The growing rejection of PC “anti-Zionism,” and how this will free the pro-Palestine movement

Our culture is swinging in a more moralistic direction, with the masses recoiling from Trump 2.0’s genocidal monstrosity. This creates a new opening for the pro-Palestine movement, but like with the previous “woke” era, the multicultural imperialists could use it to become dominant. To stop liberal Zionists from hijacking this moralist trend, we must expose the fraudulent nature of their PC “anti-Zionism.” We must go into pro-Palestine spaces—or into the liberal spaces where people were talking about Palestine until it left the headlines—and force through a dialogue about why Judeophilic “anti-Zionism” is so harmful. It’s by exposing PC “anti-Zionism’s” self-contradictory logic that we’ll be able to gain new allies among the spectators of this dialogue.

We don’t need to adopt edgy language like “Zionist Occupied Government,” as many leftists have recently been doing; all that we’ll need to effectively make our case is the facts which debunk these Judeophilic narratives. If we normalize these counter-arguments against the PC tendency within pro-Palestine politics, we’ll be able to separate the authentic pro-Palestine movement from its fake iteration, and give these disillusioned leftists a new political home. This home being the genuine communist and anti-imperialist movement, which rejects identity politics while basing its analysis within the class struggle rather than in the “Jewish question.”

One of these liberal Zionist narratives we’ll need to combat is the idea that the majority of Jews have now come to reject Zionism. While rebutting a recent “progressive” article that tried to cleanly separate Judaism from Zionism, Tariq Ackinckulous explained how the piece

lies about the figure of “only 36% said that “supporting Israel” is important to their Jewish identity;” they only include extremely important (19%) and very important (18%) but omit somewhat important (26%). The second survey mentioned again is the March 2026 Jewish Electorate Institute poll which the article here is honest enough to admit that 87% of American Jews believe in “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland,” despite only 34% of them considering themselves Zionists. This just shows that the label “Zionist” has become toxic, yet as the number show right there, 87% of them are Zionists because the definition of Zionism is the believe in Israel as a Jewish state. Again, this is just a baffling admission. It can not be stressed enough, the people who are “conflating Jews with Israel” are not just “Antisemites, U.S. Politicians, or the Israeli State” as the article claims—it’s also the vast majority of Jews worldwide as shown in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll. So why speak over Jews when they have already spoken so loudly and clearly? Why does the “pro-Palestine” movement spend so much time and energy doing free PR for a factually largely Zionist demographic?

Tariq’s “why speak over Jews” line isn’t being used here in the way that liberal idpol advocates use the phrase “speaking over.” The idpol ideology treats this phrase as a weapon for shutting down dissent, asserting that because someone is from a certain background, it’s discriminatory not to accept what they say. Such is the playbook of Zionists, both from the overtly supremacist wing and from this underhanded “progressive” camp: smear anyone who calls out what they’re doing as a Jew-hater. 

What more and more leftists are realizing is that the Zionists have used this tactic to manipulate them; to make it so that within left discourse, Zionism is talked about as an aberration within Judaism which can be easily separated from the latter. But many are now seeing that this thinking is actually dangerous, because it denies the basic realities before us. It denies how “Israel” is inescapable within institutional Judaism as it actually exists, as opposed to the idealized version of Judaism that exists within this mythos. It also denies Zionism’s character as an ideology that supports an ethno-state, with the PC “anti-Zionists” redefining the word in order to claim that most Jews have turned against it.

When you honestly look at where the sentiments among Jews have been heading, the picture that emerges is one in which most of them have responded towards society’s moralistic swing, but in the same way that American liberals did during the Obama era; namely by embracing progressive positions on things like LGBT politics, while remaining complicit in their government’s genocidal crimes. It’s this kind of virtue-signaling that our ruling class seeks to make into the prevailing mode of politics now that the nation is returning towards more woke values. And unless we wrest the pro-Palestine movement away from them, this movement will be the vehicle through which they sell the new woke imperialism. 

