uh

Hmm.

I think uh the New Deal

probably is a chapter in the history of American socialism, obviously.

FDR, it's it's so complicated.

He had to make so many compromises.

I don't know.

I d I I don't know.

I can't I can't sum it up in in time, to be honest.

Johnny, thank you so much for being a patron.

Personal issues aside, what are your bis biggest disagreements with Caleb Moffin?

I don't think he's a Marxist-Leninist.

I think he's a kind of Trotskyist adventurist.

I think he's too vain.

Uh I think he is too much dwelling in a kind of indignation at the personal slight and uh personal wrong that others such as leftists, whatever, have done to him.

I think that um

He cannot go beyond the immediacy of his own.

His own ego.

Like, he just thinks that this is a big prophecy that he's at the center of.

Just because he stumbled upon a position that has gotten him into a great deal of controversy and trouble.

In a way that did reveal a kind of contradiction within the American left, but he confused that with his own kind of

His own it's almost like he entered into a psychosis over it.

I don't know.

Millie, thank you so much for being a patron.

Uh can you share advice on how to navigate Twitch for a new streamer?

How to not get banned

Don't talk about Russia-Ukraine.

How to not get any other advice for a starting streamer?

I didn't start on Twitch, I started on YouTube.

So I couldn't really help you there.

You know what it is?

I'm going to be honest with you.

It's who you know.

If you know al if you already know a streamer who's big,

What that's all it takes.

It's just who you know.

That's literally it.

If you want to get big on streaming, on Twitch,

Just like, go I don't know, go onto one of those random shows where they give random people a shot and a chance and, you know, be unique.

Be someone people remember.

Winged Hussar, what's up?

What's the place of India in the East West dialectic?

I dunno.

I don't know at all.

Uh what exactly does liberalism melt all that is solid into air?

It dissolves um patterns of life.

It dissolves forms of relationships based on kinship.

And um

Immediate bonds, communal bonds,

in favor of ones that are kind of purely formal.

Mm, this is the essence of alienation, basically.

Uh, Wallo, what's going on?

What is the fundamental insight of Heil Heidegger that makes it necessary for understanding Marxism today?

That being is not a being, you know, and people think I'm a Heideggerian.

What I really am is a French guy.

I um

Believe in the French moment of the post war period.

Uh and I think that there was something there that conventional Marxism totally ignored.

I'm not talking about Foucault, by the way, I'm talking about Bataille, Kojev, Lacan, Deleuze too as well, uh, Leotard, and so on and so on.

there was something Badu, obviously.

There's something there that was missing.

Lacan, I think, is central to it, obviously, but his limit is psychoanalysis.

KY, based on your book or otherwise, what are the two questions you would ask Michael Hudson?

I would ask Michael Hudson about the Achaemenid Empire.

And I would ask uh Michael Hudson about the history of debt forgiveness after the Roman Empire in the East.

Any chance of having him on the guest as a future?

Yes.

Do you think the American people will be successfully bargained with in the future?

Um to subdue all anti-ruling class consciousness.

Yes.

You uh it's just a strange question.

Do you think liberalism is a conscious process that partly shaped modernity, or is it's a response to modernity?

Uh philosophical but l modernity only exists in terms of the responses to it and the reactions to it and the kind of effects.

There's no such thing as a substance of modernity.

That's actually a myth of modernity itself.

For example, Nazism searches for the substance of modernity with a racial mythology of racialism and so on.

These are false attempts

to make something which is not a substance into a substance.

Uh the the kind of thing that distinguishes the West, industrial uh standardization, uh scientific revolutions, revolutions in the forces of production, and so on.

They try to say this is the s blood substance of the Aryan race when it's really a substanceless kind of uh object.

That's what modernity is.

Black Ghost, thanks so much for being a patron.

What did Hitler become hostile to France, then England?

Because it was in the way.

If his end goal was to invade the USSR, he probably would have had the backing of most European countries, right?

It's the only piece I'm missing.

No, no, no.

The issue was not the West for him.

It was Poland and the East.

It was Czechoslovakia.

It was Poland.

It was all of Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

Remember, the German Empire was in the Balkans even before Hitler.

So that was where the.

That's even the official story.

The unofficial story is that.

uh English ruling class propped him up to loot the wealth and the gold of Eastern Europe, funnel uh funnel all of this into eventually for it to be funneled into offshore banks to prop up uh uh international capitalism.

