INTENSE DEBATES | FBI ATTACK | IRAN 'CEASEFIRE?'

We're going to see me on So let's go.

Let's go.

Let's go. Come to the region and to be

the

god

and a

up Stand to the rhythm Stim to the bee

You're gonna stand right under your feet

Your ocean is tall

In the moon is so bright

We got a body to the morning light

I can up in style

In the flow

In the one tree's straight

In the common west glow

Holding your close

You're the ones

Dancing together under the sun

Sun

It's nice and love I'm a mercy

You're the only one for me

It's the night in love

And this is alive And this is about

I'm going to love

I'm laughing

I'm going to

I'm like you

I'm you I love you Move your body

Like a lot of

Like a breeze on the

One way in any time

I'm in a In the air

I see the sunlight in your

One love, one heart one destiny

I'm dancing together with everything you see you won't be done to see you feel you're so

me please please please and please where my voice are me I'm a man

see you're the only one for me that's when I'm finding

in the love

I'm just out of the ocean

dream

I love and love

and I'm living with you

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm and la la la la la ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Lassie the way of it. Lassing the way of it.

Yeah. I thought Bruce I'm the

I'm

I thought

I'm

I'm You are the only one for me I thought go hard as fun

You go hard as far Don't hear me? Bapara, bapara, pap da, ma'amama! Bata

Bapada

Bapha Bapada

Mama

Back in the

Bhop Milder Milder Milder Milder Milder Mug Milder Mug

I can't come

I can't

ass

I'm

and down nine miller be the guy and a gun out like a bunch of ass niger at the right down all my one up on the niggins shoot my line with the

king's name down

I'm gonna shit in the nine four back my nine miller be to cause I ain't

in a cop out like a bunched ass

bitched like now I'm a wonderful nigga shoot my line with the 15 round

Hey and let's see well I guess the shit in the eye for my life never be to come on and I'm gonna put the ass to

act like to ask right now I wanna pull that nigga shit my line

I'm gonna see my love

I'm gonna put the ass with my life

and I don't put the ass to act like that out I'm gonna put your ass to ass down

I'm gonna buy that

niggins shoot my line

with the crazy wild and man

I'm telling me

a loud man

I'm

I'm running in my back

and I need a and make you oh wow in my back. And if you're a

man

for a murder

in my mind and oh oh

and

I'm

a I think you gotta put the body, I'm gonna be in my life. You want it, I'm gonna get to be.

I'm gonna lot of

I don't know

and

I'm

I'm gonna be a lot I'm gonna

and a lot

I'm gonna and the other people and a lot of

I know

I'm a lot of the I'm a lot of

I'm going to be

I think

I'm a I'm I'm

I'm

I'm going to have a lot.

And I don't know. and the I'm going to be I'm

a lot of

I'm

I'm and the other people and the other

and the other

I'm I'm

a I'm I'm a

I'm a

I'm a

I'm a One if we're good

one's in

this shit is working right

ones if we're good

one's if we're good and the other side and the job and I'm not

I'm going to

I'm going to Next person to tag me about my Myanmar is banned, by the way.

Yo, the kid's CCCP.

What's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

What's up?

Appreciate you, bro.

Appreciate it.

What's going on?

Mecca rep.

What's up?

Brandon, Iro.

What's up?

What's up? What's up? What's up, what's up, we're good.

Welcome to the Infrared podcast, everyone. Welcome to the Infrared Webcast.

And wow, I actually have some pretty crazy shit to cover. the infrared webcast and wow

I actually have some pretty crazy

shit to cover today

Dead Ghost what's up and I'm going to let the tech

people call me out if it's bullshit I saw

it I'm sure you may have saw it

I'm going to 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 cease fire what's going on iran still has the strait of war moves

closed the israel continues to bomb and attack what's going on? Iran still has the Strait of Ormuz closed.

The Israel continues to bomb

and attack Lebanon, which Iran

regards as a violation of the ceasefire.

Everyone thought

that because of the announcement 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 Dubai with the 5th. 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 going to 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, oh boy, if it is, get ready for the long haul, for real.

This isn't going to be like the 12- 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, he's like, 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 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 it.

I'll get in that a second.

But, you know, 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

you know, with the PPP shit-A-P-P-Shit.

They'll debate me on TikTok, so why would I need to 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.

There's nothing I could say actually on camera, but, you know, you've said some things, and I don't really think that's going to be resolved

through a debate, actually. You can't just talk all that shit and think it's going to be chill.

It's going to be fine. It's not like that. By the way, he's not even a real, you know 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

uh you can't say that for people like

bouncy Ben who have no principles

who are Zionists sellouts and shills

who are shilling

Malay.

I mean, if you're actually a Ryan Dawson libertarian, you're not pro-Millay.

You don't confuse this idea of, you know, destroying the monopolistic state machine for, you know, emiserating and enslaving your entire nation 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... right? So, yeah, but anyway, that's kind of a side track.

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

I am very skeptical

of a ceasefire. On the

other hand, Vladimir Putin,

Vladimir Vladimir

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,? 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 technically

skilled. Christian always 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. And I could explain why that's going to happen.

There's just so many, 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 could we 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 extreme

like, glowy feds in my chat create sleeper cells asap you are a fed dude what

are you talk what are you what are you talking about uh anyway i hope there's people in our party

who know about this stuff ha just, just kidding, I know there are.

But, um,

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. It 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 happened. 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 is we know what 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 30-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.

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.

And if you just think about it,

if governments have to put together

cyber warfare divisions and teams,

and they take months and months to months to hack stuff and find

vulnerabilities in in in government databases in private you know uh user um user data and information

and stuff like that,

data center,

software,

whatever the cloud is hosting.

Adam,

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 do that much faster.

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

A lot of they're put by state actors

in the first place. Very interesting.

Yeah, but AI is going to totally...

I mean, that's just, I think, is a better argument

for why this is going to 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 like going to be a window of they're going to have to patch it in minutes, you know, in seconds.

And when it leaks and again, it proliferates and it becomes common in for you know rogue actors and individuals

um 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, their finances, they have all these passwords and stuff?

I just saw a thing about, I mean, I'm not going to get into the quantum computing aspect, because we all know quantum computing is going

to just destroy all cryptography as we know it but this is something that's happened already

apparently with Claude Mythos right?

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, you know, 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, 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.

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 going to be doxed.

Not only are you going to be doxed,

all your private information

is just going to be exposed.

Everyone in the fucking world.

Like,

we're going to approach the point

where there's going to 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 nothing you can do about it.

And it's too bad.

And like everyone is going to 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 going to be great.

I'm just kidding.

But it's like, look, I'm not really ashamed of anything, you know? So 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, they would 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.

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,

um, 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... Hold on.

Hmm.

