INTENSE DEBATES | FBI ATTACK | IRAN 'CEASEFIRE?'

Experts that attacked me about my Myanmar is banned, by the way.

Yo, the kid, CCCP, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

What's up?

Appreciate you, bro.

Appreciate it.

Uh what's going on?

Mecca Rep, what's up, Brandon IRO, what's up, y'all, what's up, what's up, what's up, what's up, we're goodin'

Welcome to the infrared podcast, everyone.

Welcome to the infrared webcast.

Uh and wow, I actually have some pretty crazy shit to cover today.

Dead ghost, what's up?

And I'm gonna let the tech people call me out if it's bullshit.

I saw it, I'm sure you may have seen it.

I'm gonna talk about it and actually draw out the implications because there are, in fact, many, I think.

But we're in day three of the ceasefire.

What's going on?

Iran still has the Strait of Wormuz closed.

Israel continues to bomb and attack Lebanon, which Iran regards as a violation of the ceasefire.

Everyone thought that because of the annunciation of the Islamabad talks, the announcement of the Islamabad talks, that the Iran conflict is now suddenly going to come to an end and that it's over.

This is what happened after the 10-day war, the 12-day war, of course.

Lenin Dubois with the five.

Thank you so much, brother.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Everyone thought that.

And this time around, if this ceasefire doesn't last, I'm going to just call it right now, okay?

If this specific ceasefire breaks down and doesn't last,

Everything I said would happen if this doesn't come to an end is gonna happen.

I don't think that the cease unless Iran basically surrenders.

Then the terms of the negotiations will not be acceptable to Iran.

Iran is not going to accept anything short of at least massive U.S.

pullout from the region, control over the Strait of Hormuz, probably indefinitely, ending all of the sanctions, an unlimited cap on the ability to enrich, and so on and so on.

Iran has made it clear those are its terms and conditions, right?

So unless that happens, which I doubt the U.S.

is going to acquiesce to, the war is going to be back on.

And moboy, if it is, get ready for the long haul, for real.

This isn't going to be like the 12-day war.

If these negotiations don't work, then get ready for the long haul, because it's not going to be like the 12-day war.

We're talking about fuel prices going up to the point where air travel is unaffordable, which is already happening, I think.

You know, Jake Shields is trying to bring me to do a podcast, and he's even telling me these tickets are crazy.

I'll talk about that in a second as well because the whole debate thing and how no one wants to debate me, it's pretty hilarious.

Nobody except people I've already dif d debated and humiliated and destroyed.

Of course they want a rematch.

Well, you can get a rematch if you acknowledge the facts of what happened.

Otherwise, why would I waste time debating a delusional person?

You know.

I'll get I'll get in that in a second.

But the price of gas for your cars, unless you're I mean, even electric, because it ultimately runs off gas.

Yeah, everything is going to have to shift to solar, to wind, to things like that, very rapidly in ways I don't think we're going to be able to afford.

Orvo, what's up?

Appreciate you, man.

And we're looking at the it's happening moment, okay?

No, I mean, a gay liar is not willing to debate me actually.

Jake Shields reached out to him and asked him, Will you debate Haas?

He said no.

Very funny.

No, I'm talking about these weird libertarian types who are fucking boring and aren't content and will come to debates with the PPAP shit.

They'll debate me on TikTok, so why would I need to do them debate them on Jake Shields podcast when they'll debate me on TikTok?

Moreover, then you have Bouncy Ben, the pedophile Bouncy Ben.

Honestly, Bouncy Ben, it's like the shit that he's said and he's done, frankly, Bouncy Ben, uh uh there's nothing I could say uh actually on camera, but you know, you've said some things and I don't really think that's gonna be resolved through a debate actually.

Um, you can't just talk all that shit and think it's gonna be chill, it's gonna be fine.

It's not like that.

By the way, he's not even a real, you know, Ryan Dawson's a libertarian.

I do kind of have some respect for Ryan Dawson, although I completely disagree with him.

He is principled.

You can't say that for people like Bouncy Ben, who have no principles, who are Zionist sellouts and shills, who are shilling Malay.

I mean, if you're actually a Ryan Dawson libertarian, you're not pro-Malay, you don't confuse this idea of

you know, destroying the

monopolistic state machine for you know in immiserating and enslaving your entire nation to to IMF loans and to debt and confusing that for you know classical free market economics or something.

It's complete nonsense.

Just credit injections from the Zionist sugar daddies

That bankroll Argentina, right?

So

Yeah, but anyway, that's kind of a sidetrack.

The Iran um conflict is there's no deceleration that we could see in sight.

Um I am very skeptical of a ceasefire.

On the other hand, Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Did say very strangely and ominously, he's reported as saying that he expected this was going to last four weeks.

He said that I think two weeks ago or one week ago, and then it's over.

Does he know something we don't?

I don't know.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see, honestly.

I'm just saying, if it doesn't, it might last.

Maybe Iran sells out.

Maybe something else happens.

Maybe America caves.

If it doesn't last, everyone should become certified drone operators and just prepare for all hell to break loose.

That's all I'm saying.

Just prepare.

We need.

The type of shit we need to be on, honestly, it's like we need to be on the type of shit of what if all the electricity breaks down?

What if the internet is shut off?

What if the internet is destroyed as we know it?

Which

I actually think is possible, even excluding the Iran war.

And I'll tell you about that in a second.

That's fucking crazy shit that I saw.

I want people who are s technically skilled, Christian, always can a can distinguish the bullshit from the real stuff.

What I saw though, I mean, it makes a lot of sense to me that the Internet as we know it is over.

Um and I I could explain why that's gonna happen.

There's just so much.

There's a confluence of factors that just show that shit is hitting the fan, right?

But the type of thing that we need to be on, we need to be thinking about how we could independently generate electricity.

I mean, how do we do that?

If gasoline is too expensive, what do we do?

You know, we need to be, we need to get on that.

There's s extreme like f glowy feds in my chat.

Create sleeper cells ASAP.

You are a fed dude.

What are you talk what are you d what are you talking about?

Uh, anyway, I hope there's people in our party who know about this stuff.

Just kidding, I know there are.

But yeah, we're talking about doomsday type of scenario as far as the normal flow of life in America if the war continues.

Because you know, the 12-day war, we had the 12-day war, and then it was over, and then things went on.

You know, it seems like that's going to happen this time.

But if it still goes on after this, that just shows this will not be resolved diplomatically.

There is no diplomatic avenue for the resolution of this conflict.

If this is not, if the Islamabad talks break down and fail, then the only thing that this is going to conclude in is a qualitative shift in the global system that will be incredibly violent, incredibly abrupt.

And by no means are we going to be having any kind of smooth continuity where things go back to normal and nothing ever happens.

Something actually is going to happen, as a matter of fact.

So that's what we're looking at.

I hope everyone's thinking in those terms.

It seems incredibly logical that this is the case.

Anyway, I want to talk about some pretty scary news.

About how the internet, as we know it, is probably gonna end or something.

I don't know.

I honestly, I don't know.

I have no fucking idea.

I don't know if this is a marketing ploy either, which it may very well be, but I saw what I saw I watched like a thirty minute video on this.

I read a bunch of stuff and I was like this also makes sense to me that AI can just get this advanced.

So apparently Anthropic has released a new model of Claude called Claude Mythos.

which is able to find zero day vulnerabilities and exploits in some of the oldest security software infrastructure that the Internet has been running on for decades.

Uh I forget the exact name of it, but it's like there's this one where they found a 26-year-old zero-day exploit.

That no human is able to find.

That th this is and if you just think about it, if governments have to put together uh cyber warfare divisions and teams, and they take months and months to months to hack uh stuff and find vulnerabilities.

In in in government databases, in private, you know, uh uh user um user data and information and stuff like that, uh, data centers, software, whatever the cloud is hosting.

I'm not a technical expert when it comes to this kind of stuff, so I'm probably using the terms wrong.

But

Uh of course AI can can do that much faster.

Of course AI is gonna be able to eventually get to the point where they can just fucking hack everything.

A lot of their they're put by state actors in the first place.

Very interesting.

Yeah, but AI is gonna totally I mean, that just I think is a better argument for why this is gonna happen.

So supposedly, Anthropic is not releasing Claude Mythos to the public.

It's only being given to the government and a handful of companies right now so that they could patch their vulnerabilities.

But as someone who's not an expert when it comes to coding or tech or any of that kind of shit, what I know is that

Vulnerabilities prop up all the time, and with everything you fix, you open a door somewhere else, right?

And stuff that would usually take weeks to find and weeks to patch or days.

I don't know.

It's like there's going to be a window of they're going to have to patch shit in minutes, you know, in seconds.

And when it leaks and it proliferates and it becomes common for rogue actors and individuals, how are people going to use social media when your account can just get hacked at any time?

How are people going to be able to...

Use banks through the internet, you know, their finances, they have all these passwords and stuff.

Uh, I just saw a thing about, I mean, I'm not gonna get into the quantum commut computing aspect because we all know quantum computing is gonna just destroy all cryptography as we know it.

But this is something that's happened already, apparently, with Claude Mythos, right?

Um

And and and and what's going to happen if this has already happened and AI is accelerating at the pace that it has is that you give it about a year or two and we could very well be looking at the end of the internet as we know it.

And when I say the end of the internet, I don't mean the ability for us to be connected or communicate on a technical level.

I mean the basic premise of having data privacy using the internet through cloud servers and stuff.

Even if your system, your computer, your PC is connected to the internet, somebody's just going to be able to use AI to fucking take control of it and just access all of your files, all your information, your passwords, pretty much everything they want.

And the thing is, that to it to an extent this is already the case.

But with the proliferation of AI, this is going to become decentralized.

This is going to become much easier for anyone to have this.

I you know what I think?

I think okay, I'm going to make a scary prediction, which I'm not that scared of, but many people probably are.

Everyone is just gonna be doxxed.

Like, not only are you gonna be doxed, all your private information is just gonna be exposed.

Everyone in the fucking world.

Like, what we're gonna approach the point where there's gonna be a data leak that compromises every living human being that has ever interacted or used the internet in any capacity ever.

And there's just no nothing you can do about it.

And it's too bad.

And, like, everyone is gonna have access to everything.

You have ever looked at, or saved, or whatever, or interacted with in any kind of way.

And there's some people that are very worried about that.

I'm one of those people who are like.

This is gonna be great.

I'm just kidding.

But it's like, look.

I'm not really ashamed of anything, you know?

So it's like, I really could care less.

But there are people who would, our enemies specifically are deeply pathological people.

I just want to say that.

Our enemies are deeply pathological people.

Imagine how humiliated they would be if their shit got exposed.

They would fucking disappear forever.

They'd be gone.

You know?

I'm just going ahead and say we're approaching that point where nothing is going to be safe.

I'm just saying that.

Um

And I think that it might even be like, I think people underestimate that a lot.

You know, a lot of people talk about, for example, scenarios that are an outcome of warfare.

They talk about scenarios about like EMPs or fuel shortages, which are which is happening for sure.

All other different kinds of civil unrest.

But a universal leak of everyone's data simultaneously so that nothing is private anymore, that there's no such thing as privacy, digital privacy, that that's gone completely.

You have to think about this from a sociological perspective.

You have to think of it.

Well done.

Mm.

You have to think of this from a sociological type of perspective, right?

Um.

That would be a social collapse in and of itself for multiple reasons.

One.

Um the expo uh it's never happened before in history.

Everyone's always had privacy, everyone's always had secrets, but the fact that people think that all those things have been uploaded and can one day just get like everyone's sins are just gonna be exposed.

Uh everything everyone anyone has ever done, it's just gonna be it's gonna be gone.

Anon anonymity is gonna be gone.

Um your privacy will be gone because it was never privacy actually.

You were using tools in a personal way that you thought was private and never was.

That's gonna be gone.

Okay, that enough is gonna cause a lot of fucking chaos.

That's gonna think about how many marriages are gonna end.

Think about how many conflicts are gonna ensue because of that.

Think about how much panic there's going to be and just crazy shit that's just gonna happen just from that alone.

And you haven't really thought it through.

You really haven't thought it through.

Um

Because I haven't even touched the surface of the implications of just that dimension of reput social reputation bullshit alone, right?

I haven't even touched on that.

It's gonna fuck it'll change everything.

Um people will feel like they have nothing to lose.

People it's it'll be fucking crazy, okay?

But then, okay, let's ignore the aspect of the reputation.

Let's just think about.

Things the the things that people depend upon as far as their privacy is concerned.

Finances.

If banking systems and finances can be hacked, even if we ignore conventional banks and just think about crypto, if there's a giant crypto apocalypse where people's fucking wallets are emptied,

Everyone was told blockchain crypto is just so solid, it's so safe, it's not safe.

First of all, most people's crypto coins are hosted on websites like Coinbase and others, which are extremely vulnerable to leaks and data breaches, passwords and you name it.

All they have to do is log into your account, send it to they don't even have to hack into the blockchain per se.

Right?

Um, people will fucking lose everything.

There's no insurance on that.

And then, even if you have the wallet, uh, you know, outside of the uh, the cloud, you have a local wallet.

We're also getting to a point where, you know, quantum computers, I don't know how far along we're with that.

I know those at least, maybe even non-quantum AI, will eventually be able to crack that.

So, just in terms of crypto, people are going to eventually just fucking lose everything.

But I don't think it's going to end with crypto.

I think that people's PayPal, people's banks.

That's why JP Morgan Chase.

Is actually part of Project Sparrow, which Anthropic puts put together.

Chase is one of the companies that actually has access to Claude Mythos for this exact reason.

But it's only a matter of time before the arms it just accelerates and accelerates more.

And they're not going to be able to patch shit fast enough for these zero-day vulnerabilities and exploits to just empty people's wallets.

Where's the insurance?

I mean, we don't fucking know, right?

And in any case, it will cause an immense degree of financial damage to the economy.

It'll cause a lot of chaos at that level alone.

And then the juiciest and scariest part of this that you have to think about.

How many critical systems and infrastructure systems

Are digitally operated?

I don't know the answer to that question.

I know at least some of them are.

Um how what would it take to hack into

Critical infrastructure

That's digital.

you know, that that that could lead to a lot of actual blackouts, um, you know, uh fat fatalities, fatal fatal, um, you know, destructive kind of I mean, like

I mean, we know cars are digital.

Electric cars.

Even non-electric ones to some extent.

But what about trains?

What about airplanes?

What about electrical grids and power grids?

What about nuclear power plants?

I mean, like, how much of this shit is actually vulnerable if it's exposed at that level digitally?

I actually, I don't know.

Think about this in terms of military.

Military hardware, military infrastructure.

How much of that could be exploited if you know all cryptography and cybersecurity just fucking broke down?

Drones?

which are a very critical part of modern warfare today.

Could drone swarms be hijacked remotely by Roma like just think about how fucking crazy this is gonna be.

The basic ability to have control, remote control, over digital uh sorry, sorry, over systems that can be accessed and controlled digitally.

May very well just come to an end.

I mean, like, I don't know how I keep thinking about this in my head.

I'd love for an expert actually to explain it to me.

But here's the common sense that I think about: AI is accelerating at an extremely rapid pace.

