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.

The DPRK backed Russia because it refuses to appease imperialism. This policy is now causing the U.S. to retreat.

How has the DPRK pressured Trump into reducing military drills, and effectively begging socialist Korea to become open towards any kind of negotiation? By not responding to Trump 2.0’s false “peace” rhetoric by treating this ploy as something to take seriously. The DPRK has given up the old policy of entertaining negotiations, having stated in July 2025 that Washington can only hope for more contact between the two. This stern stance amid the Trump 2.0 offensive is part of a larger shift in posture, one that the DPRK first began to outwardly show right after October 7.

It was in late 2023, when the U.S. had begun carrying out a holocaust, that Kim Jong Un announced the DPRK would no longer be seeking reunification. This came in the context of geopolitical escalations that the DPRK knew were going to demand a greatly hardened position towards the hegemon, as the enemy had started on a completely unrestrained genocidal assault against the world’s working class. 

The Workers Party of Korea knew that Russia’s anti-fascist war represented a strategic win for the anti-imperialist cause, as did the recent advances by Palestinian resistance; it was in part because of Russia’s success at beating back NATO that the resistance pursued its Al-Aqsa Flood operation. 2023 had also seen a series of revolutions in Africa, where the peoples of the Sahel countries kicked out the neo-colonial forces. This uprising had also taken advantage of the momentum that Russia’s action created; and because the revolutionary energy from this action was translating into so many other places, at that point the world’s revolutionary forces were on the advance. Socialist Korea knew that a counteroffensive was coming, though, so it was preparing by closing itself off to Washington’s inevitable “peace” offers.

After Washington had orchestrated the December 2024 coup attempt in south Korea, and its plans to start a new Korean war became thwarted by the people’s resistance, Trump 2.0 came in to try tempting the DPRK with promises of fair treatment. The Trump White House’s strategy, at least at first, was to offer bribes to the corrupt officials inside countries that are partnered with China. The hope was that this would draw them into the empire’s orbit, and leave China isolated. But the DPRK is the least corrupt country, even out of all the other anti-imperialist states; so its only reply towards these manipulation attempts has been to close off any potential for becoming “friends” with the aggressor. Because pursuing “peace” with a country that only intends to advance a genocidal global blitz would only mean becoming a collaborator in this assault, and selling out your own people to the imperial blob. 

Washington has been successful in getting such capitulation from countries like Armenia, which has pivoted to the United States even though it was the U.S. empire that orchestrated Azerbaijan’s 2022 invasion of Armenia. But the DPRK’s leadership foresaw how growing closer to Washington would put it at risk of becoming subservient, and avoided the risk altogether. This strategic intelligence comes from the philosophy towards anti-imperialist resistance that Kim Il Sung articulated:

The cause of liberation of the peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America has not been completed. So long as imperialism exists on the globe and oppresses and plunders the people, the people cannot leave off the anti-imperialist struggle even a moment. The struggle must continue till all shades of colonialism are wiped off the face of the earth once and for all, till all the oppressed and humiliated nations build their independent states and achieve social progress and national-prosperity.

Imperialism will never give up its rule over colonial and dependent countries before it is kicked out. It is in the nature of imperialism to perpetrate aggression and plunder. If there ever is imperialism which is not aggressive, it is no longer imperialism. Imperialism will not change its aggressive nature before it dies. That is why one should dispel all illusions about imperialism and fight it out. Only when a principled stand is maintained against imperialism and a staunch anti-imperialist struggle intensified, can the oppressed nations win freedom and independence and the liberated peoples check imperialist aggression, consolidate national independence and achieve prosperity for their countries and nations.

There are limits to how far the DPRK itself can go in spreading this struggle; but those of us within the world’s working class and revolutionary organizations can carry forth the mission ourselves, taking example from these recent victories the DPRK has gained. It’s urgent that we rebuild the power our cause had in the 20th century, because without this proletarian strength, more countries than not will succumb to Washington’s pressures. 

The success of Trump 2.0’s diplomatic assimilation strategy in Armenia is a symptom of this proletarian weakness; this is both because Armenia’s own government is a comprador one, and because Russia’s working class isn’t yet strong enough to make its government back up places like Armenia. Moscow’s refusal to assist in the fight against Azerbaijan was what the compradors used to justify switching to Washington’s side; which shows how easy it is for the imperialists to manipulate events in their favor, unless their opponents have adopted a framework that doesn’t allow for such manipulation.

