Exposing the Fraud that is Luna Oi
A Recap of the Events amidst widespread lies, slander and distortion.
 |
To preface,
Luna Oi, a pathological crybully with an exaggerated victim complex, is an established Youtube content creator with over 55,000 followers on twitter. Naturally, the majority of you will possess a bias in their favor. They are more well-known, more well-liked, and more well-established. This means they can make up whatever they want, and my ability to defend myself will be severely handicapped.
I will simply look bad, based on whatever narrative they spin about me - solely because I’m not as well known. There’s not much I can do about this except wait. Over the passage of time, as I become more well-known and vindicated in my position, many of you will inevitably apologize to me for your mischaracterization. I want to make it clear I won’t forgive you. That’s because whatever future the American left has, it doesn’t need people like you.
Still, I’m not going to allow this crybully and her defenders to get away with their false mischaracterizations and narrative of the events. So let’s begin.
The ‘Debate’ Over American Patriotism
All of this has to be placed within a so-called ‘debate’ among American leftists on twitter over the question of American socialist patriotism. It started with a tweet by Jackson Hinkle, in which he claimed that being an American patriot is in no way incompatible with being a Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist. The foremost representatives of this position consist in Jackson, Caleb Maupin, myself and Peter Coffin.
As far as the so-called ‘debate’ is concerned, most of the American left on twitter were just chasing ghosts and strawmen. The overwhelming majority of the American left, otherwise known as Baizuo (as they are called in China) received this pretty standard position with hostility. Despite the fact that from a historical perspective, it had always been the norm in the United States, and remains the norm among Communists throughout the world. It is the peculiar nature of the American left alone, about which we will speak more of later on, that, over the course of decades since the New Left, rendered this position marginal and obsolete.
When confronted with the ‘controversy,’ Communists from around the world - from Latin America to China and Eastern Europe - were quite aghast that it could even be controversial that Communists must, by default, be patriots. Some were confused and thought that perhaps ‘patriotism’ was being used opportunistically as a cover for some kind of apologia for American imperialism. But when shown that all myself, Jackson, Caleb and Peter Coffin were saying is that American Communists, while remaining fervent anti-imperialists and showing solidarity with all international elements resisting US imperialism, must also be patriots who possess a love of country and people, they were extremely confused that this was being met with so much hostility.
Why is it that the American left, or Baizuo considers itself an exception to what is a basic, default and standard norm for Marxist-Leninists around the world? The answer can be found from the brothers Grimm fairy tale called Rumpelstiltskin. In this fairy tale, a monster with the power of immortality basically possesses one weakness: Their name. If they are named, they are defeated. The same holds true for the disease that is Americanism or American exceptionalism: Only if American leftists are named, only if this pretense to global universalism is particularized, is it able to be defeated. Authentic American patriotism is not only ‘compatible’ with the anti-imperialist position, as far as American Marxist-Leninists are considered it is the greatest weapon against American global unipolarity.
Luna Oi’s Fraudulent Pretense to American Identity Politics and use of American ‘Standpoint Epistemology’
Enter the well-known crybully and fraud that is Luna Oi, who decided to enter the debate. Luna Oi is a highly privileged Vietnamese Youtuber with an audience primarily consisting of white American leftists. She’s married to an white American anarchist man. You may think this is an irrelevant ‘personal attack,’ but he - known as Noncompete - is ideologically active, and regularly co-streams with Luna and has his own channel with 100k subscribers. Needless to say, they collaborate ideologically, inform and shape one and another’s views. And since Luna has an English speaking and primarily American audience, such an exchange is obviously unequal: She has entered the American left, Noncompete has not entered the Vietnamese left.
Her means of making an income consist in participating in and pandering to American leftist discourse, adopting all manner of peculiar views nowhere to be found in Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist literature, in order to fit in with the prevailing trends of and appease the ideological position of her American audience.
Because she is adjacent to American leftist discourse, since it is literally how she makes a living, and for reasons that have nothing to do with Vietnam whatsoever, Luna Oi decided to insert herself in this ‘debate,’ assuming an ultra-leftist and anarchistic position on the question of socialist patriotism:
What is Luna doing? She is making it appear as though her position is coming from a purely ‘authentic Vietnamese Communist perspective’ and is thus representative of Communists outside of America. She is justifying a position held almost universally by white American ultra-leftists on the basis of her particular ‘standpoint’ and ‘identity’ as a so-called ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist.’
It’s quite common for Americans to leverage their marginalized identities in order to gain an edge of their fellow urban petty bourgeois and professional managerial peers, especially in our attention economy, whether for purposes of career-climbing or gaining clout or credibility on the internet. But Luna Oi has set the precedent of people leveraging their status as residents of other countries in order to gain legitimacy and clout among American leftists, particularly self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists.
Up until now, her fraudulent hucksterism has never been called out, because American Marxist-Leninists have either been too afraid of her (a notorious crybully who smears and slanders her critics) or too afraid of the optics of an American critiquing a Vietnamese woman. I am proud to have been the first to expose this fraud for who she is: An ideologist of American imperialism!
In this particular debate, it’s very easy to fall into the trap of idealistic universalism: Assuming, as the Fraud Luna Oi tried to claim, that it was merely about the American flag in all contexts. Had Luna Oi merely expressed hostile attitudes Vietnamese people possess toward the American flag, she would not have even entered the ‘debate’ in the first place. She engaged in a form of identity-politics opportunism, by entering a debate whose exclusive significance is for Americans and within America, assuming the utlra-left and anarchist position - while making it appear she is doing so from the ‘Vietnamese’ perspective.
But why would a Vietnamese Communist care if American Communists are patriotic in their own country? Would the victims of US imperialism not be relieved when Americans decide to focus on their own country and cease to meddle in the affairs of others? Of course they would be! What else can explain the appreciation forces of global anti-imperialism had for Trump and his message of isolationism? What else explains the fact that anti-imperialists literally say this themselves? As a matter of fact, many Vietnamese Communists in the past, like all Communists fighting US imperialism, even insist Americans be patriotic, for it renders them the most effective anti-imperialists they could possibly be.
The assumption that American unipolar globalism is ‘patriotic' is shared between both the ultra-leftists and the propaganda of the ruling class itself. In reality, it is anything but.