Orvo After multipolarity ultimately wins, will communism be necessary or will it be rendered superfluous?

No, no, no, it will be necessary.

That's why it's part of the American story, because multipolarity isn't happening without communism.

In America.

Avant, did OJ do it?

I dunno.

Word salad and favorite fighting game character.

Red Sun Superman from Injustice One.

Uh XYZ, thanks so much for being a patron.

Early on and throughout the development of Infra Red, you have referred to modernity as the primordial form of psychosis.

Could you expand upon what you need to give me the context, dude?

Intuitively, I understand this philosophy.

Don't just take something I said four words.

You have to put it in context.

Or else I will not remember why I said that.

I don't make abstract statements and declarations that are sufficient unto themselves.

I'm not Moses with the Ten Commandments.

You need to give me context.

For okay, uh but it's not clear to me a foreclosure of being okay, but it's not clear to me how this translates to a specific form of consciousness psychosis at least uh I think you're being too direct modernity I'm using psychosis as a kind of I understand the context now that I read the paragraph I'm talking about it as a kind of um metaphor maybe for the specific just like psychosis is the foreclosure of the signifier modernity is a kind of foreclosure of the kind of um

Uh material essence of being, you know.

It's a foreclosure of this kind of sacred uh essence, um.

That grounds the meaning ultimate meaningfulness of reality.

But that's not directly psychosis immediately.

It just does lead to psychosis when there's not see also underpinning modernity, it's a double-edged sword.

Modernity is a primordial form of psychosis.

Without communism, communism is the modernity, let's say it's a foreclosure of the essence, material being, right?

So it has killed something, right?

But it doesn't immediately lead to psychosis.

Why?

Because there's a ghost of what was just killed.

That's communism, the specter of communism.

That ghost is this kind of subtle form of hope or faith or just assumption corresponding to the regular modern consciousness that all of this will somehow pay off ultimately to become something meaningful and something rational.

It's just that when this doesn't pay off, uh like capitalist crisis and so on, when you realize the contradiction engendered by the ma by modernity, that leads to actual psychosis politically, like fascism.

Uh so

So it's not immediately psychosis because it's not faced with the immediacy of what it actually is as a logical conclusion of the psych, the individual psych, or of the political and so on.

It's always suspending the final outcome of modernity into the future.

This is true for capitalism itself.

The speculative nature of capitalism, of profiteers, ultimately, yes, the payoff will come in the future, in the future.

But then when it doesn't come, what happens?

Psychosis.

There you go.

Orvo.

Why are foreigners so fascinated with the Wild West as opposed to other aspects of American culture and history?

Because because uh the Wild West is

This kind of

Mm.

This kind of uh

This kind of thresher of civilization itself.

It's like this kind of, um,

this primordial soup of civilization, law, and culture itself,

Which reveals something radically true about all civilizations.

That's why.

Because what happens when I'm in Japan or whatever, I'm in India, whatever.

All of my norms and rules and laws, all that is gone, and it's just this kind of Wild West.

What kind of meaningful existence can we make?

People are fascinated with this because it's a way for them to in inquire upon the truth of their own civilizations.

Americans Invented Techno.

For some strange reason, I've recently been listening to Lex Friedman, AI They're convinced they'll reach AGI.

I I I don't know, I I don't agree.

I think A A G I is preposterous.

The notion that a uh that you can somehow replicate people people don't appreciate how biological mankind is.

That's my issue.

There's something fundamentally biological about what we call consciousness.

It's not, it's not.

It's not just um

Something that can be reduced to a kind of um form formality, uh

formal relations of logic or whatever.

Like there's something fundamental, fundamental you know, Jacques Lacan has this kind of concept.

I think he calls it the lamella, lamella, something like that, which is this kind of he drawing from Freud, a kind of obscene description of death drive in the most primordial biological form.

Just this pure kind of single-celled organism that only represents the distinction between the outside and the inside enclosed by the membrane.

And the kind of death drive is just this constant

Propulsion based on the excitation of the membrane, constantly kind of moving forward almost like it's undead, like immortal kind of being.

This is for Lacan, the lamella, right?

It's just this kind of ceaseless, ceaselessness, not even vitality, it's really the death drive, right?

It's going beyond.

life itself, because of its persistence, because of its kind of um

Um it's kind of unyielding animus.

seemingly not grounded in any kind of

specific energy or specific finitude, it's just kind of that's this it's an obscene description of Lacan's death drive, right?