What’s guided the DPRK to properly navigate our third world war is Juche, Kim Il Sung’s ideology of self-reliance in building the revolution. Even among many people who are anti-capitalist or antiwar, Juche is not yet understood, because U.S. propaganda endlessly demonizes the DPRK and its system. But with the rise of mass support for the Palestinian resistance among the post-Covid generation, we have a new opening to bring Juche’s thinking to the people. For those who’ve already grasped why Gaza is right to resist, we have the perfect way to describe Juche: Juche is what a civilization has embraced after it’s already defeated the genocidal forces. Juche is the logical conclusion of everything the Axis of Resistance is doing, the consolidation of popular revolutionary power into a formidable collective. It’s through this process that ever-more DPRKs will appear, and expunge the liberal bourgeois influences that have held the masses back for so long.

————————————————————————

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 intelligentsia, the rural masses, and the usury class that’s bringing them together

The further the ruling financiers advance their schemes, the more the proletariat’s potential class allies are brought together. We’re seeing this with the proletarianization of the intelligentsia, which parallels the dispossession that America’s rural masses experienced after 2008. 

When the usurer class destroyed the foundations for the American economy, this pushed the rural Republicans who’d voted for Bush towards pursuing radical new forms of politics, embodied within the revolutionary aesthetic of MAGA. This was only an aesthetic, since Trump would end up completely betraying MAGA’s ideals; but the desire for a new American revolution has only strengthened among the MAGA base itself. The primary sources of dismissal towards MAGA’s revolutionary potential have come from the “progressive” or “socialist” intelligentsia; yet now, with the U.S. empire’s effort to dismantle this same intellectual professional class, the ranks of the intelligentsia are undergoing an upheaval which mirrors the consciousness shift of the rural landowners who voted Trump.

Both of these classes are petty-bourgeois; partly because of this, their initial reactions towards being dispossessed have been colored with many confused ideas. Yet as the MAGA movement has gotten older, its members have been progressively turning against ruling-class narratives like the pro-Israel psyop, and the disgruntled intelligentsia will undergo a similar process. We’re already seeing hints of this in how the anti-data center movement, which petty-bourgeois professionals have a personal interest in supporting, is something that’s largely focused on defending the farmers. Which has led these metropolitan progressives to start giving up their previous attitudes of hostility towards the rural masses.

You could interpret this development through a totally cynical lens, and conclude that these left-wing individuals will only betray the rural masses. But this would actually be undialectical; because the class character of the intelligentsia is not the same as that of the opportunistic bourgeois politicians who tailor their rhetoric to win rural votes. Increasingly, the intelligentsia are being cut off from the career opportunities that used to be available to them, which puts them in a decidedly fluid position when it comes to what role they might play in America’s workers revolution.

Mao talked about how many communists have a tendency to underrate the importance of the intelligentsia, who are not a monolith:

Our Party and our army have made considerable efforts to recruit intellectuals during the last three years, and many revolutionary intellectuals have been absorbed into the Party, the army, the organs of government, the cultural movement and the mass movement, thus broadening the united front; this is a major achievement. But many of the army cadres are not yet alive to the importance of the intellectuals, they still regard them with some apprehension and are even inclined to discriminate against them or shut them out. Many of our training institutes are still hesitant about enrolling young students in large numbers. Many of our local Party branches are still reluctant to let intellectuals join. 

All this is due to failure to understand the importance of the intellectuals for the revolutionary cause, the difference between intellectuals in colonial and semi-colonial countries and those in capitalist countries and the difference between intellectuals who serve the landlords and the bourgeoisie and those who serve the working class and the peasantry, as well as the seriousness of the situation in which the bourgeois political parties are desperately contending with us for the intellectuals and in which the Japanese imperialists are also trying in every possible way to buy over Chinese intellectuals or corrupt their minds; in particular, it is due to the failure to understand the favourable factor that our Party and our army have already developed a hard core of well-tested cadres and are thus capable of leading the intellectuals.

Does this analysis not apply within the United States when here we’re dealing with intellectuals in a capitalist country rather than a colonial country? What we are finding out from the developments of these last few years is that when it comes to the intellectuals, the question isn’t so simple. Right now, we’re seeing the breakdown of the old reality that kept this professional strata a mere appendage of the U.S. ruling class. Now that graduates can no longer inherit the generations-old system of patronage which is imperialist academia, they no longer have a clear grounding, like the formerly secure Republicans no longer had a clear grounding after 2008. The collapse just took longer to reach the intelligentsia, who thought they had a handle on how to respond towards the 21st century’s crises until these crises began actually impacting their lives.