This psyop is dependent on our passive acceptance of the PC “anti-Zionist” narratives, and the bulk of today’s anti-Zionist Americans are going to reject these narratives. This is both because of the revolt against Jewish ethno-narcissism from within left circles themselves, and because in these last three years there’s emerged a major conservative anti-Zionist current. It’s this current that represents the most dynamic popular force within pro-Palestine politics right now, as it’s the type of anti-Zionism that’s been gaining a following while the Palestine protests have fizzled out. The leftists who’ve been pushing back against Judeophilic PC policing will be the ones which bring their part of the movement towards success, in the way that conservative anti-Zionism has succeeded.

When our mode of anti-Zionist politics undergoes this revival, within our camp there will be two ascendant wings: the ultra-left tendency that’s still pushing intersectionality rhetoric, and the tendency that’s based within a real class analysis. Because the intersectionality camp is inherently limited to the radlib niche, the only tendency that can build a sustainable mass presence is the one which has fully broken from liberal idpol. 

To bring the movement’s next recruits to the correct position, we must provide them with clarity about what class struggle means in relation to identity. Parenti explained this relationship in a way that can show this next politically active generation the way forward. He described how

Seizing upon anything but class, U.S. leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and lifestyle issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpe­trated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinctiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like.

It’s again necessary for Marxists to wage a struggle against idpol, like we needed to during the Biden era. Except now, the purpose of this ideological fight shouldn’t just be to reject the woke element, as was necessary when our tendency first had to break free from this element. At this point, there’s actually an opportunity to bring many people with woke views into a popular anti-imperialist front, because three years of the Gaza holocaust have forced a separation between radical leftists and libs. The backlash against Jewish ethno-narcissism is how this contradiction is manifesting, and the outcome will be for those who’ve become disillusioned to start on a new path.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

Hasan’s condemnation of Hamas, the futility of “debating” Israelis, & Gen Z’s anti-colonial mission

This is part of the book I’m writing, which will be called “When Tears Can’t Save Them: Why the pro-Palestine movement failed to stop a holocaust, & how it can still win.”

In August 2026, the DSA-aligned streamer Hasan Piker did an interview with the “Israeli” outlet Haaretz, which reported he said that “I’ve condemned October 7, I’ve talked about the crimes that took place. I’ve talked about the heinous violence we saw unfold, as did everyone else…I see it as an unfortunate and tragic consequence of 75 years of apartheid and occupation, where desperate people are leaning into unfathomable acts of violence as a final way to try to remind people that they’re there and to make the occupation as costly as possible.” 

It was this moment that marked a critical turning point in Piker’s role as a political actor, because it confirmed that he didn’t just intend to lead leftists back into the Democratic Party; he also sought to de-radicalize them away from a principled anti-imperialist position. To prevent this project’s success, we must show the pro-resistance Gen Z crowd just how right they are. We must advance a politics whose basis is in the actual, historical anti-colonial struggle, which recognizes the necessity of the occupied to defend themselves.

Piker’s Hamas condemnation was such a major betrayal because over the last half-decade, Piker’s views on foreign policy had made him represent a real anti-imperialist mutation within the DSA’s camp. That he had gone as far as he did in defending anti-imperialist countries and resistance movements was causing both ruling class wings to become increasingly upset with him. When the recriminations against him became intense enough, though, and he received a subpoena in May 2026 for his Cuba solidarity activities, he soon would start doubling down on his past liberal Zionist stances. Given how much he’d broken from U.S. foreign policy narratives, it seemed like he might no longer stand by the past times he’d condemned Al-Aqsa Flood; but he affirmed this opposition to the resistance, giving him a better chance of being protected by the Democratic establishment.

That this was the first time Piker had talked to Israeli media shows how important normalization is in the eyes of this establishment. When you treat the occupier as legitimate, and bow to its false moral framework, this shows the ruling class that you’re more of an asset than anything else; which is exactly what Piker has an incentive to show. The answer to this normalization game is to disengage from the occupier and its spokespeople, like George Galloway does. As The Guardian described in 2013, Galloway drew a line on dialogue with “Israelis” that he would not walk back, no matter how loudly “Israelis” claimed they were being discriminated against:

Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.

"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"

"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.

"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."

The Oxford student newspaper Cherwell…quoted Aslan-Levy as saying afterwards: "I am appalled that an MP would storm out of a debate with me for no reason other than my heritage. To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a member of parliament."