Um

But I think that's something real that's that's at the core of the biological.

I do think death drive, although it shouldn't be reduced to biology, is fundamentally related to biology.

There's no way to bypass the biological.

So I reject AGI for that reason.

Darg.

AGI is like: we are going to manufacture or create the general intelligence, what they call that.

I reject that.

There's something about.

The need

To fuck.

In order to give rise to the thinking consciousness, there's something about the need.

for you to be born from some the biological.

There's something about that that's fundamental and necessary for what the thinking consciousness as a general intelligence is.

Thought as its ultimate reference point is referring to some kind of inexplicable beginning.

Inexplicable primordial humiliation, maybe, you know, uh from the perspective of rational logos.

Darg, thanks man.

Uh should Communist America fully open up to the US intelligence archives and reveal the truth?

Sure, let's do it all.

Closed Society Foundation.

You mentioned you're on a diet.

Have you read the work of Ray Peet?

Yeah, I'm I'm tangentially uh listening to this advice.

Not too much.

Like, for example, he says don't have peanuts or you know, a I don't agree with this kind of stuff.

You know, I like cashews, I like peanut butter, you know.

Sion Dong uh sounds a weird name.

Siadeng.

Thanks, man.

Uh would you still be keen on becoming a landlord of a factory commercial building?

Yeah.

Are you just gonna give me a factory or something?

Yeah, sure.

Sure.

I'll take any kind of capital or money I can get.

Thank you, man.

Uh, when do where do I sign?

Uh, Avant, did you invent Spartan curls?

I don't know.

I've never seen anyone else do it or talk about it.

But I just lie to people and say it's like a esoteric Chinese technique.

XYZ, thanks man.

How do you justify the should of communism from a materialist world view?

Don't divorce it from don't divorce freedom and necessity.

Simple.

Don't en don't don't separate the moral from the actual and the moral from the material.

Is Nagarstani infrared deep state now truly possible?

I don't know what you mean by that, but thanks for being a patron.

You still do the guillotine thought experiment?

No, it's been a long time.

I think me uh talking about it made it expunged it from my consciousness.

Do you still believe in the strategy of dual power in America?

Ah, you'll see when I launch the organization.

Talentside, thanks for being a patron.

How would you describe false consciousness?

Uh, I would describe bol false consciousness as a kind of um true from the perspective of the workers' intuitions, but false

See, the wisdom of the phenomenon of recognizing a phenomena of false consciousness is that the consciousness of the working class is never immediate.

Whenever it's immediate consciousness, it will inevitably betray their class position.

Why is that?

Because we're dealing with two different dimensions of being.

One is the immediate kind of intuitions and wisdom you cultivate as an individual within your culture, community, whatever.

But the other is a kind of cunning.

The other is a kind of cold and calculated strategic interest.

So many MAGA people have a form of consciousness compatible with their everyday intuitions, compatible with their everyday lives, but for example, which is playing into the hands of the ruling class.

So what we should appreciate about these two different levels is that they exist objectively.

We must have a cold, calculating, strategic position based in the proletarian class position, which is which also is compatible with their sensibilities and intuitions.

But what you cannot have, thank you so much, Raphael.

But what you cannot have is simply just spontaneous.

Everyday common sense sensibilities and intuitions unreflexively mediated.

This is why the party is such important of such importance.

And this is my answer to people who ask me the question: why use the word communism when it's unpopular?

Because communism represents that break from the immediacy of personal experience, which is fundamentally necessary, to cultivate the proletarian class consciousness and the proletarian class position.

Class consciousness is not simply common sense.

It's a way of interfacing with common sense in a specific way.

And that's so important to remember.

Because you know, Zionism, the GOP is also common sense to MAGA workers.

So, how can that be?

Because they don't recognize there's a discontinuity.

And actually, conspiratorial consciousness is an important step into appreciating that discontinuity, right?

They and their interests or what they're planning or what they're doing is not what we think.

We have to wake up to it.

This is an Illuminati conspiracism and stuff.

It's a good step along the way, actually, because you're awakening to the fact that there's a difference between your familiar immediate consciousness and something happening and being planned at this higher level, right?

Anyway, that's all for the Patreon.

That was a lot easier than I expected.

Why don't I do this more often?

Anyway, guys, let me upload this.

Mm interesting.

Uh

Based

Uh there it is.

Today's the seventh, right?

Anyway guys, see you guys in two days.

See you guys Thursday.