They're FREAKING OUT about us | Iran NEGOTIATIONS BREAKDOWN

Time faster than sound, I keep on jumping around Blue hedgehog sonic With incredible speed I'm moving my feet

Should be working.

My shh, shh, vortex.

What's up, bro?

Appreciate the 10.

If it's all good, ones, ones, y'all.

Last time we're gonna have to do that shit with the onesie.

Yo, what's up, everybody?

Vortex, I appreciate the 10, brother.

Thank you so much.

Guys, I think I fixed the mic problem.

I'm not gonna wanna jinx that, but I think I fixed it.

I had ChatGPT help me, so we'll see what the worth of that actually amounts to in reality.

What's up?

Alright that was not smooth.

That could have been smoother.

But what's up, everybody?

I got a fresh new cut.

As y'all can see, you know what I mean?

I just got a fresh cut.

I got a fresh everything.

My Iraqi beer coming in well.

You know what I mean?

I'm looking fresh as hell.

I mean, we got a stream that we skipped yesterday because I didn't sleep yesterday.

I also didn't sleep last night either, but that's okay.

I'm on two days no sleep.

I don't give a fuck because I'm not one of these weak fucking people.

That needs sleep.

Anyway, guys, we have a lot.

We have a lot to talk about, we have a lot to cover today because Sunday we weren't able to.

So I just want to uh in case you're living under Iraq, in case you don't know what's actually going on in the world, negotiations have absolutely broken down between the United States and Iran, to the surprise of no one.

And Trump has extended the deadline of when those negotiations can actually resolve from two weeks as of a week ago to two weeks from now.

So the April 27th is the new deadline.

And of course

That means there is no deadline because he just keeps delaying it and pushing it and pushing it for what reason?

To game the stock market, to do something else.

I mean, uh pss.

Who knows, right?

Let's talk about stuff that actually matters and is actually important.

Which is, I want to get a pulse on where y'all are at.

I hope y'all are plugged in and you know, brain rotted as much as I am on social media and whatnot.

How many of y'all have noticed an uptick of just people crying about us, like on X, for example?

Specifically, and this was specifically provoked by none other than Rev, who actually, unironically, Rev is one of the top five smartest people that I know, by the way.

Woe to anyone who tries to underestimate him and his intellect.

Probably one of the top five.

I keep saying this: top five smartest people that I actually know in real life.

But he's sent them down a spiral.

He's triggered the fuck out of them.

And I've never seen anything like it.

But it's, it's, there's such a.

And I think about the origins of the hatred against this movement because I started calling people ugly in 2021.

Because I think about.

Nobody gets this passionate about theory, nobody gets this passionate about any other topic.

They seem to get extremely passionate about Rev making comments about the appearance of some PSL members, which

You know, it's not exactly my

Pastime, but they're they're absolutely justified in doing it because they do the same shit to us.

I mean, look at every time ACP puts out a video of us burning a effigy of Epstein or anything else for that matter, we get these people swarming us trying to fucking talk shit about us.

So it's only fair that if they're gonna talk so much shit about us, we are allowed to make comments on their appearance as well.

And you know, we didn't start it, basically.

We didn't start it.

But this is the thing that set them into a spiral.

I just find it profound.

I'm not I I'm only talking about profound.

It's fucking retarded, all right?

Why are we using these passive aggressive terms?

Uh, well, I have to show you guys this.

So, Rev.

Let me show you.

This got 10,000 likes.

Just to be clear about what reality we're living in or the lack thereof.

This rev posted this.

He said, average PSL member versus average ACP member.

So he posted something like this.

He's been posting this specific frame of this very optically proficient PSL stand of people.

Again, once again, we never started this.

We fucking left everyone alone.

We were doing our own thing.

They couldn't stop talking shit about us.

Every time we'd post photos, every time we'd post everything, all they would do is talk shit about our appearance.

Okay, it doesn't matter how goofy we look in our frumpy suits or whatever.

It doesn't matter how much.

We don't look like what Nathan Robinson and we're not really fashionistas.

We never said we were, by the way.

But we really don't look like this either.

You know what I mean?

On the left, it's just, you know, come on.

Nobody's saying we're fascinistas.

Nobody's saying we're models.

We're just saying that we look pretty normal in comparison to, you know, I don't know.

I mean, what are we allowed to even say anymore?

You know what I mean?

I just, I don't really talk about this topic.

I'm not saying we're like all a bunch of models and we're all like so super 100% 10 out of 10s.

I'm just saying like we tend to look a little bit more normal than your average radical leftist.

And I said this many times from 21 to 22.

People freaked out about it.

So I stopped talking about it and I just said, you know what?

Be free.

Be free from the whatever prison my words impose upon you.

Whatever prison my words shackle you, whatever shackles I bind you with through my words, go and be free.

Live the world of delusion and you thinking this is a go without me and see where it gets you.

And just I'll never shut my mouth about it.

I'll never talk about it again.

But Rev is talking about it and it set people in the same panic that they did when I mentioned it.

Anyway, I want to show you something really funny.

Um

And by the way, you know, when I saw this, it had 10 likes.

I just want to tell you how I know how predictable these people are.

I said this is going to go viral 100%.

Because it has all it clicks all the boxes of

The kind of like fake expertise on Twitter or X of like somebody pointing out an irony of like, oh, you think it's this way?

Actually, the ironic thing is the opposite.

I'm a master of dialectics.

I know how these people kind of weasel their way into a rhetorically compelling argument from the perspective of like a petty bourgeois grad student, academic, or something, glasses wear.

Anyway, this guy goes: On the left side of this image is someone engaging in real political agitation.

On the right side is someone posing for a photo op in an empty parking deck wearing spotless gloves, a spotless high-vise, high-viz, whatever, barely worn boots.

And a shiny new tool belt.

Okay.

And 9,000 people found this compelling.

The 9,000 people who liked it were a bunch of glasses wearing grad students who have never been on a job site, who know nothing about what blue collar labor actually is like.

And they find it ironic that this could be true.

Of course, I didn't find this to be a problem because I'm like, look.

Rev is here trying to actually reach out to blue collar workers.

If a blue collar worker saw this post where this clearly this glasses wearing bullshit posturer was faking expertise about the reality of the as if they're the Na'Vi, by the way, the blue people.

That's how far removed the petty bourgeois left is from the working class.

They're consulting this expert on the navie, the blue people from Avatar.

But anyway, if an actual worker saw this, they would not be convinced by it.

They'd be like, okay, hold on.

They'd be like, let's look.

Okay, so these are spotless gloves.

Wait, hold on.

Are these spotless gloves?

Are these spotless gloves?

Is this a shiny belt?

Is this really a shiny belt?

Is this really just somebody who's like not an actual construction worker, but somebody who's like cosplaying?

You know, an actual tradesman who would look at this would be like, no, this is exactly what a tradesman looks like.

I mean, I'm not a tradesman.

I don't come from a tradesman background.

The closest thing I've ever gotten to a form of employment that is blue-collar, if you can call it that, is I worked at a warehouse facility very briefly for an electrical company or something.

But I'm not going to claim I'm an expert of that sort of thing, but I'm around the cadre of the ACP.

I'm around our people.

I know what blue-collar people are like.

And there's nothing about, I mean, I don't know.

I just, I just kind of, it just, I, I, I really know the psychology of.

Um

These like

Glasses wearing, like, you know, academoid, I don't know what you really call them, nerdy type of leftists.

These nerdy lip tard leftists.

Like, I know their psychology so deeply, right?

And it's like, look, I want to teach you guys something.

Can I, you know, guys, this actually is going to help you understand.

So you just stop giving them the ammunition that they need to jack themselves off in this disgusting, like, grotesque way where they're like, they have that fucking smug face on their face.

And they're just like, oh, I'm going to, you don't understand what type of creature these people are who react to this and what their knee-jerk reaction is going to be.

how they're going to spin it narratively, like what their framing is going to be.

I'm intimately familiar with it.

I'm the one who started this whole thing of like pointing out, hey, you know, leftists, can you stop looking a little retarded?

And then they were like, whoa, oh, you're talking about us looking extremely retarded.

Well, you don't look perfect yourself.

And it's like, well, I never said I look perfect.

No, I never said anyone has to look perfect.

Okay.

I just said, can you look a little less retarded?

That's all I said.

Anyway.

I'm gonna teach you what they're the dialectic they play off of because dialectics is very powerful.

You have to master dialectics at least as much as I do if you want to get a hang of this and understand how to truly control the discourse and whatever.

So I'll teach you how.

Whenever you present a clear binary like this,

Um

You know, which is true.

There's a truth in this binary.

It's just simply the truth, by the way.

It's simply the truth.

But there is a kind of dialectical posture that a glasses wearer is going to react to seeing a clear binary, which is, actually, the truth is ironic, and therefore the truth is the opposite of what the binary appears as, right?

So whenever you present a dialectical appearance in any kind of way, the kind of beautiful soul, petty bourgeois academic, nerd, the bourgeois psychology in general is going to say, everything is actually the opposite of what it appears as.

And there is somewhat of a dialectical truth to the notion that

Everything is the opposite of what it appears as.

But the way they articulate that is that everything is an irony.

So the whole narrative and the logos of existence is an ironic form.

This is the kind of quintessential millennial psychology, you know, that's very, very popular, compelling to people who don't even have to think about it really with any critical thinking skills.

This person's not wearing spotless clothing.

This person is clearly a real blue-collar worker.

But the reason the post got 9,000 likes beyond the fact that it was botted is that people find the narrative compelling that the truth is the opposite of appearance, right?

So they're going to find a way to try to undermine this very clear picture you're painting, and they're not going to make it easy for you unless you yourself make it with much more kind of dialectical sophistication, right?

That you put into it.

They absolutely have a specific psychology which is resistant toward simplicity.

Okay.

You need to understand that these are petty bourgeois.

These are members of the petty bourgeoisie, the professional petty bourgeoisie.

Their very material existence rejects simplicity.

They need a layer of ironic convolution upon their entire reception of existence itself because their very way of life, their very revenues are a layer of convolution upon the productive base of society, right?

So they have a specific psychology and worldview that corresponds to their class background, which is going to try to undermine any simple appearance.

So for example,

Um, the MAGA communism movement, right?

The first thing that went viral when we spread the MAGA communism thing.

Well, first of all, why was MAGA communism like a nuclear bomb for this people?

Because it was a unity of opposites, and it was like MAGA appears anti-communist, but it's actually the opposite.

So that's why it caused a lot of disturbances, it caused a lot of problems for these people, right?

Because we are because MAGA communism was a dialectical art that went into it.

There was so much dialectical sophistication that went into that, you know.

And uh, but one of their ways of trying to undermine it was basically that.

They took a different ironic dialectical structure, right?

Which was the fact that conventionally speaking, yes, the subject of revolutionary politics is the, you know, industrial, heavy, heavy industry, blue-collar working class, right?

And they spun an irony out of that, and they were like, actually, the opposite is true.

It's the blue-haired, latte-sipping barista or something, I don't know, a writer, digital artist who has blue hair, who's the next Lenin, and meanwhile, the tradesman is actually the next Hitler.

And it's like everything's the opposite of.

So they took a very dialectically sophisticated meme and their resistance toward it, more or less, was by trying to create a dialectical irony out of the simple common sense truth, which is that the American working class has nothing to do with the Libtard leftists and that they have failed to reach the American working class.

Well, they spun a narrative that was compelling to people, which is actually, you know, the bourgeoisie are the real proletarians.

The professional bourgeoisie are the true proletarians.

You know, the coders and I don't know, the interpretive dance teachers or something.

And then meanwhile, you know, the rugged classical Marxist worker, that's the bourgeoisie, right?

So you guys have to understand the type of warfare that goes in to dealing with these types of people.

And how do you really control the discourse?

Well, you need to understand that dialectics is king.

You master dialectics, you fucking win.

You understand?

And all, listen, everything is a narrative.

Because logos takes the form of narrative, right?

And a narrative structure is Hegel's dialectical structure.

Hegel's dialectical logic logos, right?

It takes the way that actually exists for people psychologically as a narrative structure.

You know, a beginning.

How many of you, when you were kids, you had action figures?

When I was five, I was smart enough to know this.

I would have an action figure of the good guy and the bad guy when I was five years old.

And it'd be like, okay, they're fighting, and the good guy always wins, right?

