🔴 RED PILL NEWS | IRAN-ISRAEL WAR? 🇵🇸

The The Streetways are back again, extreme places I didn't know

I broke everything new again, everything that I owned

I threw it out the windows came along

Extreme ways I know will part the colors of my sea

All perfect color rain

Extreme ways that help me

That help me out late at night

Extreme places I had gone

They never seen any lights

Dirty basements, noise dirty places coming through

stream roads alone or did you ever like it then or i would stand in line for this there's always room there's always

run

life for this

oh

day

oh day then it's

fell apart

it's

apart

oh oh day oh It's sell apart Oh, babe

Oh, babe

Tell me

It's still apart

It's still apart

She sounds

told me

To help me out late at night

I didn't have much to say

I didn't give up the light

I close my eyes

I close myself I close my world

I'm never holding off to anything

That could get me at all

I had to close down everything

I had to close down my mind

or too many things could cut me

too much could make me blind

I assume so much in so many places

so many heartaches, so many headaches, so many places, so many heartaches, so many heartaches, so many dirty things

you couldn't even believe where I was standing line for this, but there's always no in the last for this

oh

day

oh days

and it's

sell apart

it's cell apart

oh

day

oh day and it's a celebration Oh, they Oh, they

Yeah, it's set up hard

It's set up hard

Would you say my name, good

What you say it well?

Would you say my name was? I'll say it well you said my name

word

or say well

I know I can

I know I can

find

oh babe

oh babe

oh babe

then it's

fell apart

it's set apart

oh

babe

oh babe

then it's star apart it's set apart

it's set apart

oh

babe

oh babe

then you're

set apart

it's set apart

oh babe It's sell apart Oh, babe

Oh, babe

Like it always does The I'm The Thank you. The The The I'm a lot of Extreme ways are back again, extreme places I know.

I broke everything new again, everything that I owned.

I threw it out out the windows came along

Extreme ways I know

We'll part the colors of my sea

All perfect colory

Extreme ways it help me

They help me out late at night

In extreme places I had gone, they never seen any light.

Dirty basements, dirty noise, dirty places coming through.

Extreme worlds alone, or did you ever like it then?

Oh, I would stand in line for this there's always wrong life for this oh babe babe, then it fell apart, it's a cell apart, it's a lot, oh, babe, oh, babe, oh, day, then it's cell apart, it's still apart it's still

times you told me

they help me out late at night

I didn't have much to say

I didn't give up the light

I close my eyes

I close myself

I close my world I I close myself, I close my world.

I never open up to anything, that could get me all.

I had to close down everything.

I had to close down my mind.

Too many things could cut me Too much could make me blind

I see you so much in so many places

So many heartaches, so many heartaches, so many dirty things

You couldn't get a relief

Where I would stand in line for this

there's always wrong in life for this Oh, babe, and it's Telepart It's a cell apart Oh, you say

Oh, babe

Oh, babe

And it's

It's set apart

It's telepart

Will you say my

name, Lord,

we say it well,

we say my name will

or say well

I know I can

or no I can

or no I can Oh no I can't Oh no I can

Find it

Oh babe

Oh babe

Then it's

It's celebrated

It's celebrated

Oh babe Oh babe It's set apart Oh, babe

Oh, babe

Then it's

set apart

It's celebrate

Oh, babe

Oh, babe, oh, babe

Then it's

set apart

it's set apart

oh faith

like it always does

it always does

I'm always does. It always does. Thank you. The The I'm... The The and you know I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm going to

I'm

I'm I'm The streamways are back again,

Extreme places I didn't know

I broke everything new again,

everything that I don't

I threw it out the window, came along,

extreme ways I know We'll part the colors of my sea

It's a perfect colored sea

Extreme ways it held me

They helped me out late at night

Extreme places I had gone

They've never seen any light dirty basements dirty noise dirty places

coming home extreme world alone did you ever like it then i would stand in line for this there's always room in life for this oh babe oh babe when it's sell apart, it's sell apart.

Oh, babe, oh babe, oh babe, when it's cell apart, it's set apart.

Extreme sounds

I told me

They help me down every night

I didn't have much to say

I didn't give up the light

I closed my eyes

I close myself and close my world

Never open up to anything that could get me at all I had to close down everything I had to close down my mind too many things could cut me or too much could make me blind I've seen so much

in so many places

so many heartaches

so many faces

so many dirty things

you couldn't even believe

I would stand in line

for this

there's always room in life for this

oh babe

oh babe then they sell apart

he sell apart

oh babe Oh, they're celebrate apart, oh, babe, oh, babe.

Oh, babe, dare you celebrate, they're celebrate upon.

Oh, yeah, get to fight, oh, baby. Oh Oh Oh

Babe

You say

I'm never

Oh

again

Well you know it can

Oh you know it can

Oh Oh my Oh Oh Can't Oh, babe, oh babe, then it Can't Oh, babe

Oh babe, then it's

set apart

It's cell apart

Oh babe

Oh babe, oh, babe.

Then it's celebrate.

It's so hard.

Oh, babe.

Oh, babe.

Oh, babe.

Then it's cell apart.

It's cell apart

Oh babe

Oh babe

And it always does

It always does

I will

I will His voice I'm there You know, The Thank you. I'm going to

I'm going to

I'm

I'm

a extreme ways are back again

extreme places i didn't know.

I broke everything new again, everything that I'd own, I threw it out the window, came along.

Streamways I know will part the colors of my sea It's a perfect colored scene

Extreme ways that held me

They helped me out late at night

Extreme places I had gone

They'd never seen any light

Dirty basements, dirty dirty noise dirty places coming home stream world alone did you ever

like it then i would stand in line for this there's always room in life

for this

oh babe

oh babe

when it's

celebrate

he's set apart

oh babe oh babe It's set apart Oh, babe

Oh, babe

Then it's

Sel apart

It's set apart

The stream sounds

I told me

They helped me down every night

I didn't have much to say i didn't give up the light i closed my eyes

and closed my self and closed my world never open up to anything that could get me at all I had to close down everything

I had to close down my mind

Too many things couldn't cut me

But too much could make me blind

I've seen so much in so many places

So many heartaches, so many heartaches so many

faces so many dirty things

you couldn't even believe

I would stand in line

for this

there's always room in life for this

oh babe There's always room in life for this.

Oh, babe.

Oh, babe.

Then you sell apart.

It's cell apart.

Oh, babe.