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

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

One, the expose, 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

like everyone's sins are just going to be exposed

uh everything everyone

anyone has ever done it's just going to be

it's going to be gone and on an anonymity is going to 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 going to be gone.

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

That's going to... Think about how many marriages are going to end.

Think about how many conflicts are going to ensue because of that.

Think about how much panic there's going to be

and just

crazy shit that's just going to happen

just from that alone.

And you haven't really thought it through.

You really haven't thought it through.

Because I haven't even touched the surface of the implications of just that dimension of

social reputation bullshit alone, right?

I haven't even touched on that.

It's going to fucking, it'll change everything.

People will feel like they have nothing to lose.

It'll be fucking crazy.

Okay?

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

Let's just think about

things, 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?

People will fucking lose everything.

There's no insurance on that.

And then even if you

have the wallet

outside of the cloud,

you have a local wallet,

we're also getting to a point

where quantum computers, I don't know how far

long were with that. I know of 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 J.P. Morgan Chase

is actually part

of Project Sparrow, which

Anthropic 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 it 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

it'll 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.

What would it take to hack into critical infrastructure?

That's digital.

You know, that could lead to a lot of actual blackouts, you know, fatalities, fatal, 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?

How much of this shit is actually like 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 Romani?

Just think about how fucking crazy this is going to be.

The basic ability to have control, remote control over digital, 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 LLM

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, I mean and it doesn't matter

how much they hide it or it'll leak

it can leak right

and then okay Claude

and the new version of Claude

came out

wow whoopty-do

okay China's going to come out with some shit

Google's going to come out with some shit. Google's going to come out with some shit.

Everyone's going to 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.

Isn't that going

to make

centralized remote control

over any

computerized system

impossible

just based on common sense

isn't that isn't it going to be like the Wild West

like if you get into a fucking election 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.

Like, what's going to stop? What's going to take it over and fucking crash if he wants to.

Like what's going to stop?

What's 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 gonna fucking have

is riding a fucking horse or some shit.

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

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... fashion way, right? And I don't see, like, this is the scenario that I'm anticipating.

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.

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 going to pay attention to what i say i just don't say

anything at all just be a lurker just watch the stream and lurk all right

anyway i i just i don't i don't know what to say i I mean, like, I don't, I don't know how you get that at all.

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 secret, because 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 2 is, of course, about...

Death Stranding 1 is the traditional, you know, Oriental Empire, you know, laying the critical

common infrastructure that, you know, laying the critical common infrastructure that, you know, cements together 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 COVID. Death Stranding two is made it's like the death stranding one was about COVID death

stranding two is about the Ukraine war and the thing that's probably coming soon in modern

societies in Europe and America which is the 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

that's an

yeah Kojima's like he knows shit

because I think he's connected

to the fucking deep state or so shit I don't know

he knows shit for sure

um yeah that that was a very powerful of shit. I don't know. He knows shit for sure.

Yeah, that was a very powerful game, right?

Anyway, I'll write something about it eventually,

maybe, but

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

I want to focus more on,

you know,

at hand 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 uh to use ham radio this is all chapters and should have already gotten the memo okay 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.

There's also other plans the tech department has for things like this.

Some will take much longer than that.

And I don't know how much time we have, but we definitely have some plans for sure.

So, uh, have some plans for sure so I just wanted to say that I think I don't I don't I don't know 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 project sparrow whatever this is it's just a marketing gimmick maybe

i'm not an expert when it comes to software development or 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 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 people say is sci-fi. I don't know about that. I think

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 going to share that with you.

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

protest. Well, my response to chair

lady is

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 commemorations of the Paris commune of events.

I mean, all sorts of purely ceremonial things are done by communist parties and other...

This is part of what politics is.

So if people are confused about...

Oh, it's just so performative that they're, you know, 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 do a pervert's way of flirting is just like

let's fuck like that's a perverts 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 uh 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. You are a psychological monster and you should be locked up, frankly.

You're not human.

You're post-human monstrosity.

Maybe also neurodivergent.

Who knows?

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 Shield seeks debater to defend capitalism against Haas in communism versus capitalism

debate.

So that hit, that became trending.

Let's see.

And it doesn't make sense though because here's

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 is just taxation. What does that have to do with anything I said?

That's not even related to me. A lot of this is not related to me.

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 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.

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

But you can debate me tonight.

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

And probably not. You're just not that relevant

and I want to talk about

the Jake Shields thing in a second

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?

In order to get a rematch,

you have to acknowledge you lost the last one.

We did have a debate, actually,

and that debarers 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.

And there's actually, there's 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

yeah yeah

so then he said, okay,

let's have a proper fucking debate then where I'm

going to actually press your bitch ass, right?

So for example,

the debate that I had with Keith Woods.

Keith Woods, 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, 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,

you have to acknowledge what happened. You have to acknowledge that you lost. Actually, I will do a rematch if you acknowledge you lost. I'll do a rematch if you acknowledge you lost. I'll do a rematch if you acknowledge you lost. And

you 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 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,

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 a 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?

Meal, 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 you're not going to 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, how it's going to be.

Now, I am going to still have a conversation with jake shields

regardless there 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 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, regardless, there's going to be good content that comes out of it.

Regardless, it's going to be very good exposure.

And, 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. I don't actually know where the

Nevada chapter is located in Nevada, but I will be in, I don't know if the location is publicly 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, yes, 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 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, 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 75 to 90% of them

have left Trump. But they're not Democrats. You understand?

They're part of this new anti-Ebstein 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 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 they're kind of scratching their head

like I don't really know what that is

you know so we need to show know what that is, you know?

So we need to show them what it is,

not just through what we're doing, which

we 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.

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 actual writing.

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

and I can justify that to hell and 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 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 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?

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 a i generate me this text,

well, where's the motivation coming from?

Like, what is the intention?

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

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 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

kind of

neurochemical reaction that is elicited

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 fulfilled

automatically

and the ability

for you to

articulate

why you enjoy

the things that you do

is what

you're no longer

going to be able

to have any

kind of ability

to reflect

on the things you enjoy. You're going to be able to have any kind of ability to reflect on

the things you enjoy.

You're going to continue doom scrolling

and you're going to see the AI fruit videos

where Waterina

cheats on

the water guy with a Mr. Fantastic

which actually happened.

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

And not to moralize, but it's like, 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-rodded 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 uissance.

But anyway, chasing the dopamine fix, so to speak, can land you in strange places

that are in no way necessarily

reflective of who you are deep down.

I mean, I kind of,

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, Thank you. B. Okay. I'm looking on mic prices right now.

Okay.

All right guys, look, the price of this mic, once of you can hear me, this mic caused $200.

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

But you guys have to fund it

I'm just whatever let's just move on right? I'll just move on

Um because I don't know why this is actually I did replace my water Let's just move on.

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...

I don't know.

What if it's...

I have to test a bunch of things.

