Gangsta King

'Gangsta King' is a term originally coined by Haz in a livestream that took place February 2-3rd 2023, titled My GROUNDBREAKING Political Theory. It refers to rulers and leaders in the 21st century who — by their form of exercising authority, statehood, and sovereignty — go against universal enlightenment liberalism. In the eyes of the establishment, entire states and peoples can be classified as criminal, thus: gangsta. The term is meant to invoke names such as Gaddafi, Maduro, Putin, Khamenei, Assad or Kim Jong Un.

Theoretical underpinnings

The term serves as a serious political statement presented in a jocular manner, a running theme in Infrared thought, which (partly inspired by Zizek) considers memes a serious conveyer of meaning.

Premodern sovereignty

• Mandate from Heaven.
• Divine right of Kings.
• Right by inheritance.
• Metaphysical legitimisations of power structures
• The ways of tradition ruled
• The right of kings was not called into question

The break from premodern sovereignty

The beginning of the end for premodern politics started in the citystates of Italy. In Italy, forms of accumulation began to emerge that operated outside the feudal order. One such system was the various mercantile banks during the 14th and 15th centuries. Families like the Medicis began to delegitimize hereditary or religious claims to power by simply growing their wealth and influence. This material change correpsonded to a shift in the arena of political theory. The french theorist Luis Althusser (foundational to infrared thought), considered The Prince by Machiavelli "the first materialist political philosophy". This is because Machiavelli described relations of power through a non-metaphysical lense.

'Paradise Lost' by John Milton. Hegelian/Zizekian concept of the fall.

After the enlightenment, the ancien regime could no longer legitimize it's own claim to power. Instead we saw the rise of 'universal politics' where everyone by law and in a contractual manner was considered an equal participant of state politics. Open societies.

This gives way to contradictions when material conditions assert themself over the pure form of liberal politics. For example, in western style democracies, we all have the true right to vote, but power itself is somewhere else; Deep states, oligarchies and burocracies.

Malign sovereignty - The class based dialectic between Oligarchy and Sovereigns

In todays age, all forms of sovereignty not carried out in the liberal form are considered malign and illegitimate (which literally means 'not approved by law') in the eyes of the liberal establishment. Some even go so far as to claim that all forms of non-liberal government are fascistic; One example being leftists/anarchists calling the Soviet Union or China red fascism. The more popular one however, is the accusation of authoritarianism or tyranny.

'Gangsta Kings' break the rules of liberalism by concentrating their power in non judicial forms, which allows them to challenge and crack down on the oligarchs oppressing the people, dialectically making the average individual more free. The dialectical relationship in question is that centralization on one level neccesserily corresponds to a decentralizaton on the other. In its modern socialist context the topic has been addressed in the Infrared vision videos: "Stalin: What They Don't Teach You in School" and "The Unknown Cultural Revolution".

This class based dialectic is well established in history. Machiavelli mentions in The Prince how local lords oppress their subjects, while powerful kings can be uplifted by the people as saviours. In Michael Parentis work The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of ancient rome', he expands upon the class struggle in ancient rome between the people, represented by Julius Ceasar, and the elites, who eventually murdered him.

The so called tyranny and authoritarianism.

The historical trend we can observe is that class struggle always gets twisted and misrepresented by the very elites who were challenged:

• Julius Ceasar is often represented as a tyrannt who overthrew democracy, but this democracy was of course not the power of the people, but the unchallenged power of elites.
• Napoleon has been smeared, but he was the one who overthrew the feudal privileges in Europe by making everyone equal before the law (code napoleon).
• The word "Draconic" refers to some form of tyrannical measure. The words origin however, comes from a man named Draco in ancient greece, who produced the first written code of law in Athens. Before Draco, judicial proceedings were carried out by oral tradition, and only the aristocracy had the privilege of "remembering them" (as you can probably imagine, all sorts of trickery and corruption occured). For this crime, Draco was namned a tyrant by the historians of that time, who themselfs came from privileged families.

The exception to the rule is Adolf Hitler, who was often praised by the media in the west at the time. He of course did not run anything by himself, being a meth head and all, but instead left operations to unelected staff, carrying out the order of bankers, and continuing to pay fees to the bank of international settlements. His primary function was an orator, getting votes which would otherwise go to the much feared communist party.

Today, the story is no different. Xi has led his anti-corruption campaign in China, cracking down on partymembers and big business. For this he was called "the next Mao" and a dictator by the MSM. When Putin took power he nationalized the energy, refinanced pension programes and other benefits, while cracking down on critical oligarchs. No doubt the hate against Putin in the western establishment stemmed from him taking back some small amount of Russian sovereignty. If you allow monopoly capital to rape your country, you are fine. As long as you hold elections - no matter if you cheat in them, no matter if you allow your people to starve - you still get to count as a democracy. If you attempt to go the road of Gaddafi, Ibrahim Traoré, Assad or Khamenei, you are immediately discredited and sanctioned.

Gangsta Kings are the main challengers of the establishment: liberal, monopoly imperialism. Thus, they are the strongest weapon against our own ruling class in the west, who suck up our resources and wreck havoc in our ways of life. We offer them critical support, even when they do not perfectly align with us on an ideological basis.

See also: Open society