By taking this stance, Galloway was applying the logic of Frantz Fanon, who clarified why you cannot debate a political force whose entire basis is the dehumanization of a subjugated people:

The natives' challenge to the colonial world is not a rational confrontation of points of view. It is not a treatise on the universal, but the untidy affirmation of an original idea propounded as an absolute. The colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil. *Native society is not simply described as a society lacking in values. It is not enough for the colonist to affirm that those values have disappeared from, or still better never existed in, the colonial world. The native is declared insensible to ethics; he represents not only the absence of values, but also the negation of values. He is, let us dare to admit, the enemy of values, and in this sense he is the absolute evil. He is the corrosive element, destroying all that comes near him; he is the deforming element, disfiguring all that has to do with beauty or morality; he is the depository of maleficent powers, the unconscious and irretrievable instrument of blind forces. 

From the Palestine “ally” Hasan Piker, we see this same reasoning: the native’s acts of revolt must have been immoral by definition, even if the native’s cause was theoretically righteous. In order to become open to debating the Zionists, Piker had to concede on this point, because they won’t accept any dialogue that treats the native as right for rebelling. When we internalize this lesson, when we recognize that Zionists will never treat the Palestinians as equals, we can understand the true line of demarcation which has been placed before us. 

Right now, the faction within Zionism that Piker has aligned himself with is trying to rehabilitate the settler entity’s image. The liberal and “labor” Zionists are challenging Netanyahu’s coalition at the polls, and spinning a story about how they’ll return “Israel” to its grand past as a “democracy.” Prepare for this to become another narrative that Piker or those within his “progressive” sphere begin pushing. Their role is to put a friendly face on Jewish supremacy, building up the neo-comprador forces that provide a critical buffer for the colonial project.

These are the Jewish supremacist forces that claim to want equality, but twist this idea into a way of forcing through the occupier’s fraudulent “peace” deals. This is the policy they want Palestine supporters to embrace: a “reconciliation” where the neo-compradors sell out the Palestinian people, and the normalizers use this as proof that debating Zionists is worthwhile. The problem which this psyop’s facilitators are facing is that the logic of “dialogue” will never be accepted by the bulk of their target audiences, whether they’re the Palestinian people or the generation of Americans who Gaza has radicalized. The disconnect is too great between what the normalizers promise and what they deliver. 

The only way their politics can appear to offer hope is when they’re out of power, and people can become caught up in a story about a coming moment of salvation. As soon as the “progressives” get power, the illusion shatters, because they’re the ones continuing the holocaust. 

This is the whiplash that will guarantee a major disillusionment with the “progressives,” and it’s easy to anticipate when one has noticed the historical pattern of breakdown for reformist politics. But being right is not good enough. If it were, we would have gotten a major revolutionary movement in America by now. To prove our position to be the correct one in the people’s eyes, we’ll have to demonstrate what fighting back against a genocidal project actually means. We’ll have to build an independent working-class force, capable of cutting off the occupier’s commercial sources. And to do this, we’ll first have to give up any illusions about becoming “friends” with the occupier or its representatives.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The Luigi phenomenon, the anti-data center movement, & the petty bourgeoisie’s role in our class war

Above: oil painting of Luigi, made by a Reddit user two years ago.

In these last couple years, since Trump 2.0 brought an acceleration of the war on the world’s working class, two big movements have emerged: the effort to defend Luigi Mangione, and the effort to stop the building of data centers. What’s defined both trends is a major presence of petty-bourgeois professionals, in addition to the working-class people who also support these causes. The question is what role these professionals (and the aspiring professionals who’ve been excluded from their desired careers) will take on in the class war. And it is an open question; many of these activists have a genuine passion, and we must account for how to bring them into the revolutionary struggle. 

What this will mean is clarifying the continuity between the Luigi phenomenon, the anti-data center push, and the independent working-class force that these developments will help create. We need to apply the logic of MAGA communism, where you build a revolutionary movement from the preexisting mass consciousness, to the backlash against the data centers. This backlash absolutely has contradictions, as it’s being led by the petty-bourgeois elements who hold a reactionary hostility towards AI itself; like with MAGA, though, we must recognize the larger historical role that this upset is playing.