Comrade, Kate, what's up?

I'm going to have to have an entire stream

dedicated solely to the mic.

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

Sue is the problem...

The reason it's frustrating, guys, is because...

Thank you so much, Sue. The reason it's frustrating, guys, is because thank you so much, too,

is 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 going to continue

to randomly just stop working. Like 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 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, um, it's blind to the content that's structuring it, right? So I could imagine there's a guy who was like an entirely normal, or we should say typical, uh, person who had a, uh, 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 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. 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 when it's replacing that level of our ability

to articulate the horizon of meaning

that ultimately determines us,

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

it. Maybe that's petty bourgeois me to say. Maybe, no, I don't think so. I think that there's

definitely something very spiritually Israeli about maybe... No, I don't think so. I think that there's definitely

something very

spiritually Israeli

about GROC.

Whenever I see

a GROC-generated

tweet or a

GROC-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 like,

it's like so Zog coded. We're locked into the status quo that we're like, 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

circuit trust our blind, like immediate, 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, 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 aren't... But you know what I mean, right?

I think that should remain sacred.

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

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 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?

Yeah, 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? 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 cookold story.

And all takes is one to go viral and then, you know, 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 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 I'll just say Hindufta.

There's something spiritually like Hindufta slop about AI, not even just spiritually Israeli, because 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 like 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. using them, right, basically.

So those are my god honest thoughts when it comes to uh l l ms and a i generated models and all those kind of

things and um honest to god you know now ones if you are excited for the debates

ones if you're excited for debates we're going to get into debates okay uh twos if you would

want these to be on tic talk once again

wow some of you guys want them on x that's crazy

all right well they are going to be on ticot Wow, some of you guys want them on X. That's crazy.

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

All right, so I'm going to be careful this time and not get de-boasted like I was last time. You 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.

We don't ever get good content from that. All right, we're going

we're going

we're going we'll see we'll see you are the only one for me

what's up guys I'm back all right so we're gonna be uh and stay 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

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 What's up, man? Thank you.

You are the only one for me.

So, yeah, we're going to be basically talking about communism without the PPP. 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 joined and they're like, I want to debate and I'm like, okay, finally, they're like, okay, pee, pee, pooh-poo.

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 21 when I started out.

There were some people like that.

But really, the PPP thing is crazy, you know?

I was not anticipating that at all.

I didn't know people unironically still do that.

Honestly, 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, go crying every night because 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?

We got a genius in here.

They're like, do you know Midwestern Marks?

No, I don't know.

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? What's up, family?

What's going on?

Yeah, I just want to chop it up about

cooperatives, your perspective on it.

If it's a tool in your tool belt

of, uh,

yeah, we do it.

We do it. Hey, be loves. Yeah, we do it towards revolution just we do it

hey big ups

yeah we do it

we definitely

what do you say that

yeah

yeah we got

multiple

cooperative enterprises

we're trying to get

off the ground

that are in the works that's how we get that's how we're

planning on funding our party though you know come on man what do you say to the communists that

say hey that's a that's a liberal tool in their tool about you know that's lowercase liberal where they

get where they're getting their money from that's my question how do they how they get funded

how to lend to linden this party that's what i had that's question i can't fund a lend in this 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 is anything problem with it. They are usually...

I'm not saying this is 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 going to somehow fall out of the sky or something like that.

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

That's a Jainist 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 the CP USA.

Is that Communist Party USA?

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

So basically, this is a party.

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 communist, 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 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 Tudor party, who are imperialist collaborationists. So this is what the CPUSA did. Okay, so sorry Xavier. Apparently Quinn will actually have the courage to confront me

which is incredible okay he's calling me a Nas Bowl let him on where is he

so you don't know what a Nas BowlBOL is, and that's great.

But how could you maintain, how could you sustain that view are NOSBels?

First of all, what is a NOSBOL?

Do you even know what it is?

Second, well, how are we NOSBALs?

Like, we're the most internationalist-oriented.

We are far more internationalists than the CP USA.

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 CPSA visit Donbass?

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

CPSA advocates for voting for the Democratic Party

meanwhile the ACP is showing solidarity

internationalist solidarity to the revolutionary forces worldwide

so who's the nozbole and who's really the internazbole

right who's the nozbole and who's the internazbole, right? Who's the

Nasbole and who's the internazbole? ACP is literally around the world

supporting the revolutionary forces of the world in international solidarity, while

the CPUSA is tailing the Democratic Party within the U.S., which is responsible

for the genocide in Palestine,

among other things.

Who's the nationalist and who's the

internationalist and who's the internationalist?

Let's hear it.

You know, I just, I can't even believe a c p usa 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 mallerick

we'll bring them on first go ahead malric

yo

i look you 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.

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 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 nowhere in the real world 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.

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 has 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.

That it's not significant. or that it's not significant

and it will be Anton Pancake

His name is pancake

Panacan Panacocca some Dutch nonsense

Jibber 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 that's that should close the book on

so-called council communism

it really doesn't

okay why has it not because it really doesn't okay why has it not

because it really doesn't attack the ideas of council communism

okay they mean nothing

I promise they mean nothing

I mean I still believe in a stateless

I just I'm kind of having

trouble to 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 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 cons everyone voting in a council about what toilet paper should be uh 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 counsel on the ship saying,

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

no i know you haven't really thought about it i agree somebody there's somebody claiming

acp is yian is no you must have us confused for the CP USA

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 nobody's with 10 followers on X who somehow can say bad things about us and get 10,000, 20,000 likes.

And you mean to tell me those are human beings and not Mossadbots?

Go ahead, Charlie.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

I'll keep a quick.

So,

you're a communist, right?

Correct.

Marks.

Have I talked to you before?

No.

No.

So enlighten me.

Do, um, 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 Why don't I? Because

Because in order to be communist 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 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,

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

Because, I mean...

No.

No?

Because, who'd...

If you don't move on from the Vanguard party, doesn't that already established classes, a class system?

Like, what I'm getting at, so... i'll just give you no what about like the bolsheviks you know what about like um praise them praise I mean, what about Stalin?

Glory to Stalin.

You don't have like an issue with like...

The, like, hello to more or anything like that

you want to answer that?

Yeah

I'm just kind of confused on like your

your view. Like what's your end goal in a society?

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 hope

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're gonna you respond to it like a man

or like a slave living on your knees.

Do you understand?

We're not here.

That's not very communist.

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, we live

in a specific situation.

A specific system. Part of a specific history. There's 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.

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.

I don't disagree in that regard.

So we don't have to think about, so when you say 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.

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. Carl 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 are you, are you Muslim?

Or what's your

religion?

The Safavia

Sufi order, the Kizelbos.

Okay.

I don't know. I was just

cares.

So, one more question.

Go ahead.

Do you agree with Marx's view on family?

Yes.