LLMs are, right?

And LML LLMs show incredible capabilities as far as finding exploits in software.

And just finding ways to do things that would take human beings years to do, right, or months or weeks or something, right?

And it's it's like universally accessible.

And it doesn't matter how much they hide it or it'll leak.

It it can leak, right?

And then, okay, Claude and the new version of Claude came out.

Wow, whoop-de-doo.

Okay, China's gonna come out with some shit.

Google's gonna come out with some shit.

Everyone's gonna fucking eventually reach the capability that Claude Mythos eventually has, and more, and much, much more, right?

So like if everyone has access to LLMs that are capable of hacking into pretty much any computer anywhere that's connected to the internet in some kind of way,

Um

Isn't that going to make centralized remote control over any computerized system impossible?

Just based on common sense?

Isn't it going to be like the Wild West?

Like, if you get into a fucking electric car that's connected to the internet remotely, you're not driving that bitch.

Some fucking guy in Thailand is going to take it over and fucking crash if he wants to.

What's going to stop?

What is going to guarantee?

User control over computer systems with the growth, the rapid proliferation and acceleration of AI.

I don't know the answer to that question.

But everything seems to be pointing in the direction that I've been talking about for months and months now, which is the blackout era, the dark era, the new dark ages, right?

Where the only safe bet you're going to fucking have is riding a fucking horse or some shit.

The only safe bet, the only safe thing is going to be going dark.

The only safe thing is to not be connected.

The only safe thing is to disconnect.

The only safe thing is to do it the old way, the old-fashioned way, right?

And um

I I don't see like this is the scenario that I'm anticipating.

I I feel like it's crazy to say it out loud.

I just don't think it's crazy when you think about it, that this could very well happen.

Based on a confluence of so many different factors, it seems like we're going in this direction.

Uh I have an actual okay before I roast you I need to know how long okay 15 month subscriber

Are you saying Skynet is going to

Just don't say anything at all if you're not gonna pay attention to what I say.

Alright, just don't say anything at all.

Just be a lurker.

Just watch the stream and lurk.

Alright?

Anyway, I I just I don't I don't know what to say.

I mean like I don't I don't know how you get that at all.

Um

So look, I think that is that makes this apocalyptic prepper scenario quite likely, actually.

And it reminds me of a great video game which I did not do a review of, but I did play in s in uh secret 'cause I I had to I I had to play games in secret.

I did play Death Stranding 2.

And it was absolutely a great, beautiful game whose significance and whose richness I still have not fully drawn out, but I'm starting to only now.

Death Stranding two is of course about Death Stranding one is the traditional, you know, Oriental empire, uh, you know, laying the critical common infrastructure that

You know, cements together a a a unified society.

Of course, it's like he's Gilgamesh or something.

He's connecting everyone so that they have to depend upon the same central infrastructure, connecting them to the chiral network or whatever, right?

Death Stranding 2 is about how the same chiral network is being exploited by rogue actors to you know accelerate the

political fragmentation of society through the proliferation of weapons and AI weapons technologies, which actually make

Coexistence dangerous and being connected to the grid more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

And it's crazy that Death Stranding 2 is made.

It's like the Death Stranding 1 was about COVID.

Death Stranding 2 is about the Ukraine war and the thing that's probably coming soon in modern societies in Europe and America, which is basically the breakdown of centralized power grids and the political fragmentation through the proliferation of decentralized technologies that allow people to no longer have to be mutually dependent in the ways that they were before in a common state framework at least.

And um, that's an ex yeah, Kojima's like, he knows shit, because I think he's connected to the fucking deep state or some shit.

I don't know.

He knows shit for sure.

Um g yeah, that that was a very powerful game, right?

Anyway, I I I'll I'll write something about it eventually, maybe.

But um

I don't want to dwell on that too much.

I want to focus more on, you know, at hand the the the problem of this like immediate issue, which is um

Look, we are preparing for it as fast as we can and with the resources that we have.

But get certified and get licensed.

To use ham radio.

This is all chapters should have already gotten the memo.

Okay, a few chapters have already.

But some of you are slower than others and you need to get ham radio certified, you need to get the ham radio and you need to coordinate with the tech department on that front.

Uh there's also other plans the tech p department has for things like this.

Uh some will take a much longer than that, and I don't know how much time we have, but uh we definitely have some plans for sure.

So, um, I just wanted to say that I think I don't a lot of people aren't talking about it, and some people are saying that Claude Mythos is just a marketing gimmick, Project Sparrow, whatever this is, it's just a marketing gimmick.

Maybe I'm not an expert when it comes to software development or things like that, but what I will say is this: okay, even if that is a marketing gimmick,

AI is just going to get more and more advanced, and it's not unreasonable to think that it's going to become far more proficient in finding zero-day vulnerabilities than what the current models are capable of.

It's just very logical to assume that's going to happen.

And maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong.

But I think that that will ve that w could very well happen, right?

Even forgetting about the quantum computing thing, which a lot of people say is sci-fi.

I don't know about that.

I think it's a lot of that is already actually working.

It's actually a real thing.

By the way, guys, I'm reading a book that I want to recommend to you about the revolutionary dynasty.

Actually, I'm not going to share it with you until I finish it.

Never mind.

I'm not gonna share that with you.

Uh now I have to show you some stuff.

Remember the chair lady?

The chair lady, she's so big, she's on the Walmart scooter.

Apparently, they made a tweet accusing our Epstein video of purely being performative and theatrical and being the same as the frogs dancing at the liberal protests.

Well, my response to chair lady is um

You should consider getting a solar-powered Walmart scooter because the prices of gas seem to be going up considerably, and I don't know how long you can power that by plugging it into a wall or whatever.

And the second thing I have to say is that this would basically mean that every theatrical and ceremonial thing that political organizations and state and non-state actors do is completely pointless.

Which, I guess, if you're a retarded nerd, would make sense to you.

But in the real world, that's just not the case.

A fundamental dimension of politics is, in fact, theatrical.

And is in fact propagandistic and oriented toward the communication of specific narratives and so on and so on.

You know, Iran does the same thing.

Plenty of other non-state actors across history did the same thing.

Ceremonial commemorations of the Paris Commune, of events, I mean, all sorts of purely ceremonial things are done by communist parties and other just part of what politics is.

Okay, so if people are confused about, oh, it's just so performative that they're executing Epstein instead of actually executing the real Epstein in real life, you could be neurodivergent.

You could definitely be neurodivergent.

I think it's very possible.

You don't understand what symbolism is.

You don't understand what a representation is.

You think that everything directly has to be the thing itself because you're a pervert.

That's, by the way, the definition of a pervert.

You know, it's like a pervert will, a pervert's way of flirting is just like, let's fuck.

Like, that's a pervert's way of flirting, right?

And so, these people are perverts who just think that everything has to directly be the thing itself.

And the dimension of like symbolism, representation, indirectness, and so on, mediation, they dismiss that entirely and say, that's completely useless because I already know the real thing.

Why go through the detour?

I already know the real thing.

Yeah, but you're a pervert.

You have psychosis.

You're a pervert.

That's why.

Um you are a psychological monster and uh you should be locked up, frankly.

You're not human, you're post-human monstrosity.

Maybe also neurodivergent, who knows?

Maybe that's maybe that's also the thing.

All right, I have something pretty hilarious.

To show you that doesn't even make a whole lot of sense to me, if I'm being honest.

Let me show this to you.

Like, this is fucking crazy.

First of all, this why is this on the news?

Read this.

Jake Shields seeks Debater to defend capitalism against Haas in communism versus capitalism debate.

So that hit that became trending.

Uh let's see the and but it doesn't make sense though because here's w what does this tweet have to do with it?

Okay, here's great, this is great, but what does this tweet have to do with it?

Slavery is just taxation.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

That's not even related to me.

Some a lot of this is not related to me.

Oh, the cope here is incredible though, because you have a few smaller libertarian accounts, which I mean, I could debate you.

I don't know if Jake Shields.

Wants to go through the trouble of like bringing you out because you're irrelevant.

But as I said, I'll debate anyone.

So I don't know these small libertarian names that their people are tagging.

Oh, Haas, debate this person.

Okay, I mean, I literally, you could debate me tonight, by the way.

I'm a pretty accessible person.

Profound.

Actually, I would say I'm a profoundly accessible person.

But, um, you could debate me tonight.

I mean, but you know, do you are you gonna have the honor of like this big, big like spectacle ceremony?

I mean, probably not.

You're just not that relevant.

And uh, I want to talk about the Jake Shields thing in a second.

Um, I want to get to bouncy pedophile Ben, though.

Bouncy Ben, the pedophile.

He keeps demanding a rematch, bouncy Ben, you pedophile, who texts and sects minors or whatever, right?

Um

In order to get a rematch

You have to acknowledge you lost the last one.

We did have a debate, actually, and that debear is an outcome of that debate.

Now, if you're not content with the outcome of that debate, you have to say so.

I am content with the outcome of our first debate.

So, if you want to debate me again, you have to acknowledge the debate rules that you yourself agreed to before the debate happened, which is that I won and you lost.

We agreed to an Oxford-style debate where there is a clear winner and there's a clear loser.

You didn't have to do that.

You could have said, I don't want a clear winner or clear loser.

I want it to be ambiguous.

Fine.

Um, and and there's actually numerous grounds that I would consider reasonable for rematches, okay?

One of them is the debate was originally very friendly and very cordial and whatever, and then later they went and talked shit and started ya.

So then you say, Okay, let's have a proper fucking debate then where I'm gonna actually press your bitch ass, right?

So, for example, uh, the debate that I had with Keith Woods, Keith Woods, I was, I didn't know who he was, but I was very good faith and so on.

I wasn't being adversarial, I wasn't being hostile, I was schooling him definitely on the facts, but he decided to later, you know, um, act like he won or something, right?

So it's like, okay, you want to be it that way, then let's actually fucking debate.

Like, let's actually have you versus me, let's actually fucking see who knows their shit, right?

Any issue, and you know.

That's proper grounds for a rematch.

Also, when there is no like clear winner or loser according to a formal standard, that's another thing, right?

But when there's an Oxford-style debate where there's a clear winner, there's a clear loser.

Um you have to acknowledge what happened.

You have to acknowledge that you lost.

If you I I actually I will do a rematch if you acknowledge you lost.

I'll do a rematch if you acknowledge you lost.

And um

You also have you're also going to be confronted with all the shit you were talking.

These are the two things.

Because there's actual personal beef now.

You understand?

So the conditions for a rematch with pedophile bouncy Ben are: he has to acknowledge he lost the last debate, and he has to be prepared to be confronted with all the bullshit he's been talking and yapping about.

And he will be confronted with that.

All right.

And so these are the two conditions.

For someone I already destroyed and humiliated.

Imagine me who just loves to destroy and defeat people.

That I already fucked someone up and I'm willing to do it again.

But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is going to wiggle and weasel and worm their way out of acknowledging the outcome, right?

If you can't acknowledge the outcome of what happened the first time, you're not going to acknowledge the outcome of what happened the second time.

So why should I waste my fucking time?

Right?

Isn't that make perfect sense?

I mean, I fucked you up the first time.

You're not, I am satisfied with that.

If you're not satisfied with it, you have to acknowledge that you were fucking schooled and humiliated.

And this rematch for you is your redemption arc.

That this is, for you, you think you're going to have a chance to redeem yourself.

Okay.

I will destroy your delusion that you think that a second time you're going to be able to do what you couldn't do the first time.

I will absolutely fucking decimate you and destroy you ruthlessly a second time.

More than the first, actually, when I was quite professional, right?

But you have to acknowledge the record first of what happened.

That's the simple thing.

You have to acknowledge first what happened, right?

So, you know, anyone who wants to talk this nonsense.

Um

It's as simple as that.

And there's some people that are claiming they want to debate me.

I look at their profile, they have 5,000 followers.

Look, I will debate you.

We could find a time or a format with which to debate you.

But Jake Shields wants an in-person debate.

You understand?

If you're a small account,

I don't know the person's name, I just I saw it.

They're like, I'll take this challenge up.

Okay, yours is pretty small account though.

And you're also anonymous, so would you even be willing to go in person?

Meo, what's up?

But even if you were, I don't know if you're worth the trouble of for this specific venue, like being flown out and having it be in person.

So we could debate for sure.

But uh you're not gonna have the format you want.

And that's just how it works, right?

I'll debate anyone, by the way.

There's nobody I've ever refused to debate.

Amila, thank you so much, by the way.

What's up?

There's absolutely never a circumstance which I'll turn a debate down.

Really, I can't really think of an exception.

I mean, I've debated people multiple times.

That's how much.

I thrive with debates.

So, you know.

But that's just how it's going to be.

Now, I am going to still have a conversation with Jake Shields, regardless.

There's going to be a podcast.

I'm just going to be there for a few days.

So, there's going to be a podcast conversation.

And then he also wanted to host a debate.

And if the debate can't happen, there's another thing lined up, which is also pretty cool.

Which is I'm going to be talking to some people.

I'm not going to name them.

They're quite large influencers for another, a different podcast, right?

So that is on the table as well, right?

That's so it's uh regardless, there's gonna be good content that comes out of it.

Regardless, it's gonna be very good exposure.

And uh, you know.

So, yeah, that's happening next week, by the way.

That's happening next week.

So if the Nevada chapter is anywhere in the vicinity, I could this would be the opportunity that I could visit your chapter and so on.

Uh I don't I don't actually know where the Nevada chapter is located.

In Nevada.

But I will be in I don't know if I the location is publicly in information, so I won't say.

We do have a Nevada chapter.

What are you talking about?

We do.

So, yes, we have a Nevada chapter.

I'm going to be going to Nevada.

And that's going to be very exciting.

Okay, so that's something we have lined up in the short term.

You could look forward to it.

It's going to be great.

It's going to be great, profound, wonderful content.

And uh

That's the mystery behind that.

You know, people

There's a profound shift happening in this country right now.

And I'm sick of these fucking liars sitting here pretending like this is a conflict between Republicans and Democrats.

And I sound like this sounds like so tired and old and repeated.

But like, there's genuinely leftists who are like, there's all these Trump supporters versus the liberals, and that's what's going on.

That's not what's fucking going on.

MAGA proper has actually not only split, I would say 75%.

Maybe even more than that actually, maybe 90% of the actual d like when I say MAGA I mean like people who weren't conventional Republican voters but only came on board for MAGA, right?

I'd put it 75 to 90% of them have left Trump.

But they're not Democrats.

You understand?

They're part of this new anti-Epstein popular momentum.

Radicalized by the Epstein files, by Israel, by other kind of things, right?

And that base is so fucking broad and like encompassing.

And leftists are sitting here still trying to grift off of Democrats.

To put it generously, when in reality they're following Democrats, if we're being actually bluntly honest about what's going on.

And the only people on the left who are tapping into this new zeitgeist and political realignment is the American Communist Party, which is why we take the W and we're going to fucking win, right?

That's why the future is ours ultimately.

We're lined up.

We are lined up and poised and prized.

Primed.

And guys, what we need desperately is introductory educational content.

They fucking fuck with us, man.