But then I was smart enough because I watched enough movies and I was like five.

I was like, actually, the bad guy has to win for a little bit.

You know, there has to be like a beginning part where the good guy's winning, but then the bad guy wins, and then only at the end would I allow the good guy to win, right?

At the end, just like a narrative arc in a story, right?

And I think to myself, I recall my five-year-old self, and I was like, you know what?

I understood dialectics, you know, that that basic kind of, oh, people mock the tripartite Hegelian structure.

Uh which doesn't come from Hegel directly.

You know, the thesis, antithesis and then uh you know um

Thesis, antithesis, and uh uh the the off he bung, the supersession, the synthesis, you know, people call it synthesis.

But that tripart str can I can I say something controversial as somebody who's read all of Hegel's science of logic many times by the way and obviously I've read the phenomenology I've read the philosophy of history I've read a lot of Hegel in my life in my day can I say something controversial you know the tripart structure is actually like basically the gist of Hegel's dialectical system or his his logic I should say

It repeats many times.

It's not just like a one and done.

But yeah, that's basically the essence of the dialectical movement: you know, being, nothingness, and then becoming.

I mean, that's the first part of Hegel's logic.

It doesn't end there, but that tripart structure of like, you know, the affirmative, the negation, and then the sublation is consistent throughout the entirety of Hegel's dialectical logic, right?

You know, advanced Hegelians very much object to that because Hegel didn't invent thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Um that tripart structure is very much baked in.

It's an eternal spiral, not a tripart.

Okay.

Okay, but the spiral has a rhythm to it, okay?

And the way you can articulate that rhythm is through a tripart structure.

Yes, it's eternal, it doesn't end there, but that's the basic logic, the logos.

There's an underlying logos, okay?

Um, and Hegel, yeah, so so you know, that's that's basically a good simplification.

Well, you have to understand that whenever you simply are presenting a simple affirmative on X or on social media narratively, you're opening yourself up to an attack where people are going to point out the exact opposite is true.

Uh, and because they're petty bourgeois, they're parasites.

Now, a good faith proletarian attitude would already see in this the tripart structure completed, right?

Because they strawman us as if we're undialectical.

They make it seem like we think everything is so simplistic.

No, we don't.

We absolutely understand the nuances.

We absolutely understand va but when all is said and done, the ACP is a party with, what, fifty percent blue collar membership?

Uh

And Fergie here, he says, you know, ACP is not going to get anywhere if it pretends to be integrated among, you know, we don't necessarily claim that.

We just say that we're better primed to do that type of work, especially because, yeah, like around 40 to 50% of our actual membership are themselves blue-collar workers, right?

So we're just much better disposed to reach out to the masses and stuff because I mean, look, is it superficial to mock people's appearances?

Is it superficial to just simply attack them for how they look?

Yeah.

But at the same time, is Rev justified for doing it?

Absolutely.

Why?

Because these same people have been ankle biting us for years.

We have been just doing our own thing.

We have been presenting a look that we find.

Uh, better and superior.

You know, we showed the video of us burning Jeffrey Epstein.

They called us LARPers.

Uh, Donald Parkinson and all these other swine were at the vanguard of counter-signaling our anti-Epstein propaganda.

Every time we show ourselves at strikes and with the workers, you always see these people in the quote tweets attacking us, attacking our appearance, attacking, uh, making false assumptions about, you know, you only went there for an hour for a photo op.

Just clear fan fiction, just complete made-up nonsense.

Remember the ACP National Convention?

Leftists gave ammunition to the Groipers to mock the appearance of our members.

People who look normal, but, you know, who are ethnically different, I guess.

And they say, oh, this is how you look.

You don't look like a model.

It's like, we're not holding you to the standard of a model.

We're not holding you to the standard of anything.

As a matter of fact, we're not holding you to any standard.

We were fine just going our own way.

But you spent a year mocking us and attacking how we looked.

So I think Rev is fully justified in, you know, basically just responding to them.

Like, okay, what are we supposed to look like?

This?

I think that's completely justified.

You know?

If Rev were to have just done this unprovoked, okay, that would be fucked up.

But.

It's kind of it's kind of like the hip it's just it reminds me of that quote from Mark's.

I always go back to that where he's like.

You know, we will not make any apologies.

But the the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God.

The shills of the status quo, more or less.

They are in every respect mean, hypocritical, emphasis on hypocrisy.

They're liars, they're scoundrels.

They they have this pretense to moral superiority, but their fucking double standard is crazy in the way that they apply it.

Um we get held to a crazy fucking double standard.

We would never mock how you look if you would just fucking leave us alone.

Notice we always just do everything in self-defense and then we're painted as the aggressors.

Good bitch, we are the Lions.

That's how you know we're fucking winning.

They strike first, we attack in self-defense, and then we are painted as the aggressors.

Why?

Because we very effectively respond.

That's why.

We very effectively respond.

We very effectively defend ourselves.

We very effectively do, right?

It just shows, though, the lion is not at fault.

The lion is not the evil one.

The lion is not the bad guy.

It's the sheep who's the bad guy.

It's the sheep who attacks first, provokes the lion.

The lion responds.

The lion's the bad guy.

Okay.

Um, and I feel like people implicitly hold us to a higher standard because they're like, Look, we are just estrogenic males messing around, cackling like hyenas.

You are actually the men who should be morally superior to us and morally responsible.

So, people react more negatively when we do bad stuff and we make fun of them and stuff because they're like, Well, you're supposed to be morally superior because you're the men.

Implicitly, that's what the double standard boils down to.

And my response to that is um

Mm.

But what's your excuse?

What's your excuse for being a cackling, useless hyena who's not even fucking committed to any of this shit?

You know?

Kinda it kinda boils down to that.

Like, what's your excuse for

And by the way, you know

It's unfortunate.

The PSL has to catch the slack, but it's like

I under Rev is genuinely angry, you know, because these people have had every opportunity to prove their superiority to us.

We did kind of take a back seat in some respects.

Remember when I said, like, we're going to war with the DSA and shit?

We just kind of stopped that.

And we're just like, okay, you do your own thing, we do our own thing.

We're going to stop attacking the left, which we did, by the way.

You want to know what it looks like to attack the left?

You haven't seen it, I promise.

We stopped attacking the liberal left.

We said, okay, let's see what you can come up with.

Now put yourself in Rev's shoes.

Where the Iran war happened?

So much time was wasted with the Zoran Mamdani nonsense.

Which they and they're still debating about whether they should vote for AOC and other Democrats.

And now we're in the middle of the war with Iran, and it's like, what have they fucking done?

What have they produced?

We know what we're doing.

We know exactly what we're doing.

And but these people decided that they should be the leaders of the left.

What do they have to show for it though?

At the end of the day, they're basically saying I'd rather have nothing at all than have

Uh, you know, the ACP.

I'd rather have nothing at all than have you guys.

I've read their Reddit comments.

I've read their comments where they basically say I'm not even kidding, they say this shit if you can believe it.

They go.

I'd rather.

I actually see the potential in the ACP, and it worries me because they will and can grow very large and powerful.

And although that is more than nothing, nothing is better than if the ACP becomes powerful and spreads communism in this way.

Meaning, I'd rather.

Uh Han Ridge, thank you.

Appreciate that, thank you.

Han Ridge

Appreciate that.

I didn't choose the music on that, by the way.

That's kind of not my choice.

But basically, they're saying that they would rather.

They would rather communism gains no traction in this country at all and remains in the sour, dour state that it that it's in than if it was spread by the ACP effectively.

I mean they would prefer anti communism to prevail over the ACP.

Becoming actually successful.

And that's really the crux of it.

And this is just an intrinsically anti-communist population.

But I'm going to keep repeating the mantra that I've been saying over and over and over again, right?

The reason why we still have to even talk to these people and deal with these people is because we don't produce introductory educational content in the form of video essays and documentaries.

Until we start fucking doing that and doing it consistently, we're gonna constantly have to depend on these petty bourgeois left pipelines.

Where people are becoming Democrat asshurt Democrats getting radicalized into and being deceived into thinking that, you know, Marxism is just Kamala Harris, but really more hard core and extreme.

And, you know, we're gonna keep having to depend upon this like pipeline of confusion.

Because they are monopolizing the space of introducing people to communist ideas.

We have to get on that shit.

And the minute we do, we'll fucking lap them.

We'll absolutely never have to fucking look at them or talk to them again.

But, you know, so far, we're just not, we're nowhere near there.

You know, and that's the problem.

That's honest to God, the number one problem we're facing.

But look, in the meantime, oh my God, the people seething and crying and bitching about us constantly on the TL.

I've just learned to kind of ignore it and just say this must be bots.

This has to be bots.

What could this be?

But uh it's just fucking crazy.

I mean, like everything they say about us.

is a lie.

I just I'm it's just kind of exhausting at this point.

I don't even know like what what are we suppos s it's just crazy.

You know that man his video is at 135 views.

135,000 views right now.

Um and it's like you look at the comment section, this is a bunch of people congratulating themselves on their like stupidity and retardation.

Uh socialism for all people there's peop look at his com I mean he controls his comment section to be fair.

We don't.

But uh

You just it just goes to show debates are not enough.

We have to start making video essays and pumping them out big time.

Because people like they don't care about confrontation.

They just care about what's in front of them and what they see.

It's quite sad, but you know.

It's quite sad, but it is the way it is.

Then there's another thing on the other hand.

So, yeah, I'm just seeing.

I don't even know if these people are human or they're NPCs or they're bots, literal bots.

Yeah, the X algorithm is pushing anti-ACP shit.

I know that for a fact.

The X algorithm, I've tested it with a lot of different people.

I've talked to them.

The X algorithm is major pushing.

Like, I will go on the timeline.

People will show me their timeline.

People that are not active on X, that just kind of follow us.

And there'll be a post with five likes talking shit on ACP.

That that that randomly is on there for you.

3,000 impressions, 5 likes.

Like, they're just pushing, pushing it, pushing it, pushing it.

If you're on left Twitter, they're pushing, pushing, pushing anti-ACP shit.

What can you do?

We don't control the fucking X algorithm.

Zionist Mossad does, right?

And then you just kind of have to think: like, oh, is it over in terms of the internet?

Is it just completely unwinnable?

No, it's not.

We will always look, Bolsheviks.

Spent half most of their existence underground.

We are a half underground movement.

You need to understand that.

We can dominate the algorithm.

We can dominate social media.

But is it going to be easy?

No.

And plus,

Should we expect a smooth continuity?

No.

We can dominate, yes, but we have to do it in the Bolshevik way.

There's a lot of indirectness that goes into that.

There's a lot of strategy.

There's a lot of tact.

Just directly, it's never going to be possible.

You know, yeah, they control the algorithm.

We don't.

They're always going to use that to suppress us.

Um, however, as long as we exist in the under, look, it's like we are basically.

I'm gonna, I just like I'm a political theorist, and I say this with no exaggeration.

At some level

You could say that we occupy at some level, in some sense, a specific dimension of.

civilization, you know, which is, yes, online for sure, but this is how consciousness is generated as such.

It's like the avant garde of what culture is.

We occupy a specific dimension that is very much like

A non-state paramilitary actor with respect to cyberspace.

The discursive hegemony of the state, or you know, what Al Thusair called the ideological state apparatus, whatever you want to call it, very much exists at this kind of like surface level, front page of Reddit, very much easygoing on the algorithm, very much just out there, front and open with a smiling face, AOC, whatever.

It's like acceptable, basically part of the continuity of the ideological state apparatus.

One of the various different factions and multitudes and multiplicities and different groupings.

It's a political spectrum.

You have the left part of the ideological state apparatus, you have a right-wing part.

It's all very much on the surface of what is considered acceptable politics.

Then you have us.

And we very much have rad we're we have like committed the sin of a radical separatism, at least to an extent, meaning we're there, we're very much present and visible, but our headquarters is away from the ideological state apparatus.

And so we're kind of like this underground non-state actor in terms of the formation of discourse, where people see it.

That's why people see us as like a scary, whatever underground thing, because it's like we are like outside of this like level, whatever we fucking call it, level one consciousness for NPCs and retards.

We're very much like in in the you know, behind the scenes type of shit.

Like

Imagine the formation of consciousness is like a movie theater, right?

Most people are in front of the screen, we're backstage, we're controlling that shit.