You do? Your anti-family values?

Was that Marx's view?

Marks had a family.

He had a wife and he had kids.

Marks viewed wives and kids as private equity, which would go against the communist.

No, he didn't.

He had a family.

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.

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. Carl 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 Engel 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.

No, I see. Not me.

I will say, but he said it.

I think that's a very valid view on family.

I agree, 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 would you say, like, would you say love is important? I would say, I would say, I would say, uh, care. I say, I would say raising villages and

cities to the ground is important. That's my accent. But, you know, I'll

let Engels speak for us, and I won't

it's not my accent. You know, it's not my

point of emphasis, really.

But you were just

advocated for the whole other more?

I didn't. I know I didn't.

That's not even a real thing.

I deny it entirely.

Wait, wait, what do you mean?

It's not a real thing.

I deny it.

How so?

It's fake.

I know.

What?

Yeah, it's totally made up.

So how many people do you think died from a whole little more?

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

So how is it fake?

Oh, is the famine. Famines? Oh, it's a famine.

Famines are real.

There's people in Kazakhstan died.

People in Russia died.

Well, right, but.

Yeah.

It wasn't a, it wasn't a genocide.

Yeah.

It was a, it was a, it was a, it was a famine was a It was a

It was a non-manmade famine

Mostly caused by natural factors

Partially caused by

sabotage by the Kulox

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 was it, 17 to 19 countries had invaded the revolutionary Russia during the Civil War, and they anticipated that in 10 years that 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, 8, 9 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 Churchill. Put the blame on the

Germans and all these other

European Juncker, feudal

princelings and kings and queens

and filthy fat

I didn't swear.

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 Vasinir,

Joseph Stalin.

Don't put the blame on them.

Do not like feel like

he kind of

messed up in his way of

advancing the Russian society

I mean

no Russia had so much

he did the best he could have done

at the time

I challenge you

that you could have done better. No one could have.

Well, I don't know.

Stalin was the captain of the ship.

Maybe I'd like

Enforce a little more

agrarian development. Nobody said

there would be no storms. 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 Pagrin' No, of course it's going to be a rough he went to

he got that ship. He kept in that ship

from point A to point

B going from wheelbarrows

and wooden plows to

nuclear weapons.

So would point A

be revolutionary

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 because you just said point mean, what's point B? I'm just questioning that.

Today?

Yeah.

Because 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, no.

Sir, sir, you wanted the division. No, no, no, no, sir. Sir, you want a division.

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.

Wait, wait. Can I interrupt your report?

Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!

Okay. Township authorities at the most local level.

So eventually a revolutionary process

and we established 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.

We, every single bridge and highway

in this country, we rebuilt it. We updated

into the 21st century. We go

into every small time. We get out

their pipes in Flint, Michigan. We replace

it so they could 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 get 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 a, 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.

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 like say all these phenomenal things that it's like in store

I'm not going to live to see the day I don't think I will

but it'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.

They just, 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.

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,

what you're saying is correct.

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 are right. You are right.

I don't, you know, I don't really

necessarily agree with.

And you are defeated. Except the rule of Stalin, 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 con

is bow to the con 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 the hell

this anime yeah This better be good. What the hell?

This is anime.

Yeah.

Bro, what is the ACP?

Huh?

Listen, what?

Why you got an anime picture?

Bro, why you got a boner?

Calm down.

You don't look like that.

You weird as hell. You weird as hell for that.

Before you say anything,

I'm so generous. I let anyone

debate me. You have to explain why you have

an anime girl's your profile picture. Go ahead.

Why do you identify with a little girl?

She's not little girl, actually. And secondly, she's Lang, so.

Why do you identify with that? Is that you?

No, but she's just Lang in it?

So how is it you? Why is this your profile picture?

Because she's lang.

Who is that?

Is it you?

Where is she?

Uh, cartoon.

Okay, so why are you identifying with that?

Uh, because it's like, it's pretty hot in it, like.

But 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?

Eh, some dead me too, yeah.

Would you be that for Halloween?

Are you gonna be her for Halloween?

Oh, I don't celebrate Halloween, but I guess.

Okay, but if you did, would you be her for Halloween?

Probably, yeah, to be fair.

What is with that?

Whoa, why are you so offended?

Calm down, bro.

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 doesn't even make sense because i can see how you're scared to debate me on politics so you keep so good okay go ahead get into politics it's just so weird

yeah so communism failed how does that work Yeah, so Communism failed.

How does that work?

No, the UK failed.

Excellent.

Yeah, it did, but fuck the UK.

Listen, bro,

if communism is so great,

name 10 communist countries in 2026.

Tartaria is the most prominent one.

Yeah, top some places that don't exist.

Yeah, it does exist, actually.

Well, that's one. what's two? Chop Chop.

Safavid Iran at its founding, when Ismail was still around?

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

No, he wasn't a Sunni, actually. So what are you talking about?

What sect was he?

He was of the Safavia, Kiselbosch.

Yeah, but they're Sufi.

They just, yeah, bro, they're Sufis.

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...

Yeah, but I'm...

Your sect is literally anime.

Your sect is literally anime.

What are you talking about?

What do you mean my sects?

Name ten animas.

What's this arbitrary requirement there has to be ten 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 capitalists, but all right.

Okay, well, that's just like,

okay, yeah, real communism has never been trying.

Belfail, dang, completely reformed everything he did.

Come on now.

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

I'll send you like two pounds, yeah.

No, will you send me $250 if I

disprove that?

Don't deal in dollars. That's capitalism.

You're a brokey. You're brokey.

Anyway, if you're a capitalist, why don't you have money?

Common is talking about capitalism. But if you're a capitalist why don't you have money? Communists talking about

capitalism

but if you're a

capitalist

where's your money

you can't even

I'm not a capitalist

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

the critical hydro

hydro infrastructure, hydro energy infrastructure that was created during the Great Loop Forward

is a precondition for Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up. And it is to 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 intent socialization that was created by the greatly 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 they're billionaires if it's not

capitalists? Who cares? Who cares with their billionaires if it's not capitalist?

Who cares? Who cares are they're billionaires? I'm a billionaire.

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

Why not?

Because it's not everyone's equal.

Because it's got capitalism.

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

Ever thought about that?

Yeah.

Wait, wait, wait.

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, isn't it?

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

Mind other ways, isn't it? That's what communism's about, is it not? Find other ways in it? That's

your plan? You think that's Marxism?

Find other ways in it? I don't care about your plan,

bro. Find other ways

in it? Nobody thought that, all right?

So first of all, having billionaires

doesn't mean... Just think

outside the box then? No, no, no, 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 Maugh 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, Philfo.

China doesn't want me to say this.

I'm going to say it, okay?

Go on.

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

I'm going to say it.