They fuck with us.

The masses fuck with us.

Big time.

They like the shit they're seeing.

Everything our party does, they like what they're seeing.

But they just don't have introductory educational content.

They don't have that documentary.

They don't have the documentary.

They don't have the documentaries.

Put them in plural perhaps.

We need documentaries for sure.

We need to pump those documentaries out.

We have plans for that already, but that's the next big fucking thing we're going to need to do.

We need documentaries to just show them and just spread around and just share, share, share.

Introductory educational content to communism.

And

We have absolutely garnered the attention we want, but people are confused.

Like, okay, I mean, I fuck with you, commies, but I don't really know what communism is.

I don't know what Marxism is all about.

I just kind of scratching their head.

Like, I don't really know what that is, you know.

So, we need to show them what it is, not just through what we're doing, which we've already got that on the checklist.

We need the introductory educational content through documentaries, okay?

And that will have to be done.

You know, the party can't directly do it per se, but we're going to have to do it.

And also, absolutely, you can use AI to expedite the process of video editing and creating visuals to accompany scripts that are written by the human hand.

Don't use AI to write scripts.

That's my limit, by the way.

I'm a textualist.

I'm kind of a textualist.

My limit when it comes to AI is the written form.

Using AI to generate text is subhuman.

Like, quite literally, subhuman, right?

I'm completely fine with visuals using AI.

I'm fine with video, even music.

Pretty much editing.

I don't have a problem with AI.

I have a problem with AI scripts.

Uh I have a problem with using AI to generate language and literally like you're using AI to speak to me.

You are subhuman if you are using AI to communicate.

That is actually the core essence of Slop.

Okay?

Scripts should be written by the human hand.

Thoughts should be articulated purposefully and intentionally.

Through your through your actual writing.

I am so fundamentalist when it comes to being anti-AI in the written form.

And I can justify that to Helen back.

Okay.

It's like because at one point,

You need to understand how AI is starting to lock in a specific Epsteinian subjectivity, which is very dangerous.

The only liberation, the only freedom we have is through the textual written medium, actually.

That's the most fundamental level of the articulation of thoughts.

Why?

Because in what language do you think?

You think.

You think through words.

You think through words, do you not?

Your thoughts take the form of language and speech.

That's the most fundamental you that there is.

That's the most fundamental articulation of thought that there is.

So, how do you even have the necessary will?

How can you articulate the necessary will to know what you want the AI to be prompted to say?

Right?

That's what's scary about AI text when you think about it.

Because how do you know what you want it to say?

Well, you type it out, right?

That's the the the the most fundamental manner by which we are capable of articulating our will in the most immediate sense is through language and specifically through the written or the spoken form.

If you're too lazy to to struggle with that and you're telling AI generate me this text

Um well what at where is the motivation coming from?

Like what is the intention?

'Cause I'll tell you what it seems to increasingly be.

AI the slop is not a result of AI images or video generation or any of that.

AI slop is a consequence of AI replacing human language itself.

and thought.

That's the problem.

Because at a certain point, what what what all of this is tending toward, what all of this is bending toward, I should say, is that we're coming to a conclusion where you're pressing a button like an animal, like a literal zoo animal.

That the only way the AI knows what to do to satisfy you, to exercise your will, is you're a monkey saying, peanut, peanut, peanut, as in an extremely crude uh kind of neurochemical reaction that is elicited

um through visual or auditory other kind of stimuli.

And it's kind of like the dopamine chase.

I want that, I want that, I want that.

Instead of articulating your

soul in an intentional way, with any intention whatsoever, your basest pleasures are going to become mechanized and auto and fulfilled automatically.

And the ability for you to articulate why you enjoy the things that you do

Is go you're you're no longer gonna be able to have any kind of ability to reflect on the things you enjoy.

You're you're gonna continue doom scrolling and you're gonna see the AI fruit videos where Waterina cheats on the water guy with a Mr.

Fantastic, which actually happened.

And okay, you're gonna keep you you you like it, you watch it, it's like you're a baby, you're a child.

And uh not to moralize, but it's like th that's really the problem is that

That's the essence of brain rot in a lot of ways when you think about it.

It's like the loss of the ability to just articulate and have any kind of clarity whatsoever as far as what your intentions are.

Because I don't agree with the Epsteinian model of humanity, which we are being locked into.

Which is to say, yes, I think people could become brain rotted by porn.

I think people can go down loops and circuits that intensify the process of acquiring, you know, the dopamine fix.

This is kind of a mythological, metaphorical, kind of fucking window dressing on what is really the Lacanian object A and the surplus Louisance.

But anyway.

Um

Chasing the dopamine fix, so to speak, can land you in uh strange places that are in no way necessarily reflective of who you are deep down.

I mean, I kind of th you know what I think?

I think porn addicts who are controlled by the algorithm, I think that they accidentally end up with like um with like uh like weird fetishes, like I don't know, like

I'm looking at Mike Prices right now.

Game.

Alright guys, look, the price of this mic, ones if you can hear me, this mic costs $200.

I don't know if I need a $200 mic to replace this, but I'm willing to fucking just buy it right now.

But you guys have to fund it.

Crappin', you know.

I'm just k whatever.

Let's just move on, right?

Let's just move on.

Um, because I don't know why this is actually, I did replace my wire.

I've done so many things to figure out why this is fucking happening and um.

I don't know.

What if it's I have to t test a bunch of things?

Comrade Kate, what's up?

I'm gonna have to have an entire stream dedicated solely to the mic.

Honestly, I'm gonna have to fucking like troubleshoot.

Sue is the problem, the reason it's frustrating, guys, is because.

Thank you so much, Suez.

The reason it's frustrating is because.

It does work sometimes, so like it just randomly stops working.

I don't know how to test for that.

I don't know how to test if I fixed it or not.

When it's just gonna continue to randomly just stop working.

Like, how do I test if it's working or not?

You know?

And also I don't know if it's a kick problem.

Or something else?

Um, I I definitely need to find a way to like figure this shit out for sure.

Um

You know?

So I don't know.

Anyway guys, let me continue what I was saying.

I think that there's people with porn fetishes that randomly end up because they were just being controlled by an algorithm and the only like willpower and variable that was in command Sophia, what's up?

The only like human element that was in command was this extremely crude like dopamine fix that is formally blind.

The dopamine fix is blind to the structure that's it's blind to the content that's structuring it, right?

So I can imagine there's a guy who is like an entirely normal or we should say typical person who had a porn, you know, got addicted to porn and then ended up

Like wanting to fuck animals or something, like ended up with like the obesity porn or something.

And it's not because they were inherently disposed to that, it's just because they were blind to the way that the algorithm was structuring their desires.

Because the only variable that they were attentive to was this kind of like dopamine, this very blind dopamine that is absolutely blind to the content structuring it, right?

So it's like I think that's happening on multiple other levels.

Porn addiction is like the most extreme one.

Multiple other levels in terms of people's sensibilities, people's politics, people's consciousness in general.

And the Epsteinian Epsteinian framework of man is basically like, yeah, that's just humans are just chasing dopamine.

That's not true, though.

When we, our dopamine fix is structured, it has a structure.

And that structure is rooted in something that we are accountable to because it's the form of meaning.

You understand?

The structure that the way our enjoyments are structured is ultimately rooted in our horizon of meaning.

And we are responsible for that horizon of meaning.

We are responsible for it.

We do have to be accountable to it.

Even if we repress that accountability, we ultimately are, right?

It's on us.

And the only way we're able to articulate that relationship is through language.

That's the only way we can do it, just through language.

And so the problem with AI, the real problem with AI, is that if when it's replacing that level of our ability to articulate the horizon of meaning that ultimately determines us,

Uh we are allowing the Epsteinites to do that for us.

And that's why I think AI text is dangerous.

You're basically allowing the system

The status quo as it's currently structured to think for you.

And it could jeer you in a million different directions.

You could just be jeered and taken for a ride in a million different directions and be defined in a way that you don't actively participate in.

I'm not saying we can fully define ourselves based on what we want to define ourselves as, but we should participate in the process of how we're defined as human beings.

We should at least actively be involved in that in some kind of way and participate in it.

Maybe that's petty bourgeois of me to say.

Maybe.

No, I don't think so.

I think that there's definitely something very spiritually Israeli about Grok.

Whenever I see a Grok generated tweet or a Grok generated article, like that hit piece that guy tried to write about us, I kind of just immediately get to thinking in my head, like this is so fucking spiritually Israeli.

There's something like about this where it's like, this is the status quo that we're locked.

It's like so Zog coded.

We're locked into this status quo.

And

We should purely just kind of trust our blind, like immediate.

uh immediate circuits of enjoyment basically.

And not have any other kind of relationship to the underlying structure of our enjoyment and of our speech and of our meaningfulness and so on and so on.

And so, um

I I I have a special kind of intolerance for AI generated text.

There's exceptions, like if it's just like for coding or something, I get it, you know, people are but you know what I mean, right?

I think that should re remain sacred.

Poetry and literature, you should not be given to AI.

Uh the visual medium, AI can be a great tool for that.

The auditory medium, AI can be a profound tool for that.

But what gives us control over the visual, visual, auditory, and so on and so on generation, AI generated visual, auditory content?

What gives us control over that?

Or what gives us active involvement in that?

Language.

I mean, even writing the prompts is.

Is like a it takes effort to get a good prompt.

The only thing that allows us to use AI as a tool is a command of speech.

When we give that itself,

To AI.

We fucking lose everything, right?

Uh yeah, the the problem the AI slop is not a consequence of the visual medium or the auditory medium.

The reason there's a slopification effect happening is that the prompts themselves are becoming generated by AI.

That's why the fruit you think do you think that humans are writing manually prompts for the fruit AI videos with Waterina?

No, AI is writing those prompts.

That's why they follow the same format of the Cook Old story.

And all it takes is one to go viral and then, you know, in in New Delhi they'll feed it into the AI and say, Give me another one that goes viral using whatever prompt you need to and that's how it's fucking happening.

Right?

It's an Israel coefficient.

Jesus motorcycle

Is producing good AI content because he's not allowing AI to generate the prompt.

At some level, he is in command of the inputs.

He wants it to be a certain way.

He's very actively involved in that process of what it's ultimately going to look like and be like.

He's not giving the whole thing.

There's something so spiritually like.

I don't want to be racist, but it's I'll just say Hindufta.

There's something spiritually like

Hindufta slop about AI, not even just spiritually Israeli, 'cause it's like

You're so excited that AI can like automate this process that would otherwise take months and months.

I get it.

But then people get too excited and they're like, I just want AI to automate the entire fucking creative process itself.

I don't even want to be involved at all.

Like, AI, can you generate something interesting for me?

It's like, wait a minute.

Interest is not something that can be AI generated.

You have to know what is interesting.

You have to be involved in the generation of interesting things.

People get too fucking excited and they're just like, no, I just want to fucking sit on my couch and.

You know, whatever.

That's honestly the problem with it.

It's not actually the tools, it's the way people are using them.

It's how people are using them, right?

Basically.

So those are my God-honest thoughts when it comes to

uh LLMs and AI generated models and all those kind of things.

And um

Honest to God, you know.

Now, ones, if you are excited for the debates.

Once if you're excited for debates, we're gonna get into debates.

'Kay.

Uh twos if you would want these to be on TikTok once again.

Wow, some of you guys want them on X.

That's crazy.

All right, well, they are going to be on TikTok.

Alright, so I'm gonna be careful this time and not get de-boosted like I was last time.

Nazi, you will see you are the only one for me X is fucking garbage, guys.

I don't know why you want Confront the Chairman on X.

Th we don't ever get good content from that.

Alright, we're going.

We'll see, we'll see.

You are the only one for me.

What's up, guys?

I'm back.

Alright, so we're gonna be uh

Yeah, and stay stay stay here, guys.

Don't don't don't migrate over there to boost me or everything.

Just stay here.

You know, we are we are this is like hell divers, right?

We're diving into this space, this very brain rotted space, and um

You know, we're we it's it's ultimately for the purpose of education, for good content, and so on and so on and so on, right?

Comrade Kid, what's up man?

Thank you.

So, yeah, we're gonna be basically talking about communism without the PPAP.

I kind of underestimated that when I as I've been doing these.

I actually have never experienced the TikTok debate space.

So, when people join and they're like, I want to debate, and I'm like, Okay, finally, they're like, Okay, PP poop.

This is what you mean by debate.

This is what you're like unironic.

I remember this was kind of like this in the early days of.

twenty one when I started out, there were some people like that.

But um really the PPAP thing is crazy, you know.

I was not anticipating that at all.

I I actually I didn't know people unironically still do that.

Honest to God, I had no idea that's still a thing people do.

You know, it's actually quite baffling.

Somebody said, Pass, I like driving my BMW.

But I bet you go to bed sleep crying every night 'cause you're lonely and you have no purpose in your life.

You know?

I bet every night you cry.

You know, that's why these people that have all this wealth.

They're not happy.

The people in ACP

are happy.

Do you understand?

There's a we got a genius in here.

They're like, Do you know Midwestern Marks?

No, I don't know him.

No idea who they are.

I've never I've never heard of them.

Sir Xavier, we got someone already.

What's going on?

What's up, family?

What's going on?

Yeah, I just wanted to chop it up about cooperatives, your perspective on it.

If it's a tool in your tool belt of Towards Revolution, we do it.

Hey, big ups.

Yeah, we do it.

We definitely.

What do you say to the?

Yeah.

Yeah, we got multiple cooperative enterprises we're trying to get off the ground that are in the works.

That's how we're planning on funding our party, though.

Come on, man.

What do you say to the communists that say, hey, that's a liberal tool in their tool belt?

That's lowercase liberal.

Where are they getting their money from?

That's my question.

How do they get funded?

How do you fund a Lendinist party?

That's what I had.

That's you can't fund a Lendinist party with a nine to five.

I mean, you got to actually.

You have to generate revenue.

I mean, it's like people, you know, a lot of the, I'm going to tell you the truth.

A lot of these leftists who have a problem with it, they are usually, I'm not saying this, there's anything wrong with it.

They are trust fund babies, you know, and they don't understand that things aren't free in life.

and that being a principled communist isn't free, that you actually have to like economically pay for your existence if you want to in any way be involved in any kind of organization.

So they just assume it's gonna somehow fall out of the sky or something like that.

And yeah, there's somebody named Quinn, CPUSA on Cloud.

That's a Yayanist organization.

So that's a very pro-Israel organization.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

Reping the CPUSA, the Democrat Party appendage.

Wait, break that down.

I'm not even familiar with that over you.

The CPUSA?

Is that Communist Party USA?

The so-called, yeah, so-called Communist Party USA.

So basically, this is a party.

A great example.

They're funded by an outfit called People's World.

People's World is run by Sam Webb and other people who say they're no longer communists.

They're just Democrats.

And the salaries of all the people who are in the leadership of CPUSA get funded by People's World.

And therefore, they make the entire organization about canvassing for Democrats.

And they claim that they run their own candidates, but the candidates they're claiming are actually members of the Democratic Party and will at most publicly say that they're part of the DSA.