We're like fighting to control the wires and the technology, like on the back end type of shit, right?

So that puts that puts us in radical proximity.

To the, in some sense, you could say, radical non-state paramilitary actors of the past.

Except, we're not doing this.

Khuzads with the 10th, appreciate you, bro.

Thank you so much.

Except, of course, we're not doing this in a way that breaks laws because this is a zone and this is a sphere.

Harold, what's up with the five?

Because this is the sphere of our shared existence that bourgeois law has not yet caught up to, right?

Everything we're doing is legal, but

Um

It's still like incredibly violent on some level and very contentious politically, but the but the reason it's fully legal is just the law has not caught up.

Amilo, what's up?

To the 10.

Like, China is very much caught up on the reality.

Like, China understands the formation of consciousness and the discursive hegemony of the state is absolutely part of national security from the perspective of preservation of the state, right?

But we are in this kind of reality where we have the First Amendment that protects speech, and yet.

Um

the foundations of a shared community, which begins with discourse, on some level at least, you can even affirm that in the materialist sense for sure, that has become like everything's out of control, right?

So, you know, look, if you're some notice that we get a lot of hate from newbie Marxists, meaning people that just discovered Marxism yesterday, people that just discovered Marxism-Leninism yesterday, they have this intense problem and hatred for us because they still live on the surface.

They they're not Bolsheviks who are half underground like we are.

They are still very much naively on the surface, right?

They have a very naive understanding of Marxism, very naive understanding of communism.

And it's all out it's like on the surface for them.

It's on the front page of the it's on the front page of the newspaper, so to speak.

It's on the you know, it's it's on one of the one to sixty channels of cable television or something, right?

We, meanwhile, are partially underground.

We're partially in the shadows.

Because, why?

Because we're not allowed to simply be on the surface directly.

We control the surface away from the surface.

So we're literally underground, and we are controlling the surface.

indirectly.

Meanwhile, we're fighting with the actual CIA, the MI6, the Mossad.

And lo and behold, what a big surprise that we get accused of being feds and we get fed jacketed.

Because we're literally the only people who occupy the same dimension

That is the condition of the possibility of fighting the feds.

Meaning, we're actually fighting the CIA on like the astral plane.

On a deeply psychological and discursive, meta-discursive and psychological level, we are at war with the CIA, the MI6, Mossad, whatever.

Like we see social media just like they do.

We understand the indirectness.

We understand that it's not directly everything is what it appears, right?

So we're fighting them.

We're literally fighting them.

But because we're able to occupy the same dimension as they are with respect to the naive realism of discourse, people look at us and they think we're feds.

We have the same distance toward this naive faith.

It's like, think about it this way: you know, you're seeing the movie The Matrix, right?

Wouldn't it make sense that people think Neo

Or the black guy, what's his name?

Morpheus Morpheus and Neo wouldn't it make sense if people think Morpheus and Neo?

are working for Agent Smith.

Because what do Agent Smith, Morpheus, and Neo have in common?

Despite being on opposing sides, right?

They both have in common the fact they don't simply live in the Matrix.

They understand it is a Matrix.

They understand the back end.

They understand the ones and zeros.

They're very much like out of the fake world of illusions.

And because of that fact, they occupy the same dimension of warfare.

And that's how they're fighting, right?

So wouldn't it make sense if you're a retarded NPC living in the Matrix?

Who has a different theory of what the Matrix is, and you recognize there's an Agent Smith, and he's not of our world.

Maybe he's a space alien, whatever theory you come up with, you're going to look at Morpheus and Neo with the same degree of suspicion.

Why?

Because they're not living in the same naive, retarded world as you, right?

So, doesn't that make sense?

Doesn't that make like total sense why we would be given the same they go you're a Fed party you're a Fed party No you fucking retard We're just fucking Wagner Mao Wis you fucking retard It's like you're literally a teletubby and we are Wagner Maoists That's the difference like We are we're literally like Wagner and you're fucking a tele you're like literally a teletubby and we're Wagner Yeah, Wagner is on the back end Wagner is riding helicopters around and like they understand what our reality actually fucking is They don't have any illusions, right?

They have zero fucking illusions

I don't care what you think of Zenya Progozhin.

That guy didn't have any fucking illusions about where reality was.

Okay?

We're on the fucking back end.

We're not here to look presentable and wholesome to NPCs on the internet.

We're not here to be loved and beloved because I'm not Barney the dinosaur.

I am not Coco Melon.

We're not Coco Melon.

We're not here to lull you into sleep and maintain the fabric and consistency of this fake ideological state apparatus that you live in.

Wagner is very much partially ugly.

Okay.

Why?

Because Wagner is this like extremely brutal non-state actor.

Which is outside of the ideological state apparatus.

They they get to the nitty gritty of the true material foundations of what politics actually are.

They have no fucking illusions, um and they have absolute they're absolutely like fighting in the real, right?

So we are we there's a proximity there at some level.

I don't care how ridiculous it sounds to you.

At some level there's a radical proximity between that and what we are for the discourse.

We're outside of it in the same sense.

Are we cracking people's skulls with sledgehammers like Wagoner is?

No.

But we are proverbially doing the same fucking thing psychologically to people because the fact that we're not on the front page of Reddit.

So um

What I'm trying to say is that I've very much run out of patience when it comes to dealing with people's naivety when it comes to this.

You know?

Um, hold on.

I'm very much run out of patience when it comes to dealing with the naivety that surrounds.

People's reception to us that is like, oh my god, are you guys not like what conventional lip tard leftists are?

And it's like, okay, well, you have clear, you have clearly not taken a proper red pill in your fucking life.

You know, you clearly are just so naive, like a baby.

I don't know how we could help you.

Besides, tell you to wait.

And I don't know, especially these people who just became leftists yesterday, it's like, look.

You're not living in the real world.

You're just not.

There's so much disgusting filth and hypocrisy, and I absolutely just have no patience for it.

I think people in their heart of hearts know what is right and what's wrong, and I have faith.

People will see the light on the basis of their conscience.

I think I'm a militant radical Shiite.

I think that uh the thing that's going to be the most popular

in a world of injustice is going to be the things that perpetuate injustice.

But the people of conscience

Who know what's right and what's wrong and

have a faithfulness to that, they'll find their way to us.

Just like you have, you know?

Uh i it's the easy thing to do th th these are blue pills, honestly.

The Liptard leftists, they give you blue pills.

They present radical leftism and Marxism in such a way that is fundamentally compatible

with your conformity to the existing system.

They give you the precise aesthetic when I and I mean the precise sensibility that allows you to basically justify your conformity.

They turn Marxism into some ironic thing you're not supposed to take seriously on any real level.

Their punctuation is irony, right?

That's what they meta they their metaphysical worldview is based on this notion that real being, the real logos, so to speak, underlying being, is irony.

Everything's just an irony.

Everything is just, you know, uh uh uh a punchline, so to speak.

That's the punchline to reality.

That's kind of an absurdism, honestly.

They they dwell in an absurdism.

You know, sometimes I see these re the potato retard that I see on X, absolutely a despicable subhuman swine in every respect.

But just their humor pisses me off.

All the band kids that laugh, I mean, a Wagner hammer smashing them in the face is what I visualize.

I'm allowed in my free speech to say that I.

My therapy when I see these disgusting band kids and their filthy, ugly, disgusting, unfunny humor is that I imagine Pregozhan with a hammer just smashing them in the head.

Because

You know, it's like th they they they they say like uh you know uh it's really f uh really funny, nice leftist humor here.

You know, Trotsky, if he was in power, he would be way more of a menace to the capitalists than Stalin even.

So it's like and it's like what are you fucking talking about, you fucking subhuman retard?

Why the fuck are you calling yourself a Marxist-Leninist saying this filth?

Am I the only one who takes this shit seriously?

It's like

That's why are you even joking about that?

Trotsky was a fucking subhuman cockroach.

Trotsky was released from Halifax by the fucking British because he was our British agent.

Meanwhile, he was propped up by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany to take over the Soviet Union.

Why?

Because he was more of a threat to them?

Literally, shut the fuck up.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

These disgusting, filthy Trotskyites, even in their humor and in their jokes, they're revealing how they're not Marxist-Leninists.

They don't actually take it seriously.

They are fundamentally Trotskyites.

To top it off, you know why this guy triggers me?

Who I know is a fat ass.

100% they're a fat ass.

I just could sense it.

This fat estrogenic piece of shit is in the DSA.

To top it all off, they're in the DSA.

It's just

I hate these people.

I fucking hate them.

I absolutely fucking hate them.

I have no patience for them, and I will never forgive them.

I'm sorry.

I'm not a saintly divine person.

If I was, I would be able to find some way to forgive them.

I can't.

I really hate these people.

Uh, autistic, thank you, man.

But I hope you're not that guy.

You're not that guy.

It's not just a different guy.

But uh

Leftist humor on oh my god.

And then on the other end, we have the libertarian, whatever his name, Zulu.

First of all, who the fuck is Zulu?

Okay.

Uh I only kn uh I looked at my notifications the other day that he he sent his pathetic

Flaccid community to spam my replies to get my attention, to beg for my attention.

As if I'm avoiding him in a debate.

I don't even know who the fuck he is.

Click his profile, he has five thousand followers.

So I'm supposed to fucking keep track of you and know who the fuck you are, first of all.

Second of all, comrade, what's up?

Second of all, what is this for?

I mean, I'm the guy who literally goes out.

I'm like aching for debates.

I'm fucking desperate for debate content, actually.

Quite desperate, actually.

Man, what's up?

It's like, you know what?

It's like you could almost say I'm like an incel, but for debates.

Like, I'm an involuntary debateless because nobody will fucking debate me, right?

I'm fucking desperate.

I'm fucking desperate for fucking debates, right?

The notion is ridiculous to me.

You're gonna send your flaccid 50-50 fanbase to spam my replies saying I should debate you?

Do you know how fucking desperate I am to fucking debate people?

And you're like making it seem like I'm running from you.

Why would a lion run from meat?

You think the lion is running away from the meat?

You think the lion is running away from the wilderbeest?

You think the wolf runs from the sheep?

Do you know who the fuck I am, first of all?

Second of all, how fucking stupid do you have to be?

How fucking stupid do you have to be?

To try to use these tactics against the fucking guy who's the master of them.

You're not the mo you're not Genghis Khan, bitch.

I am.

Why the fuck would you use your flaccid, retarded army against me?

When I'll do it against you, it'll be ten times worse.

Show you what power is.

We're actually collectivists, but this army would fucking eat yours alive.

Don't fucking try to fucking present an army to me.

We are fucking looking for an army to devastate and destroy.

We are actual fucking collectivists.

Every single person here is a blind Tizzelbosh cult member.

Okay, like a radical Shiite militant literal Hezbollah.

Okay

Literal Kisdel Bosch.

Why the fuck would you try to use these tactics against me?

You must be retarded in your head.

Anyway, they want to debate me.

I'm guessing this is gonna be a PPAP person, so I'm gonna I'm gonna actually uh present a response to the entire retardation of PPAP propositional logic if I have to.

But uh yeah, they wanna debate, so I said okay, next Sunday.

So yeah, we're going to be doing that next Sunday.

You will scare away the Raiders.

Honestly, I bring a certain vibe to the function.

I'm not willing to compromise on the vibe that I fucking bring.

If it scares you away, just get the fuck out of here.

I don't even want you here.

It's like I'm bringing a certain vibe to the function.

I'm not going to change.

You need to understand that.

I'm not going to change.

I'm not going to change.

I will never change.

I'm locked in.

I already completed my Saturn return.

My Saturn return is nearing completion, I think.

And I'm not going to change.

Like, I'm locked in.

I know who the fuck I am.

I know what I'm about.

I'm no about.

I don't have this confusion about what my fate, what my destiny is.

I'm going to be about the shit that I'm about.

You understand?

If people will take long to catch up and understand, that's fine.

You could play catch up.

Two, three years, turn on me, the most viral fucking person on the internet, right?

Maybe who knows how long it's going to be.

But one day I'm going to be so fucking viral, you're not going to be, you're going to see me everywhere, right?

And it's going to annoy the shit out of me.

I'm not going to like it.

I'm not going to like it.

I'm not going to be happy about it, but it's going to fucking happen.

100% it's going to happen.