Compared to the Luigi movement, with the data center movement these professionals are more prominent. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, because it means the metropolitan progressive strata are finding solidarity with the rural masses they’ve long looked down on; there’s a newfound unity between urban liberal activists, and the rural Americans whose land is being destroyed by big tech. Because this unity is centered around defending the farmers, it represents a merging of two wings within the petty-bourgeoisie, one that’s alleviating cultural-geographic divides which are even older than America’s two-party system. 

This development does have the potential to endanger our duopoly, and to bring the class war forward; the critical question is whether we’ll turn this energy towards building an independent political force, led by the working class rather than by an intellectual elite.

The DSA takes the position that only the elites can make revolution. This is reflected both in its form of politics, which is oriented around the sensibilities of the petty-bourgeois metropolitan strata, and in how it’s still only proven to be capable of winning in the affluent urban centers. Yet within this tendency, there keeps emerging sentiments that bring the professional strata towards a renegade mentality. I’m not just talking about the fetishization of adventurist violence that Lenin observed is common among many liberals; such behaviors are indeed on the rise right now within liberal circles, but they’re just one form of the chaos that today’s conditions are producing inside petty-bourgeois politics. 

There are parts of the DSA’s camp that have adopted genuinely revolutionary positions; namely the anti-imperialist stances that Hasan Piker has put forth. Hasan recently gave up these stances by condemning Hamas on an Israeli outlet, but his followers can’t simply be de-radicalized. Hasan himself will probably never break from the Democratic Party, but what his audience does remains to be seen; especially as the DSA continues refusing to let this hardcore anti-Zionist faction win out, leaving the most radical parts of its base increasingly restless.

This is where we can see a continuity between the Luigi phenomenon, and the intensifying ideological conflict inside the DSA. Because these individuals within the DSA coalition who desire a serious anti-Zionist program, but can’t get it from their org, are of the same orientation as the camp that got behind Luigi. It’s likely that there’s large overlap between the two. And Hasan’s refusal to give up Democrat tailism can only keep so many within this camp from seeking out their own paths; we’re going to see ever-more of the disgruntled petty-bourgeois professionals become rogue, and try to find a continuity with past revolutionary moments. 

This is what it always looks like when a revolutionary movement grasps for a foundation, as Marx described in The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

For these aspiring historical agents in the DSA’s radical wing, the missing element is independent working-class organization. The only way they’ll gain the effectiveness they desire is by theoretically jumping from the bourgeois revolutions to the proletarian revolutions, and practicing the level of dialectical smarts that Marx ascribed to the latter:

Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day – but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [cat’s winge] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! [Here is the rose, here dance!] 

It is only by embracing this proletarian mode of struggle, where you’re constantly refining your efforts based on what reality has revealed, that these professional-class activists can truly advance the ideals which drive them. Otherwise they’ll keep going in circles, and all of their efforts will be funneled into controlled opposition orgs like DSA. 

As more of those within DSA’s sphere become burnt out over their defective mode of practice, the default will be for them to resort towards ultra-left adventurism. The great danger is that they’ll be recruited by counter-gangs, the militant anti-revolutionary groups the capitalists set up to recapture aspiring revolutionaries. Luigi will be the icon that this reaction centers around, the historical foundation that the alienated petty-bourgeois radicals look to for a source of continuity. But this doesn’t show that invoking Luigi is inherently counterproductive; it shows that we need to get ahead of the ultraviolent left counter-gangs in defining what the idea of Luigi should mean. 

Jackson Hinkle has done this in his response to Oracle CTO Larry Ellison’s statement that: “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly watching and recording everything that's going on.” To this, Jackson replied that “Luigi did nothing wrong.” Jackson is somebody who recognizes that even though the Luigi movement has petty-bourgeois elements, it’s a real reflection of advanced consciousness among the masses, and it proves the masses will be receptive if we align ourselves with this trend. What communists offer these kinds of renegade movements is the ruthlessly self-critical practice Marx described, which lets proletarian revolutionaries do what petty-bourgeois radicals can’t.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The cracks in DSA’s coalition, & the Islamic Marxism that will arise in its wake

I identify Islamic Marxism as the answer to DSA’s reformism, not because all Marxists are Muslim but because Islam has proven to be today’s main resister of empire. Since the end of the USSR, the Axis of Resistance has taken on the primary role in fighting off Washington; and it’s for this reason that any successful working-class movement will have to take Islam into account. 