Maybe they joined CPUSA 20 years ago and CPUSA remembers them and they claim them.

But it's all people who run as Democrats.

Anyway, the CPUSA doesn't believe in independent politics.

They're not a Leninist party.

And then, furthermore, during the height of the Iran conflict, when we were attacking Iran, they issued a statement condemning the government in Iran, along with the Tudah party, who are imperialist collaborationists.

So, this is what the CPUSA.

Uh did okay.

So sorry, uh, Xavier, apparently Quinn will actually have the courage to confront me, which is incredible.

Okay, he's calling me a Nazbull.

Let him on.

Where is he?

So you don't know what a NASBull is, and that's great, but uh how could you maintain how could you sustain that view where NASBulls?

First of all, what is a NASBull?

Do you even know what it is?

Second of all, how are we NASBulls?

Like we're the most internationalist oriented.

We are far more internationalist than the CPUSA.

Jackson Hinkle was in Yemen.

Chris Halali was in Yemen.

Chris Halali was in Western Sahara.

He's just about everywhere you can think of.

Was CPUSA in Yemen?

Was CPUSA in Lebanon for the funeral to pay respects?

Who's the internationalist and who's did the CPUSA visit Donbass?

Who's the internationalist and who's the nationalist?

CPUSA advocates for voting for the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, the ACP is showing solidarity, internationalist solidarity to the revolutionary forces worldwide.

So who's the NASBOL and who's really the inter-NASBOL, right?

Who's the NASBOL and who's the inter-NASBOL?

ACP is literally around the world supporting the revolutionary forces of the world in internationalist solidarity while the CPUSA is tailing the Democratic Party within the US, which is responsible for the genocide in Palestine.

Among other things.

Who's the nationalist and who's the internationalist?

Let's hear it.

You know?

I just I can't even believe a CPUSA member is engaging in this line of attack.

So where is Quinn?

They said they were going to join.

Where are they?

Um this person's

Name is Malrick.

We'll bring them on first.

Go ahead, Malorik.

Yo, I low-key don't understand communism.

like um certain types of it.

No, there's only one type.

Let's not talk about certain types.

There's only one type.

There's only ever been one type.

Like factions of communism.

Like, I'm.

There's only one.

Uh what do you mean?

There's only one meaningful communist tradition, all right?

It's the one that rules China right now.

I'm a I'm I currently identify as a council communist yeah but that's made up that's not real that's a completely fake LARP ideology it's it's there's nowhere in the real world does that it does that mean anything it's completely fake yeah it's completely fake and made up it means literally nothing because I don't know where I am because I don't really understand and no communism is what it is there's one communism

There's one communist tradition, and it's the one that has actually affected history.

That's become a part of history.

Communism's always been, according to Karl Marx, a material force.

Okay?

There's only been one communist tradition because there's only one history.

Now, if you want to say you're a council communist, where has that in any tangible material form affected history in any kind of way ever?

It hasn't.

It hasn't because it's meaningless.

It's a completely meaningless LARP ideology that has no real world significance at all and never will.

I guess, bro, because something hasn't happened yet.

That means it's not significant yet.

Or that it's not significant and never will be.

Anton Pancake, his name is Pancake, Pana, Pana, Pana Coke, some Dutch nonsense gibber name.

He was gibbering a hundred years ago.

Why has nothing happened in a hundred years since he was theorizing about his love of pederastry?

I don't know.

He was probably wrong about his ideas.

Yeah, he was.

I think so too.

So that should close the book on so-called council communism.

It really doesn't.

Okay, why has it not?

Because it really doesn't attack the ideas of countercommunism.

Okay, they mean nothing.

I promise they mean nothing.

I mean, I I still believe in a stateless I just I d I'm kind of having trouble the idea of all society being ruled directly by councils.

Is a methodologically individualist understanding of power and politics which neglects to understand how authority has to be centralized.

Authority has to be singular and tangible and determinate.

There is no way to have a clean continuity between the will of the individual and the will of the collective.

There's absolutely no way to, through the mediation by the council, account for the founding sin of real genuine authority, that it is a singular voice, it is a singular form that embodies and represents the universal.

There's no way for that to be bypassed somehow by const everyone voting in a council about what toilet paper should be, how they should wipe their ass in the morning or something.

There's no way to bypass.

The need for authority.

None.

So this is what Engels understood and when he wrote on authority, right?

It's just like on a ship.

When you're on a ship, everyone submits to the authority of the captain without question.

There's no council on the ship saying this is no, there's one captain that everyone has to fall back on without question.

Right.

Because the collective is one, right?

If the collective is one, which it is, if we're communists, there's one communist society, there's one determinate, integral unity of labor, right?

Because we exist in a division of labor, communism is an integral unity of labor, social labor.

It takes a singular universal form, okay?

Then it has to acquire intentionality in a singular way.

There's no way to determine that through councils from the bottom up.

There's just no way to do that.

Yeah, that's why I said I was maybe leaning towards it, but I don't know.

I don't know enough about it.

Somebody t s there there's somebody claiming ACP is Yanis.

No, you must have us confused for the CPUSA, which condemned the Iranian government in the middle of the war.

We, on the other hand, were in the stadium during the funeral in Lebanon.

We saw the IDF planes fly over us.

It was us who were in Yemen.

We were the ones.

We are the ones who are targeted by Mossad bots online through you, by the way, you nobodies with ten followers on X who somehow can say bad things about us and get ten, twenty thousand likes and you you mean to tell me those are human beings and not Mossad bots?

Go ahead, Charlie.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

I'll keep it quick though.

So.

Um

You're a communist, right?

Correct.

Have I talked to you before?

No.

No.

All right.

So enlighten me.

Do um do you believe in like moving on from the Vanguard party?

No.

No?

Why not?

No.

Why don't you?

Why don't I?

Because

Because, in order to be communists and in order to be revolutionaries, we have to establish our own community, our own organization, our own walking the talk, right?

Before we can talk to society, before we can before our message can be delivered to the rest of society, it has to acquire the form of an organization that we're accountable to internally.

We have to actualize the law exclusively, internally, before we have the right to tell society what the truth is.

So, um

not moving on from the Vanguard party, do you not feel like that might uh contradict the actual goal of your ideology?

Because I mean No No?

Because you if you don't move on from the Vanguard party, doesn't that um already establish classes, a class system?

Like what I'm getting at, so I'll just give you

What about like the Bolsheviks?

You know what about like um Praise them Praise them?

I mean what about sound?

Glory to Stalin!

You don't have like an issue with like

The like the Lord More or anything like that.

You want me to answer that?

Yeah.

Hello.

I'm just kinda confused on like your

Your view, like, what's your end goal in a society at?

Or, like, let me say this.

What's what do you hope turns out?

From your form, your view on this system of governing and political science.

Like what do you hold?

Turns out.

What do I hope turns out?

Yeah, I'm just confused.

All we know is what's turning in right now.

And you respond to it like a man or like a slave living on your knees.

You understand?

We're not here.

It's not very complicated.

Okay, do I look like a chef?

I know I'm cooking.

Do you think I'm baking a cake that I just made up in my head?

You're just kind of like saying stuff because like you keep just.

Contradicting your own points.

You just said stuff about like slavery.

We live in a specific situation, a specific system, part of a specific history.

There's a specific record so far.

There's a deal between the people of this nation, the working people of this nation, and the ones who rule it.

Here we stand right now.

Here we stand right now being attacked.

Do you understand?

The working people of America right now are being attacked in a class war.

So they can either fight the class war.

Or they can eat Doritos and do nothing, right?

We are the fighting organization of the American working class.

We believe in fighting the war already and disagree in that regard.

But my question is we don't have to think about so why when you're saying what outcome do you want,

Let Allah determine the outcome.

Let history decide the outcome.

We're not here for the outcome.

We're here for the ride.

You understand?

We're not here for the destination.

We're here for the ride.

Because that's what's moving right now.

We're already on it.

Karl Marx said: communism is the real movement.

That's what he said.

The real movement.

He said it's not an end goal that society is going to conform to.

It's not an ideal with which we have to conform society.

It is the real movement.

That will take us to the next stage, whatever it so happens to be, it's in Allah's hands.

Wait, are you m are you Muslim?

Or what's your

Religion.

Uh the Safaviyah Sufi order, the Qizilbash.

Okay.

I don't know.

I was just curious.

So, one more question.

Go ahead.

Do you agree with um Marx's view on family?

Yes.

You do?

Your anti-family values?

Was that Marx's view?

Marx had a family.

He had a wife and he had kids.

Marx viewed wives and kids as private equity, which would go against the communists.

No, he didn't.

He had a very loving family.

He did.

Okay.

So that's I agree with his views on the family then.

But that's not his view.

No, his view his view was that there was a natural monogamous family that capitalism was destroying through two things, prostitution and the rise of an institutional contractual form of marriage that was based on economic considerations, where the man is marrying to pass on his property and the woman is only marrying for the financial consideration.

You think Marx was against natural human families of man and woman and family?

He wasn't against that.

That's existed since forever.

He was against the specific institutionalization of familial relationships based on the principle of private property.

That has evolved across history for sure.

But in all the evolution of the family across history, there has always been an underlying what Frederick Engels called, in the origin of the family, private property in the state, the natural family, right?

The natural monogamous relationship and family.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels both acknowledged, and the whole communists in the 20th century agreed, the monogamous family is the natural family.

And it's a completely natural, normal kind of family, untainted by prostitution, untainted by economic considerations, like the need to pass down property, untainted by the treating of women as property, and a relationship based, and I can't believe I'm saying this, it's so cringe, but based on love and nothing else.

That's what Engels said.

He said, All I'll know about the future of relationship between man and woman is that it will be based on no other consideration except love.

That's it.

Love.

That's what he said, not me.

He said it, not me.

I will say that, but he said I think that's a very valid view on family.

I agree, but and I didn't say that, by the way, because are you an advocate for love?

I don't want to say it, you know, it's just so cheesy, you know.

Well, like, would you say love is important?

I say I would s I would say raising villages and cities to the ground is important.

That's my m accent.

But, you know, I'll I'll let Engel speak for us and and I won't it's not my accent.

You know, it's not my point of emphasis, really.

But you were just ad you just advocated for the whole more?

I didn't.

I know I didn't.

That's not even a real thing.

I deny it entirely.

How's that?

Wait, wait, what do you mean it's not a real thing?

I deny it.

Wh how so?

It's fake.

I I know what?

So how many people do you think died from the whole Odomore?

Uh the famine, I think it was maybe two to three million that died.

So how is it fake?

Oh, it was a famine.

Famines are real.

There's Kazakh people in Kazakhstan died.

People in Russia died.

Yeah, it wasn't a genocide.

It was a famine.

It was a non-man-made famine.

Mostly caused by natural factors.

Partially caused by sabotage by the Kulaks.

Oh, yeah.

And then partially caused by the systemic dysfunction that was a consequence of the extremely rapid rolling out of collectivization, which itself was done under the necessity and pressure of needing to industrialize within 10 years because, what is it, 17 to 19 countries had invaded the revolutionary Russia during the Civil War, and they anticipated that in 10 years they would be invaded again, which they were, by the way, by Germany.

And had they not done that collectivization, then the entire Soviet Union would have been destroyed and conquered by Germany.

Because 10 years later, eight, nine years later, after that famine, that's when Germany invaded.

Thankfully, Russia had rapidly collectivized and secured the production of food so that it could embark on an aggressive, rapid industrialization.

Is that a tragedy?

Yeah, but who does the blame lie upon?

The capitalist world.

Why?

It's the capitalist world that put the pressure on Russia that it would have to industrialize so rapidly and quickly and it would have to disrupt so rapidly and quickly the prevailing system of agriculture.

Had that pressure not existed from the imperialist world upon the Soviet Union, they could have taken their time and done it gradually and smoothly.

They could have taken their time and not have been forced to do it so rapidly with all the chaos and disruption that would have caused.

It was the aggression that was coming from Europe and America that forced them to be so aggressive in the collectivization.

Had these aggressors, had these capitalist pigs simply backed off and let the Soviet people be, they could have taken their sweet time and there would have been no famine.

So don't put the blame on Stalin for that famine.

Put the blame on Churchill.

Put the blame on the Allies.

Put the blame on the Germans and all these other European junker feudal princelings and kings and queens and filthy fat f

I didn't swear, Shatak.

I didn't swear.

Put the blame on them.

Don't put the blame on the mighty Soviet people and on the great leader, the father of the nation, Joseph Vesiniro, Joseph Stalin.

Don't put the blame on them.

Do you not feel like he kind of messed up in his way of advancing the Russian society?

I mean, Russia had so much to do with the money.

He did the best he could have done at the time.

I challenge you that you could have done better.

No one could have.

I'm sure.

Well, I don't know.

Stalin was the captain of the ship.

Maybe I'd like to be able to get it.

Nobody said there was going to be a librarian development.

Nobody said there would be no storms.

Nobody said there would be no icebergs.

He was the captain of the ship.

He got the ship from point A to point B.

Was the ship completely fine?

No, of course it's going to be a rough-hewn journey.

But guess what?

He got that ship.

He captained that ship from point A to point B, going from wheelbarrows and wooden plows to nuclear weapons.

So would point Abu and then point B today would be a, you know, an autocracy.

Like

I mean, what's point B?

I'm just questioning that.

Today?

Yeah.

'Cause you just said point A to point B.

Point B, I'll give you the vision.

You want the vision?

You want the vision?

Well, it's not a vision.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you want the vision.

No, no, no, no, no, sir, sir, you wanted the vision, did you not?

Sure, give it to me.

A world.

Where we seize control.

People at the local levels, they start organizing at the town hall levels.

Township authorities are taking township authorities at the most local level.

So eventually a revolutionary process and we establish the proletarian dictatorship.

We nationalize the strategic sectors of the economy.

Every single major corporation that has been subsidized by our tax dollars gets converted into a state-owned enterprise.

The entire economy becomes planned by extremely giant AI computers that can combine centralized rational planning with decentralized inputs of production.

We no longer have to have anything like the financial industry whatsoever.

The insurance industry completely ends.

We convert our giant military into a public works and service army.

We go and build the infrastructure.

We build the new trains.

We build the high-speed rail.

Every single bridge and highway in this country, we rebuilt it.

We update it into the 21st century.

We go into every small town.

We get out their pipes in Flint, Michigan.

We replace it so they can have clean water.

We build giant dams and bridges and irrigation canals.

We embark on a process of creating mighty works powered by fusion energy and revolutionized and advanced forms of energy.

We build a Siberian land bridge from Alaska to the new Soviet Union 2.0 to create economic corridors where we rapidly advance each other's productive forces.

And bring ourselves into the 21st century.

We build cities out in the west on that federal land.

We build cities for the Indians, too, who have been depopulated.

We let them flourish and get their numbers back.

We revive our civilization and culture, fuse with the native Indian culture.

The richness of our history and our culture blends together everything: the black American, the white American, the Latins, the whatever.

We build cities.

We completely decimate the landlord class.

We completely take away from BlackRock and all these giant real estate companies their grip on the housing market.

We govern on a principle that houses should be for living in, not for speculating and making money.