You think, okay, so every single one of you are just crazy, right?

The same shit that you guys see, more people are going to see it, right?

Unless, what do all you have in common, right?

You're all from different races.

You're from different religions.

You're from different backgrounds.

There's nothing about this that has a limit.

The limit is that we're being suppressed.

The limit is that there's a barrier when it comes to like people actually getting it, but once people fucking get this shit, they can't get enough.

Understand that.

Once people fucking get this shit, they lock in.

This is what it fucking is.

How can you be presented with our message and reject it?

Tell me that.

How can you be presented with this message and reject it?

That's what I want to know.

How the fuck do you get presented with this shit and say, oh no, I'm going to be something else?

You know why I win every fucking debate that I'm in?

Because I actually fucking know.

You know what knowledge means?

It means like

I I actually know this shit and believe in it in a way that I'm committed to.

Like, I will cut off my fucking hand if I'm wrong.

You understand?

I'm not meandering in the desert.

Searching for a solution.

I have a fucking solution.

I have a goal.

I'm pursuing that fucking goal.

You understand?

I know what I'm fucking doing.

I see the fucking vision.

Get it?

It's not a confusion for me.

It's not a there's no question mark.

There's a clarity that I have that not a single libertarian, not a single Liptard, leftist, pissant, retard has.

When I look at these people, I see fucking children.

Just groping in the dark, confused.

Huh, what is the meaning of life?

Like, I already know that shit.

Okay, you say, be more humble.

I am humble, bitch.

But guess what?

I'm writing

Face toward a specific destination, space in a specific direction.

I'm not stopping, bitch.

I know where I'm going.

You know, be humble.

Of course I'm humble.

There's nobody more self-critical than me.

There's nobody more who devils advocate more than me against me.

But guess what?

I'm locked the fuck in.

I am locked the fuck in on this shit.

Nasbold is I see you as a fucking mouse, you're Mickey Mouse

I'm on a horse and Mickey Mouse is squeaking things at me.

Not ball, big, you're a fascist, you're the

Man, Mickey Mouse, shut the fuck up, man, when Goofy's fucking your bitch.

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

I saw that video where Goofy's fucking your bitch on X.

Where she got pregnant, she had a baby that looked like Goofy.

Y'all see that shit?

Mickey Mouse trying to fuck with me.

I see them as Mickey Mouse.

I'm on my horse.

We're riding with the horde.

Mickey Mouse, there's so many mice, there's a lot of them for sure.

There's a lot.

I'm not denying that.

There's thousands potentially, who knows?

But

You're just squeaking at us.

Like, uh wha what wha wha am I supposed to be bothered by this shit?

Oh, but then some good faith that sometimes they try to tell me privately, some people that are sympathetic.

They go, Haz, listen.

Just try to be more likable to these people.

And then I say

Okay, it's like look

You want to fight the system?

You want to fight this empire of lies?

There's Hack.

And there's falsehood.

That's it.

It's a fucking rough pill to swallow.

Like, you want to go up against this fucking system, you want to go up against this empire.

I can't hold your motherfucking hand.

I could tell you to stop being a bitch and stand up.

That's all I could fucking do for you.

That shit is hard.

I'm telling you some shit that causes you pain.

You understand?

But there's no other message that I have for you.

I'm telling you shit that fucking hurts you.

Okay?

I have no other message for you.

Like, think about this.

You want to fight the empire?

Do you know what you're fucking up against?

You know how much that fucking takes?

And you know, I'm going to make that a smooth journey for you.

It's no, there's got to be a great motherfucking leap forward at some point.

A great leap forward.

And you don't fucking look back.

You're not willing to make that fucking leap?

Fine, I'm not gonna force you to.

But don't squawk at me like a mouse and get in my fucking way.

It's ugly and it's brutal to be a communist, to be a revolutionary, fucking ugly and brutal shit.

You have to accept psychologically.

That ultimately is part of something beautiful.

There's nobody who has a grander sense, a greater clarity of what is beautiful than me.

Trust me, right?

But at the end of the day

If you cannot face the brutality of the fight, the struggle.

The principal struggle being within, right?

To fight the bitch inside you.

If you can't do that, I have nothing to fucking say to you.

I can't hold your hand like, no, I am declaring war on you in a way, right?

You're a fucking Redditor.

What did I do with it?

No, I'm declaring war on your bitch ass.

Why?

Because you live a fucking useless, meaningless fucking life.

Wake the fuck up.

That's my message.

Wake the fuck up.

If that hurts you, the fucking target the the the the

The bullet hit its target, so to speak.

Like, yeah, I'm talking about you.

That shit hurts you, it's supposed to fucking hurt you.

If I'm telling you you've been living your life as a bitch and a liar and a coward this whole fucking time, and that shit hurts you, I don't know how to tell you that shit in a way that's not gonna hurt your feelings, but your feelings deserve to be hurt because your feelings are conformity.

Your feelings attach you like a slave who loves their master, your feelings attach you to this rotten system.

Let me fucking drop a bomb on you.

Every slave in history loved their master, and the ones who didn't took up fucking arms and either won their freedom or died trying.

No exceptions.

You think they can maintain slavery just through the whip?

Every fucking slave in Greece and Rome and throughout all of fucking history, every single slave loved their master.

Their feelings were of love for their master.

And the minute those feelings disappeared, they either fucking violently won their freedom or they died trying.

That's fucking brutal and that's ugly.

The majority didn't do that.

You understand?

Majority didn't do that.

Majority, and because they didn't do that, they psychologically were tethered to that slavery through a compassion, through a sensibility that conditioned them to love their master, conditioned them to love their slavery, love their master.

I cause pain to people who love their own slavery.

They love their own conformity.

They love their masters.

They love the state.

They love the regime.

I'm the MAGA communist, but I guarantee you.

If Donald Trump died, these people would cry.

I'm the only one who wouldn't give a fuck.

These people, these Lip Tar leftists, they would cry.

No, no no forget Trump.

If the American state

Mark my words.

Walla, I believe there's truth to this.

Mark my words.

Like one lie believe in my head that I'm cooking on this shit.

Mark my words.

When the United States dissolves, the first people that are gonna cry about it are the Liptard leftists.

They love their master, they love him.

They hate the message that inspires them with the internal violence necessary to radically break their conditioning that attaches them and tethers them to this system.

They have Stockholm syndrome.

Nobody loves the empire of lies more than them.

And when it collapses, when the day comes that it's fucking gone, they're gonna cry about it like a slave shedding tears for their master.

And me?

I'm gonna say whoopty fucking do.

We already were there.

I I genuinely will not shed a single tear when the day comes.

Why?

Because the America that I know has any worthiness already is being defaced and raped.

When they tell me, Haas, make m be more likable, stop being so mean, I mean, be more loved, be more I can't, I'm sorry, I can't.

I'm not I'm t I don't I can't give you a message compatible with your existence because I think your existence

Is based on falsehood.

You understand?

Like, I can't pander to your feelings because I think your feelings.

Are ultimately rooted in a love for your own slavery.

And I I can't

I I could not be resp I could not responsibly

Make my message compatible with that.

Um, how could I be liked?

How could we be liked?

I and we, where we're a cult, right?

How could we be liked?

Think about this.

How could we be overwhelmingly liked?

How could it be?

Yes, the feds are on us.

Yes, they're botting the shit out of every fucking platform.

Yes, they're playing with the algorithm.

Of course they are, I know that.

But I think there's an inner bitch inside a lot of these people, genuine real humans, who don't like us.

There's a type of inner bitch inside of them that's like, you guys are violating the non-aggression principle.

You're violating my Netflix, my Disney, my Star Wars.

You're violating my slavish conformity to this system.

You're violating the comfort that I have being a slave.

You're violating my psychological well-being.

You're violating this world of justification I've built for myself that justifies the innate conformity I have for the authorities that be.

the only proof of a slave

The only proof a slave has that they have won their freedom is that they have become their own master.

They're not simply without a master.

They replace the master with an inner master.

You understand?

The slave who runs from the master.

But maintains a vacuum in their heart is still a slave.

The slave is only free from the master when they have become the master themselves of their own destiny.

And the communist has only become a communist.

The revolutionary has only become a revolutionary.

When they have become the subject and the soldier of a completely new authority and a completely new state.

There's no bigger slave to the state than the anarchist.

Only when you have a new principle of authority and statehood are you truly free from the regime.

And our crime, ladies and gentlemen, is that we have discovered this principle.

We have our own authority.

We have our own on some real motherfucking shit.

They call us CIA.

No, bitch, you're confused.

We have our own CIA.

We have become our own power.

We have become our own intelligence agency.

We have become our own U.S.

Army.

We have become our own regime.

You understand?

Because we are free from the existing regime psychologically, in our hearts, in our minds.

We're free from the system.

You're not.

Our freedom means.

We have our own authority.

We don't depend on this shit.

In our heart of hearts,

Materially, we're just as much of a slave as you.

I'm not denying that.

But in our hearts, in our soul, in our spirit, and in our minds we are free.

And that's very fucking powerful.

That means we have opened the door for us.

We have opened the door.

In terms of opening the possibility of pursuing the path of material freedom, you don't have that possibility because in your heart the door is shut.

You see, the door is in your heart.

The door to the emancipation is in your heart.

As long as that bitch is closed, you will never ever fucking win your freedom.

You have to open that door first and then you take the first step.

We're not grandstanding about where we are materially, but this fight matters because this is a fight of the spirit.

And if it didn't matter, why the fuck does the state and the Mossad and the CIA and whatever, what have you, why do they, why does it ex all their energy goes into it?

Why do the Libtard leftists, all their energy, they pretend like they're in real no, we're in real life, you retarded bitch.

We're in real life.

You're not.

They're all online.

We're the ones in real life.

They're in their furry pony Discord.

Uh uh having a discord sex.

And we're the ones offline actually doing real shit.

But nevertheless,

The jihad.

Right?

For the spirit, for the mind, for the heart, 99% of people's energy is there.

And we're all fucking slaves on a material level right now.

And that's our crime, and I can't absolve myself of this crime.

I can't.

I can't say, No, I can somehow give it to you in a soft way.

I could give you a pill that's not going to hurt you.

I can't.

There's nothing I can do.

All I could do is confront you with something that's going to fucking hurt you.

In the same way a slave to be free has to be confronted first with pain.

The Master's Whip hurts.

Very much it hurts.

You wanna know what hurts?

The only thing actually that hurts more than the Master's Whip.

You wanna know what it fucking is?

Freedom.

The pain of emancipation, the courage, the energy, hod, to beat the bitch inside of you and say, I will stand up.

I am Spartacus.

I don't know how much that shit fucking hurts.

That's a heartbreak inside of you.

You're killing the bitch inside of you.

You're killing the love for the master in your heart.

You're standing up and you're taking a fucking leap into the unknown.

You're embracing an unknown before there was comfort, before there was predictability, before there was a known.

Now you're stepping into a fucking void that hurts.

That very much hurts.

It hurts more than the whip of the master.

If it didn't hurt more than the whip of the master, why are slave slaves?

No, no, let's be real.

In Rome, in Greece,

You think logistically those fat pedarass in Athens.

Or even in Sparta, the LARPers of Sparta, you think logistically they could control the slaves?

In every Greek city-state, slaves outnumbered the free men.

All it would have taken was courage.

And they would have fucking bum rushed all them bitch ass people.

There was no technological, none of that shit fucking mattered.

You compare the fucking numbers.

There was no shot.

There was no shot.

In Rome, it's the same thing.

Spartacus, he fucking sent a, he was the fucking Paul Pot of his day.

He terrorized these fucking people.

These Roman senators, even all these people in Rome, they were terrified.

Both the plebeians and the patricians.

They were scared shitless, right?

That wasn't the norm.

But all it took was a Spartacus.

But you think slavery could be maintained just purely through force?

Fuck no, it couldn't.

Fuck no it couldn't.

The first thing is they instill a love for the master, a sentimental a feeling, right?

The brutality and harshness that we're associated with.

Look, okay, want me to be fucking frank.

You want me to be fucking Frank as fuck?

You want me to be Frankenstein?

You want me to be Frank and Barry?

The Halloween ser you want me to be

Francophone?

Who wants me to be frank as fuck?

You want me to be frank?

You know the things that they say are culture war?

I'm talking about the Rev posts.