Oh, babe. Oh, babe, Yeah, it's sell hard, it's sell hard

Oh, it's never hard, oh, oh, baby,

Oh, and He's no one He's got to

Oh

You'll sing again

When you know it can

But you know it can

But you know you can

Oh,

Oh, babe Oh, they're a cell oh babe oh babe then it's set apart it's set apart oh babe oh babe then it's telepart oh babe oh babe then it's cellar heart, it's shell apart, now, oh, babe, oh, babe, then it's cellar apart, now, cell phone oh babe

oh babe

maybe always does

always does

now You know, Oh, Oh and I'm going to be. I'm going to

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm Thank you. Extreme ways are back again, extreme places I know.

I broke everything new again, everything that I'd own,

I threw it after the windows came along

Extreme ways I know

Will part the colors of my sea

Perfect color of me

Extreme ways that help me

They help me out late at night

Extreme places I had gone They never seen me, but help me out late at night.

Extreme places I had gone, they've never seen any life.

Dirty basements, dirty noise, dirty places coming through.

Extreme walls alone.

Did you ever like a fan fan I would stand in line

For this

There's always

Room in life for this

Oh baby

Oh baby Then it fell apart, it fell apart.

Oh, baby, oh, baby, then it fell apart it fell apart

oh baby

oh baby

oh baby

then it's telephine

it fell apart

oh baby oh baby oh babe like it all was done always done

streams under told me they held me down every night I didn't have much to say

I didn't give up the lie

I closed my eyes

And close myself

And close my world

And never open up to anything

It could get me at all

I had to close down

everything I had to close down

my mind

too many things

caught me

too much could make me blind

I've seen so much

in so many places so many heartaches so many headaches so much in so many places, so many heartaches, so many heartaches, so many dirty things you couldn't even believe.

I would stand in line for this.

It's always good in life for this oh baby oh baby then it fell apart it fell apart oh baby

oh baby

then it fell apart

it fell apart

oh baby

oh baby

oh baby

then it fell apart, it fell apart.

Oh, baby, oh, baby, like it always does Always does The The

The The The The The The The Thank you. You know, The One guy One guy

Oh my

I'm and one can't know'm a lot. I'm a I'm

a

and a I'm going to be I'm

a lot of

I'm I'm I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm going to go. I'm I'm I'm I'm

I'm

I'm not going to be. And I'm going to go.

I'm not

I'm a lot

I'm and

I'm

I'm I'm the time I'm a lot

I'm going to

I'm I'm a lot of I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

Yeah The

I'm not going to be.

I'm a lot.

I'm going to Welcome Welcome Welcome 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.

It doesn't matter.

We still have some business to get to.

And I'm going to 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 just 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 don't think I was.

I just think I was recklessly speaking without filling in important context and being mindful of how

bad faith actors will inevitably descend upon this. I actually don't extend the bad faith fed actors

who clip me out of context. I 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, in general, I'm speaking in general. And in particular here, I just want to go ahead and say that, 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 y' know the story. Then we got banned from campus. The days preceding that, we actually decided to go and check out the 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

Emery.

As soon as we landed,

we went right there to the protest.

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,

a few hours.

Day after it was the same thing.

So, you know,

there was no issue there.

You know, we didn't experience any issue.

On the second day, I think, at the end, Jackson and I, there was 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. So that was the extent of it, actually. The event, the

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

And when the symposium event happened, and, you know, unbeknownst to me, this was actually a methodical, organized thing by 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 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 Finglstein 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. 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 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 was even against all of the

students at Emory who were protesting. By the way, the main 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,

in 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 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

the plans we have, which I can't even tell you about and stuff.

But first, we, 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 the chill. There's no's no issues right it's just that we were told

uh like days later that you know there 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 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 was 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. 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 I freely use the F word whatever, but it's like you know what

I I feel like a red line of mine is like don't tone police. 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 even, 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, it wasn't really my intention to attack those. It was 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 jack 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

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 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.

Because all we saw was the media, right?

But representatives of the protest, 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 know 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 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, it opens 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 pretence. This is my personal

honor speaking, of course. You can't just maintain that pretence

without actually standing on business

and justifying yourself.

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

I found it particularly outrageous

that people, like 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

maintain that stance

and that pretence as far as

spreading rumors

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 we have it's been proven to us that the internet is just a, 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 eye cross the road to talk to their handler?

Very true.

Thank you for the 10.

So that's very important that I clarify that.

There's no reason to actually get angry over that.

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'm going to do a religious self-critism. 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 it. 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

straight face, if you're going to be an anarchist, at priori you have a mental illness, right?

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 Emory.

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 150 people. I think it's like only 100 people who were there. So it was 100 people

sitting on the grass and that's literally it. Just chilling. 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, Wallfacer? 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 protests.

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 I, you know, I don't, here's why, you know, some people have this attitude

with you like,

you know what,

Haas,

you can't be critical at all.

Because first of all,

who are you?

You're just a streamer.

You know,

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 jackson did go on the ground at emery to check it out we offered help we offered to buy food we offered you know whatever we

could and uh 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 1990s where 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 wanted to, why would it be different from

2020 in terms of the limitation it's going to reach?

Even better yet, and this is a point I don't think anyone's addressed, look at the 1960s themselves.

You think the Vietnam War ended because of protesters, it didn't.

The protest during the Vietnam War had way more

consequences for domestic politics than they did foreign policy.

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

I mean, Richard Nixon, Juan, 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, 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 protest 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.

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 protested?

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

gaining steam internally

after various strategic defeats

and setbacks the U.S. 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 U.S. policy, if it wasn't for the U.S. 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 in the last and final

instance this is an esoteric truth of politics you don't always say it all the time because it's

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 U.S. 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 pretends 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 do 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 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'm sorry. I'm sorry. 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 30,000 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 sigh up 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 in Gaza yes it's very true how can universities

be culpable in this genocide and not call for a ceasefire when they're 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 has failed in general liberalism itself is false you

shouldn't be surprised at it 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'm not, 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.

These are regime-aligned.

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's not a sciop you see again it's just really

interesting because we are being called sciops for very less i i shake 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, 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.

I don't know.

It's such a ridiculous thing to say.

I'm not claiming I'm in a position of being able to address everyone simultaneously.

But 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

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

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 U.S. regime, you should also say that America is an occupied country and we don't have popular sovereignty to begin with. The U.S. 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 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 U.S. 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, which is a revolutionary one, actually. This is the transition from infantilism to a mature

revolutionary perspective based in 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...

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 a Guys, Aon Anamis is not a leftist.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure he's like a pro-Nic 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, it's what, it's not what I said.

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

I said, leftist 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, 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, uh, 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 and it's not true it means the the limits to what's going on if you're a marxist if you're if you have the pretence 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,

you know, 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 happened.