We build houses on such a giant and mass scale that even Khrushchev in his grave says it's too much.

You know, I don't.

We go into New York City, we knock down and renovate everything.

Everybody gets new housing.

Everyone gets a decent, dignified job and way of living.

We reduce the work hour from eight hours to one hour, which may itself be too much.

Why?

Because, according to calculations done by Ivy League professors.

In order for our society to run, everyone only needs to work one hour a day.

Everyone's overworked for no reason because they're working BS jobs.

You understand?

Everyone works one hour a day.

I'm just going to say this.

I don't even necessarily disagree with that.

No, you're weak.

You don't see the vision because you're weak.

But as you said earlier with the other guy you were debating with, we only live in one history.

Like, you can say all these phenomenal things that it's like inside.

I'm not going to live to see the day.

I don't think I will.

There's going to be generations of struggle before this.

I feel there's just a wave of.

Like, you know, low intellect.

People don't understand what.

They don't need intellect.

We just need the people who have the strength, the willpower, the lions to join the Communist Party and lead this society.

Hmm.

I see.

S wait wait, okay.

You are an interesting I don't know, dude.

You're you're pretty radical, I'll say that.

Am I radical, or is it radical that they're putting the retirement age at 85 years old?

No, I don't agree with that at all.

You don't have to agree, but what's radical?

What's what's I'm the moderate, I'm a centrist, I'm a moderate.

The radicals are the ones raising the retirement age to 85 years old.

The radicals are the ones who burden our young people with so much debt that they'll never be able to pay off in three lifetimes and say that this is the land of opportunity.

The radical ones are the ones who are throwing an entire generation of people who can't even afford to raise their own families.

They have to live with their own parents because housing has become so unaffordable.

We have been brainwashed to think that it's actually that hard to make homes accessible and to build new homes.

No, it's really not.

Listen, we see China doing it on the cheap, and I see those brand new, beautiful apartments they're building in China, they're giving to young people.

Why can't we do that?

Why?

Because our housing is controlled by bloodsuckers and landlords.

No, you're right.

You're you are right.

You are right.

I don't y you know, I don't really necessarily agree with that.

You are defeated.

Accept the rule of Stalin, accept the rule of communism, accept the immortal signs of Marxism, Leninism.

I accept your submission.

I accept your defeat and your conquest.

Bow to the Khan.

This guy saying I'm scared to debate him.

You better be this better be good.

This better be good.

Saying that I'm scared to debate him.

This better be good.

What is this anime?

Yeah, bro.

Where's the ACP?

Listen, huh?

Listen, boy.

Why you got an anime picture?

Bro, why you got boner?

Calm down.

Listen, you don't look like that.

You weird as hell.

You weird as hell for that.

I'm dead, bro.

Before you say anything, I'm so generous.

I let anyone debate me.

You have to explain why you have an anime girl as your profile picture.

Go ahead.

Why do you identify with a little girl?

She's not a little girl, actually.

And secondly, she's Lang.

So why do you identify with that?

Is that you?

Nah, but she's just laying in it.

So, how is it you?

Why is this your profile picture?

She's laying.

Who is that?

Is it you?

Where is she?

Uh cartoon, uh Okay, so why why are you identifying with that?

No, 'cause it's like it's pretty hot in it, like

But you that's your picture, that's you, that's how you identify yourself, is that correct?

No problem, yeah.

Okay, so you would walk around with the mask of that girl?

Why not?

Would you be that for Halloween?

Are you gonna be here for Halloween?

But okay, but if you did, would you be here for Halloween?

Probably, yeah, to be fair.

What is with that?

Whoa, why are you so offended?

Calm down, Lobora.

No, I'm just saying what is that?

It is what it is, bro.

No, but what is that?

It is what it is, bro.

But why?

Why does it even make sense?

Because I can.

See how you're scared to debate me on politics, so you keep diverting.

Okay, go ahead, get into politics.

It's just so weird.

Yeah, so communism failed.

How does that work?

No, the the UK failed.

Actually.

Yeah, it did, but fu uh fuck the UK.

Listen, bro.

If communism is so great, name ten communist countries in twenty twenty six.

Um Tartaria is the most prominent one.

Yeah, top some places that don't exist.

Yeah, it does exist actually.

Well last one was two.

Chop chop.

Safavid Iran at its founding when Ismail was still around.

Yeah, whoever that is is probably a Sonny in it though.

No, he wasn't a Sonny actually, so what are you talking about?

Uh what sect was he?

He was of the Safavia Kisselbosch.

Yeah, but they're Sufi, bro.

They just yeah, bro, they're Sufi.

No, they were Shias though, so what are you LARPing about with this anime?

You literally have anime.

Why are you talking about sex?

Your sect is literally your sect is literally anime.

Your sect is literally anime.

What are you talking about?

What do you mean, my sect is named?

What's this arbitrary requirement?

There has to be 10 countries.

Hold on, what is this arbitrary requirement of needing 10 countries when the most powerful, economically significant, and

Advanced country on earth, which is China, is communist.

State capitalist, but alright.

Okay, that well, that's just like, okay, yeah, real communist.

Deng completely reformed everything he did.

Come on now.

Okay, will you send me $5,000 if I disprove that?

Uh I'll send you like two pounds, yeah.

No, will you send me two hundred and fifty dollars if I disprove that?

Uh don't deal in dollars, that's capitalist.

Brokey, you're brokey, you're brokey.

Anyway, if you're a capitalist, why don't you have a communist talking about capitalism?

But if you're a capitalist, where's your money?

You can't even capitalize.

I'm not a capitalist.

All right.

Well, look, Mao absolutely did not fail.

Deng's reforms would not have been possible without Mao.

Everyone acknowledges that the critical hydro uh hydro infrastructure, hydro energy infrastructure that was created during the Great Leap Forward is a precondition for Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up.

And it is the TVEs, which were the people's communes that were immediately converted into enterprises that were the necessary basis of accumulating surpluses and capital in the first place.

That is the foundation of today's China and its success, without which it would have been dependent on foreign powers and investments from the IMF and foreign capital to organize the Chinese people and socialize them into fucking division of labor that Mao already did through the intense socialization that was created by the Great Leap Forward.

You don't know anything you're talking about.

You should have never, ever tried to debate me about whether China's under Mao was successful or not.

Okay, so why are they billionaires if it's not capitalists?

Who cares?

Who cares if they're billionaires?

I'm a billionaire.

Well, I don't care, but it's just not communist, is it?

Why not?

Because not everyone's equal.

Why is it got capitalism?

Why are they trying to overthrow the dollar if they're communists?

Ever thought about that?

Yeah, yeah, no.

That's exactly what a communist would do.

They would overthrow the dollar.

What are you talking about?

Yeah, why are they trying to make their currency more powerful?

Shouldn't they be trying to destroy currency?

Ever thought about that?

How are you going to destroy currency?

What's your step-by-step plan?

Tell us don't use it.

Find other ways, innit?

That's what communism is about, is it not?

Find other ways, innit?

That's your plan.

You think that's Marxism?

Find other ways, isn't it?

I don't care about your plan, bro.

Find other ways, innit?

Nobody thought that.

All right.

So, first of all, having billionaires doesn't mean just think outside the box then.

No, no, no, listen, listen.

China's billionaires do not have control over liquid assets that number in billions of dollars.

They don't have the autonomous individual ability to treat the wealth that they really just administrate as their private property.

It's not theirs privately.

If Jack Ma speaks against the CPC in public, he disappears for years and everyone thinks he's gone forever.

They're not really billionaires.

See, China, I'm going to just drop the truth.

China doesn't even want me to say this, but I'm going to say it.

Phil Fo.

China doesn't want me to say this.

I'm going to say it.

Okay.

They might call me and say, stop, stop, stop.

I'm going to say it.

Okay.

China is LARPing as if it's a market capitalist economy so that it can have access to Western technology and to have access to Western resources and stuff that they desperately needed.

The whole time, that shit has been controlled by the Communist Party.

The whole time.

They just LARPing.

They just pretending so that in the West, you know, they would be able to have the access that they need.

It's a big pretend.

They're not.

They've never had private property.

Where's the private property?

Nothing's actually private.

Talking about fruit vendors and fruit standard.

They've always had that.

They had that in the people's communes.

They had commune markets.

So, you know, what you're talking is just nonsense.

China's not capitalist.

What are you talking about?

They just, they just, they, they, they adopt this language.

Oh, yeah, we have billionaires.

Oh, yeah, we have stock market.

They adopt this.

To create the illusion of an open market economy to the West, when in reality it is very, very much planned and controlled.

Yeah, but why would they need to do that?

If they were communist, why can't they just do that?

Because they're encircled and surrounded by the advanced capitalist world and the Soviet Union at the time.

They are dirt poor and they only have the bare minimum of what is necessary.

Okay, China was growing under Mao at 10% per year pretty significantly.

China needed to accelerate.

China had nuclear weapons, for example, but it only had nukes that could reach the U.S.

till when?

1982?

Right?

So China needed to have a quantum leap of acceleration of its productive forces in order to interface with the global market and convert the chaotic anarchy of the market, of the global market, into the plan and align that with the goals of rational planning of the communist system.

So there's nothing about that that is capitalist.

The Soviet Union conducted foreign trade.

So did Mao China.

There's nothing about foreign trade, even by your own definition, that is somehow contradicting communism or socialism.

Yeah, but they have money so that's kind of capitalist if you ask me.

Okay, so there was money under Mao, there was money under Stalin.

Yeah, so it's not communism then, is it?

Okay, so not so communism has never been tried.

Is that is that your argument?

Uh I've only seen it one place, yeah.

Where have you seen it?

Cambodia.

That worked out great.

So you're talking about when they were like under wartime conditions after having been completely bombed by Nixon and everything was.

Yeah, they didn't have money though.

They didn't have money back in them days, did they?

They very much did.

It's just that for a few years all of society was in chaos and in crisis because everything had been destroyed by the bombing campaign.

They did have money.

What are you talking about?

No, they didn't.

They never used money.

That was the whole thing.

I watched the infographic show, mate.

Get out of here, man.

Saying I'm scared to death.

You're going to run.

You're going to run.

Easy win.

Listen to me.

Okay, what's your knockout argument?

Give me your knockout argument.

Everywhere communism tried has failed, really, innit?

Okay, well, I just debunked that and disproved it and destroyed it.

Yeah, slam dunk case.

Stalin started with wooden plows.

They ended with nuclear weapons.

Basically, basic capitalists.

How could communism have failed if you're saying it's never existed anywhere?

Right?

Exactly.

Exactly.

Now he's starting to get a big boy.

Okay, so you're just redefining what it means to say that communism's never been tried like a liberal.

Is that correct?

Uh liberals are better to be fair.

More successful.

Okay.

So what is your purpose on life besides gooning to anime?

It's like having fun, living life, worshiping God, you know.

That's how it is, isn't it?

Why are you talking about God when you have you're an anime gooner?

Is anime against religion?

Who does God smile upon more?

You, the anime gooner, or Haz, who likes natural real woman that God made and intelligent.

Who said I didn't like real women?

Secondly, no, you don't.

No, you don't.

I don't have the anime thing.

Anyway, bro, you're a Sufi catheter.

Come on, now.

Go spin in a circle.

Go put on a little dress.

You're a fucking keep committing bidder.

Keep drinking alcohol like all the Sufis do.

Silly boy.

Who founded Iran?

As we know it, Sufis did.

So shut the hell up.

Talking about Sufi.

Fuck Iran.

I'm Kurdish.

Free Kurdistan.

Fuck Iran.

That's what I have to say.

Oh, you okay?

Oh, you're Muslim.

Okay, so you just worship America, right?

No, fuck America.

Okay, but they own you.

But they own you, don't they?

No, that's not.

Yeah, they do.

They do, though.

Eh, not really.

Talking about Kurdistan.

Talking about America.

Talking about some nonsense.

Where are you from?

I'm from Kurdistan.

Nice one, bro.

So you're from Lebanon?

No, I'm from Kurdish.

I'm from Kurdistan.

Oh, do you remember Beirut 2020?

That was the bomb, wasn't it?

You're literally just some fat Kurdish guy in Britain just sitting on lounging around on TikTok.

Bro, try again, try again.

I'm anoretic.

Try again.

You're just some okay.

Bro, you're a Sufi, go spin in a circle.

You're a little soofy, bro.

Just go spin in the circle, not.

Alright, you know, do you want me to have a response to this?

Yeah, go be a little soofy, bro.

No, do you want me to have a response to this?

Yeah, you're gonna drop me and run away like a pussy.

No, I'm not.

I'm really not.

Okay, what's your response to being a little soofy then?

We're gonna play those roles.

I balance you.

Sit down.

Yeah, I walk away.

Listen.

Talking all that.

Talking all that.

Bet balance you.

The Janissaries are coming.

You better run.

The Janissaries are coming.

Turkey's secular.

Turkey secular.

Fuck the Ottomans.

Nobody gives a sh.

Nobody cares.

The Ottomans were gay.

They were butt-fucking each other.

The men were butt-fucking each other in them times.

And you support that, do you?

Oh, you would.

You would.

You're a gay boy.

You're a badty boy.

How's that feel?

You're gay, bro.

You support the gay Ottoman Empire.

You don't even know what?

What?

No, that was only the Kurds were doing the Ottomans.

Only the Kurdish people were doing that.

This guy's got a serious case of projection.

Ah, you know, that's just extremely, extremely just over over excited.

He got destroyed.

I'll never recover from that ever again.

After that I played that song, he got destroyed.

He was done.

There's no recovering from that, by the way.

Uh let's bring on Zaid.

Go ahead.

Alright.

Hey, by the way, I was looking look at your Wikipedia page when you brought up the Kurdistan thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Doesn't it say that you were born to Lebanese parents who fled during the Civil War?

I don't care about.

I'm not against Kurds.

I just was against that guy, right?

So I don't know.

Oh, no.

I'll tell you that's actually an understandable answer.

So listen, I just want to say that I do appreciate your stance for Palestine.

I do want to slightly debate you on your views on communism.

So I just because, again, I've followed you and Jackson's politics for a while.

You guys are awesome for standing for Palestine.

Shout out to you for that.

And actually, before we get started, I want to confirm: is it true that Christopher is going to be joining a Russian military thing?

Christopher Halali?

I don't know anything about that.

All right.

So you, let me just get straight.

You are one of the leaders of the ACP, the American Communist Party.

Yeah, I'm the chairman.

Correct.

All right.

You guys say you follow Marx's Leninism?

Mm-hmm.

Yes, but like, a lot of people who are against you would s uh state that you're that you guys are more national Bolshevik.

How do you respond to that claim?

What What About Us lacks internationalism?

Well, I mean, I'm not saying it lacks internationalism.

It just says that you follow national Bolshevik thought in the form of Alexander Dugan more than that.

We're incredibly internationalist in practice.

Fair enough.

I mean, you guys do go everywhere advocating whatnot.

But, like, what's it but what's the difference between what makes national Bolshevism like Orthodox communism?

There's national Bolsheviks only exist in Russia.

Everyone else is a LARPer.

The ones that exist in Russia are from a different generation.