Here is Ho Chi Minh himself. There are probably much better examples, but this was what I found on the first page of a google search, in his “message to the American people”:
Who has caused these sufferings and mournings to the Vietnamese and American people? It is the U.S. rulers. The American people have realized this truth. More and more Americans are valiantly standing up in a vigorous struggle, demanding that the American Government respect the Constitution and the honour of the United States, stop the war of aggression in Vietnam and bring home all U.S. troops. I warmly welcome your just struggle and thank you for your support to the Vietnamese people's patriotic fight. I sincerely wish the American people many big successes in their struggle for peace, democracy and happiness.
Keep in mind, this was in 1966 after the United States had unjustly invaded Vietnam. If anyone had reason to despise the United States in its entirety, it is the leader of the Vietnamese people fighting against American troops himself. Yet nowhere in his message does Ho Chi Minh claim that the American people must ‘demand the abolition and destruction of the United States.’ On the contrary, he applauds those truly patriotic Americans who demand the government to respect the Constitution, the country’s most sacred symbol and founding document, and “honour” the United States.
Nowhere have the forces of anti-imperialism made the unreasonable demand that the progressive and democratic forces within America itself discard and abandon their own flag in their struggle to seize popular hegemony over the American people. Not within Vietnam nor anywhere else. Only the American left itself, in its anarchistic and petty bourgeois ultra-leftism, has made such a ‘demand.’
Now in certain contexts, the American flag obviously does represent US imperialism. How could it not? It is, after all, the flag flown by the American military itself. However the error of American liberal universalism must be avoided. If Iranians and other peoples throughout the world burn the US flag, they are not making the universal declaration that the American people must themselves burn the flag. They are burning the flag because so far as they are concerned, the representatives of the American state and country, are their enemies.
According to the American universalist perspective, every particular form of government, culture, path of economic development, expression of national feeling or attitude is a universal standard and prescription under which all people, regardless of their unique and particular circumstances, must obey.
It is difficult for the American leftists to grasp that Iranians who chant ‘Death to America!’ and anti-imperialist American patriots can possess the fullest solidarity with one and another, precisely because they are themselves unconscious (and often overtly conscious) American imperialists. American ideological imperialism does not consist in respecting the American flag or possessing a love of the country that is America. It precisely consists in the unconscious structure of American universalism, according to which all mankind is subject to a single common prescriptive standard, state, discourse and culture.
Here is what separates idealism from materialism: The idealists believe that American imperialist ideology has its basis in ideas about America, in flags and in patriotism, rather than material, and therefore unconscious structures which elevate the American subject to the universal status.
It is of no consequence whether that standard disguises itself in the form of ‘anti-imperialism’, ‘leftism’ or even ‘Communism’ - the content of the standard is by nature imperialist. It implies a universal state apparatus to interpellate such a ‘universal subject. Here lies the essence of American unipolarity. The American ‘Marxist-Leninists’ have merely replaced American universal human rights, slogans of ‘democracy’ and ‘economic liberty’ with the disguise of Marxism-Leninism.
American universalism is nothing more than the highest stage of Anglo-Saxon idealism, according to the particular arises out of a fixed universal premise. Shoot the arrow, then find the target. Marxist humanist universalism, best epitomized today by Xi Jinping Thought, in contrast to Americanism, recognizes the universal realities of mankind to arise out of and through the wealth of differing concrete and particular realities - which do not follow under a common prescription, standard or discourse.
The unity of mankind does not follow from the prescription of some supposedly universal form of this unity upon it, but from a concrete unity forged on the basis of mutual respect, determinate association and withdrawing all claims to any pretense of knowledge of the other’s essence. What is truly in common, then, may arise authentically and on the basis of authentic mutual recognition.
American leftists cannot make, as an excuse for their own petty bourgeois antisocial paratism and inability to lead the American masses. the anti-American sentiment that prevails among global forces of anti-imperialism or marginalized ethnic minorities within America. These forces, many of whom even taken the American war of independence as an inspiration of their struggle, have every right to be anti-Americans insofar as the official representatives of America engage in ceaseless acts of aggression against them. They can in no way be faulted for their anti-Americanism. But American leftists, and white leftists in particular, possess no right to be anti-Americans, and can be criticized for their anti-Americanism, since it is a form of refusing their own responsibility.
They uniquely possess the duty to seize hegemony over their country, to be even more authentic American patriots than the imperialist deep state and ruling class - since American politics is precisely their problem. The nature of the American government is not the problem of anti-imperialists, defending their homelands against American aggression is. They have their own governments, their own countries and their own homelands to worry about - America has imposed its significance only isnofar as it has engaged in aggression against them.
But American leftists cannot abdicate and surrender their responsibility for the foreign policies of their own country: It is their patriotic duty to take responsibility for the actions of their own country, and seek an end to American unipolarity, imperialist aggression and do right by victims of American imperialism. This requires an ideological revolution on the part of Americans, from unipolar American universalism to a Marxism-Leninism fit for the age of multi-polarity, where they apply the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism to the particular context of the United States, and cease to act as though the latter context is itself some universal site of prescriptive truth.
It appears contradictory only to those who lack any semblance of dialectic thinking that American Marxist-Leninists must, at the same time being the most fervent enemies of American exceptionalism and American imperialism, be American patriots. America is a particular country, insofar as American Marxist-Leninists treat America as a particular country, they combat the very essence of Americanism, according which America is the universal police state of the world. It is not by burning American flags that American Marxists threaten American imperialism, it is by reigning in on American imperialism by seizing it at the level of its own particular material, national and civilisational premises.
Dialectic thinking entails that all things are annihilated on the basis of their own premises, likewise, American imperialism can only be destroyed on the very same basis that had engendered its emergence: The American state and people. No wonder that Trump was a greater anti-Imperialist than all the Baizuo frauds combined!
And Luna Oi is most certainly an even greater ideologist of American imperialism than Donald Trump. She attempted to mish-mash the contexts of the United States with Vietnam, leveraging her particular background as a citizen of Vietnam to bolster the credibility of the antisocial and urban petty bourgeois ultra-left Baizuo, who are in fact the greatest ideological and cultural servants of American imperialism. She implied, in her tweet, that that there exists a ‘universal representation’ (in this case the American flag) that applies in all countries, in all contexts, and in all circumstances, subject to a common and universal moral prescriptive standard.