I mean,

look, guys,

2020 happened.

All right?

The 60s

themselves happened.

I'm seeing

some of these activists

there, it's literally in their chance

just like Vietnam we're doing it for Palestine now

and I'm like yeah

but but those protests in the 60s 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 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 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 you 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. All right. The quote that I want you to walk away with, if you are a student and you're serious about challenging the U.S. regime and challenging U.S. foreign policy in the long term. You need to be even more brutal on yourself

than 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 be,

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,

um,

again,

what Badu says,

subtracting yourself.

I'm not saying subtracting.

I'm not saying,

I'm not saying go home and stop.

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 think about what is going to happen. Because you know this isn't going to last forever.

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 am scolding students and I'm speaking down at them and I'm attacking students, those people are only in 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 in show Q. All right, let me see.

All right, yellow Parenti. Let's see.

Hello?

Hello?

Yeah.

Hold on. I can barely root you.

Put up my headphones okay, can y'all hear me?

Yeah.

Hello?

Yeah.

Hello?

Yeah.

Can you not hear me?

Okay.

Yes.

Did you see what I wrote?

Or no?

Where? Where did you write this?

In the VC chat.

Okay, let me see

give me a second not sure of him saying there the relation to gender roles in the DPRK

would like how 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? Because it sounds like the Hegel quote in the philosophy of Wright about women's places in the home and man's

places in politics or something. Is that what you're

referring to? I'm referencing 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 I, do you remember what clip it is?

Because that would be better context.

I don't.

It was a while ago.

Sure.

But you were talking about gender roles in the DPRK and said something about that.

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 clip here, I guess.

So do you not think this? Let me just ask that.

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

So to start...

I mean, to be fair, it's probably a one-minute clip at the most.

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

Unfortunately, it comes with a job.

But I'll explain my view.

So I don't know if you've heard this song about the woman singing.

I can do anything you can do better, that kind of thing.

The one from like the 50s.

Yeah.

The woman singing that yes

I actually

I don't necessarily think it's

wrong actually I think

I think in any given

civilization well I think in any given 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, besides like, you know, a 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 an astronaut, so can a

woman. If a man can be a doctor, so can

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 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 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 women in my

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

But...

I'll take your word for it.

Well, I do. I don't treat them differently.

Yeah.

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, but I don't have to do that, right?

And there's always going to be a boundary there of respect, a 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 U.S. 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, et cetera, et cetera. 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, again, I don't think it's possible in an institutional setting.

So that's my disagreement.

What do you mean by treated them by women as women in a positive sense?

To very, to basically 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. 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, um, sexuation in general, male, female situation 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 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 business like 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'm something of a male feminist myself.

And, like, you know, I really, really like women in their perspective.

Like, don't you think that's kind of creepy a little bit?

Yeah, well, usually the motives there

when some man walks up to a woman

and says these kind of things, his motives

are to sleep with her in general.

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

True, but it's, I feel like women are uncomfortable by this, not just because of that,

but also because there's, there, something intimate in them, their, 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 and that's so that's what i mean when it

comes to the difference in terms of leadership it's not this uh simplistic notion where i say

women cannot have rules that men have It's more that you have to acknowledge

there is more to femininity

than you have to acknowledge that boundary.

You have to acknowledge that difference.

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

I mean, it is recognized at that level.

But there are attempts, for example, 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 feet

how should I say shared deep connection where it's just this immediacy of affects, which I think doesn't belong to the realm of politics

or organization at all.

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 the feelings it shouldn't be about like 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,

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, and um i think that's not

that's a kind of very controversial view in today's america uh american landscape and you will be called a kind of

Chauvinist patriarchal savinist if you insist upon that

even if 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

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 make sense?

Because I can...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying there.

The only thing I would say, I guess,

is I don't think, I think

it is possible to treat women

in a positive sense, like you were saying,

without crossing 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 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,

they're doing it in order to sleep with them.

So what would be an example of,

what would be an 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, attending to their specific needs, their specific,

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 family needs?

I mean, I didn't mean it.

I mean it.

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 menstruate

definitely yeah maternity

leave things like that

their roles in relationships

how they're treated within the organizations.

I think that's...

I think that's...

Because when it comes to maternity leave, I think 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 gonna i'm gonna 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

a week of... Yeah, 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 addressing them in that way.

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

The part about the clip that I had seen

Yeah, yeah, because

If I could find it, 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 a, there's always a good faith of, like, 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 with the, 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...

Arbitrary... You can't just exclude women from roles formally just because they're women.

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

concerned, there are still observable differences between 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 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 deal with that difference.

Of course, changes across history, but the difference itself

has never overcome. Okay, sorry, I was looking for that clip, so I can't find it.

Yeah, I mean, is there any other clips or anything you'd want me to address, or...

No, I think that's good.

If you don't mind me asking what do you think did you hear anything I said about

the students just now or

I heard

a couple minutes a couple minutes

of it understand how you're negative

versus positive relations.

I did see the clip of you calling them a bunch of faggots going around.

That's not what I came on here to talk about, but I guess that's what you were addressing.

Yeah.

No, yeah.

Again, the clip is, 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 what your position.

No, 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 a small, maybe 100 people, 150 people, sit down on the grass with blankets.

I'm saying that because there's 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're just talking to

people just anecdotally trying to get observations.

We later find out that they constantly were complaining to people that, you know, we made them feel unsafe, that we, 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 like straight up come 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 unexpended without the see more part. So it was like, these protests will amount to nothing, see more 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 yet? I think

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

It's a national phenomena.

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...

And if you saw today, the Biden Administrative, they paused

some armed shipments to Israel, so very

minor, but it's

still out of character

for them.

I'm not, I mean, the aid

that was just approved by Congress

it's pretty hefty you know

$30 billion

Right they well they

I just they paused something

That's all it was was a pause so it was very very

I don't think anything has been paused

I mean Israel is just now going into Rafa

They've just taken the Rafa border

crossing, actually. Right. And so Biden is pissed because he told them 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 U.S. 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 U.S. aid to

Israel at all after we just gave them

$30 billion, right?

Right.

But it isn't

interesting, it's 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... It's worrying them.

I've acknowledged that

even without that

pause of that one arm shipment,

see,

the issue is, I don't want to look at this on an

activist 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, within a 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 an, 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, you know,

trying to bend that contradiction back into shape or whatever.

All I, I actually think

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 was my position previously. And I in no way I'm 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 uh 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 not my, 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.

They're not going to digest.