There's no more national Bolshevik movement in Russia.

The people that were part of that milieu are now extremely left-wing.

So I don't know why there's a boogeyman of Nazbulls when they don't even exist.

Fair enough, fair enough.

And another thing I'm kind of weird about is that I've been researching on Marx Leninist for a while.

I've actually read I got a biography on Stotland by Oleg Klaus.

I don't know if he read it or not.

I just want to understand, like, you're you and the ACP are stale supporters of Stalin, is that correct?

Yeah.

But you do understand that he was responsible for multiple uh genocides.

W I wanna say genocide's not really the right word, but he was responsible for a lot of massacres on Muslims.

Uh that's not true.

Would you like to correct me on that?

Yeah, it's just uh totally fake.

Would uh yeah, well can you explain me how that's fake how that's fake?

Stalin upheld Sharia law.

But you ex can you explain that?

You saw that he was dressed in the Muslim way?

Yes, but he wasn't actually Muslim.

I mean, he was no one knows that.

So, wait, you believe he really was a secretly Muslim?

He could have been a Sufi.

I mean, I have to research more on Sufism before I can make a comment on that.

But, I mean, to be fair, he was raised in a Catholic family initially before he was.

Oh, it was an Orthodox family.

Yes, Orthodox Cathol yeah, my bad, my bad.

He he was raised in a Christian family.

He was raising to be a priest.

But, like, correct.

Yes, he was always a believer until he died.

Yes, I actually heard a story.

I actually heard a story from an Uber driver who said that when they were about to go to war, he ordered for all the Christian churches to pray.

Yeah.

Right.

But how does that connect?

But like, how would that actually make him secretly a Muslim?

Like, if he was actually Muslim, he would be in the same view as Timur slash Tamerlane in that he up he's claimed to uphold Muslim he claimed to be following Muslim values, but then he was responsible for a lot of deaths.

What did you say about Timur?

Uh the fact that he claimed to be Muslims.

I don't wanna I'm not gonna stand for the slander of Timor.

That Timur was Muslim?

Timor was one of the greatest men to ever exist.

Yes, but he did but there were a lot but history does say that he killed a lot of people.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great man.

No, he he he didn't kill a lot of people.

That was made up by low testosterone scribes who were upset that he got rid of their corruption.

And they've exaggerated and made things up.

All he did was enforce justice, nothing else.

Well, I guess that's that could be true.

I mean, that's an absolute fact.

Have you heard about the movie of his coming out, Rise of the Conqueror?

Uh I did.

I don't know how good that's gonna be, but uh I heard it's gonna be taking place in the early years of his reign back when he was forming his army.

I think I'm probably gonna check it out.

By the way, I heard that uh what's his name, Jake Shields is trying to get you to debate people and a lot of people are rejecting it.

Uh yes.

I what have you reached out to Nick?

Because I would love to see you guys debate Lamb.

I mean I know you guys debated in the past before there was that one time when he will not will will Lamb debate Lyon?

No, Lion will be easy to buy Lynn.

He's not gonna debate me.

Okay, fair enough.

It's not rational for him.

Okay, then I see well I guess that I have more educated myself on.

Maybe I'll educate myself on team where I do agree with you on a lot of things.

I do have one last question though.

One last.

So like I understand that the ACP compared to most communist movements have been actually active in getting involved with other governments and other groups in like mobilizing.

Is that correct?

No.

Oh, you guys ha so you guys haven't reached out and met with uh other famous political figures?

We've met famous people.

We're not organizing with other governments.

Oh, oh b my bad.

I should have rephrased.

Like you guys do have clear set agendas i i in the future, especially in the future greater grand scheme of US politics.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you guys the US is not gonna exist for much longer.

Oh, that's just gonna ask, like, do you guys have a plan of what happens when the US crumbles as a result of Trump's governance?

You w oh, I will actually like to hear it.

I'm not trying I'm not trying to troll you by the way, I'm actually interested.

You w you only plan to enact it if it starts to happen.

I see.

Uh okay.

Fine, last question.

What do you have the cl what do you have to say to the claim of uh Xi Jinping and his actions on the Hoiker people?

It's okay.

I can hear you.

Uh, citizens of the green place, ones if it's working, not TikTokers, citizens of the green place.

Okay, it's back.

Uh, it's totally fake, it was made up by Zionists.

Totally fake.

What about the people who cla what about the Huygens who came and said and say they're from there and that they survived?

They're liars.

Okay, I see.

Have you ever been to North Korea?

Not yet.

I will.

I understand.

Well, I thank you for the talk.

This is actually the second time we've met.

First time I kind of rambled on, you kicked me out, and I kind of understand that.

De Derek.

Go ahead, Derek.

Hello, hello.

Hi.

Um, well, I was just wondering there, um, how would I like participate in a com uh capitalist like market, even though I believe in communism?

Oh, I mean, um, communism is not a denial of the society we exist in, and it doesn't tell you that you should.

Create a society from scratch based on things only you believe.

So yeah, so I mean communism is an understanding that there's this tendency that exists within the society we already live in.

So there's no discrepancy as far as being part of the civil society that exists now and being a communist.

You just have to understand the tendencies within our society that are endangering the development of a new mode of production.

Okay, um another thing would be um there which would you think would be a better leader, Stalin or Lenin?

That is a profoundly difficult question.

Is it?

I thought it would have been like obvious.

I would have said Lenin.

I think in some respects Stalin was better, but there were things, there were qualities of leadership Lenin had that Stalin didn't.

How so?

I would have said that Lenin would have been a lot better of a leader.

Here now, I'd not the biggest thing.

Lenin is a better revolutionary for sure, but not a better, not necessarily a better statesman.

Is this kind of like here?

Don't kick us now.

I'm just saying, when the Nazis started out, they were like street fighters at first.

And they were like Ernst Kirm was like a pro.

He was good with revolution in Germany, but then after they came to power, they weren't needed as much in the streets.

Is that kind of like what Lenin is?

No, I wouldn't say that.

It's more like Lenin was very...

Lenin was very much a very moderate type of...

He was a moderating force, and he was very much.

A master of dialectics.

I don't think there's ever been a Lenin and Mao actually both are incredibly brilliant dialecticians.

I think a lot of Lenin's clarity came from the fact that he was a student of Hegel.

Oh, okay.

He was.

And he was very he had a very sharp understanding of contradictions and how to maneuver them more than better than anyone else.

But how to act on them and how to choose decisively a specific path and commit to it to the end.

I think Stalin was more had more of a ruggedness and more of a kind of.

in some sense a d more of a decisiveness in the sense like he's just going to get it done.

Whereas Lenin would focus more on the various contradictions and ambiguities and potentialities that they're that are there and so on and so on.

That'd be my thank you for the question.

Here, could I just ask you one more thing there?

I sorry, I already disconnected it.

This guy's name is Shaverism.

Pause.

Yeah.

I got a very short question for you, okay?

Mm-hmm.

What are we meant to do when so called communist capitulate to false liberal propaganda, red scare narratives about a certain Cambodian revolutionary?

Can you give me some insight?

Uh hejo, go ahead.

Hello.

What's up?

Hey man, how's it going?

So I'm a Teamster.

Okay, great.

And I've seen you guys been doing some organizing with the Teamsters.

And I just wanted to know what you think the role of train union organizations in the United States would be under your system.

Uh that would be too early to tell, but hopefully they could evolve into something as you know involve into a more advanced type of organization.

Yeah, because um I've been reading about the trade union debate in the early Bolshevik years between Trotsky and the trade union leaders and uh reading about what Trotsky did regarding the tr uh the trade unions, I I'm just disgusted, to be honest.

Yeah, Lennon was absolutely correct on that debate.

Yeah, because Lenin was smart.

He understood that, yeah, Trotsky was a complete windbag, complete vein.

Yeah, he just thought you could just go in and totally take control, and that the careful work of earning trust and mediation, and he was, yeah, Trotsky shouldn't have been anywhere near any kind of power or discussions about power.

Lenin had the wisdom to understand that the way you went over and integrate the trade unions is by first of all.

acknowledging them and uh he was so he was so moderate, you know.

Yeah, um I agree um what you said earlier about him being a moderating force between the left communists and the you know more somewhat still reactionary Bolsheviks in the party.

Um but I really am inspired by William Z.

Foster's idea of integrating

Uh no, I'm not.

I'm in Southern California and uh I'm kind of shopping around.

Um there's a few I I just gotta tell you, Southern California is one of our most energetic, lively uh areas of work for our party, and uh we are very much the party uh trying to be the party of William Z.

Foster.

And uh

We very much uh you know

Are not trottyites?

And we have Teamsters in our party and people that are familiar with the Teamsters.

Yeah, and uh do you support the idea his idea of bordering from within, trying to gain power within the trade union to support a Communist party?

Uh yeah, I think so.

And this is more long term.

This is my final question.

But under an American Soviet system of governance, obviously there's never been a communist revolution in a developed country.

So we have to address those unique conditions in the United States and the fact that we are a developed economy.

And ideally, for me, the trade unions would be organized along industrial lines and part of the governing structure of administration and resource distribution.

Yeah, I mean, we would not be very picky as far as what organizations we would have to rely on.

And trade unions are already a very profound.

uh organization of labor that already exists.

So, yeah, definitely.

I I'm not opposed, you know.

I I tend not to focus on future scenarios, focus more on the now.

But it was uh great talking to you and I very much recommend you check out.

You don't have to join right away, maybe meet up with attend an event in SoCal with ACP and just see wo if you like.

Yeah.

Like what you see.

All right.

It was nice to meet you, husband.

You too, man.

Bye-bye.

Alright guys, from from this point on we're gonna only be accepting adversarial guests.

Um people who have a problem, not people who are friendly.

Go ahead, Gooseman.

Uh, hello, uh, damn, I got a plane over here.

Sorry.

Uh, been a fan of you since uh about 2024.

I appreciate it, man.

I appreciate it.

But we're only allowing adversarial guests on, uh, you know, because where where all them libertarians go, you know, where'd all they where all them libertarians go?

Go ahead, Firestar.

Ugh, wait, can you hear me?

No.

Oh, okay.

So do you unironically believe there's gonna be a civil war in in the United States?

Do you unironically believe that?

Yeah.

But haven't you said in the past that both the Democratic Party and the Republican control by capitalists?

Haven't you said in the past that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are controlled by capitalists?

Yes.

Okay, so why would there be a civil war between the two parties?

Uh, because they represent different uh forces within civil society that are not necessarily reducible to the institutions themselves, and these forces are inherently antagonistic and polarized.

But you think that degree of difference is the same as like the difference between the North and the South, like slavery versus factory industrialists or whatever?

You think that's the same level of difference?

What w okay wh what's the difference?

They're both

I I what's the difference?

Well, the th th I mean there's plenty of differences.

That that that was a circumstance where the slavery and the planter class was at the four and now the situation is completely changed in a completely different way.

But fundamentally there's a conflict and breakdowns in the institutional hegemony of the United States that's irreconcilable internally and that's going to lead to a civil war potentially.

Yeah, but could you like be specific about what's the difference between the Republicans?

Like what is the slavery factory divide between the Republicans and Democrats?

And it's actually not a divide necessarily between different classes, but it's a breakdown within the internal contradiction of this constitutional structure of the institution, namely the structure of the executive authority and the decentralized authority of the governors, the federal government versus the states, and the various checks and balances that are meant to be a check on executive power.

This contradiction has manifested itself across the party lines.

So, for example, Obama used to be where the position that Trump is in right now, and the same forces of civil war were still just on the other side.

So, it's not necessarily a symmetrical conflict between the Democrats and the Republicans.

They can actually absolutely switch places, but the structure itself is what's internally imploding and becoming contradictory within.

Okay, I don't see how that causes a civil war, though.

Like, they can have, like, why would they not just give it away?

I break down in the ability to have command and control of the armed forces and a dispute between who controls the National Guard, whether it's directly from an executive authority, an authorization from Congress, or coming from the control of the state governors of the National Guard.

That is actually something that the judicial system is very, very struggling to clarify.

And the pace at which these conversations and conflicts are happening are much, much faster than what the judicial system can actually enforce and effect.

So, all we have to do is a continued acceleration of this breakdown of the command and control of the armed forces and confrontations and breakdowns in the chain of command, more or less, before the judicial system can actually resolve the issue.

The issue can spiral out of control, which it kind of already has.

Oh, you're just saying that.

You're just asserting that.

Why would that cause a civil war?

Like, why would they kill each other?

I don't.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Why would they do that?

Like, why would they not just continue the current red versus blue team stuff?

Why would they ask?

Okay, because when there's no, because we already have an armed force of the state that does do that, and when there's a dispute over who they answer to.

People are going to have to take sides.

And who's going to control who?

Who's going to have the authority over who?

If that's in contention whatsoever, violence is inevitable.

Okay, but this is like this is their headquarters, right?

Like the United States.

Why would they do it here?

Like, it makes sense if they do stuff in, like, you know, like Ukraine or whatever other country.

They would do it here because there's an authority here and there's a chain of command.

If there's any dispute in the chain of command or the authority, violence is inevitable.

Like you like you keep just saying that, but like you're not giving any like specifics about like why.

Like

Okay, if the National Guard is, if the presence of the National Guard is declared illegal, then different commanders and different generals or whatever within the National Guard hierarchy will have to decide themselves who they're going to go with.

And if there's conflict of orders, the breakdown of a unified chain of command is going to mean that the resistance of one person means an offensive act of violence against the other.

If you have police that are declaring the presence of federal forces illegal, the police is going to actually have to at some point use force to remove them and vice versa.

So this is how breakdowns in the chain of command and breakdowns over the authority of force make violence and confrontations inevitable.

Okay, okay.

I'll just I'll I'll accept that.

So so so then you think there's gonna be like a two-sided you know, war between the two parties, between the Republican Party and Democratic Party?

I don't know if it's gonna take that exact form.

I just know that there's going to be a breakdown of constitutional order and there's going to be a

Conflict.

Okay, so and then you think this is and then the ACP like just rises from this because it can organize better?

Yeah.

Okay, well then why wouldn't

Like okay, I'm thinking why would this happen?

Without any external reasoning.

Do you think it's just gonna happen in whatever internal domestic stuff?

It's gonna be a confluence of a million different factors, all right?

But it's gonna happen.

Okay, and and then this just

I'm not Zoltar!

You have too many questions, too little assertions you're willing to commit to.

Adam, go ahead.

The Haas, I just wanna say I love you, bro.

Uh I've been watching since 2021 bro.

Mecha Tanky.

I'm not here for support.

I'm here for adversarial conflict.

Danny, go ahead.

Let's drop a twenty!

This guy left.

Let's drop a twenty.

My Gooseman is back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I know y okay, I'll just get straight into it.

Uh you talk about China mostly uh when referring to modern economic uh models, and I would like to div well, how can I say this, uh argue against that by arguing for pro um command uh economies only.

You constantly bring up how China mostly uses the mixed market as um you know a way to get more

That come from the top.

It's just inherently

Outmoded.

Yeah, but it's still the modern state.

Commandism was literally a pejorative in the Mao era, by the way.

Even they recognize commandism is not good.