She makes it appear as if there is a ‘universal discourse,’ prescriptive, standard and morality among Marxist-Leninists in every country - but as every materialist understands, such a ‘universal standard’ implies an equally ‘universal institution’ in which it finds concrete and material instantiation. Perhaps it is the institution of the Marx’s International Workingmen’s association? It no longer exists. What about the Second International? It collapsed over a hundred years ago. Is it the institution of the Comintern? It too, has been dissolved. What about the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, or the IMCWP? Alas, this body has no prescriptive function or power over its member parties.
We are anything but surprised to discover that as a matter of fact, this institution consists in nothing more than the institutions of American unipolarity, in which such prescriptive standards and morality find real application across national and geographical differences. Herein consists the ‘earthly premises’ of the airy-fairy discourse of twitter leftists. Otherwise, what form can international solidarity take, beyond respecting the differences of circumstances and working to learn from one-and-another on the basis of concrete association? How can the contexts of Vietnam and America be mish-mashed, unless both are subject to a common standard, and therefore a common state?
Vietnam is a sovereign country, with its own government and its own people. (Of course, anarchists reject, in principle, the sovereignty of governments). Twitter and Youtube are American corporations, and insofar as they possess international relevance, they serve the interests of American imperialism.
Were we to leave it there, this would be enough to expose Luna Oi as a fraud and an ideologist of American imperialism. But we have not even arrived at the tip of the iceberg: What makes this all the more pathetic, is when we begin to actually evaluate the context that is Vietnam, in comparison to Luna Oi’s false pretensions…
Does Luna Oi’s Position Represent Vietnamese People?
Luna Oi is trying to spin a narrative that ‘she was merely expressing her revulsion, as a Vietnamese woman, to the American flag.’ She is a fucking liar.
Americans might find it easy to believe that it’s very common in Vietnam for people to hate America, hate the United States and hate the American flag. After all, the United States did commit great atrocities and crimes during the Vietnam war. Why wouldn’t Vietnamese people hate the US flag, and hate the United States?
Of course, such a revulsion and hatred would be justifiable, were it not used to denigrate the efforts of American Communists and anti-imperialists fighting within the US. After all, we are not shoving our flag in her face, we are not daring to fly our flag in her country, we just want to do it in ours. Even if she was telling the truth: That the reason she has a revulsion to the US flag is because of the Vietnam war, my criticism would have remained justified. But it happens that Luna Oi is a pathological liar and a fraud, who is deceiving American Marxist-Leninists into thinking that Vietnamese people are anti-American.
The truth is, Vietnam is a notoriously pro-American country.
Favorable attitudes toward the United States are among the highest, as a proportion of the population, in the entire world. Consider the results of the following study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/
In it, we find that:
About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.
These results are remarkable. Even among those who had survived the Vietnam war, the epitome of American savagery and barbarism, six-in-ten rate the U.S. favorably. Luna Oi never even experienced the Vietnam war, yet the majority of people who did still view the US favorably. Among those her own age, 89% have a favorable view - ranking her opinion potentially representative of a meager 11% of the Vietnamese youth. And that’s only if we assume that their views are as extreme as hers, i.e. that they believe even Americans themselves have no right to fly their own flag in their own country. That’s highly improbable. What we find later in the article is even more shocking:
Looking to the future, Vietnam sees the U.S. as an important ally. When asked about what countries they can rely on as a dependable ally in the future, more Vietnamese chose the U.S. than any other country. Conversely, China is viewed as the greatest threat to the future of Vietnam.
Now, I ask the audience to make particular note of this part of the article, you will find it’s even more relevant to the argument than anyone could have expected.
Some have pointed out that the study is old, because it’s from 2015. Very well! Let’s consult a more contemporary study, from 2017:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/06/26/tarnished-american-brand/
Laughably, in this study, which was conducted two years later, an even greater proportion of Vietnamese people - a whopping 84% - possessed a favorable view of the US. KEKW.
The truth is, Vietnam and the United States are strategic and regional allies, and Vietnam has joined the Untied States’ imperialist efforts to encircle China. One of the reasons the United States is probably seen so favorably in Vietnam, is because among the majority of Vietnamese people, China is seen as the greatest enemy, as a result of decades of conflict following the context of the Sino-Soviet split. Consider this study:
China’s official military budget grew by about 9% per year over the past decade, and few of its neighbors appear to welcome the increase. In South Korea, Japan and Vietnam – countries actively engaged in disputes with China over military deployments or territory in the East and South China seas – nine-in-ten or more think China’s growing military power is a bad thing for their country.
80% of Vietnamese believe China’s power and influence is a ‘threat’ to their country:
Now I recognize the complexities of the situation. Vietnam is its own country, with its own history and its own problems. As far as I’m concerned, whatever problems China and Vietnam possess toward one and another are problems they alone have the right to settle, I - as an American - have no right to take part in such a dispute. But the thing is, the majority of Vietnamese public sentiment welcomes and even invites a US military presence in the South China Sea, in order to deter China in the territorial dispute. My position, as an American patriot, is that not a single American soldier and not a single American naval ship has any right to even exist in Asia. And yet this position would be considered extreme in Vietnam!
Luna claims that it is her Vietnamese background that informs her position on the debate over American socialist patriotism, and the atrocities committed by America in Vietnam. Why then, does she find herself in such an extreme minority among Vietnamese voices? Why then, is American military presence and unipolar power encouraged by the government and the public? It is one thing to merely say that the flag is met with revulsion in Vietnam… But not even the American FUCKING military is met with revulsion!
Her position in no way represents the feelings and attitudes of the Vietnamese public, which are even far to the right of myself, an American patriot!
If Luna’s revulsion to the American flag (which she has every right to be, in her own country) is based on her Vietnamese background, why is the American flag displayed so liberally within Vietnam? Where is the revulsion on the faces of all of these people?
Now I take no issue if Vietnamese people want to burn American flags. They have every right to, and as an American, one of the ways I take responsibility for the crimes of my country is by absolutely respecting the hatred and destruction of its symbols by those victimized by our government. But contemplate the absurdity of Luna Oi’s position:
1) Not only is she saying that Vietnamese people should hate the American flag, she is claiming American socialist patriotism is impossible because of her own experience as a Vietnamese woman
2) All the while, Vietnamese people liberally and gleefully fly this same flag within their own country, and possess among the most favorable attitudes to the United States of any country in the world.
Her claim does not stand: Luna Oi did not live through the Vietnam war, she is not the only person in Vietnam who has had relatives experience it. It’s even absurd having to type that out. According to American standpoint epistemology, we are just supposed to accept whatever she says is true, because it’s her ‘particular standpoint.’ But how does she reconcile her ‘standpoint’ with the facts of the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people having a wildly different attitude than her?