The direction of these events is for the intelligentsia to unify with the disenfranchised rural petty-bourgeoisie, like we’re seeing in the anti-data center movement. This newfound overlap between the two classes does represent progress; but to turn it into victory over the usurers, we will need to lead the shared anti-systemic backlash of these classes away from idealist misconceptions. Because history has shown us many times that alienation on its own doesn’t bring a movement to victory. Petty-bourgeois tendencies especially are vulnerable to idealism, whether this takes the form of following a ruling-class opportunist leader, seeking to rehabilitate capitalism, or (particularly in our present situation) treating professional elites as the only source of revolutionary potential.

Though the intelligentsia are realizing the necessity of defending the farmers and the rural workers, right now there’s a strong political current that believes revolution can only come from the intellectual elites. This is the position of the DSA, both ideologically and practically; its mode of politics is designed to exclusively win office within the big cities, meaning its followers are going to have a disconnect from the rural until they resolve this contradiction in their own thinking. The college-educated activists who want to defend the rural from big tech have not yet gained the dialectical know-how required for actually going into the rural masses. 

This problem will become more apparent as time goes on, and the DSA continues failing to act as a vehicle for working-class struggle. The thing that can offer such a vehicle is communism, which DSA aesthetically imitates but can only show itself to be inferior towards. The movement that embodies the ideals which these activist professionals strive towards will be one that’s built from the bottom-up within our class hierarchy, and has accounted for the rural masses before it’s accounted for the disillusioned metropolitan liberals. Both are important, as Mao helped clarify, but like in China the workers party’s foundation is within the broader mass elements. 

We will be able to find elements of the professional strata who come to realize this; our movement already has PhD holders who take this position, and are actively helping promote it to others in the intellectual category. Through ideological struggle within the intelligentsia, and popular organizing among the broader masses, we’ll overcome the remaining obstacles to revolutionary victory.

————————————————————————

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 breakdown of American life, mass alienation, & Marxism’s role in restoring national coherency

To progress American Marxism into the next stage, we must assess the mood of the people today, which is one of profound uncertainty. When you look at how the masses are speaking these days—and I’m not just talking about surveys, but about the countless candid rant videos that working Americans have been making—you see just how advanced their alienation has gotten. They have the sense that nothing makes sense any more; that they have no opportunities to work towards a real future, that they’re being priced out of everything, that technological control is destroying their freedoms, and that everyone around them has suddenly become anti-social. 

Within this picture, we can see the makings of a revolutionary scenario where the masses have to collectively fight back against the worst trends within themselves. Where a popular revolt does come about, but to succeed it must combat the hyper-individualist impulses that our conditions are proliferating. Which is where a revolutionary leadership must find its role.

In Haiti, a country that’s vastly further along in its process of societal collapse, the revolutionary leadership that’s emerged is one which has had to unify groups of gangs. Which might not be the nature of our task in the United States, but as time goes on we can see more parallels emerging. Like Haiti, our society has been undergoing a growth in lumpenization, where the workers are de-classed and forced to live off of alternative means. In Haiti, the only path towards throwing off international financial control runs through building within these lumpenized sectors. The practical reality is that the armed groups which have been gaining ground are the only forces able to challenge the neo-colonial police and the foreign occupiers.

As the situation in the USA continues to spiral, any organized effort at defeating our own banking regime will need to structurally adapt in equivalent ways. We’ll have to build a revolutionary organization for an environment where the people are ready for revolution, but the culture is still deeply individualistic. 

Part of this means rethinking democratic centralism as we know it, which was created for pre-industrial societies that were highly collectivist; in a society where people feel like they can easily go on a renegade path, effectively organizing the masses will require structures that can build around any wreckers within our own orgs. Another part of this adaptation, one that has to do with responding towards the specific shifts from the last decade, is embracing the next popular revolutionary upswings as they actually exist. Not in the idealized form that we may imagine them as, but in the raw and untamed form that any real mass upsurge will take on.

This is different from worship of spontaneity, because when Lenin ridiculed the bourgeois reformists for bowing to spontaneity, he was criticizing them for underrating the conscious element. This rejection of revolutionary theory overlaps with the kind of opportunism that Mao spoke against in The Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside, where he ridiculed the “Marxists” who scorn any mass development that doesn’t conform to their established routines. Mao described how this “Marxism” ignores the mass revolutionary consciousness that’s right in front of our faces, in favor of a rigid dogma that helps no one:

The masses have a potentially inexhaustible enthusiasm for socialism. Those who can only follow the old routine in a revolutionary period are utterly incapable of seeing this enthusiasm. They are blind and all is dark ahead of them. At times they go so far as to confound right and wrong and turn things upside down. Haven't we come across enough persons of this type? Those who simply follow the old routine invariably underestimate the people's enthusiasm. Let something new appear and they always disapprove and rush to oppose it. Afterwards, they have to admit defeat and do a little self-criticism. But the next time something new appears, they go through the same process all over again. This is their pattern of behavior in regard to anything and everything new. Such people are always passive, always fail to move forward at the critical moment, and always have to be given a shove in the back before they move a step.