Okay? China is larping as if it is, they might call me and say stop stop stop i'm going to say it okay

china is larping as if it it's a market capitalist economy so that it can have access

to uh western technology and to and to have access to you know western resources and stuff

that they desperately needed the whole time

that's just 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 They're not. They've never

had private property. Where's the private

property? Nothing's actually private.

Talking about fruit vendors and fruit

stand. They've always had that. They had that in the people's

communes. They had commune markets.

So, you know,

what you're talking? It's just nonsense. China's not capitalist. What are 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.

Yeah, but why would they need to do that?

It is very, very much planned and controlled.

Yeah, but why would they need to do that?

If they were communists, why can't they just say...

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 it growing under Mao at 10% per year. Pretty significantly. China needed to accelerate

China had nuclear weapons for example

but it was 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 uh uh anarchy of the market of the global

market into the plant 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's 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 capitalistic, 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 communism has never been tried.

Is that your argument?

Um, 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 destroyed.

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

Money didn't exist. 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.

I was like, get out of here, man.

Saying I'm scared.

You're going to run.

You're going to run easy win.

Okay, what's your knockout argument?

Give me your knockout argument.

Everywhere communism tried is like failed really, and it?

Okay, well, I just debunk that and disproved it and destroyed you slam dunked.

Stalin, Stalin started with, he started with wooden plows. They ended with nuclear weapons.

Stalin's basically.

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

Exactly. Exactly.

Exactly.

No, 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?

Liberals are better to be far.

More successful.

Okay.

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

It's like having fun, living life, worshipping God, you know, that's how it is,

isn't it?

Why are you talking

about God

when you're an

anime gooner?

Is anime

against religion?

Who does God

smile upon more?

You,

the anime gooner

or Haas

who likes natural, real

woman. That God

made and intended. First of all who said I didn't like real

women. Secondly, no you don't.

No, you don't. I don't have the anime thing.

Bro, you're a Sufi catheter anyway. Bro, you're a Sufi catheter. Come on

now. Go spinning a circle. Go put on the little

dress. You're a

fucking, keep committing bida,

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 Sufis.

Fuck Iran. I'm Kurdish. Free Kodestan.

Fuck you're on.

Oh, you're about some.

Okay, so you just worship America, right?

Let's fuck America.

Okay, but they own you.

But they own you.

Don't they?

No, that's the person.

Yeah, they do.

They do, though.

Not really.

Talking about Kurdistan.

Talking about some nonsense.

You're...

Where are you from?

I'm from Kurdistan.

Nice one, bro. Swear you 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. Try again.

You're just, okay.

This doesn't matter.

Bro, you're a Sufi. Go spinning a circle.

You're a little Sufi, bro. Just go spinning a circle,

all right. You know, do you want me to have a response to this?

Yeah, go be a little Sufi, bro. No, do you want me to have a response to this? Yeah, go be a little Sufi.

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

Yeah, you're going to drop me and run away like a person.

No, I'm not. I really am not.

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

Yeah. being a little Sufi then. Wow.

Wow. Wow I'm going to You're gonna pull the old song.

I banish you.

Sit down. Yeah, I woke away. Listen. Talking all that. Talking all that. Bad. I banish you sit down yeah walk away listen

talking all that talking all that

bad badish you

1920 Mustafa Kumar Attaxar

The Janissaries are coming

You better run the janissaries are coming

Turkey secular

Turkey secular fuck

Nobody gives a...

Nobody cares.

But the almonds 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 know.

You would know.

Batty boy.

You would know.

You're a batty boy.

As that for you're gay bro you support

the gay Ottoman Empire they were

You don't even know what what

That no that was only the Kurdish people were doing that

Only the Kurdish people were doing that

This guy's got a serious case of projection

Uh you know That's just extremely extremely just 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 Go ahead.

As, how are you doing, brother?

How are you doing, brother?

Like al-a-Mis-Slam.

All right.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't it say that you were warned to Lebanese Shia 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 say that 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, like, your views on communism.

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

You guys are, you guys are awesome for standing for Palestine.

Shout out you for that.

And actually, before we get started, I want to confirm.

Is this true that Christopher is going to be joining a Russian military thing?

Christopher Halaleigh?

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 Marxist-Leninism?

Mm-hmm.

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

How do you respond to that claim?

What about us lax internationalism?

Well, I mean, I was saying it lacks internationalism.

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

Yeah, but that's just made up. We're incredibly internationalist in practice.

Fair enough. I mean, you guys do go everywhere.

I advocate and whatnot. But like, what's it, but what's the difference between, well, what makes national Bolshevism like Orthodox communism?

There's not, when a national Bolsheviks only exist in Russia.

Everyone else is a LARPA.

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

There's no more national Bolshek 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 Nasbozbolls when they don't even exist.

Fair enough. fair enough.

Another thing I'm kind of weird about is that I've been researching on Marks-Lenn in

and stuff for a while.

I've actually read a biography on Stalin by Oleg.

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

I just want to understand, like, you and the ACP are

supporters of so,

is that correct?

Yeah.

But you do understand that

he was responsible for

multiple,

uh,

genocides.

Well,

I want to say,

genocide's not really the right word,

but he was responsible for a lot of massacres on Muslims.

That's not true.

Would you like to correct me on that?

Yeah, it's just totally fake.

Yeah, well, can you explain me how that's fake?

Stalin upheld Sharia law. Can you explain me how that's fake? Stalin upheld Sharia law.

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...

You don't know that.

No one knows that.

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

He could have been a Sufi.

I mean, I have the research more 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 moved to... Oh, it was an Orthodox family.

Yes, Orthodox. Yeah, my bad.

My bad. He was raising a Christian family. He was

raising to be a priest. But, like...

Correct. Yes, I said that he was always a believer

until he died.

Yes, I just 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 how would that actually make him secretly a

muslim like if he was actually muslim he would be in the same view as timor lane and that

he's claimed to uphold muslim he claimed to be following muslim values but then he was responsible

for a lot of death.

What did you say about Timor?

The fact that he claimed to be a Muslim.

I'm not going to stand for the slander of Timor.

That Timor was Muslim?

Timor was one of the greatest men to ever exist.

Yes, 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 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 exaggerated and made things up. All he did was enforced justice, nothing else.

Well, I guess. Well, I guess

that could be true. I mean,

it's an absolute fact.

Have you heard about the movie of his coming out,

Rise of the Conqueror?

I did. I don't know how good

that's going to be, but... I heard it's going to be taking

place in the early years of his reign back when he was forming his army.

I think I'm probably going to check it out.

By the way, I heard that... what's his name?

Jake Shields is trying to get you to debate people, and a lot of people are rejecting it.

Uh, yes. 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 i just say you never obey me i mean i know you

guys debated in the past before there was that one time with you will not will lamb debate

lion no he's not going to debate me okay one time with... He will not... Will lamb debate lying? No.