We could of course, try to consult Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist literature. There, we may find the theoretical and ideological basis for Luna’s position. But alas, we find nothing but emphasis on the importance of socialist patriotism (coupled, of course, with anti-imperialism). Nowhere do we find the view that American Communists cannot be patriots.
This begs the question: If Luna’s view does not come from Vietnam, or the feelings of the Vietnamese people, where do they actually come from?
Why NonCompete Must be Brought Up
Enter noncompete, Luna’s White American anarchist husband.
Many think this is an irrelevant ‘personal attack’ and a form of ‘sexist misogyny’ that I insist upon pointing out his significance. Yet noncompete is not some private partner in Luna’s life. He is, as I said before, ideologically active, and co-streams with Luna - on questions of political, ideological and theoretical significance.
Some may think pointing out her husband’s decisive influence on her world view is a ‘sexist attack.’ I reproach those same people with their hypocritical stance toward Grimes when news first broke out that she began to date Elon Musk. Grimes, who had previously been popular among Leftists for her ‘anti-imperialist’ stance, was condemned for dating Elon - and all of her subsequent new political, social and cultural positions were attributed to the influence of her boyfriend.
As we speak, right now on twitter - the same leftists accusing me of ‘sexism’ for pointing out noncompete are attacking Grimes for posing with the Communist Manifesto in a recent photoshoot, attributing this to the ups-and-downs of her relationship with Elon. What unimaginable hypocrisy.
Let us cast aside all these hypocritical and meaningless pretentions to identity politics and accept the basic truth: It is not unreasonable to recognize that people are influenced by their friends, their partners and their spouses. And in this specific context, the nature of noncompete’s influence must be highlighted: To expose Luna Oi’s fraudulent pretense to representing the authentic Vietnamese Communist perspective.
Luna Oi is entitled to every opinion she has, and deserves to be treated with respect on the basis of the content of that opinion. She can, obviously marry whoever she wants and shouldn’t be criticized for her personal choices in life. What I refuse to respect, however, is her attempt to give credibility to her Baizuo positions on the basis of her own ‘Vietnamese’ identity, attempting to deceive her audience that her positions, in the main, come from Vietnam. She is entitled to voice her opinion like any other American leftist - but she is, in practice, nothing more than an American leftist.
She is not a ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist.’ She is a Vietnamese woman who joined American leftist discourse and culture. She represents only herself, just like any other American leftist. Her Vietnamese background has no decisive significance or relevance as far as the position of American universalism she is espousing: Beyond being used as raw-material to reinforce said position. This is the crux and essence of why she is a fraud: Not because, as some liars are attempting to paint my words into saying, that she has a white husband - but because she is pretending to speak on behalf of Vietnamese Communists.
For those of you who found it outlandish that I accused Luna Oi’s perspective as being influenced and shaped, in part or in whole, by her anarchist husband, I refer you to the following evidence:
This is a bizarre thing to claim for a Marxist-Leninist. It would be a heretical viewpoint within the Vietnamese Communist Party, and within every major Marxist-Leninist party in the world. Marxist-Leninists, from Marx and Engels themselves, to Lenin and Stalin - have made it very clear that the difference between Marxism and anarchism does not rest on some ‘miscommunication’ but is a very real difference.
I suppose it’s merely a coincidence her husband is, himself an anarchist. Wait...
Oh, I suppose it’s another coincidence. In any case, it’s really bizarre that Marxist-Leninist claims that they ‘respect’ anarchism (who have always been sworn enemies of Communists since the October revolution, even attempting to assassinate Lenin - through the Spanish civil war, where they opened the gates to Franco’s armies). Not only do they ‘respect’ anarchism, they do so ‘more than most MLs’ - what?
The majority of Marxist-Leninists exist outside of America. Her own country contains a sizable proportion of those same Marxist-Leninists. She ‘respects’ anarchism, however, more than ‘most MLs.’ Maybe she slipped and meant to say more than most American MLs. But why, then, pretend to speak from a universal position - why does she pick and choose when she wants to confine herself to the context of the American left, as opposed to Vietnam?
But I suppose that has nothing to do with noncompete. We are supposed to believe that in Vietnam, such views are widespread among Communists and among members of the Communist party. Oh, but wait…
Surely, this too, is a coincidence? Why would a Marxist-Leninist say such a weird thing? Where, in Marxist-Leninist literature, does one find talk of ‘flat hierarchy?’ In On Authority, Engels makes use of the simple example of a hierarchy of sailing a ship to point out its importance. I guess according to political correctness, we cannot accept the plain-faced truth and fact that she is saying this bullshit because her husband is an anarchist. Our eyes are lying to us, apparently.
Let’s even assume it has nothing to do with her white American anarchist husband. Does that even make a difference? The views do not originate from Vietnam, but from American ‘popularizers’ of ‘anarchist ideology’ on the internet - be it among her own audience or among other American leftists. Only in Anglo-Saxon countries, or on American corporate internet is it ‘trendy’ to be sympathetic to, interested in or affiliated with ‘anarchism.’
And within the American corporate internet, it is primarily among Anglo-Saxons themselves that you find anarchism to be a popular trend. Need evidence? Take a look at these findings from internet search trends:
Let’s just call a spade a spade. Luna Oi’s stupid ultra-leftist views don’t come from Vietnam and probably were influenced by her husband. Obviously she has found a way to independently accept these views herself and rationalize them, but the difference between her and other Vietnamese Communists is that the latter, in the main, aren’t married to American white anarchists. When faced with Luna Oi’s decisive pretense to being a ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist,’ you cannot, in good faith ignore this decisive fact.
If she doesn’t want people to ever bring it up, she needs to own up to the fact that she only speaks for herself, and needs to stop leveraging identity politics ‘as a Vietnamese women’ to justify her ridiculous ultra-leftist views, when they are indistinguishable from her white American husband.
Let’s be very clear about something: Noncompete has more revulsion to the US flag than probably even the most anti-American Vietnamese Communists. He’\s an anarchists. Anarchists, in principle, reject states, reject nations, and reject flags - most importantly the flag of their own country.
That isn’t because they are authentic anti-imperialists, it’s because they are anti-social, declassed fucking losers who, because of their own mediocrity, harbor great resentment against their families and the society in which they live. Anarchism is the most quintessentially American ideology: It is abstract and ceaselessly indeterminate negation, claiming to be beyond all determinate and concrete realities.