The Democratic Party has recognized this, and has responded by putting forth a series of “progressive” Muslim candidates. Given how much the reformists have lately been trying to get ahead of communists, it’s quite likely that this tactic was directly informed by opposition research into the revolutionary movement. And this diversion is working, but only insofar as the “democratic socialists” are able to hold their coalition together. New splits are coming to the socdem camp, and the authentic revolutionary tendencies will take over amid the failures of DSA’s politics.

Right now, these tendencies are coalescing, finding an unprecedented unity between the Islamic camp and the Marxist camp. They’re discovering that they are in fact the same tendency. When the chairman of my party recently clarified that Islam is Marxism, he was able to draw from sufficient historical evidence for this; evidence that the disillusioned individuals within DSA’s camp will increasingly absorb as they seek out alternatives. When you look at how Shia Islam came from a push to consistently resist injustice, and how this movement’s philosophy of direct confrontation repudiates the European theories of mediation, it becomes clear that this Islamic tendency has no contradiction with “Marxism” proper. The only contradiction is with the dogmatic and chauvinistic western “Marxism” that fetishizes secularism. And it’s necessary for us to advance this tendency because it provides the perfect answer to the contradictions inside DSA.

The posture the “democratic socialist” leaders have taken is one of anti-woke virtue signaling. This is how I would describe AOC’s statement that the original version of wokeness was “crazy”: an attempt to show that these “progressives” share the logic of the Zionist right, and of its Democrat allies. When these socdems disavow wokeness, they’re implicitly talking about the principled anti-imperialist positions of Hasan Piker, who’s increasingly been getting shunned by the same liberals he’s helped. There is a growing desire among the masses for principled anti-Zionist politics, yet these “socialists” have pivoted towards crushing these politics as soon as they could make use of Hasan. What Marxists have to offer Hasan’s audience is a version of “woke” that’s actually authentic, as it comes from a consistent anti-imperialist position.

This position of ours has come from a testing of practice, as Mao said is essential towards forming any theory with real-world applicability:

Many theories of natural science are held to be true not only because they were so considered when natural scientists originated them, but because they have been verified in subsequent scientific practice. Similarly, Marxism-Leninism is held to be true not only because it was so considered when it was scientifically formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin but because it has been verified in the subsequent practice of revolutionary class struggle and revolutionary national struggle. Dialectical materialism is universally true because it is impossible for anyone to escape from its domain in his practice. The history of human knowledge tells us that the truth of many theories is incomplete and that this incompleteness is remedied through the test of practice. Many theories are erroneous and it is through the test of practice that their errors are corrected. That is why practice is the criterion of truth and why "the standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge". Stalin has well said, "Theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory."

Right now, the generation which became radicalized towards supporting Palestine’s resistance is in the process of testing DSA’s mode of practice. If DSA’s politics fail to keep up their momentum—which they absolutely will, as all bourgeois idealist trends have a half life—their base will be left without any institutional avenue. For the DSA leftists who genuinely seek a way to defeat Zionism, the only path forward will be outside the system, as this strata won’t even be able to retreat into the academic and nonprofit sphere. Academia and NGOs are being progressively dismantled, taking away the old career opportunities that were promised to woke Gen Z. The question will then become what form of renegade politics is correct.

We cannot let the alienated DSA leftists be captured by the ultra-left adventurists, who reject mass organizing in favor of a fetishized ultraviolence. This destructive mode of politics is something we should treat as an enemy, like Lenin did; it does not mean, though, that the alternative we put forth should be some kind of “moderation” in the vein of DSA’s present direction. We need to do the exact opposite, creating a complete counter to the genocidal position that DSA acquiesces towards. This looks a lot like the pro-resistance politics of the generation that’s been radicalized by Gaza, except we can provide a framework for translating this defiant spirit into America’s own class war.