You wanna know why some of the people in our ranks have that line of attack?

Do you think it's 'cause we just dislike

Alternative people like do you think it's just because we're bigots or something?

We are attacking the culture and the values that correspond to conformity, to slavery.

I didn't want to have this conversation.

We're attacking the spiritual values of passivity.

Do you understand?

We're attacking the values

Of weakness.

Spartacus, when he looks at his fellow slaves,

He's gonna call out the bitch made tendencies inside their heart that are preventing them from awakening to freedom.

We don't have a superficial attachment.

This is not about religion.

This is not about traditional values.

Fuck traditional values if they're incompatible with the revolution, by the way.

We don't have any fucking sentimental attachment to any of that shit.

When we look at a fat fuck and shame them, it's not because we idealize a certain physique just because No, motherfucker, it's because how you gonna free yourself from the fucking system if you can't even free yourself from Twinkies?

How are you gonna free yourself if you don't have muscle, you don't have willpower?

If you can't even fucking stand up and fight, motherfucker, how the fuck are you gonna be shit if you can't be?

You know what I mean?

It's like, how are you gonna fight as a revolutionary, as an effective revolutionary, taking on the system if you lack the rudiments of willpower?

To have will is to have muscle, both literally and figuratively.

Dare I fucking say it, dare I fucking say it.

Men have to be men if you wanna be if you wanna be a revolutionary man, you gotta fucking man the fuck up.

Shit, I'm not saying you have to look like Arnold.

I'm not trust me, I'm not on the ideal Shut the fuck up, man.

The ideas of heteronormative masculinity.

Bro, just shut up.

I don't care about any of that.

I don't care about how you look.

You could look like a fucking retard.

I don't care.

I'm just saying it's like you gotta be, you gotta stand on some fucking business.

Like, what are we talking about here?

I'm not, I don't care about the aesthetics.

I care about the content that those aesthetics signify, which is you have to be a militant, tough person.

You have to be thick-skinned.

You have to actually like.

Be like, oh, but Haas, you're not six feet you're not six four.

It's like

But when did I make this a beauty pageant?

Okay, I don't care if you're four foot five, you can still man the fuck up and like kill the bitch inside you and be a revolutionary.

But I stopped using that rhetoric because people made it

The people kept like twisting what I meant.

They're like, oh, this superficial archetype.

Bro, shut the fuck up.

I'm not talking about an archetype.

I'm not talking about like a sta uh a made up arbitrary s performative standard.

Whatever you want to call it, call it whatever you want to call it.

Whatever it is that makes people stand the fuck up and stand on business.

And have principles and have honor, have character, whatever that fucking is.

And I don't care what it looks like, but have that, and I'll shut my fucking mouth.

Meaning, look, if you're a fat, obese, not well put together transgender, and you can embody those values, you can be like Spartacus.

I will shut my mouth.

I will tell everyone to shut their mouth.

About your presentation, I'll be like, well, they embody the values, they embody the Spartacus.

They have the Che Guevara to them.

They're brave, they're courageous, they're honorable, they're virtuous.

They have principles.

These are the things that I actually fucking care about.

You know, if you can be Spartacus and you're a transgender, I'll say nobody ever talks about transgenders ever again, right?

But the reason I can't open my mouth.

The reason I can't say that right now is because a little too many of these alternative types, I'm not saying who, but it's like a little too many of the people that Rev posted in that photo from the PSL, a little too many of them aren't like Spartacus.

A little too many of them don't have a fucking backbone.

A little too many of them make up excuses to justify venality and cowardice and corruption and just submitting to the authority that, you know, being loud rhetorically and talking a tough game, but being a Democrat when all is said and done.

You know, this is the shit I care about.

And just being weak, unable to confront the right wing.

You can't even have a fucking debate.

You can't even talk to people.

You can't even have debates to show the people what's true and what's not.

You literally like shut yourself off to the possibility of confronting the enemy in a meaningful way.

I'm not talking about taking a bike chain as Antifa and breaking people's fucking head and then running away, by the way.

I'm talking about sitting down in front of a fucking audience and proving that you're you have hack.

You're the this is that takes a certain degree in the old days.

They would say that's masculinity, right?

I don't care whatever you want to fucking call it.

If you can have that, I'm fucking fine.

I'll tell everybody to shut the fuck up about any culture thing.

But as long as these characters and these principles.

Continue to be culturally significant.

I can't call Rev and tell him, hey, stop.

I can't.

How could I do that?

How could I do that?

You know?

I don't care about the superficial aspect of the aesthetics.

I genuinely care about the cause of the emancipation of the proletariat, of the people.

I care about the revolutionary cause.

I care about fighting the empire of lies.

I care about establishing truth and justice and good on earth.

I care about that.

I care about raising as the supreme principle.

You know, an eternal cosmic truth.

Making that the supreme principle of our existence, of our state, of our central authority, you know, when the state dissolves.

I care about that.

That's what I fuck.

I don't care.

Maybe in a hundred or two hundred years, everyone is gonna look like a retarded fat person.

How would I fucking know?

Right?

Maybe it will mean something completely different in their symbolic order.

But when my community members continue to attack people who look a certain way.

I can't speak out against it because that way can consistently signifies a set of behaviors, attitudes, subjective dispositions, and ideological errors that correspond to a slave that loves their master.

You know?

Like, I am not.

I am not.

I'm not clavacular.

There's so many masculine-looking males.

Who, you know, LARP as a tough guy, they have muscles 'cause they took steroids, they cheated, and they can have a beard and they can have a baseball cap and whatever.

And then they open their mouth and they're like, I think President Trot, and they have like this metrosexual twang.

There's so many of them, right?

Who, but you can never fake the voice.

Notice that one.

The one that will never be fake is a voice.

But a man's voice, anyone's voice, it can never be faked.

The voice reveals your soul, right?

Just remember I said that.

When they open their voice, their whole soul is revealed, right?

But um

They they fit the bill, they look like a you know masculine, whatever, but like they're literally a and to me when I see them as much as you say I'm a bigot, as much as you say I'm a bigot, when I see a

Republican Zionist conservative male.

And they could be muscular.

Like when I see them, I literally see something.

You know how someone is transphobic, like I'm phobic against that, much more bigoted, much like I see that as a complete cuckold subhuman uh I have the I I have far more respect if I saw a random transgender than if I were to see one of these cuckold Republican conservative males who continue to fucking kiss Trump's ass like Captive Dreamer like far more respect for a random transgender than Captive Dreamer, right?

So it's like I have far more disdain and bigotry toward these cuckold conservatives than I do for all the LGBTs.

To whatever extent I have that, right?

That you say I have that.

So it's like, understand where I'm coming from.

You know, I'm not a superficial person.

I'm, oh, you're just imposing these traditional values and religious.

Listen, I'm not a formalist.

I've always been about the content.

Okay.

If the content.

Must annihilate me, so be it.

It's the content that's always been the apple of my eye, whatever that means.

If the content is a thermonuclear fucking destruction.

The fucking force of 10,000 nuclear bombs that blow me up!

So fucking be it, it will still be the thing that is at the front and center of my entire existence that I pursue and that I fulfill, even if it means my annihilation.

That to me is content.

It's an unconditional loyalty to truth, to justice, to eternal cosmic principles and values.

I want to recommend a book that I finally can recommend.

Because I've been I'm in the middle of it.

I've been reading it.

And my theory of the Revolutionary Dynasty, when I put that into writing, everyone's gonna say I copied this book, even though I never heard of it until recently.

But I'm gonna recommend it to you so you have a better understanding of the Revolutionary Dynasty.

The book is called Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs.

And it's kind of like a lip-tarred woman who wrote it, but it's an excellent book.

Very well written.

Very, very I mean, you guys want to this whole uh cosmology, revolutionary dynasty, all La Cosmos, Xi Jinping, read this book, Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran.

Catherine Babayan.

I it just so much information, so much knowledge in it.

It's gonna teach you a lot.

Persian cosmology, astrology, all that kind of stuff.

The Qizilbash, the rise of the Safavi order.

This book is so powerful.

Look.

Guys, the Safaviya order, the Kizil Bash, they started as the Safavi order.

You know why they became the Kizil Bash and they went from Sufi quietism to militant Shiite guerrilla warfare and they became like Bolshevik revolutionaries?

Because the Safaviya order was one of the only Sufi orders that decided instead of strictly internal transformation, let's start being economically existence compatible with the Haqq, right?

With devotion, with tawweed, right?

So they started actually becoming economic, the Safaviyya order, just like ACP is now.

They were building dual power, and that inevitably put them into conflict with all these warlords and whatever.

And the whole story of the rise of Safavid Iran.

which is the foundation of Iran today, began from there.

Um this is like the hidden lost history.

It's so informative.

I I could not recommend it enough.

Mystics, Messiah Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs.

I reckon it's not on the ACP reading list, it's on the infrared reading list, right?

Read it.

I recommend you read it.

If you wanna know more, right?

Um anyway guys

I am able to simply.

I'm not even going to tell you, I can literally do the TikToks.

Seamlessly, because I have the virtual webcam, so now it's seamless, you know?

It's absolutely seamless.

Um

Uh we're gonna start this right now.

Alright, I started it.

It's been started.

Okay, hold on guys, I will be right back.

Uh we're starting the debate right now on uh it's started, it's already started, like I'm live, I got the virtual whatever, so I didn't have to restart it, you know.

But I'm gonna have to briefly leave and come back.

And I will be right back, everyone.

I will be right back.

So, first of all, I'm gonna

Alright everybody, I'm back.

Uh okay, so

Um

Let's get into it.

So we have two requests, let's see.

Huh.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, dude, kill all niggers, man.

Like, fuck niggas, am I right?

Like, fucking kill all.

So right off the bait right off the bat, we can just maybe restart the live 'cause this is a way they can censor the live, uh, getting the live restricted, you know.

It's basically the the point of them doing that, just to get the live restricted.

Basically, like a little snitch, like a little, you know, uh, you know, that kid in class who was a snitch that's just trying to like tattletale.

It's basically like a Larry Ellison, uh, you know, little snitch trying to get me uh restricted.

Yeah, there we go.

So do I have to yeah, yeah.

Your live is restricted for some audiences.

So right off the bat, we got restricted.

If I restart it, is it fine?

or no?

If I restart it, is it uh i it'll it'll uh continue?

Well th I think it's permanently restricted.

They they're not giving me an end an end point.

It will remain?

Yeah, they're not giving me an end point.

This person s with a hammer and sickle in their username is saying ACP is cuck.

Let me guess.

They watched Brandon Torres' YouTube video or they watched the Fed, the anonymous Green Party Fed socialism for all's video.

Every single thing they said in those videos was comprehensively refuted.

So you lack critical thinking skills.

You are a sheep who has never had an original thought in your life.

I have no idea why you're LARPing and pretending that you're a Marxist if you can't even do your due diligence about actual contemporary Marxists and communists.

And you just get it from Reddit and the internet or whatever Discord server you came from.

But the fact that you're claiming to be a revolutionary who's against the system, standing up against the system, and you so passively imbibe the made-up things that they say about communists just goes to show you're not, I mean, you're not, you're not fit for this label that you're repping.

I don't know why you're calling yourself a Marxist.

Oh, you watched the introduction video?

Oh, congratulations.

Did you watch the systemic dismantlement and refutation of Socialism for All's video and Brandon Torres' video?

Because if you haven't, I don't know what to tell you.

Just LARPing, okay.

Which organization isn't LARPing then, according to your definition?

In order to LARP, you have to fulfill a role.

But if what we're doing is unprecedented, what role are we fulfilling?

We invented the role.

How can we LARP something we invented ourselves?

No, these are j these are genuinely these Redditors.

And I got completely uh deboosted.

So how long is this uh uh hate speech thing gonna last?

Does anyone know?

'Cause uh you know

They completely just deboosted it right away.

No clue, because it didn't give me an endpoint.

It just said he got flagged.

So, if I restart it, it'll be fine, right?

I just have to restart it.

I'm gonna try to just restart it.

Conservative communism is definition of LARP.

Okay, who is more conservative, the ACP or the Eastern Bloc or the USSR?

Let's think about this.

Who is more conservative?

The USSR under Stalin or the ACP?

Let's think.

Let's put our thinking claps on.

USSR, even under Khrushchev, who was the most liberal, who's more conservative?

The ACP or the USSR?