They are not going to digress 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 and the objectivity of the contradiction in the sense of it says, of course they're not going to divest. They're part of the imperialist egemony, you know, 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 how to

I mean it's not necessarily totally new you know for example in Russia there were plenty of

student movements whose failures actually form 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 nerolyniks, of course.

To give them

the Nerolyniks 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 flentes actually said

the same thing interestingly nick

fentes joined the chorus of these uh 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 process.

It did radicalize a lot of people,

but ultimately didn't lead

to a true revolutionary party.

There were revolutionary aspects

of like the students, the SDS

organization, the students for

a democratic society, they had

revolutionary, some of them

had revolutionary tendencies, they were stamped out eventually,

and they turned into the hippies that we see today.

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly my

criticism. I don't want, I don't like seeing some people immediately romanticize these

things and be like oh this is just like vietnam again because the vietnam probably 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

in a perspective that maybe some people will allow them to mature beyond the

kind of immediacy of the excitement of the events. And it can contribute to something, you know,

more long term. You know, it's not true even that the vietnam protest 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 know, I think...

Well, so actually, I have actually...

So I have a TikTok, and I...

I just post preempty clips on my...

Like, me...

But I just posted one that he has where he talks about

what happened after those

movements and how the drug traffickers came in

and co-intel pro came in and just destroyed that entire movement.

Yeah.

And that's exactly what happened.

Exactly.

And, you know, I think one of the, 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 the excitement of this mass phenomena and then it clearly it'll come to an end and then there's a demoralization

where we're 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, 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 has—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 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, you know, people outside these universities,

oh, look, you know, these people have blue hair.

So it's just this kind of, they're trying, 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 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 find it tragic and absurd that some Americans are being

siopped 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 it.

Well, I mean, you saw the kid, Old Miss, like the counter protesters at Old Miss, they're not protesting in

favor, they don't give a shit about Israel

at all. They see

these

liberals protesting for Palestine

and they're the opposite of that were for America.

And America

Yeah, yeah. that were for America and America America as a yeah yeah I mean no that that's

that's true that's also true you know

there 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 that all they know. Yeah, I think there would otherwise be agreement, maybe. But, you know, even besides, because 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 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

privileged kids. Some of them 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,

there's no reason. Well, at a minimum, 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.

When we're talking to students, we're talking about the four-year college, not trade

or even community colleges. But for the four-year college, not trade or even community colleges,

but for the four-year college, almost

all students are trying to

ascend in terms

of their class status, otherwise they wouldn't

pay for education.

Yeah. But in any 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 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 refined. Maybe you need to reach out to people

outside of your familiar culture and environment.

So really that's just my position.

It's just a kind of

just a kind of

very mild constructive criticism.

I was very angry at

those organizations at

Emery that very dishonorably

attacked Jackson and I.

I think another thing people have a problem is I use slurs

and stuff. And you know,

I don't do got to know, I don't do,

I don't go out of my way to,

but obviously in the heat of the moment,

you know.

I,

but also,

you were,

you were just criticizing the,

um,

uh,

then making the students a, a culture war issue,

but then you go and using all these slurs

makes 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.

I probably have.

We're like, he's like, I don't know, I don't want to offend you by using the... I probably have Where like

He's 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

Yeah

So they say it refers to people

We don't like not to engage

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

that 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 don't

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 will there always be a minimum of

leftists

attacking me because of that

because I just kind of won't compromise

on the 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...

Like independent from what?

From the mainstream

duopoly or whatever. And when I say

liberals have fully... Yeah, the liberals

are fully on board with all that shit now.

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 uh 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

I think yeah I think so 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 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, I 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 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 Republicans or Democrats, it's always

dominated by the ruling class.

So,

you know,

um,

I don't know,

I just think,

I really oppose,

I think it's really just the political correctness. I'll, I can't know. I just think I really oppose, I think it's really just the political

correctness. I'll, I can't reconcile

myself with, to be

honest.

I mean, but that is still

at the cost of alienating

a lot of people. I agree, but that is still at the cost of aliening a lot of people.

I agree,

but I think it's worth it in the sense

that

I...

I don't think you're going to, like, win over rural workers

just by...

No, no.

...being, like, against cancel culture and thing and stuff like that. No, you... rural workers just by being like against

cancel culture and thing and stuff like that.

No, you won't. That's just the 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, I mean,

it's not, it's not something that happens right away,

just by how you talk or how you posture,

how you signal to them,

culture, or 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. These people who are listening,

whether they're priests, you know, evangelicals, 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, you know, are very politically incorrect.

That's the default.

That doesn't, that doesn't make them disposed 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 just think 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 And it's in 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-criticized,

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 speed run that?

What does it take to speak in a way that people understand, based on their own experiences, based on their intuitions, and based on what makes sense to them.

Because I think the issue with left is it's not that they're critical of 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, like, 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 health care or whatever, universal health care.

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 also... I mean, I guess Ray and Paul

could be considered a small,

in favor of small government, but he just wants

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, 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 your ability to maintain

this worldview so comfortably and so at a distance from the spontaneous and, you know, 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...

As long as you can understand the deeper wisdom of the masses, you can rest from them the hold that the class enemy has 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

You I don't really I don't watch your streams

I just I mostly use Twitter and TikTok I don't watch your streams. I just, I 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 of 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 the C it still is the CPSA.

That's the main, the I don't know, the 2036 initiative where we wait for the elections to come up. And that point we basically ascend to power within CPUSA yeah yeah by basically earning a good reputation within the CPUSA going along with

whatever Terran Fivek 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 just call it a new organization but that's where the

So you plan to join CP USA?

No.

Okay.

I'm not allowed to join the current

CPUSA.

Are they having outside elections then?

No, they're having elections,

which we're going to be in...

It's not entryism, but it's a kind of like...

I use my platform to basically unify forces around restoring and taking back the CPUSA,

mainly restoring it,

taking it back.

But the leadership has engaged in delaying the elections.

They've engaged in some,

we argue illegal practices which we're going to

reveal to the public soon

and so on.

So I'm not in CPSA 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 think there's confusion.

My followers have joined the CPUSA, 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.

Both of these things.

This summer, but it's going to be very related to the uh c p u s a elections that are upcoming okay

but um the reason i 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 acknowledgement of something fundamentally impersonal, something fundamentally irreducible to your particular ideological position, and is 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 it's being led in the wrong kind of way.

But we consider that an important stage of maturity to basically obey the party while simultaneously disagreeing with it privately.

That's kind of a Marxist-Leninist culture of democratic centralism, where to be you don't it's not just a confessional it's

not just you have a specific worldview 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...