I I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Yeah, I'm just saying in the Mao era, they didn't even agree with it.

Well, still, the Mao era didn't get to uh Soviet Union levels.

Yes, it did.

It it was far more um

terms of scale, it was far more like comprehensive.

Would you like me to bring up population graphs?

What does that have to do with anything?

Because they were objectively better.

Who was?

The union.

No, they were wealthier.

They weren't better.

Wrong.

Galati, what's up?

Absolutely.

China was able to command its labor force much more aggressively and it was able to do much more with with based on the relative levels of wealth that they each had.

So the Soviet Union already was starting out with a certain degree of capital and wealth that China did not have.

China started with literally nothing.

Um besides the first five-year plan, which is of course important, but uh

China was far, far behind Soviet Union.

I mean, the czar era did see a relative degree of modernization happen economically.

Nothing like that comparable in China.

But the the Chinese did much more with much less.

Okay, but I think we should bring back, uh, ultimately, when we take power, command economy, because it just res hates everything.

Maybe with AI, but not like the Soviet one.

Well, you know, I think we need to bring back all forms of government labor and like added labor, you know, like gulags, uh, state uh mandated unions, uh, etcetera, you know, like nigger camps, like just slaves, you know, everything.

What a hilarious knee-slapping troll

Just to get my live uh restricted, by the way.

Really funny.

That was what an elaborate troll just to get us.

Look at this idiot in the chat.

This was an HCP.

Yeah, that's totally an ACP member.

That's totally an ACP member, right?

It's literally uh uh uh an enemy, an op trying to get the live restricted, which the you know, they they did.

Yeah, look at this united youth nonsense.

Shut up.

Shut up.

Go ahead.

Yo, what up?

Uh how you doing, man?

I don't know.

I don't know.

He's just, he's just we just che we just uh chopping it up.

Am I an Oblivion NPC?

What is this?

Go ahead.

Oh, go ahead, man.

Holy sh

Guys, I swear if you when you drop a 20, I'm totally not gonna just end the live right now and just end it and be put out of my misery.

I'm totally not just gonna run with the money.

If you crab it up right now, I'm totally not just gonna run with it.

I'll continue.

Australistani!

Just keep that up.

I'm totally just gonna stay.

I'm totally just gonna stay.

I'm just

Did y'all hear that?

Did y'all hear that?

What?

What what was that?

Y'all hear that?

Oh souls, what up bro?

Did y'all hear that?

What was that?

Is that a was that a real gunshot?

Was that a real did he just like was that a real

What was that?

M-I-G

Hey.

Yeah.

Joe, I'm coming to the Bronx tomorrow, and nobody's gonna do shit.

So, you need to settle down with that nonsense.

You need to settle down.

Settle settle yourself down.

You ain't gonna do nothing.

I'm coming to the Bronx tomorrow.

You're not gonna do anything.

Subterranean!

Where do I draw the line between personal and private property?

Um there's no line, it's all the same.

Your toothbrush is going to be communalized.

Land, go ahead.

Hey, you mentioned this uh earlier on from the German ideology.

Why do you because I like it, man, it's a good show.

Okay, but is that is that do you look like that?

Nah, can I can you let me speak?

You mentioned earlier.

All right, that aside, right, you mentioned a quote from the German ideology earlier where communism is not an ideal to be recognised, it is the real movement that abolishes the current state of things, yeah?

You accept that that is right.

Is that how you think of yourself?

What do you mean?

Like when you thi when you just like visualize your own self, is that

I don't I just don't understand how it works.

I I mean, I don't think it's that serious, like no, but what are you channeling there?

What is that?

I don't know.

Only fun, man.

I don't understand it.

I've been already

I just I just don't get it.

But can you uh just answer my question out of curiosity, like?

about this quote from the German ideology that you brought up.

Okay, w so so what?

So if Communism is the real movement that abolishes the current state of things, what do you think is distinct about the current state of things that needs to be abolished that isn't transhistorical but pertains to today specifically, like

What do you mean?

So if Communism is the movement that abolishes the current state of things, what do you think is the current state of things?

A society in transition from one mode of production into the next.

How are we currently transitioning into another mode of production?

Um

A society that is driven by profit is increasingly driven by social signals such as demand and attention.

So you're just talking about like capital in general, right?

No, I'm just like, bro, I you know what?

Change your profile.

I can't do this.

Just try.

Can't do that.

What do I think of Hassan Pike or literally nothing at all?

Like, I just don't care.

Without market signals, how will labor be assigned, goods produced, and scarcity managed?

Uh computers.

Algorithms the way they already are.

Algorithms that calculate

Resources

Was

Supply chains plus demand.

Simple.

No, not like Ogas.

Like the sh.

Well, we already have it.

Walmart already has it.

Amazon already ha we we already have it, it's okay, it's just completely fine.

If we if we changed money to just some nebulous, you know, credits, like as from a sci-fi movie, planning credits, it would be the functionally the same for much of these systems of production.

We just would replace money for some nebulous

Planning thing, credits, planning credits, you know.

Uh, money doesn't even exist.

It's just completely printed.

It's totally fake.

Backed by nothing.

Yua.

Y'all was good.

Nothing.

What?

SHUT

Filtering out the cowards here.

Yo Yo

Hello, I hope you're having a good day.

So you mentioned that well, all right, well you mentioned that we're using algorithms, right, to um allocate labor and what not.

Um I'm curious, like, what algorithms specifically are you referring to?

'Cause to my knowledge there's not an algorithm that we have that can really do that.

Claude Mythos.

Look it up.

The AI, remember, these are all have price signals that exist, right?

Because we're in a capitalist society, so they can use price signals as data points, right?

Whereas in a communist society, you can't.

What is the price?

The price, um it's what you paid for exchanging goods.

Okay, what is what is it that you pay?

Money.

What's money?

It's a notation of value.

How is that value measured?

Subjectively.

Really?

Yeah.

Subjective theory of value.

Okay, you think the value of a dollar is subjectively measured?

Are you talking about oh, we're talking about the dollar of a value the value of a dollar, not value itself?

No, yeah, but the value it trades the dollar is the repository of value that we have now that you're talking about that we use yeah but that value in itself is subjective right how is it subjective when it's determined by central bank established interest rates plus yeah but then that worth what the dollars actually work for in goods is subjective right so if you have a dollar in a sense no it's absolutely not based yes absolutely not it's based on objective considerations like costs of production

Yeah, right, but then that that the value itself, right?

I'm talking about the price you have to pay with dollars.

That value then.

The value of the one dollar being one dollar, sure, yeah, but the actual value of then.

No, the value of any given thing, the cost of production is absolutely a factor.

Yeah, sure, it's a factor, but it's not the deciding factor, right?

If you spend hours producing based on a society driven by market competition, it's absolutely the basically the determining factor.

Are we talking about like the theory of value itself, or you're just talking about the value of the production?

Don't worry about theories.

Let's talk about common sense, okay?

Because of market competition, you do have a lot of luxury brands that are upmarked based on their cost of production.

Absolutely.

I don't disagree with that.

Yeah, but also you have to account for it's not simply production cost, right?

You have to take into account incentives, right?

Like, it's pretty simple if you want to go to common sense, right?

You can't overcharge.

You'd agree with that.

Listen, attempting to disagree with the labor theory of value is just psychosis.

It comes from classical political economy.

Marx didn't invent it.

It's not a matter of time.

Yeah, yeah, obviously.

Yeah, Ricardo, yeah, all those guys made it.

But now with common consensus, that we usually go with the subjective theory of value.

It's just totally.

Well, because you you you you you agree that marginal utility is not homogenous, right?

What do you mean by that?

So marginal utility is different from person to person.

If you someone's marginal utility is different from each person.

Uh that doesn't matter.

Production is still social production is still socialized.

Production is still socialized, and there remains a division of labor.

No, that's not what I'm saying, right?

So if you're thinking, do you think production is modulated to the whims and fancies of every single individual?

Part of the factors and consideration of an individual's choices and whims and fancies is what's available to them in the first place, which is absolutely determined socially based on social factors of the degree of socialization, the degree of mechanization, technological ability to actually produce commodities and so on and so on.

You make it as though people, that our economy is simply tailored around making every individual's specific desires and dreams materialize and realize.

That's not true and it's never been true.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm arguing that because our demands are naturally non-objective, right?

We have a subjective look on the world, right?

Then value is then also subjective, right?

No objective value.

No, you couldn't say that.

You can't say that they're pure, they're even primarily subjective, actually.

That doesn't make any sense.

Because at a certain point, the relative historical and cultural and so on and so on, which you're reducing to subjective, which is wrong, by the way, because subjective means the whims and fancies of an individual.

That's not true.

You mean to tell me that people find Nike and Disney all because they somehow have decided subjectively that they like it?

No, they're going with social trends and culture.

It's all culturally determined.

But in any case, the relative historical demands and use values that are produced within any given historical epoch, we can concede that, yes, those are historically produced and societally relative.

Some societies, it's more common to like ice cream than whatever.

Yeah, these are cultural trends, primarily culturally driven trends, and we can relativize them.

They're not given to us strictly by nature.

We're not animals.

I agree culture exists.

But on the other hand, once we presuppose these use values, which are socially necessary and socially determined, how they are produced, how they come into being materially, then becomes the determining and deciding factor as far as how the law of value is expressing itself.

Yeah, I understand.

I understand.

But if we go back, I'm just addressing your first point, right?

So we didn't choose Disney, right?

Yes, that's true.

We never created with this idea of using Disney, right?

But our subjective views make us choose between, I don't know, Disney, Netflix, all these other streaming services, right?

We subjectively value each one higher because of our taste in movies.

And well, sure, that could be a lot of fun.

But look, Disney and Netflix, for example, regardless of which one is being selected as more socially necessary and how that's aggregated, eventually becomes socially and a social aggregate that's measured in a quantifiable way, like 30% like this, 40% like this, whatever.

Oh, but that's after the fact that doesn't change the material presuppositions of the conditions of those things.

It does, though, because that's a very important thing.

It doesn't change their conditions of production.

How does it change their conditions of production?

Like Disney, for example, probably has the same conditions of production as Universal Studios or something, right?

But the content, the way they, you know, the content they produce is different.

Maybe, maybe, maybe not materially.

It's really not necessarily.

Apple, Android, it's kind of infinitesimal differences that a material.

But it's a product.

Right?

Undisputable.

Look.

The product is different and distinct in an infinitesimal sense relative to the actual material conditions of their production.

So, yeah, I mean, let's say people want a pink iPhone versus a blue one.

Is pink different from blue?

Yes.

But is the cost of pink all that different from the cost of blue?

Is the process of dying it blue all that different from dyeing it pink?

Not really.

No, but it's some you just proved my point.

It's subjectively valued higher.

Yeah, but subjectivity, first of all, don't call it subjective, call it cultural.

Second of all, that determination doesn't tell us anything about the material conditions of its production.

It just tells us that society has deemed this socially necessary.

You said that they were the same production, right?

It's just okay.

Look, society is subjectively viewed higher.

Okay, their only difference is then higher.

Okay, so societally viewed higher.

Whether society has determined it to be socially necessary or not.

Is irrelevant to the fact of whether or not, or it doesn't tell us anything about what the material conditions of its production are.

It just tells us society has regarded regards it as socially necessary.

So, once we presuppose that it's socially necessary, now we have to ask the question of the material conditions of production.

Okay, so we go from step one to step two.

You say we can never leave step one.

I disagree.

Ricardo disagreed, so did the entirety of classical political economy.

The classical, sure, but that was a long time ago, right?

Since then, we've had a long time ago.

The idea that they never thought of it in their head that people have different preferences is a mockery of European history.

That's not an actual, you're just that's not the idea that they never thought of the possibility that some people like apples and others and others like oranges.

No, no, it's just stupid.

Like, you don't think these people have devoted their entirety.

Adam Smith, devoting his entire life to the study of political economy, never thought in his head that some people like apples and others like oranges.

Do you think that it was that shallow and less being the French physiocrats and the entire school of European political economy that lasted centuries?

So much scholarship.

You think they never thought of it that some people like apples and others like oranges?

Like, this was just so like this is such a groundbreaking argument they could have never considered.

Give them a little more.

No, no, no.

Give them a little more charity and rationally piece.

Rationally piece together in your head the likelihood that they never considered that.

And once you can accept that in all probability, they did consider that, go and read and try to find out what their response to that actually was.

And save yourself a lot of time.

Because they have an also in completely different conditions, right?

We have much.

Listen, there's nothing about differing conditions that would have made it impossible for people to conclude that there are different preferences, okay, when it comes to economic uses.

I think this is a new argument.

The idea that this was a new argument to classical political economy is a consequence of the historical and theoretical and philosophical amnesia that is inevitably created by the capitalist division of labor, which isolates people and blinds them and gives them an amnesia with respect to entire fields of inquiry and schools of thought so that Austrians could wake up one day and pretend nobody's ever thought of this ever and they're the first person ever to think of this.

But in reality, every argument an Austrian has ever made was preempted by some French guy 400 years earlier who actually argued.

You're just saying, oh, Ricardo thought of it, so it must be true.

You're not going to be able to do it.

I'm just telling you, it's an extra authority.

The subjective theory of value is a kind of like step one when the entire classical field of political economy was a step two, a three, a four, you never passed the first step.

There's no contradiction between the fact that values also have to be socially necessary and the notion that they could also be objective.

There's no contradiction between those at all.

That something is socially necessary.

That a condition of something having value, that it's socially necessary, doesn't change whether that value can be referred to as objective or not at all.

You don't even get to step one.

Well, so you're saying it's up to it's subjective to the societal norms, yet it's still objective.

Yes, yes, because the objectivity refers to material conditions of production.

Socially necessary maybe is one of those conditions.

It's a premise that those conditions are affected, that this is going to be produced materially, okay?

But once we accept that, we have to inquire upon the material conditions of its production and whether that factors into the value that's manifested in markets and so on and in exchange, which it absolutely is, as a determining factor.

An implicit presupposition in the constraint of value is that it's socially necessary.

But that it is socially necessary is not enough for us to understand the discrepancies in the prices of magnitudes of value of various different commodities.

That was the point.

The diversity of magnitudes of the various commodities cannot solely be explained by the fact that they're socially necessary.

Well also, but yeah, you're still arguing though that like societal demands move as a whole, right?

Well, in reality, that's not true.

No, no, I'm not even saying that.

I'm just saying it's socially necessary.

Whether that's the aggregate of all these completely isolated individual tastes just aggregating into these social trends, we can ignore that naive, stupid view you have of how trends form.

That's fine.

But all that's in Marxist language, that's just socially necessary.

That's all it means.

The fact that there's demand for it, the fact that people want it, the fact that they decided it's valuable.

How do you quantify that?

We don't need to quantify it.

Well, you'd have to quantify it to put it in some sort of model to allocate.

We can just assume it.

We don't have to quantify it at all.

So you base your economy off assuming things.

No, we say that the fact that it's socially necessary is an implicit premise of anything having value at all, speaking of value.

And then we inquire upon how things actually acquire the magnitudes of value that they do.

Okay, but to run it through these algorithms in which you speak of, you need to quantify it somewhere.