The only successful anarchist revolution in the entire world has been the emergence of the United States as the foremost unipolar power of the world, overturning the customs, traditions, and civilizations of the peoples of the world, destroying states wholesale like a blind and reckless juggernaut, and imposing, wholesale American culture, ideologies and notions of ‘human rights’ upon all peoples, regardless of particular circumstances, conditions and histories.
America is the only state in the history of world that has elevated abstract and indeterminate subjectivity to the status of state power, and it now elevates the whimsical hither and thither of the American public subjectivities, fueled by the wild west that is the spiritual animal kingdom of mass media - from the George Floyd protests to LGBT sentiments - to the status of being premiere global sovereigns that impose their significance with near absolute military might.
What is more anarchist than this? Phenomena that have their basis in thin air, in pure undiluted subjectivity and morality, elevated to the supreme power of the world.
We, American patriots, are patriots precisely because want to put an end to this anarchist madness that is Americanism, to finally deliver the American people to their own substantive and concrete reality, to finally forge a state by, of and for the people, to the people as they really are, and not as we morally demand they be - to the people in their material reality, their history, their tradition. We take as our foremost inspiration the experience of Socialism in China culminating in Xi Jinping Thought, the most advanced form of the development of Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century.
Luna Oi’s Americanism makes itself abundantly clear when she adopts the exact contrary stance: That American leftists must dwell in the unhappy consciousness that is Americanism. She thereby contributes to the emboldening and empowerment of American imperialism more than any agent of the state department can dream of: It is precisely self-denial and self-negation that fuels the ideological apparatus of American imperialism, which is why BLM and LGBT flags, not the American flag, are now its foremost symbols globally.
We are not long from the day that the works of J Sakai will be weaponized against the Peoples’ Republic of China, with the charge of ‘settler colonialism’ being levied against the Han in Xinjiang and Taiwan! The circus that is the American left is a Darwinian vacuum, that selects only for the greatest weapons of American imperialism, which inevitably make their way to the top! Do you think this is exaggerated? Perhaps a bit overblown?
Have a look at this tweet Luna made in January of this year:
Luna claims her views ‘changed’ and that she was ‘misread’ because in the Vietnamese language, there’s a difference between the use of third and first person words or something. Yeah, you can go ahead and believe that horseshit when it’s pretty obvious she pretended to revise her position because she was afraid of losing patreon subs and was being called out by American ‘anti-imperialists’ as well as Chinese anti-imperialists. T
She also lied and claimed she ‘doesn’t remember’ and that she thinks it could be from ‘years ago’ or ‘2019.’ Lol, no, it was from the 23rd of JANUARY of THIS YEAR.
Luna is not merely remaining ‘neutral’ about a confrontation between the US and China, since in such a confrontation, America is an aggressor and China is merely defending itself. For all the outrage she feigns about US atrocities in Vietnam, it is curious that she has no problem enabling and cheering for such atrocities to be committed against the Chinese people.
Such a level of national hatred is contemptible and disgusting, and transgresses all bounds of basic proletarian internationalist decency. She would ‘love’ to see a war that could potentially lead to the deaths of tens, possibly hundreds of millions of Chinese people, this rank agent of American imperialism. If there is any doubt as to whether Luna’s proximity toward the American left corresponds to her objective position of siding with American unipolar imperialism in the world, principally against the People’s Republic of China, let this tweet put all doubts to rest.
In contrast to Luna, fellow Marxist-Leninist patriots will not ‘love’ to see such a war. We would take the revolutionary defeatist position, hoping sincerely for the victory of China and the final destruction of American imperialism. China would undoubtedly aid in the destruction of our own heavily despised ruling class and decadent professional managerial elite, and we would thank them for it. In the meantime, we make it our patriotic duty to struggle against every act of American aggression against China and every possibility of a war against China.
My Tweet and Luna Oi’s Deranged Response:
We finally arrive at the first tweet I’ve ever made in response to Luna Oi, which began this entire ‘argument.’ I always found Luna Oi to be a repulsive and disgusting liar, but always elected to distance myself from her, her community and followers as much as I could. I genuinely hate these people, I hate baizuo and I hate American leftists - especially those who give Marxism-Leninism a Baizuo politically correct coat of paint (i.e. GenZeDong).
I don’t give a shit about Luna Oi and never wanted anything to do with them. The only fucking reason I tweeted at her, is because she was effectively subtweeting me all day attacking ‘American patriotism,’ a view that finds its primary basis in myself and three other influencers, but in no community larger than my own.
Here’s what I tweeted:
Knowing the crucial context, what I said is completely justified. It’s what I said after that apparently constitutes my alleged ‘sexual harassment’ of Luna Oi:
How did Luna spin this tweet? She claimed that I was calling her a sex object. Never in my life have I been more disgusted at being forced into proximity, discursively, with such a person. I want nothing to fucking do with Luna Oi. I think she’s a disgusting and repulsive liar, the idea that I would ever speak about her with such degree of personal proximity makes me sick to my stomach. Such a person, to me, is so fraudulent and disgusting, that I would not even insult them in such a way - I would not even want to discursively engage with them at such a level of detail.
Look at how this disgusting and deranged psychopath responds:
What the literal fuck?
In what way is Luna being degraded as a ‘sex object.’ Again, I will quote the tweet she is responding to:
I guess we should do the most revolutionary thing of all: Leave America, just like Noncompete, and settle and find a spouse in foreign countries. This is the alternative Luna offers to socialist patriotism: Basically becoming a sexpat.
The idea is that, since I am ‘calling’ noncompete a sexpat, this means she is a mere sex object. Even if I was calling noncompete a sexpat, the implication does not follow whatsoever. It could easily imply that HE views her that way, but that she is not one herself.
How the FUCK is it being implied that SHE is a sex object?
At most, what it might imply is that non-compete views her this way. Which again, was in no way essential to the point and has nothing to do with what I was actually saying: Because as it happens, I wasn’t even calling noncompete a FUCKING sexpat!
What I did imply is that Luna thinks that her husband is an ideal model of being an American revolutionary, and that we should follow in his example. But then, it logically follows that we should ‘basically’ become sexpats, since the overwhelming majority of people who do satisfy the criterion of this ‘revolutionary model’ are sexpats!