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 so they won't let you join CPUSA?

Not me personally, no, but my followers...

Have you tried?

Like they've outright said?

Yeah, and they denounced me...

They denounced me and lumped me in with Caleb Mop

and then November of 2021, actually.

But since then,

I've basically encouraged my followers

to continue

stay in the party, uh, join the party at all costs.

And, uh, basically, they have delayed the elections and they have, they have themselves.

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.

You know, they, they published an attack on me tonight.

Very interesting.

I'll have to check that out.

But basically they...

They have delayed elections by a year.

They've engaged Joe Sims and his gang and others.

They've engaged in very kind of shady behavior.

With financing, I've been told.

I've been given some receipts.

In terms of 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.

I think with that, I'm going to go ahead and go,

but it was an interesting conversation.

Sure, no problem.

Hi, bye.

See you later.

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

Wow, super interesting. S.A's article.

Wow.

Super interesting.

This as I don't understand

this. This is just incredible.

This is just

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

I thought this was mainly against Midwestern Marx,

but let's see what they're talking about here.

All right, let's see.

Against patriotic socialism.

I wasn't aware that people still use this phrase, but here we are.

Commonly known among Communist Party members, the phenomena of Pat Sox has arisen in recent years, but has its roots that go back for the 2020s, even all the way something to do with broaderism, it has nothing to do with us, which was fought against by CBOSA members. Most notably, figures such as Williams, I think they're changing the definition of Pat Sock to be

convenient to them. The leftist definition of Pat Sok is anyone who endorses the Marxist

Leninist view of socialist patriotism and applies that to the United States, meaning a 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 patsock by the leftist definition, but the CPUSA is just changing the definition.

And very, I guess, using Memphis Facebook, very, very good of them. Memphis Facebook.

Very, very good of them.

Memphis Facebook aesthetics.

All right, 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 be funny if this

was a gorilla who's doing Takea?

That would be hilarious.

That would be hilarious. Because this is just

like, okay, and as a transphobicphobic abeliest 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 abliest 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 J. Sakai?

Because William Z. Foster is also...

Doesn't Jay Sakai 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 infl floors 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 even mentioned?

First of all, I will admit something. 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 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 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 larush has no my magnum opus in other, 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 really with LaRouche.

I mean, 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 in 2019 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

kaleb moppin a person that has met with la rousche multiple times i didn't even know that myself

and has invoked or extolled most of his ideas, as well as being an admirerl Browder.

In recent years, the Pat Sock outlet Midwestern Marks has also acquired quite a following and have even been 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 the 30-second convention to also stress the issue of ablism,

especially in regards to autistic.

But don't you think this is a little self-serving you know because i think it's kind of silly because i think

i think it's true that the 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 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, 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 fail to like 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

apart. First, you failed

to be politically relevant and reach the

working class. So you decided

that

you know, your, your revolutionary subject is going to be like some fringe sexuality, or it's going to 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 at-sock movement.

So what are you going to 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.

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

never were going to 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 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 a new lavender scare ramping up against trans folk and 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. in China this is kind of crazy

I don't know what do you guys think

this is just kind of crazy stuff

just insanity to be honest

we can

also fight the Patsock threat

by supporting and Iflying our support for the landback movement.

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

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

and yeah we're in your party and no you can't tell who 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 want to find infrared people, I'm going to give it...

I know they're never going to 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. 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

conversate 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.

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.

Okay.

Slogan hearing and repeating

explicit Patsok talking points are grounds for expulsion.

But then you have to ban Williams E. 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...

I clicked the link and you want to know what they linked?

A photoshopped tweet of Jackson.

This is actually,

I don't know if this is

deliberate malice or its 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... like what are they talking infrared called for the party to dissolve what jackson we must secure the existence of our i mean i here's what i'm interesting like does this guy

know he's lying like is it on purpose or? 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.

Does this guy know? I don't know. It's just...

I've really...

I pan leftists. 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

very much

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, are finally

looking back on proletarian movements through U.S. 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 going to get angry. Can it be calm? Concrete conclusions.

Concrete conclusions.

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 or 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 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

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

Mussolini claimed Italy was a proletarian nation and Britain was a bourgeois nation and that class struggle was a proletarian nation and uh Britain was a bourgeois nation and that class struggle

is a in like between nations now or something I don't know if where this notion of a

proletarian nation comes from except Mussolini.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but we'll 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 your overturning party precedent, historical precedent, by a very long time, and you just should be

aware of that.

Invoke, you should take responsibility for that and really have the courage to muster and say,

you, Elijah Jones, are more wise and smarter than Williams E. 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 and 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 proletarian 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 synthesis of Leninism. You're talking about some kind of Trotskyism or something. I don't know. I would listen to a read to Lenin's great and underrated work on this issue. Referring to the Communist Party USA,

really?

Really?

Really, Lenin's work?

Belicose militarism and the anti-militarist tactics of social democracy.

Uh-huh.

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 all Marxism-Leninism and socialist patriotism?

Nothing. nothing.

Maybe he uses the phrase patriotic.

Let's see.

Ah, this is, there we go.

So he's referring to the patriotism of the French.

The working man, whetherrelika connoissee that attitude of uh vommere 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 and 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 the proletariat.

He... the class struggle the proletariat. Wait, so Lenin's saying the opposite of what you imply, he says.

He's actually emphasizing the importance of a national context.

The proletary 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. But the

destinies of the

country

interested only to

the extent

of the

effect is class

struggle,

not in some

virtue of

bourgeois

patriotism.

Right,

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 after the Soviet

state is created, obviously.

The word patriotism

used to be a

progenitive 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 reality and to your people in the and the country that was elaborated upon later um it just wasn't to focus at this point.

So, right, so he links an article by Lenin that completely contradicts everything he says.

Lenin's 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. the militaristic policy of the state.

So there you go.

I would listen, okay, well, Lenin contradicts you directly.

Referring 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 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. 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... He's trying to basically

trick Joe Sims.

We're ultimately

not American patriots. At best, we are working 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 not, 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 an 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 30s?

Tony is a loose... You mean after they denounce Stalin and go with Khrushchev?

Is that what you're talking about?

We need to continue to show this.

We cannot have the Pat Sox controlling the narrative about the CPUSA and reducing everything about it to what Earl Browder...

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? 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.

Male sovereignism and anti-femininity is a huge problem in our society.

Let's see the link.

Okay, he just links

another CP USA article

that's great

uh and maga communists like

Jackson and serial sexual abuser

Caleb Maupin exude this problem

in spades

recently Zhang Wei Wei,

who has 73,000

subscribers at the

time of this writing,

promoted such

personalities as

Jackson Hinkle,

friend and

promoted of

Caleb Mappen,

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 Zhang Wei Wei?