Among those who’ve been roped into the woke activism sphere, we see the desire for such an effective model of revolutionary organizing. The form of the politics they’ve embraced tells them to carry out revolution, or at least pushes them in the direction of wanting it. But inevitably their leaders let them down, and the theory they’ve read is left without an outlet for being applied. Such was the experience of the PSL members who left their org this year in response to the leadership’s suppressing union organizing and mass work. 

As time goes on, more movement participants are becoming disillusioned with petty-bourgeois radicalism, and many of them have already come to our position of rejecting bourgeois identity politics. We will bring more of them into our ranks, not by centering our outreach around radlibs but by doing what radical liberalism cannot. The form and the impulse of this radlib politics is about breaking from the imperial hegemony, which you can only do by following the same path as the Islamic resistance. Most of the post-Covid generation already grasp that the anti-Zionist resistance is in the right; all that’s left is for them to discover just how fundamentally Islam connects with their own class war, and bring Islam’s revolutionary spirit to America.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The Epsteinite regime’s anti-human psyops, & the anti-Zionist coalition that can take away their power

At this point, the biggest threat to the formation of an anti-Zionist coalition is the obstinate woke politics that believes DSA can succeed while staying in its own niche. This is apparent from how Hasan, the representative of anti-Zionism within the DSA left, has responded towards the friendliness of Candace Owens by continuing to dismiss Owens as an antisemite. By doing so, Hasan is defending the old mode of discourse, whose basis is in identity and the enforcement of a hypocritical moralism. But when the Epsteinite regime’s mask of morality has already been taken off, and ever-more people are giving up “morality” as the regime defines it, Hasan’s politics become untenable. 

The masses are looking for a kind of morality that confronts the evils before us without polite qualifiers, and this morality will override PC “anti-Zionism.” It will be supplanted either by the anti-Zionist right on its own, or by a broader left-right coalition. For us to give dissident politics a greater strength and unity, we will need to build iterations of anti-Zionism that don’t bow to the identitarian psyops the regime is putting forth. 

These manipulations are insidious, because they use the rhetoric of justice to undermine both our popular movements and broader social cohesion; the politics that tell us to shun anti-Zionist conservatives is the same politics which has used gender identity to sow enormous new divisions over this last decade, breaking apart not just organizing spaces but also families and communities. That the central point of this division comes from whether to embrace experimental big pharma substances is not a coincidence; the Democratic Party’s infrastructure of mental and physical healthcare facilitates these medical experiments. 

For any of my fellow communists who doubt that these treatments are experimental, look at the differences between the Soviet system’s highly controlled and selective transitioning model, and our healthcare system’s untested hormone distribution model that resembles when bodybuilders endanger their lives with steroids. When you honestly investigate this contrast, the idea that supporting today’s trans care system means “supporting trans rights” is revealed to be inane and manipulative. The political push to uncritically defend this treatment mode has created widespread social chaos, making it so that no one can challenge the dominant gender narrative without provoking outrage. Which is exactly what can undermine and isolate a dissident movement when this movement has become tied in with “trans activism.” I focus on trans activism here because it has not yet reached its half-life; we can expect it to be pushed onto the next version of the pro-Palestine movement, whether from the Democratic politicians or through the Democratic Party’s nonprofits.

Promoting such disunity and harm under the guise of “solidarity” is one of the regime’s anti-human psyops, propagated by the Democrat wing of the pro-Zionist coalition that formed after October 7. As soon as someone in the anti-Zionist activist spaces realizes this connection, they will break from the gender psyop, which is an extension of the Zionist psyops themselves.

The discourse has already opened up enough that anti-Zionists can now speak plainly about these things without becoming ostracized by their communities, because anti-Zionism is no longer simply a leftist thing; it’s merged with the groups of conspiracy investigators and anti-pharma activists who hadn’t previously paid much attention to Zionism. We can now build communities that oppose both the Zionist narratives and the extreme woke narratives. The next step is to build an alternative organizing infrastructure to the radlib sphere, one that filters out the individuals who cling towards the divisive idpol worldview.