Okay, so the USSR was.

So you have a hammer and sickle.

Which is the symbol of the USSR, and you're claiming that's LARP.

I'm going to restart this, guys, because this uh right-winger decided to get me censored because they are a uh

You know, words we can't, they're a cuckold basically.

So let's restart this.

I don't know why you're saying restarting it won't do anything?

Game.

I'm I'm pretty sure restarting it will absolutely reverse, right?

Well, let me see.

Yeah, it's incredible how they hold me accountable for what a a guest does on the stream.

That's incredible.

Any unity we can make with the Libertarian Party.

I mean um

I look, all I could say is that we're willing to unify anyone who's genuinely just against the current regime, um, but in a principled way, you know.

Not just claiming that they are, but in a principled way.

Uh ideological disagreements are not an obstacle to that.

It's like look, there's because there's some people like Bouncy Ben who say oh, I'm a libertarian, but then they go and they support Malay in Argentina who is part of the regime.

So there's no common ground with people like that.

I can't have any common ground with people like Bouncy Ben who support Malay in Argentina, right?

Um

Why th why is the ACP not socially progressive?

I you know what?

It's just like, do you even know what words you're using?

What do you mean socially progressive, right?

I know you I know what you're referring to.

I vaguely understand what you're referring to.

But I would just stress you just think more critically about these conventions that have been inherited from the Democratic Party in the Obama years and whether they whether Marxists should actually respect these conventions about this language that we use, progressive, socially what what is socially progressive?

For example,

Uh there's alternative sexualities.

Okay, well that that existed among the reactionary ruling circles in in Greece and Rome.

And uh and and even under the Tsar in Russia, there's nothing I mean, what is what is intrinsically about what is intrinsically left wing about that?

I I don't know.

Beats me.

Che Guevara didn't think anything like that.

I mean, uh the Bolsheviks didn't.

Che Guevara didn't.

Mao didn't.

Nobody has ever nobody Robespierre didn't.

So, why has this become the most important thing?

I don't understand.

I've yet to be convinced.

You wanna work with the ones that say it wasn't re

Um American Fed Party.

Okay.

I'm glad this person's requesting.

Hey, what's up?

I just wanted to ask you to elaborate.

Yeah, how could it be?

So, are you like a dengueist?

Are you a dengueist?

No, you said we're a Fed party.

I want to talk about that.

What about a friendly bunner?

Are you a dengueist?

What does that mean?

Do you uh agree with Deng Xiaoping's reforms of China?

Yeah, and so did Mal.

Yeah.

Why did you leave?

Why did he leave?

That bothered him that I said so did Mal.

Alright.

I guess we've just met the limits of discourse.

What it d there's no such thing as dengism.

First of all, it was Mao Zedong in the New Democracy period who went much further than Deng because

You could argue that was explicit class collaboration.

Then after the Soviet-led first five-year plan.

They began to actually implement proper, you know, quote-unquote, Soviet-style socialism.

Then they went even further with the Great Leap Forward, which did actually end with the creation of commune markets and an increased decentralization with respect relative to the Soviet model.

From the period of the Great Leap Forward to the end of Mao's life, the tendency was increased marketization and the growth of commune markets and the decentralization of units of planning from the commune level down to the team level.

All Deng did was make another step, which is we're going to go from the team level to the household level with the household responsibility system.

It was Mao Zedong who initiated the debate of what did Lenin mean by the proletarian dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.

So Deng Xiaoping, there's definitely continuity between Mao and Deng.

Mao is the one who put Deng in the position he was in.

Because Mao trusted Deng much more than he did the radical Red Guard factions, you know, like his own wife.

So this notion of dengueism is just nonsense.

Let's see.

There's no such thing.

Uh so this is an anime.

This is very much um Hello?

Yeah.

Um I saw some people talk about um communism rejecting the idea of liberalism.

Mhm.

And I wanted to ask you that since you I think you're knowledgeable.

Okay, what what about it confuses you?

Uh I just wanted to know if communism does um reject that idea of liberalism.

Communism absolutely rejects neoliberalism, and of course it rejects liberalism.

Did you think that, um from a Communist perspective, that liberalism causes degeneracy?

Yes.

Marx and Engels believed capitalism causes degeneracy.

They had no problem using that term degeneracy.

Okay, how do we combat it?

By establishing a sovereign proletarian movement.

With its own center of authority, with its own cultural hegemony, with its own way of attending to the basic human values, the arts, culture, and so on and so on.

But everything is downstream from what you actually are.

If you live the life of a slave and you're simply a slave of this regime, everything about what your culture is is going to re reflect that.

A culture that reflects the fighting spirit of the proletariat as it wages a struggle for its emancipation is going to look radically different from the decaying and decadent capitalist values that prevail, a society of passivity, passive consumption.

and acquiescence to the and conformity to the system.

Person saying, Why are you ducking?

Why don't you request?

You're not even requesting.

This person talking about ducking, they're not even requesting.

Strell Stanny, what's up, bro?

Bass, what's up, man?

You didn't even request once.

So yeah, the the uh

The ACP is really the only party in America that matters right now.

They're the only ones that are actually fulfilling the basic principles of what a Communist Party could or should possibly look like in the 21st century.

And the only opposition to the ACP comes from deadbeats who have already proven after decades that their way is a dead end, in addition to non-party simpletons like Socialism for All who advocate entryism into the Green Party.

All these people have in common the view that uh a basic Marxist-Leninist party is impossible in the twenty-first century in a way that actually adapts to the time that we live in.

Um I know there's a lot of sects that call themselves ML, that call themselves Communists.

But they've had decades to show for anything and they haven't.

Okay, you know, this person who's saying I'm ducking and who's not even requesting, I'm just gonna ban you from the stream and you can go and cry yourself to sleep.

I know it's a funny troll.

Funny hilarious troll, why don't you go get in some employment?

Easiest block of my life.

Go get some employment.

You're not even requesting.

You're spamming my replies.

Um.

I bet you have an iPhone, holy hypocrisy, okay?

S who d who makes the iPhone?

China.

So communism made your iPhone.

Cry about it.

Without the Soviet mathematicians there would be no Silicon Valley.

There'd be no Intel.

There'd be no computer chips that are cons available to consumers.

Mm Communism made your iPhone actually.

Sorry.

Does the ACP support Izrit?

What what?

No, you must have us confused for the so-called CPUSA, which does in fact support the Israel.

Let's see.

Go ahead.

Uh hi.

I'm a Spanish communist and sorry for the accent.

Uh I love the A C P and I like it um all the positionings, but I don't understand

What?

Er why did you defend the posture of text helping?

Uh like why the returning to capitalism and were the state capitalism in that?

Like, I don't understand the statement, really.

I recommend you study China's history.

You study the actual system that existed under Mao and the reforms Deng actually made to it.

Because if you did, you would know there was no return to anything.

Deng's reforms led to the creation of a radically distinct new system that was without precedence in China's history, which very much built atop the foundation of the unique Chinese form of socialism that Mao constructed that was very much in opposition or was radically distinct from the Soviet model.

Go ahead, Y.

H.

Hello, sir.

How are you?

Fine.

Nice.

I really enjoyed your debate, your conversation with Dugan.

I heard you say something on one of your streams once, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you.

I've thought about it ever since.

It's been a year, and I'm still thinking.

You said something about LGBT being some kind of a psyop or something.

This is from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, some way to distract them from their revolution and these sorts of things.

Is that right?

No.

Oh.

I did say that the so-called movement was very much an arm of imperialism.

Functionally it is.

That's how it works when it comes to advancing US foreign policy interests.

This has been true perhaps until the Trump era, that's very recent, but under Biden and under Trump before and under every previous administration since Obama it was.

Uh now, regarding the phenomena of uh and you can request again if you want to continue debating this if you won't here's my here's my actual position.

I think that the phenomena of um

The alternative proliferation of sexualities that are not conducive to reproduction in the long term is endemic across all of society and is not strictly political.

And it's not definitely not confined to the so-called LGBT community, which is to say, I very much think that the online form of socialization.

Or just socialization through mass culture in general has definitely led to a shift in terms of the relationship between people's fantasies and their actions uh when it comes to things like that.

And just to just to say it, it's like, look, Republicans and conservatives and ANCAPs and right wingers and people on the far right and Christian nationalists and all the people that claim to espouse traditional values

Are very much pathological sexually.

They very much have weird fetishes, they very much are into like weird stuff.

Things that I could not even begin to scratch the surface uh knowing about.

But that is endemic.

It's just across everything.

And

Some people decided that some of these things and subcultures they're gonna make give a flag to and they're gonna confuse for some kind of political movement.

I just have no interest in um

Making a political discourse of that.

I just I mean like I I don't know what to tell you.

Does does that strictly a psyop by the bourgeoisie?

No, what I think is a psyop but I think that's a that is a consequence of uh changes in the nature of our civilization.

Whether those changes are decadent or whatever, and I'll leave that to debate.

But uh, what I will say is that the psyop I think is the fixation.

Uh making that an object of discourse.

I think that is a psyop.

I think that

Ben Shapiro got away with making that a big hot topic for a long time.

Nobody was asking about Israel.

That was a psyop.

I think that, conversely, on the left, the inability to actually establish a working class movement for socialism to to directly target the bourgeoisie was undermined by that type of identity politics for sure.

So these were all psyops, but you know, people will.

People will make themselves into victims and say that I'm claiming that every single person is a psyop themselves.

I just don't care.

I'm not here to pander to these people who just cry about everything.

Liam, go ahead.

What is the deal here?

I I don't know.

What's the deal?

Um, you just kind of walked in and you were talking about conservative.

I'd like you to figure it out before requesting.

Go ahead, Mike.

What's up, dude?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, what's up, man?

84 viewers on TikTok, by the way.

Nick's doing 50k a night on a weeknight.

How do you feel about that?

I mean, you guys are.

Is he your boyfriend?

You sound so happy for him.

Is that your boyfriend?

You guys are losing.

You're losing.

You sound so happy about your boyfriend.

Yeah, get it out, Haz.

Get it out, dumb Haas.

You're a fucking dumbass brown clown, dude.

Like, you guys are not serious people.

Why aren't you?

And there's an echo coming from your shit.

This is like a single-shaped.

Why aren't we serious?

By the way, I know you have a neurodivergence.

That's okay.

What about us is unserious?

You sound like a typical groiper, by the way, with the neurodivergence in your voice, the kind of lispiness that's kind of the clear autistic tech nerd.

Anyway, go ahead and explain what's on serious.

Yeah, I'm getting there if you let me.

I mean, you're streaming right now.

You're like a supposed political streamer, and you have an echo coming through your mic.

That's crazy, Haas.

Like, come on.

Okay, well, that's one way you're not serious.

The other way you guys are not serious is because of shit like this.

I mean, you can barely debate with some random knucklehead on your TikTok live.

What point has you?

I mean, I'm telling you right now, you guys are not winning the young white men of the country, which you need that constituency to win any sort of political power.

You guys are not doing well.

Let's walk through that.

So you would say Nick Fuentes is winning the young white men of this country, correct?

Clearly.

Okay.

How tangibly, though?

Does he have a political party he's bringing them into?

What is he actually proposing that's going to be actionable and material?

I mean, are people voting for the DSA?

What?

You're gonna vote for the D S A?

No, are people voting for the D S A?

You're supposing that we should make some sort of third party as if that's the same thing.

What is it what does it mean to actually win people's support if you can't do anything with that support?

I think you can, dude.

Okay, what is being done?

What's being I know I know that I understand a lot of people think his clips are funny on Instagram and some people agree with some of the vague talking points, but how is that being put to work in a way that Nick Fuentes is actually in command of?

Because I'll tell you what, I was there during the assassination thing of the big head guy, and I saw everyone turn on him, the same people that have this vague affinity for him, the same young white men that kind of like him a little bit.

I saw how quickly and rapidly they all turned on him over that and then the Epstein thing.

So the idea that he's winning these people's loyalty, I don't agree with.

I think he's a popular entertainer for sure.

But are you going to convince me that he's winning people's loyalty?

Yeah, you guys don't have that equivalent on the left.

You have no one even comes close.

Well, why do you think that is?

Because it's not popular, Haz.

Really?

The left is not popular?

This venue, I guess, this sort of angle that you guys come from, it's not popular.

No.