What is the price of a piece of poop to someone who doesn't want it at all?

Zero dollars.

Zero dollars, correct.

So, we're not even talking about poop if no one wants it.

We're not even talking about it.

Okay.

We don't have to talk about it.

There's nothing to so, but it can't explain why there's discrepancies in prices when we're already presupposing that this is so unnecessary.

I know that's not what you're talking about because you've never thought of this before in your life.

No, you've never thought about the fact that we can't actually explain any prices in terms of subjective theory of value.

Because if something isn't wanted at all, if something is not wanted at all, it's zero dollars.

You can't speak of it in terms of value.

Yeah, it's subjectively worth zero.

If someone really likes it, it is worth zero because there's no demand for it because it's not being produced.

There's no reason for it.

Okay, what if someone really liked this person's poo?

Let's just say, just as an absurd example, right?

It would then be valued higher.

Would you not agree?

They would pay for it.

Uh, but does it actually have value?

To them, it does.

They would pay for it.

It doesn't actually have value.

Oh, it does because they would pay for it.

No, it doesn't, because at a certain scale, market prices acquire a social at a certain scale.

See, this is where it falls off.

You look at it too much of a macro movement, right?

When in reality, it's a lot more nuanced.

No, the macro reality is objectively real, okay?

Poop if one person, if one person pays another person for their poop, let's say $35 or something, right?

That doesn't mean the poop has the magnitude of value that's the equivalent of $35.

That's assuming price and value are the same, which they're not, right?

If there's an underlying value to things that's objective, then how that would be explained is that the value produced elsewhere that gives the $35, which would be backed by gold in this scenario because it has to be, the inherent objective magnitude of value that's crystallized in it was actually produced objectively elsewhere and is being squandered to buy this poop to satiate this person's whims and fancies for poop.

Well, once again, you're still saying, hold on, let me make sure I understand your argument.

So, the fact that people can buy whatever they want doesn't actually negate there's an objective law of value because the law of value your objectivity is just an average of the subjective.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Yes, that's what you're saying.

You're saying the aggregate, aggregate demand, which would then be just an average of the subjective law.

Let's presuppose aggregate demand, which is absolutely not an aggregate of individual preferences because individual preferences are culturally formed by and large.

But they vary from person to person.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

These are infinitesimal, meaningless differences that don't matter, right?

No.

Yeah.

In a tribe where there's an extremely communal division of labor, where one guy likes a bead shaped in some way.

It doesn't change the underlying labor that they're going on the beach collecting seashells and beads or whatever.

Like the infinitesimal different preferences or whatever, these are not economic factors at all.

Okay.

But in any case,

When we presuppose so that something is socially necessary, okay, that doesn't tell us about why there's discrepancies in the magnitudes of value that are crystallized in various different commodities on the market under intense competitive conditions, okay?

So I still do you still point still stands that you're just aggregating individual demand for your objective value.

So how do you calculate objective value then?

Is it just the word?

No, I'm not aggregating individual demand.

First of all, I'm going to explain to you why, because it's not how preferences are formed.

They're not formed individually, first of all.

No, they're not.

No, they're not.

Second of all,

Yeah, you just so happen to have the preferences of someone living in 2026 and not 1592.

You're such a unique individual, by the way.

You're slightly different, right?

Like it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

That's not even the part of the argument.

It's not even the important part of the argument.

I'm saying we could just presuppose that.

We could just presuppose that the things that have value are socially necessary.

But why are there discrepancies in the price of things?

The fact that it's socially necessary can't explain that.

The fact that something is wanted more than another doesn't explain it, actually.

Only thing that explains it is the objective conditions of productions being different.

The conditions of the production of a refrigerator are different than the conditions of the production of a pair of sandals.

Yeah, but once again, if we look at what people who like refrigerators don't necessarily value sandals less than they do refrigerators for most people to live a well-rounded life, they want both.

Both of these things are important to them.

But the conditions of the production of a refrigerator and those of sandals differ.

Why?

Because the magnitudes of labor crystallized in them are different.

I understand.

So now let's look back to your colored phones example, right?

Their conditions of production were the exact same, just with colored values are, but their values are different, right?

Right.

So their values aren't different.

Their prices are different, potentially.

Because people value them, right?

Someone would rather pay $10.

You're making value some kind of normative values a certain color phone over the other.

Colloquially, they value it more, correct?

Not in the sense of classical political economy.

They colloquially think that this one is worth more than the other one.

Okay.

Sure.

But ultimately, that in some local sense can explain the discrepancy in the price.

But it cannot explain the tendencies within society that are responsible for the possibility of the accumulation of surpluses.

And it cannot explain the tendencies that are responsible for the formation of the.

No, it can't.

You're wondering why surpluses accumulate if values are fair?

Is that what you're asking?

What a loaded, stupid question.

Okay.

No, not if they're fair.

If you have two iPhones and one of them is upmarked from its cost of production because it's green and the green one is in demand more and the other one is blue, for example.

There are still objective conditions of the production that both that basically will guarantee it won't go up below a certain price, right?

Sure.

Regardless of whether anyone prefers it or not.

And I'll tell you why.

Because let's say there's such a low demand for it that Apple or whoever wants to just get it off the shelves and sell it for $1 when the cost of production is $100, right?

Let's pretend that scenario happens, which it could very well.

If that trend would continue, Apple would no longer be able to sustain the production of that iPhone anymore.

It could not acquire the surplus necessary for the accumulation or expansion of capital, let alone maintain operations, right?

Okay.

So that's what it's meant by the objective conditions of production.

So you're saying because like objectively sometimes people don't want things, that doesn't mean the entire you're just saying once again you're going back to aggregates, right?

The aggregate where people don't want to.

But the question is not do people want things?

The question is once people want things, what are the objective conditions of the production of those things?

Now if people don't want things to such an extent that the price falls below its cost of production entirely, it's no longer a relevant factor market-wise anymore.

Okay.

So how does that make things there's a there's like an objective sort of maybe overarching structure the the conditions for the reproduction of the labor that go into the production of a given commodity, okay, let's say a coat or something in Marx's time, that has to be met and maintained, or else there's not going to be a coat, whether anyone fucking wants one or not.

There won't be one.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's that's what we mean by objective value.

We're presupposing the fact it's socially necessary.

All right.

Well, let's look at the other factors, right?

Because it's not simply that.

Also, let's say they marketed this iPhone, right?

And that increased sales.

How do you factor that into the cost, right?

The increase of sales all only means it's more socially necessary.

It doesn't explain to us how the surplus is being produced, is being accumulated.

It doesn't matter how many iPhones you sell if they're $1 and the cost of production of an iPhone is $100.

It doesn't matter how many you sell.

If you're not able to acquire a surplus over the initial cost of production, there's no profit.

Yes, I understand.

But I'm talking about because your objective thing of $100.

So you say the objective value is how much it takes to produce, right?

Yes.

But though it might take $100 to materially produce it, right?

They spend money on research.

They spend money on marketing.

They spend money on all of these things.

So how would you combat that?

It's your rebuttal.

How do you distinguish the costs of production that are the direct material costs of production, according to a scheme within the labor theory of value, and costs of production that go into furthering the social necessity of the product or refining it or changing it in some kind of way?

Well, it's just that.

You can divide it between costs of production, which actually Marx talks about in Capital Volume 2 when he talks about commercial.

workers and commercial production and circulation, right?

More or less, marketing is something you're doing to increase the social necessity of this thing.

This commodity.

So, okay, rotating back to my original point, right, so for the economic calculation problem, right, how do you respond to the economic calculation problem?

Like, give me a pitch to someone that knows what the economic calculation problem is and how you combat that.

Um, it's complete bullshit.

It's and the burden is not on me to debunk anything.

There's nothing to debunk.

It's just it was complete it was based on faulty premises from the beginning.

No, 'cause how do you quant so you use objective theory value, but that doesn't it doesn't um solve for incentives, right, and innovation.

There's no innovation incentive incentive.

There's no what is the innovation incentive?

But that's totally separate from the calculation problem.

There's no relationship.

Okay, well going back to the calculation problem, right, you said that why are you pivoting?

Okay, hold on, I'll return.

So we go to the economic calculation problem.

You calculate, just to make sure I understand your point, you calculate using the labor theory of value.

That's how you calculate.

Um

Not necessarily, no.

Oh, so what do you calculate with them?

You factor in the input of the hours of labor that are going into the commodity, but you also factor into you know, factor into things like scarcity, productive capacity, and of course, demand by society.

And right, so how do you find that demand?

How do you measure whether people want things?

It's really easy.

You can put there's first of all, I'm just assuming we're living in like the 20s right now.

I'm not going to even entertain how easy this would be in 2026.

Let's just assume we're living in the 20s, okay?

When this stupid idea was advanced, okay, and I'm a Soviet, whatever, right?

It's very easy to take inventory of what people want versus what they don't want beyond just what they're taking off the shelves.

You could begin with that, of course, what is in more demand based on what are people consuming more, but you could also just listen to people and pull them and through the local.

You need to have something like people could just say, Oh, I want a bunch of shoes, I want a bunch of this.

You have to have some sort of like cut off.

Like, okay, that's the so how did you do that?

What do you mean, cut off?

Well, right, because what's stopping people from just requesting everything?

Because, like, sure, I'm you think in this in planned economies, everything is just free?

No, but I'm asking you because you said you go off what people want, you ask people.

You asked me how could you figure out what demand is, demand input.

I never so, how are you so stupid that you go from me saying demand is one of the factors of whether or not to consider producing something and to demand is the only factor, right?

I'm not.

I'm talking about here.

You need to have it, right?

You need to understand demand in order to produce something.

Okay, so if we can understand demand, that means everything is free.

Do you even hear me?

No, no, no.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I asked you how you quantify demand, right?

Because you need to know demand for production.

And you said we'd give people, we'd ask people, right?

So, what's stopping people from just requesting as much as they want?

Because people that that because this is the fascinating thing that the Austrians can never understand is that people's actual demands are not simply determined by their imagination.

They're also determined by a relative expectation and understanding of what is available already to them.

Right?

But how do you you don't know you don't know like the specifics though?

And also it's slightly different.

So you just you have a very limited imagination.

So there's always going to be a constrained limited initial availability of any given thing that's already there, right?

Let's say the the given um articles of consumption that are just brought over from the capitalist era are now just being reproduced in a socialist way to maintain the the standard of living right now how people how people express demand is incremental they slowly and gradually uh start choosing this over this right and then based on the popularity of the there's all sorts of ways to determine um

Whether something is going to be more in demand than another, and then rationally extrapolate the why of why that is.

There's all sorts of ways to experiment whether a product would actually be popular and necessary.

Because what's that saying that Steve Jobs said?

You don't just figure out what people already think they want, you give them what they want, you give them something that they didn't even know they wanted, right?

Um, and there's all sorts of ways to figure out whether that would be popular, whether that could catch on as a trend.

You start slow.

I mean, if it works in the village, you scale up.

I mean, this is not this is a non-problem.

It's not a non-problem because, once again, now you're going on to like this wouldn't be an individual execution production, right?

You'd have to do this on a government scale.

Like, think about the bureaucracy.

What are you talking about?

There's shelves, and there's some things that are taken off the shelves and paid for, and there's other things that remain.

And those are absolutely factored into macro-scale calculations.

What sort of calculate?

Give me your full formula for how you do this.

Like, what is your formula for your algorithmic calculation?

What is my full mathematical formula for planning the entire Soviet Union?

Bro, for because you must have one, right?

Do you have one?

You want okay, to be clear, you want a mathematical formula right now, right?

Yes.

Okay, goodbye.

Literally, never come back.

Even if I had one on hand, how would I present it to you?

Am I supposed to write it down on a notebook and show the camera?

What a stupid thing to demand of me, a mathematical formula on TikTok.

Even if I had.

A mathematical formula for planning the Soviet Union off the top of my head, which is why is the burden upon me that I need that?

They already had that.

They had the top mathematicians in the world, which is why they all went to work for Intel and IBM and they founded Silicon Valley.

Give me your math formula.

Yeah, just say it out loud.

Oh, yeah, I have the yeah, the Soviet planning.

I have it off the top of my head.

Sure.

What a reasonable thing to demand.

An insufferable end cap.

You don't have a lot of time, buddy.

We're wrapping this up in five minutes.

You better make it entertaining.

Hey, how's it going?

Sorry, I only caught the very last bit of that because of the drawing.

Oh, sorry.

I don't talk to Australians.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Alright, so I don't want to debate you on like any historical stuff or anything like that.

I wanted to talk to you about a headline I just read about.

Yeah, I don't want to talk to you about that.

Alright, we're fucking done.

Alright?

Everyone, goodbye.

We're done.

Uh we'll see you guys Sunday.

Our wages or resources determined.

Will everyone make the same amount of money?

Absolutely not.

I want to emphasize something.

Communism.

There will be an incredible degree of continuity between

What the reality now and when communists take power, okay?

Think China.

Think China.

Please think China.

There's a presupposition of the premises now in con in existence, okay?

When we get to a post-monetary economy,

And things like that, it's going to be a process that will be seamless, not abrupt.

The abrupt thing is going to be political change, proletarian dictatorship.

That will be abrupt.

I'm not a reformist.

The economy will change gradually.

See left comms will call me a burns they don't understand the difference between politics and economics, okay?

Think of China right now.

Just think in terms of common sense.

We're not here to.

Uh

We're not claiming that m modern civilization itself is just going to be wiped out and and cree recreated from scratch.

We're not saying that.

A C P is Fed Slop.

I think God weeps for people like you.

Like, you're just wrong.

You're just wrong.

In fact, one day you're going to find out that.

Your influencers were the feds, and we were the ones who were genuine and sincere.

And you're gonna feel bad about it, but it's whatever.

Keep going down this path.

It's like God is c Jesus is crying for you.

You're just like it's such a tragedy.

Like up there, God knows the truth, and here you are, just fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally fucking wrong, right?

It's just sad, it's Trey.

You're so off the mark.

How are you on the wrong side of history?

So badly.

Are you not ashamed?

You won't be now, because you don't know the truth.

You will in the future, don't worry.

Brandon, shut the hell up, telling me to calm down.

Who are you?

This there's a guy named Socialist Party saying Kotsky was right.

Alright we've seen enough, we're ending this.

We're ending this.

I mean, it's it's like it's like, where does it end, you know?

Where does it end?

Alright guys.

Um definitely don't

Don't don't send me uh

Hold on guys.

Guys, definitely like, you know, I'm about to end the stream.

So don't send me, don't drop like a 20, guys.

I'm about to end the stream.

You know, if you did that, it would be really.

Hold on, Austral Stanny!

Alex Amberson's market from dumb

This is too hardcore actually.

Guys definitely don't.

Definitely don't guys.

I'm about to end it now, you know.

Definitely save it.

I'm literally ending it though.

The bid is over.

All right, guys.

Bye-bye.

I'm actually ending it.

Bye-bye.

See you guys Sunday.

Strail Stani.

Thank you so much.

Sophia, what's up, Flood?

Thank you guys.

Appreciate you.

Bye-bye.