To prevent this kind of complacency, we must grasp what the breakdown of American life demands from us. We’ll need to respond towards the collapse by truly embracing our nation’s wild west spirit; which is how the masses themselves have already responded to our conditions, making them greatly surpass most U.S. “Marxists” in their revolutionary intelligence.

In these last couple of years, as our ruling class has greatly accelerated its assault on the American people and the world, we’ve been seeing ever-more raw mass upsurges. The people have formed the Luigi movement, which is premised on the recognition that denying healthcare means murder; and such awareness about the hypocrisy of bourgeois moralism has carried over into their reactions towards every other ruling-class evil. 

When Amazon employees have set fire to their tyrannical workplaces, or Americans have destroyed Flock cameras, the default view among the masses has been that these actions are self-defense. This is the inverse to the kind of views that Americans overwhelmingly had in the mid-20th century, when the aristocracy of labor was strong and the ruling class therefore enjoyed massive popular support. Today the financial monopolists are at war with the American people, and the people understand this to an advanced degree.

If we can avoid underestimating the people’s enthusiasm, we’ll be in position to translate this mass ideological unity into social unity. Americans have become unified in hating the ruling class, yet in their daily lives they’ve become more disconnected from each other than ever. Popular revolutionary forces have been able to overcome such mass atomization, including within circumstances many times worse than ours. Within Haiti’s present revolution, a critical thing the revolutionary leadership has done is give the people new foundations for coming together. In the places the movement controls, a foremost priority for the government has been to give the children education, as this is how to stop them from falling into the hands of the fascist mercenary recruiters. Thereby, the basis for social cohesion has been strengthened in all areas. If we continue to build alternative community support networks, as American communists have increasingly been doing, we’ll give the people the same kind of strength.

————————————————————————

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.

DSA’s politically correct “anti-Zionism,” and the proletarian mass politics that will sweep it away

This is from my upcoming book “When Tears Can’t Save Them: Why the pro-Palestine movement failed to stop a holocaust, & how it can still win.”

Since Zohran became prominent, the Democratic Party has continued to go in a direction of posturing as pro-Palestine. In June 2026, over 100 House Democrats voted to block aid to the Zionist occupier (which actually fit with Netanyahu’s plans to transition “Israel” away from relying on the USA). We’ve seen the rise of more “progressive” Muslim Democrats, like the Michigan Senate Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed. And Zohran himself has been able to keep up a sense that his political trend represents progress for the pro-Palestine cause, though the things he’s done have overall been more performative than material. 

Upon coming into office, he reversed New York’s ban on boycotting “Israel”; yet this has come along with him keeping the Zionist Jessica Tisch as NYPD commissioner. In July 2026, Zohran also did something that served as an important test of perception for whether somebody views him as an asset to the cause: he came out with a video calling for the federal government to arrest Netanyahu. He didn’t have any legal authority to detain a foreign leader, which was what made it seem tactically valid for him to merely make a statement; when one looks at the larger role that Zohran has played, though, it becomes clear that this was part of an effort to take the substance out of pro-Palestine politics, and make it into something fundamentally performative. This performativeness comes from a particular ideological tendency within the compatible left: the “anti-Zionism” which de-centers Palestinians in favor of Jews.

At the same time that Zohran has been consistently working to de-radicalize the pro-Palestine movement, conceding on critical points like whether Hamas should be condemned and whether the resistance should lay down its arms, he’s gained support from many of the more left-wing Jewish institutions. He’s also gotten the support of NYC’s Jewish petty-bourgeois progressive constituency, who joined in on helping elect him along with most of the city’s other left-leaning professionals. I connect these things not because it’s inherently bad to be backed by Jewish orgs or individuals, but because anti-Zionists need to confront the true extent to which Jewish orgs are in thrall to Zionism. 

If we minimize this problem, and uncritically uphold any Jewish group that describes itself as “pro-peace” or “anti-Zionist,” then we’ll be engaging in an especially damaging kind of idpol. This is an idpol that will always end up equating the oppressors with the oppressed in Palestine, and aiding normalization under the guise of a false “peace.” 