Okay.

So the conditions of it becoming popular is the ability to be amplified on the algorithm and have a platform.

If you think that's organic, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's absolutely not organic.

Right.

I mean, I don't know if you think you're going to do well on this platform because you know who owns it.

I mean, if you think that guy has any interest in giving you guys a shot, I don't know what you're doing.

So if it was my interest to just be as viral as possible and be as entertaining as possible, I would have just sacrificed all my principles.

Okay, bro.

That is your interest.

If you were a serious political operative, that would be your interest.

No, it wouldn't.

You're dumb, bro.

The people that are actually, I don't know if you know this, but the people...

Okay, he said I'm dumb.

The people that are actually in power who control everything are not viral.

Did you know that?

As a matter of fact, being viral is like very much secondary.

Not secondary, it's tertiary.

Or it's even farther away from that, to be honest.

Being a viral personality

That is likable is not the same thing as winning the loyalty of people who will actually fight for you.

Um but I digress.

I mean you know he's he he he mocked the amount of people that are watching this on TikTok.

I never claimed to be a popular TikTok streamer.

Um the idea that I'm only on TikTok right now is also interesting.

But uh like like as of this I mean a lot of people it's really funny that people think like I'm only streaming to TikTok right now.

But in any case uh I never claimed to be a viral TikTok streamer.

I've only I only claim that I'm open to debate.

That's it.

Who is citing S for All?

As for All has no principles, I have systematically dismantled every claim that they made in relation to me or anything I've ever said.

They've never responded to anything.

Uh and there's a reason they haven't.

Mad Beach, what's up man?

Appreciate you.

Not a single woman in this org.

Is that your line of attack or what?

Fish, I just want to be clear: is that your line of attack?

There's not a single woman?

Like or that we don't I actually you know what, we probably have more women in our organization than in the than your sect.

Like socialism for all, if he has a faction in the Green Party, we probably have more women than his faction, to be clear.

No, it's not an attack.

Okay.

But then when you see that there are women in our party, what do you do?

You say, Oh no, they're just pick me's or something, right?

So, you know, you just kinda have to choose your pick a line of attack and stick with it.

I've never seen a woman ACP member.

First of all, your your your hunt for female communists is creepy.

Second of all, that's not our problem if you haven't seen female members of our party.

It's not our problem.

But the fact that you're looking is pretty creepy.

Where are your females?

It's like it's giving, it's giving, where are your females?

You know, it's giving uh

Can I see your females?

It's like it's giving, it's pretty creepy, actually.

Go ahead, Adam.

Yo, Haz, you're stalling this, right?

Yeah.

Um he was he was agnostic, right, or was he atheist?

Uh, formerly atheist, but uh He was pretty vehemently atheist, right?

No.

He was formally officially atheist, but in private there are there's some evidence that shows he was actually a believing, practicing Christian.

Okay, because it does seem like he was trying to use Israel as a tool.

For his own.

No.

No.

Stalin was not.

No.

That's not.

It had nothing to do with Stalin specifically.

It had everything to do with the fact that there were elements in the newly created Eastern bloc who tried to create a bridge between Yayanism and socialism and were selling some lower-level officials, not Stalin himself, on the prospect that maybe this newly created state would have good ties with them.

I mean, the Americans were already on board.

Relations between the Soviets and the Americans were already really swell.

So there was this kind of live and let-live attitude.

They didn't want confrontation and antagonism with America.

And they thought that there was all sorts of delusion.

Even worse than that was his attitude toward India.

It was the same with Nehru.

Nehru, just like Ben-Gurion, was presenting himself as an enlightened socialist, entering a new age of coexistence and peace and prosperity.

Yada, yada, yada.

But what actually happened?

So as time went on, Stalin became aware of what was happening and became aware of the infiltration of the socialist bloc.

And it culminated in the Slanksy trial in Czechoslovakia, where Yayanism, I don't know, you can't say it on this platform, was comprehensively condemned by the Soviet government.

The trial in Czechoslovakia saw them tried and, you know, and all kind of support that was not official to begin with, by the way, from Czechoslovakia to that state was cut off.

It was being done behind closed doors anyway.

And, you know, there was a very aggressive campaign against Zionism that ensued after that.

Um well, Haas, I'm gonna be a lot of us have like a distaste for like materialism and it's like when you have nation states that run like China that have existed for thousands of years and they've they've existed and they've managed to survive and they're they're actually prospering right now, I still feel a distaste.

Do you feel it?

Uh no.

I feel like it's cope.

Like and like we're we're heading towards the end times and I feel like the Chinese are kinda shock toward China in general, probably.

You think so?

Yeah, I think it's just culture shock with a different culture.

But um okay but about the blockade too, right?

'Cause no one else gonna affect them.

Right.

They can't they can't do what they were doing before.

Which is what?

Not getting involved in any geopolitical affairs like besides Taiwan?

I don't know about that, but uh we'll see, you know.

Okay.

Uh I have one more question for you, Haas.

If you had a if you had a pick between cursing Vishnu and chicken nuggets, which one would you pick?

I mean, I d I I don't even know what what kind of question this is because it's like

Chicken

What's what's so wrong with chicken?

I mean, like, are are chicken nuggets bad for you?

I mean, they are bad for you, but like, wh what's so wrong with them?

Like I don't understand.

Anyway, do we have any uh people that watched the Brandon Torres video or the Socialism for All video that were compelled and thought that these were like this was good information, this was high quality information?

I I these people, you know, it's r you you really can just pinpoint where these people come from, Reddit or somewhere like that.

Um, who have some kind of problem with the ACP.

Holding us to a standard, they won't hold the DSA or PSL or any organization to.

Do you support Dark Enlightenment?

No.

Oh my god, this person is calling me a Larousite and then using us because I used it.

So the proof that I'm a LaRushite is that I used the very slur that you have used against me.

Let's talk about how I could plausibly be a LaRushite.

If you can plausibly make the argument that I'm a Larousite, I will pay you $5,000 right now.

Request and make the case that I'm a LaRushite, and I'll give you $5,000.

You're a national communist.

Where do you get that from?

From what?

I mean, like, given how involved we are in international causes, I don't know, like, where that line of attack has ever.

How can anyone?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know where this.

Thinking, if you can call it that, even comes from?

Stalin attacked the concept of souls of Chinese characters.

In the debate between Stalin and Mao, Mao is correct.

For sure.

You don't have 5,000.

I definitely and certainly do.

No, we're not nationalists.

We're internationalists.

Alright?

I don't know what else to tell you.

We are objectively internationalists.

What we are not are furry furryists or whatever.

Is are you a nationalist 'cause you are not a furry?

What about me as a nationalist?

I want to understand that.

He has five K from the Landlord Branch Coffers.

Like, I don't know if you're being sarcastic and mocking people who call us landlords or if like that's that's just the point we've gotten to.

Like if you're unironically saying we're landlords, I don't know.

American Chud Party.

Uh someone named Lesbian Hojaist is calling us American Chud Party

You just have no self-awareness about how absurd your name is or I don't know.

No response.

Why would I?

First of all, imagine, put yourself in my shoes.

We are a party that has no landlords.

Uh socialism for all, in all likelihood a Fed

Clipped me out of context saying that chapters can run cooperative tenant-owned housing complexes if they could get their hands on some, which I don't even know how they would be able to.

And then he used that to call us landlords.

And then now you're in my chat calling me a landlord or saying that ACP is somehow has something to do with landlords.

So put yourself in my shoes, given these facts.

Like, how am I supposed to respond to you, genuinely?

Unironically, yes to what?

When I have clearly established that all chapter enterprises are cooperatively owned, how could you you have a landlord

In the sense that you're trying to imply, when the enterprise would be cooperatively owned, how could it be cooperatively owned unless it's tenant-owned?

So, prior context had already established they're all cooperatively owned, but he clipped out a part that doesn't include that context purposefully to malign us and to smear us because he has ideological disagreements with us about China.

To be good faith, in all likelihood, he's an anonymous Fed who disencourages people from forming or even joining Leninist parties.

So, I don't know what to tell you.

He's an anonymous person on the internet who's encouraging people to not form Leninist parties or join them.

So and he's lying about us intentionally.

So I don't know like where why you think that Socialism for All is a reliable source on anything.

Uh the American Party of Labor.

Um

Okay, go in you notice the difference between ACP and the new members of the American Party of Labor who are fifteen years old?

We try to distinguish ourselves through our actions and through our practices.

So if you think you're better than ACP, go and distinguish yourself through what you actually do in practice.

Instead of constantly biting our ankles and complaining about us, you want people to join your party as an alternative to ours?

Show how your party is better.

Right?

We in a spirit of friendly competition give you that opportunity.

Conga's American Shud Party

There were probably more women at the A C P event in Saint Louis than there are in the entire party you're part of.

Can of beans, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Yo, what's up?

Can people in North Korea leave without a work visa?

I don't think they can.

So why can't they leave?

Um, what do you mean, why can't they leave?

Because the tra there's travel restrictions when it comes to how far a North Korean passport can actually get you, because they lack the bilateral relations with most countries

Um I you can't go to Russia right now freely unless you had a special visa.

No, I know, but do you know how travel between countries works?

You need a visa most of the time unless there's a bilateral agreement that establishes that you can have visa-free travel.

Yeah, how would they go about getting a passport in North Korea?

Uh, this we would have to go through the state, so they have to go through the state.

It's a pretty difficult process, wouldn't you say?

Um do you think that the process of getting a passport is fun in the US?

I know a lot of people who are it's pretty easy, really.

I know a lot of people who are dissuaded from getting a passport in America because of how bureaucratic and uh

I'm so convoluted about it.

Well, it just kind of takes like months and you just have to like wait in the DMV f you have to set aside a whole day for like 14 hours waiting in the Okay, well since you're the expert on North Korea, what's your concern about the accessibility of passports for people living in the DPRK?

I just think they should be allowed to leave freely, that's all.

Yeah, I think we should be allowed to leave freely as well.

You don't think we're allowed to?

No.

Not freely.

What's stopping me from getting on a plane and going to another state?

Uh, well, some of the things that they've done to deter me is that every time I come back to the country, I have to get detained by customs and DHS and harassed.

Okay.

Every time I've crossed the border, for every time I've traveled to another country, just because you parrot shit like Hassan says doesn't mean it's true, but keep coping.

Okay, so you're denying that I get detained at the border?

1000%.

Okay, and what if I'm correct about this?

Well, there's no, I guess you have to prove that, don't you?

Well, but if I was, you would admit your worldview is false, right?

Sure, yeah.

Okay, that's all I needed from you.

Thanks for your surrender.

So all it would take is that for me to be correct about the fact that I've been getting detained at the border, and he just admits his whole worldview is false.

Well, I have been getting detained at the border.

You're not convinced that's the truth.

I don't feel it necessary to convince you.

I know that I get detained at the border.

So you have proven to me that your worldview is false.

You see, the onus is not simply on me to convince you that you're correct.

You have to convince me that you're correct.

I know I get stopped and detained at the border.

I don't need to prove that to you because I don't care what you think.

If you're admitting to me that you admit your worldview would be false, if what I'm saying is true, I have no further reason to entertain anything you're saying.

Your worldview is false based on my empirical anecdotal experience.

Now, proving that to a third party or to the audience, I'll let them decide whether I'm lying about being stopped at the border.

Anyone who has any rudimentary familiarity with how customs works, with how the DHA's DH DHS works, knows that when you travel to countries that are unfriendly with the United States, you can ask ChatGPT this, the probability that you're going to get stopped increases drastically, right?

So, you know, you find that hard to believe, God bless you and good luck with that.

This guy's name is God's Lonely Stalinist.

Go ahead.

How do you reconcile Carl Schmidt with class dictatorship?

I don't.

To be clear, I don't.

It was Western academia in the post-war period that themselves discovered a profound parallel between Schmittian politics and Leninist politics, right?

Because Lenin distinguished himself from social democratic reformists in that he believed that within the sphere of the political class struggle, there was an absolute enmity dividing line between the proletarian and the bourgeois line, which are fundamentally irreconcilable, which can never be ameliorated or rendered harmonious through parliamentary coexistence.

So Lenin is the one who introduces this.

Schmidt actually kind of steals it from Lenin in his political philosophy explicitly because he develops the notion of enmity.