Logically speaking, in no way is it necessarily true that noncompete is a sexpat: Only that if Americans were to follow his example in significant numbers, they basically WOULD become sexpats, because they would be moving from an individual condition to a general trend, and the general trend, as it actually exists now, is indeed that of sexpats:
White western losers who travel to third worlds countries, primarily in Southeast Asia, in order to live in a place where they may be considered exotic, wealthy and desirable.
It’s crucial to understand the point: As a general trend, people who follow noncompete’s example are sexpats. This is where the phenomena stands as a generality. Noncompete may very well be an exception, but that has nothing to do with my point: My point is that, if followed as a general trend, it would have to be classified as a form of ‘sexpat.’
It is indeed possible noncompete is not a sexpat, and that he traveled to Vietnam for different reasons and met Luna under entirely different circumstances. Sure. In that case, the content and reason for the example he sets can’t be elevated to a generality, because it’s a unique individual circumstance.
But as for the question of what, American revolutionaries must do prescriptively - if we were to take his case as a general model to follow, one would indeed be encouraging people to, basically, become sexpats - to go out of their way to leave this country and settle abroad in developing countries.
My enemies will dismiss this airtight form of reasoning, which is so indisputably solid it can even be rendered in the form of a mathematical proof, as ‘convoluted’ and ‘mental gymnastics.’ But it takes a great deal of effort to explain to stupid people quite plain and simple things. I have to resort to this complicated reasoning only to the extent that my original tweet has been complicated by the Liar and Fraud Luna in such a complicated way.
In sum, I did not call noncompete a sexpat, I said that if he is taken as a bright and shining example of what American Communists should be doing, you would effectively be advocating for them to become sexpats, not because he is himself a sexpat, but because his individual circumstance rendered into a general trend, is precisely what defines sexpats.
If noncompete looks ‘bad’ because his circumstance resembles those of sexpats, that’s not my fucking problem, its his. I personally think each individual should be taken on a case by case basis, but that’s beyond the point. Luna is attempting to make this about herself, in the sense that I am commenting on her sexual life or her sexuality in any capacity whatsoever, calling her a ‘sexpat,’ but nothing is further than the truth.
Luna is only relevant in that tweet insofar as it is implied she holds her husband, an American leftist, as an example in contrast to other American leftists. The point is:
If, Luna, we American leftists are bad Communists for being patriots, and if we cannot be patriots, are you saying we should be more like your husband, who is also an American, like us?
There is zero implication about anything pertaining to her sexuality whatsoever or her being a ‘sex object.’ Even if I implied noncompete himself was a sexpat, which I did not, it has nothing to do her.
As a matter of fact, it might not even have anything to do with how he views her at all! He could still be a sexpat, in the sense of emigrating to Vietnam as a sexual predator, but then ceasing his predatory ways and finding true love or whatever. I have no idea the circumstances of how they found each other nor do I care. Maybe he went overseas ‘in search’ of a partner (which is indeed sexpat behavior) or maybe the circumstance was entirely different.
In any case, Luna is a fucking liar making shit up and spinning narratives in a totally unjustifiable way.
In no way does it logically or necessaarily follow that it is being implied that she is a sex object, that her husband views her as a sex object, or that she is even the decisive variable in the equation that would define her husband as a sexpat whatsoever. It had nothing to do with my fucking point, point blank period. No ifs or buts about it. You cannot in good faith dispute these facts upon giving it the minimum of some basic thought.
She made that bullshit up entirely by herself.
Just when you couldn’t think it could any worse, look at what this lying, depraved, sociopathic and self-aware fucking liar says:
Okay, audience. Maybe you could maintain the bad faith position of agreeing with Luna that, by implication, I imply she is a ‘sex object.’ Maybe you could maintain that, if you were extremely bad faith and /or too stupid to understand what I actually said.
But this?
Can you really justify her bizarre, deranged and unhinged accusation here? That I am ‘weaponizing the trauma of US soldiers and tourists to rape and sex traffic her people'?’ Her being Vietnamese isn’t even essential to the point. If she lived in Thailand, it wouldn’t have made a difference. How am I ‘weaponizing’ this ‘trauma?’ By saying that if American leftists follow in her husband’s footsteps, they are basically becoming sexpats?
Shut the fuck up Luna Oi you fucking liar and deranged psychopath.
But this is a pattern you’ll notice quite often with Luna. Because of feedback mechanisms with her Baizuo snowflake audience, Luna has learned to weaponize self-victimization and exaggerate it to the highest extent, in order to feign sympathy and make her audience feel tasked with the duty of protecting her.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, she is endowing her audience a path to earning recognition, by making them feel like they are being heard and appreciated by ‘protecting’ the delicate and innocent Luna Oi from evil, mean monsters like myself.
The basic formula and trick is that she takes a single minimally critical or hostile response to her views and blows it so out of fucking proportion to the point of invoking indignation in her audience of Baizuo cucks and karens.
She’s a classic crybully, attempting to silence and deter the minimum of any criticism by leveraging the most scandalous and proximate personal details of her own life and own being so as to appear vulnerable to her audience, so as to make it appear that ‘monsters’ such as myself are making her as such.
She is used to this positive reinforcement form her audience of white American cucks, who enable her deranged and infantile behavior. She is like a 150 foot tall crybaby infant waddling their way through a city, leaving wreckage and disaster in her wake while an army of cucks and karens attempt to console and calm her.
She simply should not be on the fucking internet. She doesn’t have thick enough skin, and her cultish audience of deranged cucks enable this. And I know that’s rich coming from me, I guy who always yells at people - but that’s the thing, I just yell, or I take a break. Luna, meanwhile, engages in self-victimization as a ‘woman of color’, making it seem like she is some fragile, delicate little flower who cannot handle the slightest criticism. Then why does she insist on being treated as a serious Marxist thinker, if she insists on being treated like a child?
Take for example her blowing up at this random tweet with 0 likes:
qubit @qubit____
@LunaOi_VN Not taking sides tho do you agree that many women in Vietnam and elsewhere in SE Asia, particularly Thailand & Philippines, see white men has their 'meal ticket' out of poverty and to better life? The term 'sexpats' is not without reasonThis tweet had zero likes. No one even payed attention to it. Had she blocked this guy and moved on, nothing would have happened. But she turned herself into a victim, and feigned outrage from her gullible cuck/karen audience as if it represented some general trend initiated by me. Imagine if I isolated every retarded comment made about me and used it as an example of some general trend. So fucking stupid, just look at the replies.