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?

I'm sending...

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, like, 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 influencers 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 doxed RIP fallen soldier

you could no longer be an anonymous troll

I don't understand this

why are you acting like he died?

And this is like a memorial.

What do you mean?

We got to love the CPUSA content.

It's always comedy.

It's always comedy.

What is this?

A friend of mine was doxed and this is dedicated to him.

Did your friend die? Is he dead? What happened to your friend?

Pouring out for the homie who got doxed.

Pour one out for the homie who just got doxed.

Smoking on that dox pack, I guess.

Yeah, Volkvulture, 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

someone i don't recognize is in show Q. Hello?

Hello?

Anyone there?

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, I never said Allende sent people to there

what are you talking about

or you didn't say

Colonia dignity da

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 assumed that's what you're talking about.

I don't

remember at all.

Okay. I don't remember at all. Okay.

Maybe there's something to talk about.

All right.

See you later.

All right.

See you.

All right. all right uh that was interesting interesting Oh man

Oh man

Oh man Um

Give me a moment

Now I'm not laughing

This thing about

Pourin out for the homie

who just got doxed

is the craziest shit.

Some of the craziest shit

I've ever read,

honestly.

Elijah Jones.

I'm going to ask my people who this guy is

just so like it's just out of curiosity like who the hell is this crazy guy

it's pretty pretty wild pretty wild stuff. Yo, what's going on? Yo, what's going on?

Uh, epistate. He is obsessed with uh...

Return to Hegel.

Guy and there's a JQ guy in show Q. Well, okay, we'll bring him up.

All right, 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 Saff on red saffron right yeah i mean i'm anti-semitic according to the cb usa so according to them we won't disagree on anything yeah well

oh Hello.

Yep, okay. Yo, hello.

All right.

Yo.

Yo.

Yo.

Yo.

Hello?

Hello?

All right.

Yo, hello. Hello? Hello? yo hello hello just go into your discord settings go into your discord settings and fix it

hello settings mic Hello? Settings, Mike, fix it there. Thank you. Hello?

Hello? Go ahead and unmute and undefin 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. 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.

Jesus. Thank you. All right, anyway, yo, hello. Hello?

Hello?

Fuck, I can't hear you. Sky a troll Hello 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. I'm I'm Thank you. The Yo, Darg, what's up, man?

Hello?

Yo, Darg, what's up?

Yo, hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah. Oh oh let's go

finally

I'm so sorry about that

my bad

yeah

all right

all right Haas

thank you

thank you for having me on sir

thank you

yeah no problem

yeah so I guess um I don't know we uh Thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Yeah, so I guess, I don't know.

I'll go ahead and just talk about what I was going to talk about.

Maybe it's not even a disagreement.

We'll see.

But I'm just a little confused as to why you never just, if you're going against 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 so afraid to be

like oh it's not it's not it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not that. I stand with my Orthodox Jewish brothers. Like, I'll tell you, like, a specific quote you had when you're debating these other, um, like Orthodox LARPA guys. And I agree they were LARPERS.

They were a piece of shit.

But you want, like, you know, like,

my Orthodox Jewish brothers stand with me,

or stand with 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?

To answer your question about why

I don't claim that Zionists are the same as Jews.

The reason is because I'm not a Zionist.

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 Zionism of the evangelicals come from? It wasn't just spontaneous.

They didn't come up with it on behalf of Christianity or else, I mean, Israel would be a Christian state.

Obviously, the Zionism of the evangelicals had to originate from something.

I think you misunderstand evangelical Zionism because it's based on

a prophecy. They don't

want Israel to be Christian.

They believe that the Jews

are all going to be, they're going to

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 many people find

it convincing, you know?

So, you know, evangelical Zionism, just like Jewish Zionism,

Jewish religious Zionism, is really a form of evangelical religious Zionism that's not Jewish.

It's actually a sect of, claims to be a sect of Christianity.

So given that case, why are the, like, why are the majority of Jews, even in the United States, the majority of Jewish people are in support

of Israel. I think the statistic is something like 80% of Jewish people say Israel is essential for them.

It means a lot to their Jewish identity. And, you know, as we've seen in these recent protests,

many, many just average everyday Jewish people are incredibly passionate about Israel. So, I mean, are you denying that there

is like 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 U.S. and in the West.

So it's no surprise that the majority of Jews in the U.S. 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-Zionists

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 U.S. 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

disentangle from that, which I think actually harms the anti-Zinist cause.

I mean, I would kind of say, though, I feel like there isn't really a way they would disentangle from it because you say, well, the Zionists have manufactured this love for Israel amongst Jewish people, but I mean, don't you think it's a natural feeling of

patriotism, of nationalism for them? 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 you know zionist forces to basically brainwash and convince them of that.

So I don't see it's natural at all.

Secondly, although the majority of Jews in the U.S. are pro-Zionists, 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

sense to a country that's not his,

I mean, you could argue that is artificial

and manufactured, but can you really argue that is artificial and manufactured,

but can you really

argue that a Jewish

person having a highly

patriotic extends

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 U.S.

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.

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 Italians

and Irish

are just

as Americans

as Jews are

sure

I would I definitely wouldn't make the case that all, all, the only Americans are

was, but, but I mean, the, the reason that many people say that Jews are not as American

is because Jewish people just, it's, it seems like Jewish people

have a dual

allegiance.

For them,

Israel is

equally as

important,

if not more

important than

America.

I feel like

they care more

about Israel

than America.

I mean,

a guy like

Ben Shapiro

goes to Israel

and says,

and they ask him,

why aren't you coming back to Israel?

And his response is basically that, well, because I'm doing important biowork on behalf of

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, realize it's not a jewish thing the majority of

these disloyal people are non-jewish they're in power and there are 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 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 definitely true.

That's definitely true.

I agree with that.

But I guess the only thing I would say is that,

you know, you mentioned, like, Wasp and, I mean, what, like, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? I, I agree that they're, most of them are Zionists because of the Zionist propaganda, because of the Zionist infiltration, but, I mean, you don't see, like, American, American people of english descent being more loyal to england

than the united states and same way like you mentioned italians and and these other immigrants 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 WAS, 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 U.S. 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 I 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, you know, it's for me, it's just a little hard to accept that our argument our side

like me and you and the anti-Zionist

is that the Zionist entity

shouldn't exist at all

like Israel as a nation should

exist at all

why would

Jewish people on mass

get behind that? Why would they

not support the existence

of their own homeland?