Unpacking the gender psyop will be harder than defeating the Jewish identitiarian narratives, as modern leftism is deeply invested in the gender issue; but the glaring hypocrisy of the “antisemitism” posturing is what lets us also draw organizers away from the other kinds of destructive idpol. When we expose the hypocrisy of the gatekeeping over anti-Zionism, the discourse becomes opened up to repudiating the anti-social radlib ideas.

Hasan’s rejecting an anti-Zionist coalition comes from sheer arrogance, wrapped in a hollow justification of staying “principled,” that can only divide the anti-Zionist movement right when it has the potential to gain real victories. The other big threat to this unity is anti-communist stigma within conservative or libertarian circles; which also poses a real problem, but at this point isn’t as large of a threat as this smug wokeism. With the backlash to Trump 2.0’s amoral Epsteinite monstrosity, our culture is swinging in a moralistic direction, and socially progressive Americans are increasingly embracing pro-resistance, anti-imperialist politics. They have the potential to coalesce with anti-Zionist conservatives, but only if we stop them from being funneled into the DSA, or into the ultra-leftist currents that will emerge from DSA’s failure.

To draw these kinds of anti-Zionists away from the insular woke tendency, we must expose the inherent contradiction in its position towards “antisemitism.” Because the Hasan mutation within DSA grew out of academic identity politics, it continues to adhere to the politically correct framework on how to speak; which is strange to see when contrasted with Hasan’s principled refusal to condemn the resistance. Hasan runs up against a wall of contradictions.

The PC conventions are untouchable within Hasan’s politics, making for a framework where armed resistance towards Zionism is okay but you can’t name the problem plainly. Hasan’s issue with conservatives like Candace is purely that they’re too blunt in their language; Candace does not hate all Jews, she just doesn’t play the PC game that Hasan plays. When you comply with the Jewish supremacist narratives, and affirm the slanders that paint conservative anti-Zionists as “antisemites,” the effect is to weaken the entire dissident movement.

A source of hope is that within today’s radical liberal circles, there are a growing number of voices that refuse to entertain these covert types of Jewish supremacy. In recent months, we’ve seen popular leftist polemics (like Amanda Gelender’s “Yes, all Jews”) that speak against the coddling of Jewish feelings within the pro-Palestine sphere. Fewer people are afraid of being called an “antisemite,” because the word has lost its meaning (like “transphobe” or “antivaxxer” largely have). This is what happens to words that are constantly weaponized.

In the eyes of the new anti-Zionist base, all that matters now is whether you’re willing to join Iran in fighting off the Great Satan and its appendages. What will doom Hasan is that no matter how much he claims to want to vanquish the Great Satan, he doesn’t want to stop dividing the struggle through wokeness. Too many are following him right now, but the opposition to his position within the left is rising. The outcome will be a popular front which sweeps away this covert appendage to the regime, with its adherence to the Zionist moral framework.

A new wave of anti-Zionist sentiments is building, both among the woke students and graduates, and among the conspiracy investigators from a libertarian background. To bring these tendencies together, we will mainly need to combat the dogmas of the woke element. This is what will let us reach a kind of morality that comes from truly principled opposition towards the Epsteinite regime, discarding the narratives designed to undermine our cause.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The Luigi movement’s staying power among the masses, and America’s next “prairie fire” moment

The popular movement that’s emerged around Luigi Mangione is a prelude to when America’s class war reaches its “prairie fire” moment. This next spark isn’t guaranteed to bring working-class victory; that will depend on whether we’ve built sufficient proletarian organizational strength. What the Luigi movement has done for us, though, is show where the different proto-revolutionary tendencies are right now, and where they’ll stand when a new mass revolt inevitably occurs. 

It’s revealed not just that the working class is already quite advanced in its consciousness, as shown by how many workers sided with Luigi; but also that growing elements of the petty bourgeoisie can come to share these kinds of sentiments. You could point to the professional-class liberals who support Luigi, and conclude this means the Luigi movement is a liberal thing; but if this is the case, why does the petty-bourgeois Luigi support overlap with great working-class support? The true nature of this phenomenon has been one where broad elements of the people embrace a militant opposition to the ruling class. As these elements continue to develop in their political experience, our task is to bring in all of the proletariat’s potential class allies, while making sure the next uprising isn’t defined by petty-bourgeois idealism.