He's not going to debate me.

Okay, fair enough.

It's not rational for him.

Okay, then

I see...

Well, I guess that I have more

educate myself on. Maybe I'll educate myself on

a 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 commonest movements have

been actually active in getting involved

with other governments and other groups

in like mobilizing. Is that correct?

No.

So you guys haven't reached out and met with other famous political figures?

We've met famous people.

We're not organizing with other governments.

Oh, oh, my bad.

I should have rephrased.

Like, you guys do have the clear set agendas in the future especially in the future

greater grain scheme of u.s politics yes okay do you guys what do we know the.S. is not going to exist for much longer.

Oh, that's you're going to ask.

Like, do you guys have a plan of what happens when the U.S. crumbles as a result of Trump's governance?

Oh, I will actually like to hear it.

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

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

You only plan to enact it if it starts to happen. I see.

Okay. Fine.

Last question.

What do you have the claim what do you have to say to the claim of

Xi Jinping and his actions on the Hoyker people?

It's okay. I can hear you.

Citizens of the Green Place.

Ones if it's working.

Not TikTokers.

Citizens of the Green Place.

Okay, it's back.

It's totally fake.

It was made up by Zinas.

Totally fake.

What about the people who

what about the Hoyers who came and

and say they're from there and then 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 rampled on, you kicked me out, and I kind of understand that.

Derrig. Derek Go ahead Derek

Hello hello

Hi

Well I was just wondering there

How would I like participate in a com capitalist like market even though

i believe in communism oh i mean uh 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, right.

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.

It's not, it's not. I would have said Lenin.

It's very, it's very, I

think in some respects

Stalin was better, but

there were things, there were qualities

of leadership Lenin had that Stalin didn't.

So, how so? I would have said that Lenin had that Stalin didn't. How so? I would have said

Lenin would have been a lot better of a leader.

No, I'd not the biggest...

No, Lenin is a better revolutionary for sure, but not a better

not necessarily a better

statesman.

Is this kind of like

I hear

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 Ern Sc at first and they were like,

Ernst Scurham was like a pro, like

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, 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, right, 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 of 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 name.

Anyway, thank you,

thank you for the question.

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

I, sorry, I already disconnected it.

This guy's name is Shaverism.

Pause.

Yeah.

I got a very short question for you, okay?

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

Can you give me some insight?

Hizio, go ahead.

Hello.

What's up? Hey man, how's going? What's up?

Hey man, how's it going?

What's going on?

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

training organizations in the United States would be

under your system.

That would be too early to tell but hopefully they could evolve into something as you know involved into a more advanced type of organization but 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 reading about what Trotsky did regarding the trade unions, I just discussed it, to be

honest. Yeah, to be honest.

Yeah,

Lenin was absolutely correct

on that debate.

Yeah.

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 at 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 win over

and integrate the trade unions

is by

first of all

acknowledging them and 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.

But I really am

inspired by William Z. Foster's idea

of integrating...

Are you an ACP by any chance?

No, I'm not. I'm in Southern California

and I'm kind of shopping around.

There's a few...

I just got to tell you,

Southern California is one of our most

energetic, lively

areas

of work for our party.

And we are very much

the party

trying to be the party of William Z. Foster

and

we very much

you know

are not Trotskyites 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 unions to support a communist

party?

Yeah, I think so.

And this is

more long term. This is my final question.

But under an American

Soviet system of governance, obviously, that's 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 to the United States

and the fact

that we are a developed economy, right?

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 organization of labor that already exists so yeah

definitely i i'm not opposed you know i tend not to focus on future scenarios focus more on the now

but it was a great talking to you,

and I very much recommend you check out.

You don't have to join right away.

Maybe meet up with attending event in SoCal with ACP

and just see if you like, you know, like what you see.

All right. It was nice to meet you house

you too man

bye bye

all right guys

from from this point now

we're going to only be accepting

adversarial guests

um

people who have a problem

not people who are friendly

go ahead goose man uh hello uh damn i got a plane over sorry

uh been a fan of you since uh about 2024 i appreciate it man I appreciate it we're only allowing

adversarial guests on

you know because

where all them libertarians go

you know where do they where all them libertarians

go

go ahead fire star

uh wait can you hear me no Go ahead, Firestar.

Wait, can you hear me?

No.

Oh, okay.

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

Do you unironically believe that?

Yeah.

But haven't you said in the past let's drop that both the democratic party and the let's drop a 20 by capitalists uh 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?

Because they represent different

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?

Yes, I do.

Okay, what's the same level of difference? Yes, I do. What's the difference? They're both.

What's the difference?

I mean, there's plenty of differences. That was the

circumstances of the slavery and the planter clashes at the fore. And now the

situation is completely changing 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 that's going to lead to us a war potentially yeah but could you like be specific about the slavery factory divide between the Republicans

and Democrats?

It's actually not

a divide necessarily between different classes, but it

a breakdown within the internal contradiction of this

constitutional structure of the institution, namely the

structure of the executive authority on the

decentralized authority of the governors, the federal government versus the executive authority and the decentralized authority

of the governors of the federal government versus the states

and the various checks and balances that are meant to

be a check on executive power. It's actually, this

contradiction has manifested itself across the party

line. So for example, Obama used to be where

the position that Trump is in right now

and the same forces of civil war are still just

on the other side. So it's not necessarily a

symmetrical or a conflict between

the Democrats and the Republicans. They can actually absolutely

switch places, but the structural, the structure

itself is what's internally imploding and becoming

contradictory within.

Okay, I don't see how that causes the Civil War, though.

Like, they can have, like, why would they not just continue?

I break down, 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 break down to 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 you're just as 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 the blue team stuff?

Why would they actually- Because when there's a, 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 that they do stuff in like, you know, like Ukraine or whatever other countries.

No, they would do it here because there's an

authority here and there's a chain of command there's any dispute in the chain of command or the

authority violence is inevitable i i mean like you like you keep just saying that but like you're

not giving any like specifics about 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 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 uh 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 accept that. So, so then you think there's going to be like a two-sided, you know, between the two parties, between the Republican Party and Democratic Party?

I don't know if it's going to 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, and then you think this is – and then the ACP just rises from this because it can organize better yeah okay well then

why wouldn't like okay i think why would this happen

both like without any like external reasoning

like do you think it's just going to happen like whatever

internal domestic stuff it's going to be a confluence of a million different

factors all right but it's going to be a confluence of a million different factors, all right?

But it's going to happen.

Okay, 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.

Haas, I just want to say, I love you, bro.

I've been watching since

2021 bro

mech tankie

I'm not here for

support I'm here for adversarial

conflict

Danny go ahead

let's drop a 20.

This guy left.

Let's drop a 20.

All right.

Goose Man is back.

Thank you.

Okay, I know you.

Okay. I'll just get straight into it.