Oh! I’m so sorry Luna! You have 55k twitter followers and you found one negative tweet with zero likes! Such a fucking victim!
There are so many examples of Luna blowing shit out of proportion and feigning outrage over the smallest shit, followed by endless replies of her cuck audience tweeting ‘I’m so sorry this happened to you Luna.’ Wow, what a poor victims!
I bet all of the Vietnamese people who live far bellow Luna’s comparatively rich lifestyle would NEVER want to trade places with someone who sits on their fucking ass and panders to American leftists for a living on Youtube, collecting patreon subs for appealing to American idpol fetishizations of lesser-privileged backgrounds, the price of having to face critical twitter comments is just too high!
Grow the fuck up, it’s the fucking internet you fucking cowards. You are not being victimized because you are being called out for your fraudulent hucksterism on fucking twitter, just log off.
I deal with constant hate, harassment and stalking every day - now with Luna’s viewers added to the mix - and I still manage to get on without feigning sympathy from my fucking viewers every fucking day from the smallest criticism. Since when do ‘serious Marxist-Leninists’, who are supposed to be tough minded and thick skinned revolutionaries, start crying and feigning outrage over fucking tweets on Twitter? Since when does this warrant such outpouring of sympathy? Especially given what I fucking tweeted and her disproportionate crybully response?
It’s afterwards that everyone started to lose their shit. They started to lose their shit, keep in mind, because they didn’t understand the critical fucking context behind the encounter in the first place. In the same tweet thread:
Oh no, so horrible, so sexist, so racist, so vile! The adjectives keep on coming, when will they run out? So fascist! Nazi! Evil! And like that, all of left twitter erupted in a storm of indignation and outrage, how dare he! Here are some of the hilariously dishonest and fraudulent narratives that got spun because of this:
‘Haz is saying that inter-racial marriage is bad!’
‘Haz is saying that POC women are cheaper and less valuable than white woman!’
‘Haz is saying that POC women are not allowed to date white men, what an incel!’ ‘
‘Haz is sexually harassing Luna!’
‘Haz is claiming that Luna is a sex slave!’
No you fucking stupid worthless braindead NPC scumbag fucks. I neither said nor implied anything of that fucking sort. Every single fucking narrative you spun about me is a LIE.
It was Luna who brought up ‘identity’ politics in the first place, by trying to claim that ‘no woman of color’ will ever trust me. I was merely cancelling out her fraudulent appeal to identity politics, by pointing out the fact that her fucking husband is white. I was not denigrating her as a human being, I was responding to the appeal she was making to her identity as a ‘woman of color. ‘
This appeal was clearly fraudulent, because the position that was in dispute, in the first place, renders her background as a ‘woman of color’ absolutely inessential: If this is about her being a woman of color, why is her position fucking indistinguishable from her white anarchist husband?
The added context makes it very clear what I meant: Her position is that of American universalist subjectivity, something that originates in white people and white men, her audience is mainly American and white, her husband is a white anarchist - however you look at it, the authority upon which she draws from is, in actual material reality those of white, American masters - the irony is that the authority she is PRETENDING to draw from, is that of ‘woman of color.’ If you want to cry about the word ‘master’, replace it with ‘authority’ and it’s the same thing!
The fact that I deleted the tweet makes it look worse. But I only fucking deleted it because it touched a huge nerve among both white men who were outraged that their access to ‘woman of color’ appeared to be challenged, and woman of color who probably felt guilty about dating white men (being woke and virtue signaling against white people, a very well-known phenomena - the more they virtue signal hating white people, the more they likely have envious feelings toward whites). These people exist in multitudes, and were threatening to report the tweet. I had to choose between my account and the tweet, and I chose my account. But to be clear, I don’t regret tweeting it and take back nothing.
Both of these people - white men and the ‘woman of color’ outraged because they felt exposed (lol), took it so personally that it was very easy to feign outrage and make it seem like what I said was some unspeakable evil.
The thing is, I don’t care about who people choose to date. I don’t give a shit that your boyfriend or husband is white, why would I? What I refuse to do, is submit to the authority of white men (American white leftists) under the disguise of the ‘authentic feelings of woman of color.’ I’m 100% Arab on both sides of my family, despite many people claiming I’m white or I’m half white. Why should I allow Luna to use ‘woman of color’ to cover for ideologies and views that are not only indistinguishable from, but in fact serve the interests of white male members of professional managerial and urban petty bourgeois classes?
You may think my tweet was too harsh and hyperbolic, because I used the word ‘master,’ which has connotations of total domination. I will apologize for that, when Luna apologizes for calling me a creep, which was even more harsh and exaggerated than what I said. She is allowed to call me a creep, but I can’t point out her hypocrisy in attempting to weaponize identity politics and so-called ‘woman of color’ while disguising the views of white Baizuo men?
If she did not want me to point out the irony of her having a white husband, she should not have attempted to appeal to identity politics by talking about ‘woman of color,’ plain and simple, no ifs or buts about it. I would have never brought it up in the first place, had she not attempted to weaponize her identity and her background to give support to the positions of the American WHITE left.
All the outpouring of projection and clear internal psychological distress reading into that tweet is not even worth my time to address, it’s absolutely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I said. This is the context that informed what I said:
1) Luna’s views do not come from Vietnam but from the institutions of American unipolarity, and therefore white supremacy.
2) Her target audience, cucks she scams into giving her money are primarily white and American
3) She has an ideologically active white anarchist husband, to whom we can easily attribute many of her views and we can easily identify as a great source of influence upon her.
In the tweet, it seems like I a am saying all ‘woman of color’ white date women have ‘white masters’ just because they’re dating white men. But when you add the entire context that formed the basis of the encounter in the first place, you find that this isn’t the case: I’m not accusing her and ‘woman of color’ like her of having ‘white masters’ JUST for dating white men, but for the necessary context of espousing the views that originate with and are indistinguishable from those of white leftist men. And I wouldn’t have pointed that out, either, were it not for the fact that SHE attempted to weaponize her identity as a ‘woman of color’ and speak for all ‘woman of color’ in the first place.
Because there’s a crucial detail here: Not all woman of color carry water for white men. She had no right to speak for ‘woman of color’ in general, because she happened to be a ‘women of color’ whose views are indistinguishable from those of any baizuo American leftist man, like her husband.
Most Arab men like myself, and most other non-white men, are not baizuo. We hate political correctness and we hate American leftists. We are unashamed of being men. We will not be bossed around by any politically correct ‘woman of color’ trying to impose the authority of white political correctness on us. Cry about it.