These things are what come from building a “pro-Palestine” movement on the basis of protecting Jewish feelings, which is the true goal of rhetoric that places central emphasis on the presence of Jewish individuals within pro-Palestine circles. Such rhetoric is flawed from the foundation, because its core driver is not to advance solidarity with Palestine but to defend the reputation of Judaism. Which inevitably will give the bulk of the masses a sense that the “pro-Palestine” movement leaders lack sincerity about fighting the hegemonic order. This rhetoric’s priority is in fact to defend the old mode of discourse, which treated identity as a license to shield oneself from scrutiny.

If we fail to break from this politics, we’ll end up isolating the next iteration of the pro-Palestine movement from the masses, who’ve been coming to reject politically correct language policing even more than they already did. The masses were always repulsed by cancel culture; now that they’ve made the connection between cancel culture and Zionism, any “anti-Zionism” that ostracizes those who use colloquial or blunt language for describing the problem of Jewish supremacy will only divide the struggle. And this is in addition to the damage that such behaviors cause towards solidarity with Palestine itself, which in this framework is treated as something for different Jews to fight for moral authority over. 

Such is the implicit message of slogans like “not in our name” or “the occupation is not my Judaism,” which don’t serve to change the minds of the masses; the average person’s support for Palestine isn’t contingent on whether they see evidence that some Jews share this position, because this simply isn’t viewed as a relevant question for the bulk of the population. The only spaces where it’s treated as relevant are the institutional safe spaces within liberal identity politics, which at this point have become synonymous with institutional Zionism.

An example of how “good” Jewish groups can advance these ethno-supremacist gatekeeping agendas is Jewish Voice for Peace. At the time that JVP joined in on the efforts to organize for the Mamdani campaign, it had managed to overcome many of the Jewish supremacist tendencies which defined its leadership in the past. There was a time when JVP embodied the same gatekeeping cancel culture politics that Zohran’s liberal Zionist ankle-biters have used to pressure him; for instance, in 2014 a JVP leader with ties to the IDF smeared the author Alison Weir as an anti-Jewish bigot. The more anti-Zionist direction that JVP has headed in since October 7 is the product of influence by its grassroots base, who needed to struggle against the hegemonic institutions that controlled the org. Shortly prior to October 7, JVP had been receiving funds from the Rockefeller Brother Foundation, which evidently viewed the org as a vehicle for pushing liberal Zionist “peace” politics. 

Since the initial post-October 7 upswing in pro-Palestine energy, JVP’s trajectory has been towards trying to appease the Democratic Party and its front groups—potentially as a way to offset the damages from the dismantling of nonprofit funding sources. In February 2026–eight months before a midterm election—JVP’s leadership announced that it was restructuring JVP, along with its lobbying group JVP Action. The purpose of the shakeup was to make the latter group now function under the one “JVP” label; which amounted to a consolidation of the group’s efforts at electorally assisting Democrats. What it did was divert the millions in funds held by the main JVP group towards its electoral wing, showing the priority is not to get these funds to Palestinians but to make sure JVP strengthens its relationship with the Democrats.

We know the org has been going in a more pro-Democrat direction because the restructuring announcement didn’t include the word “genocide,” and this kind of omission is always significant when it comes from an org that’s supposedly anti-Zionist. At the most, the statement said at the end that it wanted to keep “building a Judaism beyond Zionism.” Which, in the context of this opportunistic maneuver, means that even one of the most left-wing Jewish orgs is contributing towards the trend of Jewish ethno-narcissism within today’s pro-Palestine movement.

This saviorist type of “anti-Zionism” has been able to become the most visible kind of “pro-Palestine” politics because the larger movement was pushed into retreat, letting the cause become defined by the actors with establishment backing. And that these actors include organizations which claim to not be Zionist shows us how critical it is to account for the content of something, instead of just its form. The form of JVP and DSA’s politics can appear to be radical, but it’s not enough for the Palestinian people, who continue to experience ever-more intense genocidal violence. This contradiction is growing increasingly visible to the people with an anti-Zionist consciousness; the absence of real change from reformist “pro-Palestine” rhetoric is going to produce a new version of the anti-Zionist movement, one that’s based within the rejection of PC posturing. 

The masses already understand the connection between liberal idpol moralism, and the systems of control that keep the Zionist war machine in power. The better we learn this connection ourselves, the better positioned we’ll be to build an anti-Zionist movement that’s actually anti-systemic.

————————————————————————

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.