And who's to say

the opposite isn't true? Who's to say that

they support the existence

of Israel against the existence of Palestinians, against the existence or the stability of the nation surrounding Israel.

I feel, I get the feeling that most Jews or most Jewish people, definitely those in power, at least are,

because of their ethnic

solidarity with Israel,

because of their ethnic

obligations,

are very 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 Escanazis, the cultural difference between American Eskanazis and Russian Eskenazis, 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 U.S. 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 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 exist because it's strategically in the interest of the ruling class for this to be so.

Definitely, definitely, but don't you think,

and maybe you can refute this or give a counter-argument,

but guys like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager and Dave Rubin, they play such an important role in

skewing public opinion here in the United States on behalf of Israel. And, you know, and there's

people like, there's those people, but I feel like there's a lot, a lot more people, a lot more people involved in business and finance and politics that we don't see. Those are just like the people at the very top that are visible to us. Don't you think it's important for the American public opinion to be behind to support Israel and

given that wouldn't wouldn't it be a natural conclusion that Jewish people Americans of or a Jewish Americans with, with, with, who have 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? There are 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 in 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 as far as, and as far as public opinion too.

But sit down and ask yourself, is there a 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

the 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 Zionism and 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 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. Emnity 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 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.

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, who are in positions of power,

how do you envision them to

accept that stance, that Zionism isn't good for them,

to not continue to advocate?

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-Zionism.

Never stop winning. You guys are on the right path.

Hamza, thank you. To guys are on the right path. Do you think that's possible?

Hamzaa, thank you.

The normal Jewish people on mass, to become anti-Zionists.

Actually, I do think it's possible.

I think that, I think 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 Israel very easily.

I think 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 been a diaspora group.

Do you, would you say that, let's say,

like the strategy or like the,

the mindset should be,

let's get Jewish people to become

integrator to love, like,

the different countries that,

they've been dispersed throughout their entire lifetimes rather than focus on their homeland and like like the aggressive like the aggression of uh i think i think the uh soviet position was correct on Jews,

I think that was, that was, that was, that was, I mean, 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

with a national identity and patriotism.

It's more of

a fusion of Jews

with their national context

rather than them sacrificing their Jewishness.

And if they want to do that, they have the freedom to do that, obviously.

But there's room for, you know, maintaining Jewish identity beyond Zionism and beyond, you know, this trope of ruthless cosmopolitanism, Jews are, I've always had a national context, actually 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 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 Russia. 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 guess the question would be

Is that

That integration, those efforts to nationalize the Jewish people

Will it be effective enough to

Get them to let go of the idea of Zionism

I don't think the issue is that we need to nationalize American Jews I think the issue is that we need to nationalize American Jews.

I think the issue is that we need to 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 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

it's just a question 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 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.

So maybe push back just a little bit.

Don't you think some, given the fact that 80% of Jewish people right now, at least, 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 rid of the designist influencers like Shapiro, Prager, etc.

Maybe not 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, yes, yeah, I mean, 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 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.

You know, I think my position is spoken for itself.

I mean, I have every, I have every opportunity to be anti-Jewish, actually.

I probably would get more followers I would probably be more

accepted in many communities I I I am treated as an anti-Semite regardless I don't

get any benefits from having a principled position on this,

by the way. I don't get any benefits from it in terms of how much I'm punished by the hegemony.

Emory, University, care and other organizations, and the university claimed I was an anti-Semite.

So institutions still call me anti-Semitic.

I don't get a pass.

I don't get more acceptable. I don't get more

acceptable or less canceled.

You know, but

a principled position is a

principled position.

Yeah.

But wouldn't, couldn't that be an example of how actually for Zionism is important for Jewish people? If they say that you're anti-Semitic because you're anti-Zionist, doesn't that 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 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 can't have like an empirical way to answer that question.

And I mean, your case is definitely valid um but i let me just let me just

give you like a like a little example of of this whole like like the zionist israeli jewish

population situation i mean you uh you know about birthright Israel where they take

just every everyday average Jewish people

you could be like a quarter Jewish or

yeah it would be a quarter Jewish or whatever

and they'll bring you to Israel and they'll

basically tour you everywhere for free

free everything everything's paid for

and yeah it's

kind of a way to get

ethnically Jewish people, I think 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 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-IS.

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 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 up like a little hypothetical,

um,

to like explore this idea.

Let's say,

I believe you're,

you're Lebanese,

right?

Yeah. Your Arab? Yeah. You're Lebanese, right? Yeah.

Your Arab?

Yeah.

You're Lebanon.

Right?

So let's say, let's say, like, 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 like it was like bullying like the

Jewish population or whatever uh the same way Israel bullies Gaza and or genocides genocides them

uh and and let's say you I mean as you are you're like a Lebanese American living in the United States.

Do you think you would have the moral clarity, the awareness to look past that and say,

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.

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.

Having Jewish identity

makes you more

vulnerable to Zionist propaganda and brainwashing.

I don't disagree with that.

But I maintain what I said previously.

That doesn't justify conceding to Zionism

the equivocation between Jewish identity and Zionism.

Yeah, well, that's definitely fair, yeah. Fair point.

Anything else?

I mean, no, no, really.

I think that was a good conversation.

I think that was productive. Sure. I think that was productive.

Sure.

See you later.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you, us.

Oh, bomb.

All right. Uh,

I think I'm going to bed.

Don't think there's anything else.

Is there?

Is there?

Is there? Yeah. there is there is there

Patreon

bucket let's do it

let me see

this is like going to be a hundred Let me see.

This is like going to be a hundred.

Let me just see how many,

two more.

I don't have time for the show queue right now.

Patreon essay.

I don't think anyone, um,

wow, there's a lot in here.

Wow.

Wow.

This is bad.

All right.

We're going to do it anyway.

Fuck it.

All right.

We're going Patreon, Q&&A I don't have the energy

to thank you

I do

but I

but I will do it

briefly all right

I'll just say

for example Orvo's up first

Orvo thanks man that's Orvo, thanks, man.

That's what 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 don't you guys?

You barely ask anything.

All right, let's just do it.

Orvo, thanks, man.

I understand why we're pro-AI and against reactionaries want to hold back innovation.

But how is this consistent with opposing technology such as Neurilink?

Should we really embrace Neurrelink?

Very good question.

If Neurrelink works, and I think that's the issue, I am skeptical of whether Neurrelink works,

but if Neurrelink 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

monotivode 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 a lot that, but more is more so in terms of their monopolization of the technology. Just're 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 NeuroLink 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,

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 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 its self 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, you know, 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 this is what separates me from the parapolitics people who, for example, make conspiracy theories about myself and Jackson.