You talk about China

mostly when

referring to modern economic

models. And

I would like to

well, how can I say this, argue against that by arguing for pro-command economies only.

You constantly bring up how China mostly uses the mixed market as, you know, a way to get more GDP.

The demand economies rely on one-sided inputs 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 recognized commandism is not good.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Yeah, I'm just saying in the Mao era, they didn't even agree with it.

Well, still,

Mao era didn't get to

Soviet Union levels.

Yes, it did it.

It was far more

in terms of scale. It was far more like comprehensive.

Would you like me to bring a population graphs?

What does that have to do with anything?

Because they were objectively better.

Who was? The union. 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 um was able to command its labor force much more aggressively and it was able to do much more

with based on the relative levels of wealth that they each had. So 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

happened economically nothing like that comparable in china. But the Chinese

did much more with much less.

Okay, but I think we should bring back

ultimately, when

we take power, command economy,

because it just

aids 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, likeulags uh state uh mandated unions uh etc you know like

nigger camps like just slaves you know Yeah, there we go.

What a hilarious knee-slapping troll.

Just to get my live restricted, by the way.

Really funny. I was, what an elaborate troll, just to get us, uh, get our, look at this idiot in the chat this is an acp 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, you know, they did.

Yeah, look at this United Youth nonsense.

Shut up.

Shut up.

Go ahead.

What up? shut up go ahead what up

uh

how you doing

man

I don't know

I don't know

you just

we just

we just chopping it up.

Am I an oblivion, NPC? What is this?

Go ahead, man, holy shh 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 going to run with the money.

If you crab it up right now, I'm totally not just going to run with it.

I'll continue.

Australia's Stanley!

Just keep that up. I'm totally just going stay. I'm totally just gonna stay. I'm just... I'm just...

Did y'all hear that?

Did y'all hear that? Did y'all hear that?

What?

What?

What was that?

Y'all hear that?

O'sos, what up, bro? Did y'all hear that? Oh, so's, what up, bro?

Did y'all hear that?

What was that?

Was that a real gunshot?

Was that a real did he just like was that a real did he just like was that a real

what was that that MIG WITH THEIRMAN Thank you. mhmusin You know, Joe, I'm coming to the Bronx tomorrow and nobody's going to do shit.

So you need to settle down with that nonsense.

You need to settle down.

Settle yourself down.

You ain't't gonna do nothing

I'm coming to the Bronx tomorrow you're not gonna do anything

Subterranean. Subterranean!

Where do I draw the line between personal and private property?

There's no line. it's all the same your toothbrush is going to

be communalized

land go ahead

hey

you mentioned this

a quote earlier on from the German ideology.

Because I like it, man. It's a good show.

Okay, but is that you look like that?

Nah, can I, can you let me speak?

You mentioned earlier.

I just don't get it.

All right.

That aside, right?

You mentioned a quote from the German ideology earlier

where communism is not an ideal to be recognized.

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 just like visualize your own self is that i just don't understand how works i mean i don't think it's that serious like

no but what are you channeling there what is is that? I don't know.

Funny fun, man.

I don't understand it.

I mean, all right.

I just don't get it.

But can you just answer my question out of curiosity about this quote from the German ideology that you brought up.

Okay, 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?

A society that is driven by profit is increasingly driven by social signals such as demand and attention.

So you're just talking about capital in general, right?

No, I'm just like,

bro, you know what?

Change your profile.

I can't do that. What do I think of Hassan Pike or literally nothing at all?

Like, I just don't care without market

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 plus supply chains plus demand simple no not like Like this, well, we already have it.

Walmart already has it.

Amazon already have.

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 from a sci-fi movie, planning credits.

It would be functionally the same for much of these systems of production.

We just would replace money for some nebulous planning credits, planning credits, you know.

Money doesn't even exist. It's just completely printed. It's totally fake backed by nothing

yurr

y'all was good

nothing what what filtering out the cowards here Yo.

Hello.

Hello.

I hope you're having a good day.

I'm not.

You mentioned that we're using algorithms right to allocate labor and whatnot um i'm curious

like what algorithms specifically are referring to because to my knowledge there's not an algorithm

that we have that can really do that clod myth, look it up.

The AI, remember, these 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 wouldn't have to be a price.

A price?

It's what you paid for exchanging goods.

Okay. 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 of a dollar,

not the value itself.

No, yeah, but the value it betrays.

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 central rank established interest rates plus?

Then that what the dollars actually work for in goods is subjective, right?

So if you have a dollar in a society.

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 one dollar being one dollar sure yeah but the actual

value of 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 sign factor right if you spend hours producing it's pretty 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? Are you just talking about

the value of the dollar? 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, it's pretty simple

if you want to go to common sense, right?

You can't overcharge.

You'd agree with that.

Okay, 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 the other thing that makes sense.

Yeah, obviously, yeah, Ricardo,

yeah, all those guys made it.

But now with common consensus that we usually go

with subjective theory of value, right?

Yeah, that's just nonsense.

It's just over-

Well, no, because you agree that

marginal utility is not homogenous

right

what do you mean by that

so marginal utility

is different from person to person

right if you

someone's margin 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 marginal do you think production is modulated

to the whims and fancies of every single individual?

Part of the factors in 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 specific desires

and dreams materialize and realize

that's not true and it's never been true. That's not what I'm

saying. I'm arguing that

because our demands

are naturally non-objective, right? We have subjective

look on the world right then value is then

also subjective right no objective value you know you couldn't say 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 determine, 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 like, if we go back,

we're 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 in-tunes.

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 an social aggregate that's measured in a quantifiable way, like 30% like this, 40% like this, whatever.

Yeah, 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 post analysis. It doesn't change their conditions of production.

How does it change their conditions of production?

Like Disney, for example, probably has change their conditions of production? Like Disney, for example,

probably has the same conditions of production as a Universal Studios or something, right?

But the content, the way they, you know, the content they produce is different.

And maybe not materially. It's really not

necessarily.

Apple,

Android,

it's kind of

infinitesimal

differences at a

material level.

Yeah,

but it's a different

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 dyeing at blue all that different from dying at pink? Not really. No, but you just prove 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 so necessary.

You said that they were the same production, right?

It's just different color.

Okay, okay, look.

Society is subjectively viewed higher.

Okay, they're only different to the extent.

Decidally viewed higher.

Okay, societyally viewed higher. Okay. Societyly viewed higher.

Whether society has determined it to be socially necessary

or not is

irrelevant to the fact of

whether or not, it doesn't tell

us anything about what the material conditions of its production are.

It just tells us society it 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. Classical, sure, but that

was a long time ago, right? Since then we've had a lot

of... But 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 an actual...

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 that devoted their entire, you don't think Adam Smith.

This is appeal to it.

No, okay, then I'm going to make the appeal to authority.