Epilogue, addressing common stupidities re ‘Patriotism':
Many attempt to point out the irony of my condemnation of the ‘white left,’ when in fact, I, as an American Communist, seek to win over and reach the white American working class. There is no irony, only a lack of dialectic thinking:
Politically correct Baizuo epitomize the very essence of whiteness, whereas the majority of white people in America, who are working class people, have a less proximate relation to ‘whiteness.’ Whiteness is defined by the absolute formal purity of the subject of Anglo-Saxon metaphysics - but the overwhelming American working class whites have a sense of substantive culture, family, belonging, tradition, spontaneity, and human-ness.
The essence of whiteness is being a snowflake: The tough minded and down to earth white Americans who comprise the broad strata are not sensitive snowflakes. White prejudices and racism may preponderate among many of them, but in contrast to the Baizuo, it does not absolutely define them - they are more than that. Conversely, the Baizuo white leftists are ONLY white. That’s all they are.
They are a parasitic and cancerous outgrowth of the American people, and specifically white American people, and every expression of white guilt, white self-hatred and identity politics they appeal to - including fetishizing indigenous people and claiming the United States must be destroyed - is a form of class warfare by the urban petty bourgeoisie against the rural working class.
This is the plain spoken truth of the matter. The dispute is not between white people and ‘people of color.’ The dispute is between the petty bourgeois urban and professional-managerial white Leftists, footsoldiers of the Democratic party - who represent the quintessential essence of whiteness itself - and the American working class. Each people contain the seeds of their own class struggle.
Right now in America, white people comprise the majority, but by no means are those who feel a sense of belonging to this country exclusively white. Insofar as non-white people do not possess a sense of belonging to this country, it is their duty as Marxist-Leninists to seize hegemony over their own people, win the independence and self-determination of their own people (with the solidarity of the American Communists), and wage the class struggle within their own country-to-be.
Otherwise, the only manner by which white American leftists can show solidarity with non-white victims of American white supremacy is by winning hegemony over their own country. That basis alone will not earn the trust of nonwhite and non-American people, but the first step to earning that trust is acquiring power, upon which basis determinate relations of mutual-respect can be proven in practice.
Luna Oi herself could not fathom the ‘irony’ that I was critiquing her for pandering to American white leftists, all the while it appeared I was appealing to America’s white working class majority:
It’s almost as if the whole point is that you are appealing to the American left, who are precisely defined by the unprecedented extent of their remoteness and lack of proximity to the American people. It’s almost as if the entire point is that a class struggle exists within and among Americans, between the Baizuo leftists and the broad strata of working people! It’s almost as if the power of American unipolar imperialism lies in the American establishment, and not the American people, whose ambiguity allows for the possibility of the engendering of counter-hegemonic forms (precisely in accordance with MZT).
The materialist analysis allows one to understand that American imperialism corresponds to the American establishment, and thus, the urban American left (urbanity taking as its premise not the authentic being of the people, but rational, calculated and often state or corporate-based reflexivity).
In order to ‘pander’ to a people, you have to pander to their established forms, rather than give authentic form to their real content. Luna engages in the former behavior, by pandering to the established and reflexive form of the American people in the form of the American Left - I merely give the American people the materialist benefit of the doubt, that they may be open to the possibility to an alternative to the establishment, principally as it takes the form of the two-party system.
I think Communists can give authentic expression to the interests of the American people better than the establishment can - since the establishment is ideal and the American people are material, materiality is always latent with possibilities unaddressed and un-consolidated by the ideal form. Yet in order to engage with the American people, one has to engage with their material realities. Among which being the state of which they form a part, in its actual material reality.
Yes, many crimes are committed in the name of the American flag. But is that all it means? Do the American people respect the legitimacy of the American flag, because of ideal prejudices of Luna Oi and other American leftists, or is there a deeper, more fundamental material reason? Do they necessarily and materially believe that the American flag MUST stand for American imperialism and all the crimes of America’s history, or might it be more ambiguous? Might it also mean an acknowledgement of a common country, a common history, a common tradition, and a common principle - that is a Republic by, for and of the people?
Communists such as myself, following the precedent of all Communists in history, choose to elect the latter view, following from the teachings of Mao Tse-Tung, to possess trust and faith in the people.
On the issue of ‘land back’ vs. land reform:
Quickly, and for the thousandth time. Luna Oi the Fraud is making it out to seem that myself and other American patriots who oppose ‘land back’ oppose indigenous people being given back land. We don’t, we’re against the empty virtue signalling slogan called ‘land back,’ which bases the pretense to such a transformation on the basis of morality and not concrete political realities.
We are, following the example of all Communists in history, in favor of general land reform, which is not simply based on morality but the material interests of the population of which we constitute a part and which is decisive for enacting its possibility in the first place. Through general land reform, all the particular demands and concerns of indigenous, black. et. al people can be met, why not?
The point is that ‘land back’ is an empty slogan, a worthless form of phrase-mongering that merely entails white people holding reality to an impossible and maximal standard of ‘giving all land back to indigenous people, OR EVERYTHING IS BULLSHIT!’ type of stupid derangement. Land reform means the general redistribution of economic space, or land, to the American people and is thus an opporutnity to do right by indigenous people wronged through broken treaties as wel as black peoples who were never given 40 acres as a mule as promised.
But ‘land back,’ in the context in which this PHRASE is used, is an empty form of virtue signalling in which white leftists make a demand of something on the basis of pure morality, without addressing the material premises behind the political and demotic forces that would make the enactment of such a demand possible in the first place. A typical form of anarchistic stupidity, and it’s no wonder that the lying, cowardly Fraud that is Luna Oi is pushing for it so hard.
INFRARED RISING ☀️ 🦍
Really well written piece that manages to crystallize and preserve a snapshot of the current ideological Internet scene of the 'white left' [perhaps even beyond this particular commentator]. I have to admit I was immediately struck by the bold, stolid declaration in the preamble of how seriously we should take American leftists who fall for the shenanigans of undialectical, anarchistic frauds. Props to you and the Infrared Collective for systematically elucidating and dissecting the distortions and premise-less conclusions that we have all too often seen from fanatical Twitter whirlwinds where reason is discarded for 'team sports'. I am interested to see what response or counterpoints this piece elicits although I dread the dissolution of the critique into the parroting of already addressed points and the usual veiled racial comments about Arab men.