They're trying to establish some kind of subject outside of class struggle, some ability to totally manipulate and totally control, totally deceive. I disagree with that. I think that even if you totally deceive, the form of contradiction is still inescapable.

Avant, thanks so much, man.

It seems you a problem, people being anything 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 cancelable?

What are the problems with both these and how do we approach the relationship between the work and the creator? 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 element.

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 did I, 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 our 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.

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 in the same thing?

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, I don't know if I can talk about his greatest contribution, I'd have to think that one through.

But what I do like the reorientation represented by Aristotle back upon back upon imminence

and the reality of imminence

right

not necessarily in the Nietzschean sense

or whatever but I think

that there is something

there, which is

clearly not in Plato. I don't know.

It's a low IQ response.

Paperwin, what's up? Thoughts on the

Black Panthers, Young Patriots, Rainbow Coalition,

being a former proto-promot communism.

I don't agree with that.

What can we draw from the fact as 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's 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 unstable.

Avant, how do you see your time at law school now?

Part of my personal history, I guess.

Scuba Tanky, what's up?

Which philosopher should I read in order to get a

understanding of Marxism? Probably

Hegel and Kant first.

Agar, what's up?

What do you mean by Ecology's name of class struggle today?

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 living being struggle over almost the passive 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.

Ones in the chat, we're still here,

Chad is dead

Fuck, did it freeze?

No, all right

Avon, 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,

objectively, was a

significant event in the national history of the United States. That's the 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 I think the new deal.

Hmm.

I think, uh,

the new deal. the New Deal probably is a chapter

in the history of American socialism,

obviously. FDR, it's so complicated.

He had to make so many compromises. I don't know. I don't know. I can't sum it up in time, to be honest.

Johnny, thank you so much for being a patron. Personal issues of size. What are your biggest disagreements with Caleb Moplin? I don't think he's a Marxist Leninist.

I think he's a kind of Trotskyist adventurist.

I think he's too vain.

I think he is too much dwelling in a kind of indignation at the personal slight

and personal wrong

that others such as

leftists,

whatever, have done to him. I think that

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, I don't know.

Millie, thank you so much for being a patron.

Can you share advice on I 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 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 i don't know go on to 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 don't know. I don't know at all.

What exactly does liberalism melt all that is solid in the air?

It dissolves patterns of life.

It dissolves patterns of life. It dissolves forms of relationships based on kinship and immediate bonds, communal bonds, in favor of ones that are kind of purely formal.

This is the essence of alienation, basically.

Well, what's going on? What is the essence of alienation, basically. Well, what's going on?

What is the fundamental insight of Heidegger that makes an essay 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 believe in the French moment of the post-war period. 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 Batai, Kojev, Lacan, De Loz too as well, Leotard, and so on and so on

There was something

Bedou 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 Akamundit Empire.

And I would ask 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 to subdue all

anti-ruling class consciousness.

Yes.

It's just a strange question.

Do you think liberalism is a conscious pros that partly shaped modernity or is it's a response to modernity

uh philosophically 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.

The kind of thing that distinguishes the West, industrial standardization, scientific

revolutions, revolutions in the forces of production, and so on.

They try to say this is the 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

Czech Slovakia. 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... Empire was in the Balkans even before Hitler.

So that was where the that's even the official story.

The unofficial story is that

English ruling

class propped him up

to loot the wealth and the gold

of Eastern Europe,

funnel all of this into, eventually for it to be funneled to offshore banks

to prop up international capitalism.

Orvo, after multipolarity ultimately wins, will communism be necessary or will it be rendered superfluous? 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 O.J. do it? I don't know.

Word salad and favorite fighting game character.

Okay. Red Sun Superman from Injustice 1 XYZ, thanks so much for being a patron.

Early on and throughout the development of infrared,

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.

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 least I think they'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 metaphor maybe for the specific, just like psychosis is the foreclosure of the signifier.

Modernity is a kind of foreclosure of the kind of material essence of being, you know.

It's a foreclosure of this kind of sacred essence that grounds, grounds the 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 spectra 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, like capitalist crisis and so on, when you realize

the contradiction engendered by a modernity,

that leads to actual psychosis politically, like fascism.

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 and 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 um this kind of

this kind of this kind of 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 it's a way for them to 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 to reach AGI.

I don't know. I don't agree. I think AGI is preposterous.

The notion that you can somehow replicate.

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,

you know,

Jacques Lacan has this kind of concept.

I think he calls it the lamella.

Lamela, something like that,

which is this kind of, something like that,

which is this kind of,

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 a 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 right it's just this kind of ceaseless ceaselessness not even

vitality it's really death drive right it's going beyond life itself because of its persistence

because of its kind of...

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 and 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 the biological.

So I reject AGI for that reason.

DAG, AGI is like we are going to manufacture or create 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 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 beginning inexplicable

primordial humiliation

maybe

you know

from the perspective

of rational logos

Darg

thanks man

should Comis America

fully open up to the U.S. intelligence archives and reveal the truth?

Sure, let's do it all.

Close Society Foundation.

You mentioned you were on a diet.

Have you read the work of Ray Pete?

Yeah, I'm tangentially listening

to this advice. Not too much.

Like, for example, he says

don't have peanuts or, you know,

I don't agree with this kind of stuff.

You know, I like cashews. I like peanut butter.

You know.

Cian Dong

I says a weird name.

Siadeng.

Thanks, man.

Would you still be keen on becoming a landlord of a factory

commercial building

yeah

are you just going to 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

Avant

Did you invent Spartan girls

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

X YZ Thanks man How do you justify The should have come me esoteric Chinese technique.

XYZ, thanks man.

How do you justify the should of communism from material's worldview?

Don't divorce it from, don't divorce freedom and necessity.

Simple.

Don't separate the moral from the actual and the moral from the material.

Is Nagar-Stani 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,

expunged it from my consciousness.

Do you still believe in the strategy of dual power

in America?

Ah, you'll see when I launched the organization.

Talent site, thanks for being a patron.

How would you describe false consciousness?

I would describe false consciousness

as a kind of 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 also is compatible with their sensibilities and intuitions. But what you cannot have, thank you so much, Raphael, 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

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 that break from the

immediacy of personal experience which is fundamentally necessary

to cultivate the proletarian class consciousness and the proletarian class position class 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

a Illuminati conspiracyism 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.

Interesting.

Based. uh based uh

there it is

today's the seventh

right Anyway, guys, see you guys in two days.

See you guys Thursday.