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

you're being the French physiocrats

and the entire school of European political

economy that lasted centuries?

So much scholarships.

You think they never thought of it that some

people like apples and others

like oranges like this was just so

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 and rationally

rationally piece rationally peace

real economics rational

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 haven't, also, they aren't in completely different conditions, right?

We have much more.

No, no, 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.

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 an annesia 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 in Austrian

has ever made

was preempted by some French guy

400 years earlier who actually already

thought of that. You're not getting an argument.

You're just saying, oh, Ricardo

thought of it, so it must be true.

No, I'm just telling you it's an

I'm just telling you.

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've never passed the first step. There's no contradiction between the fact that values are also so

also have to be socially necessary and the notion that they could also be

objective there's no contradiction between those at all that so they are socially

necessary that is 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 that's the you don't even get to step

one well so you're saying it's up to it's'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 in an 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

and 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, yeah, you're still arguing, though, that, like, societal demands

move as a whole, right? But in reality,

that's not true. I'm not, I'm not even, no, no, I'm not even saying that. I'm just saying it's socially necessary. reality that's not true. I'm not even... 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, you know, 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 research.

We can just assume it.

We don't have to quantify it at all.

So you base your economy off assuming things.

Like how would you have to quantify it somehow?

No, we say that the fact that it's socially necessary is a 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 some way.

Okay.

What is the price of a piece of poop to someone who doesn't want it at all?

$0.

$0, correct.

So we're not even talking about poop

if no one wants

I'm not even talking about it

okay we don't have to talk about

there's nothing to so but it can't explain

why there's discrepancies and prices

when we're already presupposing that

this is socially necessary

I know it's not what you're talking about because you've never thought of this before presupposing that this is socially necessary.

I know it's not what you're talking about because you've never thought of this before in your life.

You 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 $0.

You can't speak of it in terms of value.

It's not solely worth zero.

If someone really liked to pull it would be worth more.

It is worth zero because there's no demand for it because it's not being produced

there's no one's producing

what if someone really like

this person's poo let's just say just as an

absurd example right it would then be value

higher would you not agree they would

pay for it uh

but does it actually have value to them it does they would pay

it doesn't actually have value no it does because they would pay for it no it doesn't because at a

certain scale market prices acquire a social uh 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 sells, 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 is worth, 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 thirty five dollars 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 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 these subjective values

let's presuppose aggregate demand,

which is absolutely not an aggregate

of individual preferences, because individual

preferences are culturally formed, by and large.

They vary from person to person.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

There are infatimensional

meaningless differences that don't matter, right? these are infinitesimal meaningless differences

that don't matter, right? No. Yeah.

In a tribe where

there's a, 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.

But in any case,

when we presuppose 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

point still stands that you're just

aggregating individual demand

for your objective value.

So how do you calculate objective value,

is it just the work?

No, I'm not.

I'm not aggregating individual demand.

First of all, I would explain to you why, because it's not how preferences are formed.

They're not formed individually, first of all.

They are.

No, they're not. 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.

It's slightly different, right?

It doesn't matter. That's not even the important part of the argument. It's not even the important part of the way. It's slightly different, right? It doesn't matter.

That's not even the important 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 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 color,

but their values are

that 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 no you're you're miss you're making value some kind of normative uh no because

someone values a certain color phone

over the other.

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 uh 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...

Sure, can't.

No, it can't.

You're wondering why surpl accumulated, 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

below a certain price, right?

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.

Yeah.

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 people doesn't want that.

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 oh because 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

how does that make things there's a there's like an objective sort of maybe overarching structure

the the 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 put one.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. So 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 in 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 these things.

So how would you combat that?

That's your rebuttal.

How do you distinguish the cost of production that are the direct material cost 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 Marks 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

calculus problem is and how you combat that?

It's complete bullshit. 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, because how do you

quantify, so you use objective theory value but that doesn't

it doesn't um solve for incentives right in innovation there's no innovation what are you talking

about there's no what is the innovation incentive but that's totally separate from the calculation problem there 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 that economic calculation problem.

You calculate, just make sure I understand your

point, you calculate using the labor

theory of value.

That's how you calculate.

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.

Right. So how do you

find that demand?

How do you measure whether people want things?

It's really easy.

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 as much you get so how did you do that what do you mean

cut off well like because what's stopping people

just requesting everything because like

sure I want to 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

you'd ask people you asked me

how could you figure out what demand is demand input you i never

so how are you so stupid that you go from me saying demand is one of the factors of of whether or not

to consider producing something and to demand is the only factor, right?

I'm not.

What 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 yourself?

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 because this is the fascinating thing that the austrians can

ever 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, 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 given

articles of consumption that are just

brought over from the capitalist era are now

just being reproduced in a socialist way

to maintain the standard of living, right?

Now, how people

express demand

is incremental.

They slowly and gradually start choosing this over this, right?

And then based on the popularity of the...

There's all sorts of ways to determine 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?

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 excuse.

Right?

You'd have to do this on a government scale.

I think about the bureau.

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 yourolic. What is my full mathematical formula for

planning the entire Soviet Union?

No, for, because you must have one, right? Do you have one?

You want to be clear, you have a mathematical formula right now, right?

Yes. Okay, goodbye. 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

out the top of my head, which is,

why is the burden upon me that I need that? They already had that. They out the top of my head, which, 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 and 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 called the very last bit of that because of the delay sorry i don't

talk to australians go ahead you have hello

yeah

all right so

I don't want to be at you on like any historical stuff

I think that

I wanted to talk to you about a headline

I just read

yeah I don't want to talk to you about that.

All right, we're fucking done.

All right.

Everyone, goodbye.

We're done.

We'll see you guys Sunday.

Our wages are resources determine.

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 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 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 burden.

They don't understand there's been 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 modern civilization itself is just going to be wiped out and recreated from scratch.

We're not saying that.

ACP 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 going to feel bad about it, it's whatever keep going down this path it's like god is good 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 tra 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 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?

There's a guy named Socialist Party saying Kotsky was right.

All right, we've seen enough. We're ending this.

We're ending this.

I mean, it's like, it's's like where does it end you know where does it end

all right guys um definitely don't don't don't send me uh hold hold on guys guys definitely like you, 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, um...

Hold on. Australia's Danny

I can't

Alex Amos

Mav from down

I can just

just too hardcore, actually.

Guys definitely don't.

Definitely don't definitely don't

definitely don't guys

I'm about to end it now you know definitely say this

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha. Naquila.

Hava.

Naquila.

All right.

I'm literally ending it, though.

The bit is over.

All right, guys.

Bye-bye.

I'm not actually ending it.

Bye-bye.

See you guys Sunday.

Strah-Satney.

Thank you so much.

Sophia.

What's up?

Flood. Thank you guys. Appreciate you.

Bye-bye.