Within the Luigi movement, there have been both proletarian tendencies and idealist tendencies. The more idealist reactions to Brian Thompson’s killing have consisted of glorifying violence in and of itself, without any interest in building actual power for the workers. But there have been genuine dialectical efforts to guide the Luigi reaction towards such a substantive project. The important thing is whether one’s agitation has been about simply celebrating the event, or about speaking to the masses and giving them solutions to their grievances. This isn’t the last time America will have a discourse such as the one around Luigi, and the next time might be when our own prairie fire gets lit. We might be at the same place that China was in 1930, when Mao concluded that a spark was about to come:

Because the reactionary government, though short of provisions and funds, endlessly expands its armies and thus constantly extends the warfare, the masses of soldiers are in a constant state of privation. Because of the growth in government taxation, the rise in rent and interest demanded by the landlords and the daily spread of the disasters of war, there are famine and banditry everywhere and the peasant masses and the urban poor can hardly keep alive. Because the schools have no money, many students fear that their education may be interrupted; because production is backward, many graduates have no hope of employment. 

Once we understand all these contradictions, we shall see in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China finds herself. We shall also see that the high tide of revolution against the imperialists, the warlords and the landlords is inevitable, and will come very soon. All China is littered with dry faggots which will soon be aflame. The saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire", is an apt description of how the current situation will develop. We need only look at the strikes by the workers, the uprisings by the peasants, the mutinies of soldiers and the strikes of students which are developing in many places to see that it cannot be long before a "spark" kindles "a prairie fire".

Our main obstacle to victory in the class war is that the American workers have become overwhelmingly disorganized, and we don’t have the time to close this gap before the coming upheaval. Therefore while we construct our working-class infrastructure, something we must focus on is drawing the popular energy away from the idealist illusions that will inevitably arise in these dramatic moments. We need to make it so that the proletarian tendency wins out, instead of the petty-bourgeois tendencies that can only lead the masses to a dead end.

Adventurism is one of these petty-bourgeois deviations that we’ll need to struggle against; this does not mean, though, that we should respond to the next Luigi-type events by joining in on the moralist denunciations from the ruling class. This is something which many in our own political tendency don’t see: that the revolutionary upsurges aren’t going to take the forms we would imagine for them, and conform to a preexisting doctrine. When American life itself is breaking down, and ever-more of the masses are being de-classed, the direction of the American masses is to embrace our nation’s wild west spirit. 

Bourgeois morality and the old modes of discourse can’t withstand this consciousness shift; neither can whatever theoretical viewpoints that fight against the masses as they become radicalized, rather than seriously engaging with them. An American years of lead is coming, and it can’t be stopped by anything we say; what we need to do is turn the years of lead in favor of proletarian revolutionary politics.

The idea that we can prevent an American years of lead, or stop the people from having their raw reactions towards the next events in this process, parallels the kind of liberalism which shuns mass organizing in favor of adventurism. Lenin observed how the ultra-leftists who pursue “revolutionary” terrorism as a political program mirror the liberal reformists who endorse these acts, because both tendencies come from a place of not believing in mass organizing. This lack of connection to the people also brings about the perception that we, as members of the radical intelligentsia, can negate the popular trends as they arise and replace them with the “correct” positions. 

You can’t negate a popular trend, at least not when this trend comes from a real revolutionary energy; you have to sublate it. This was the logic behind MAGA communism, and it’s our only way to remain relevant amid the class war’s next escalations.

The different proto-revolutionary currents are in the process of coalescing, and they’ll no doubt mostly find a home within populist tendencies of a petty-bourgeois character. This kind of partial consciousness is what always initially gains traction during the leadup to revolutions, so we must not simply interpret it as a defeat; it has the potential to be a critical step towards working-class victory, if we’re there to bring the people to the next phases. To do this, we’ll need to adopt a more open view towards developments like the Luigi phenomenon, one in which our first question is where they may contain the next spark.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures from our era of accelerating inflation, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.