And his first example of this, okay, well, his first example was the Spanish guerrilla resistance against Napoleon.

Every subsequent example is Leninist guerrilla warfare.

The Leninist party, if you read his essay on the partisan, it begins with the Bolsheviks.

He uses Mao.

He uses She.

And why is Schmidt do this?

Because Schmidt was in the German army fighting Soviet partisans.

So Carl Schmidt is developing a theory of asymmetrical Leninist warfare from the perspective of the enemy, from the reactionary bourgeois perspective.

And if we're communists and if we're Leninists, it's useful for us to see this perspective and understand how there is a structure.

Basically, he's describing which is correct and we have the opposite perspective.

So that's the extent there's no need to reconcile anything.

Carl Schmidt explicitly is drawing from Leninism and Leninist asymmetrical political and paramilitary warfare to develop his political philosophy, which for him is from the perspective of the bourgeois legal state that is being undermined by it.

So you're saying what Carl talks about comes from him looking at Lenin?

From the perspective of the bourgeois state, yes.

And that is a limit for Carl Schmidt, because Carl Schmidt doesn't understand how the proletarian dictatorship is not simply a negation of the bourgeois state, but includes a negation of the negation.

It includes a substantively new kind of civilization and political logic.

Schmidt is not necessarily interested in the logic of Leninist politics, but what he does draw out and delineate is the fact that it's founded on a line, a hard line, right?

Oh, I think I get what you're saying.

Like, what he looks at is class interests ruining politics and democracy, and he blames it on politics itself.

But Lenin smartly observes that it's rooted in an objective class distinction, correct?

Oh my, yo, that was good.

Yeah, and Schmidt is only looking at from the perspective of how it deforms the form of the state and politics, and it creates this asymmetry.

So, for example, Schmidt will say that in World War I, you have a war between gentlemen.

And he says this is not a true war, because it's a symmetrical war between the Germans and the British.

And it's a war with rules and with clearly defined and established conventions and conduct and so on.

But it's not true war.

But then he looks at the war on the Eastern Front in World War II between the Germans and the Soviets.

And he can clearly identify this is a true war.

This is a war without rules, without conventions, and it's asymmetrical, right?

And he was in charge of counterpartisan operations when he was in that war.

So this is where he started to identify the lineage of Klauswitz.

from Prussia through and the kind of German People's War of Liberation from Napoleon, which is whatever they called it, all the way through the Bolsheviks and through Mao and through Che Guevara and the Vietnamese and so on and so on.

And by the way,

Schmidt is drawing on a tradition of Prussian political-military thinking that all Marxism is founded upon since Marx.

It was Marx and Engels.

First of all, Engels was a military historian, and Marx and Engels created the framework of recognizing Karl von Klauswitz as a seminal and foundational thinker for their worldview, right?

Lenin further draws upon Klauswitz, so does Mao and so on.

Klauswitz is the originator of this science, so to speak.

So the real bad guy that people try to identify in my worldview, it's literally Klauswitz.

But it's baked into Marxism from the beginning.

And because Klauswitz establishes that what he's famous for, war is an extension of politics.

It's inherently political, right?

War does not operate by some kind of autonomous logic that is distinct from the dimension of class warfare and politics.

Now, Klauswitz doesn't say class warfare, but when a Marxist sees politics, they see class warfare, right?

So that's the significance of Klausvitz for the Marxist tradition.

I see.

Yeah, I was only saying that because you had the debate about Taiwan with the fat guy and you told him to read him.

Yeah, yeah.

But there was one more thing.

I hope I can get this, get into this.

You said that Inquels, Incels, whatever I could say on here, I'll say Inquels for now, had no revolutionary potential.

Now, I agree.

They don't necessarily have revolutionary potential to go out and fight, but they have a sort of liberated mind because they're not brought into this socialization.

I disagree with that a lot.

Hold on.

Here's the.

I really disagree with that.

I think that if you can be someone who has some anti-social tendencies.

And um

who is like not easily moldable uh by groups and crowds and very much there are a lot of steps in between that and becoming an inquel, you know?

There's a lot of steps between just being an introvert and becoming an inquel.

That's is what I'll say.

This person, these left comms that are being really funny jokesters.

You know, what's the joke even?

Like, what about this is funny?

I mean, okay, this is one of the.

Multitudes of

Potential things you could say.

Okay, you're citing Reddit to show where LaRouche cites.

It just doesn't make sense, man.

Come on.

Get a better source than Reddit.

Make an argument for how we could possibly be followers of LaRouche.

Especially now when our only connection to the Schiller Institute, which was Daniel Burke, came out against us during the Shaw betrayal, right?

So w like what there's no bridge left to any LaRoucheites

We had one bridge to the Schiller Institute, which was Daniel Burke.

And that's burned and it's gone, so what's left?

Uh Caleb Maupin uh has deep problems with us.

He's tried to conspire against us multiple times, he thinks he's slick and smart and we don't know about it, we know everything.

You know what's funny?

Um

Left comms who are trying to say ACP Israel, whatever, left comm is the Tel Aviv Marxism.

That's literally Tel Aviv Marxism, is left comms.

Because if you read between the lines, what left comms are saying is that the Palestinian liberation struggle is on the same level.

It's just like it's just as much nationalism as Yayanism.

And it absolves the Israeli guilty conscience of any like unique or exceptional evil.

And it creates this kind of whataboutism where they could be like, Oh, well, you know, everyone's bourgeois, we're all the same.

So you're literally a uh Tel Aviv Marxist if you're a leftcom, you know?

Which is true.

You check the Leftcom bios on X, it always says from Israel many times Israel, whatever.

You can't even say it without getting deboosted.

Debate spawned.

I'll debate anyone who requests.

You're just gonna have to go ahead and request

By the way, y'all, if you were planning on dropping a 20, I just want to say I fully support your decision.

I just wanted to say that, I mean, for no reason.

Comrade Kid, oh my god!

Holy shit, bro, thank you.

Axa the legend.

Philfo, thank you bro.

Um guys notice something else

Notice something else, guys.

How my mic has been working perfectly this entire time.

I think I fixed it.

And some good news.

I think I fixed it.

I think I fixed that mic.

You guys noticed that, huh?

Debate the y uh I don't wanna do that.

Okay, this guy I G, go ahead.

Yeah, what up?

Oh, you're a Peter.

Yeah.

Alright, well

He was one of us, by the way.

Peter does Pintra.

Ray, Ray Pete was one of us.

So you're like a, what are you, a Leninist, Marxist, Max?

Yeah, just like Ray Pete.

Just like Ray P.

Who's Ray P?

Okay, all right, hold on.

I'll bring you back up in a second.

Okay, look, I've addressed the thing about LaRouche was a brilliant thinker of policy, okay?

We were talking to Daniel Burke, who came from the Schiller Institute.

LaRouche had long been a meme in our community because he had these crazy funny ideas like building a land bridge from Siberia to Russia, which we liked, the land bridge idea.

So to politely explain to Daniel Burke how we're not LaRouchites and we don't like him, I was like, he's like the most brilliant thinker of policy.

And if you catch me saying it, you say, do you think that's fair?

Like I'm like, I'm giving you a bone.

Is that okay?

Because we're not willing to say, but if you know who LaRouche was, he adorned himself as a philosopher, as a political theorist of organization, as a like world historical humanist.

And I literally fucking would not even entertain any of that.

And I was like, you know, but the land bridge idea is cool.

That's a polite way of saying we don't think LaRouche is very brilliant.

But you're not smart enough to understand those subtleties.

You just take things out of context and say, oh, this proves you're a LaRoucheite.

Carlos, what's up man?

Appreciate you.

You subscribe to his newsletter.

No, I didn't.

What that's like not even true.

That's like not even true.

I subscri no, I didn't.

You know, anyone can take my em you know, someone took my email and subscribed me to uh Trump and his updates.

I d I have no control over that.

Matter of fact, I think I can sue whoever's doing that or something, right?

Anyway, um.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

We had friendly relations with Daniel Burke who was from the Schiller Institute, one guy that we knew.

At no point did we endorse and say we are LaRussians, we agree with his philosophy.

I do I'm I I literally, when I spoke at the Schiller Institute Conference, my entire speech was devoted to affirming positions that they rejected.

On purpose, Hegel, Alexander Kojev, the South African EFF, Middle Age, what's up?

Ecology.

Sleazy, you have to request if you want me to acknowledge you.

What Death, what is funny?

Like, are you actually committed to the view that we're LaRushites?

I'm trying to speak reason to you.

If you don't think we're LaRushites, but are only saying it to trigger me, then I guess you're, you know, congratulations.

Like, congratulations.

Like, do you if you actually think that we're LaRushites, I'm here, I'm I will gladly dismantle that nonsense view.

But if you don't, if you're just trolling, whatever, I mean, congratulations.

Infra Fed.

Okay, but why would I take that seriously if you're just trolling?

You know?

You don't actually think we're feds.

You know for a fact that we are actually the revolutionaries who pose a threat to the system.

Uh you're you yourself are threatened.

by us because you have a deep conformity and attachment to the system.

So there's nothing about what you're saying that is like meaningful, you know?

We don't think we know.

Okay, Sleazy.

I'm I'm paying attention to the chat right now since you're too afraid to request to speak.

Uh what a what how could you plausibly say we are feds?

Please make the case.

Like, I'll give you five thousand dollars if you can maintain a consistent line of argumentation.

And you can maintain this under scrutiny.

Let's put it under minimal scrutiny.

Requests aren't even up.

Yes, they are.

There's two people requesting right now: the guy who came on before and someone else.

So you can absolutely request.

Make the case that we're feds and maintain a consistent line of argumentation.

Don't contradict yourself one time.

I'll give you $5,000.

Like I will give you $5,000.

I'll send you a screenshot, consisting in what?

Consisting in what?

Does it have something to do with Tulsi Gabbard?

Because if the standard of being a Fed is that Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard in twenty nineteen.

Then there's a lot of other people you're going to have to commit to claiming our feds besides us, which I don't think you're willing to commit to, right?

Jackson's mom?

What are you talking about?

Does it have something to do with Tulsi Gabbard?

Let's genuinely request and let's go down the Tulsi Gabbard line of argumentation to see if that's meaningful whatsoever.

Tulsi Gabbard was known for her criticism of US foreign policy on Syria in 2019, where she was a Bernie bro that broke ranks with the AOC left because she kept critiquing US foreign policy.

She became popular from among the entire alt media sphere.

Ben Norton praised her.

Fiorella Isabel met her in person and hugged her.

All of them were best friends with Tulsi Gabbard.

Okay.

So there's nothing extraordinary about Jackson meeting with Tulsi Gabbard.

The entire alt media sphere was on the Tulsi hype train, every single one of them.

'Kay.

Made this argument 20 times.

Yeah, I know, but what else can you do?

But this is how we recruit people.

You know, you're exposed to lies about us on platforms we can't control.

Then you actually start doing your research and you see how they're lies.

And suddenly you're more loyal to us than you otherwise would be because you realize you can't get the truth from those platforms.

You can only get it here.

Right?

Nobody brought this up.

So, how can you show we're feds, Sleazy?

How are we feds?

Go ahead and explain.

Like, maintain the don't you even have to prove we're feds.

Maintain how it could be plausible we are feds.

Like that it's even a little bit likely, right?

Having five thousand, you think that's little money to me?

You think that's nothing?

I'm so certain you could not maintain this argument.

That's how much I'm willing to I'll cut off my okay, I can't say that here.

I'm I'm so like it's it's like I'm absolutely certain you can't maintain this argument.

Like, I want to give you the o it's just I want to walk you through the critical thinking that's needed to actually evaluate anything, right?

Go ahead, Xavier.

What's up, family?

I just wanted to ask you about modern monetary theory.

What's your guys' take on it?

If you'd keep the US dollar around and if you prefer Chris.

I have the same attitude Michael Hudson has, which is it's very vague what that means.

Most of the articulations of that theory I fundamentally reject.

On the other hand, do we need a new monetary theory to explain the system we have now?

I agree with Michael Hudson when they say yes, but do I agree with MMT thinkers and the conclusions they draw?

No.

What about it?

Do you disagree?

I disagree with the view that value comes from politics, that what gives the value of a currency its value is from taxation.

First of all, one of the premises or one of the arguments they've put forward that I've seen before, I fundamentally reject that.

That taxation is the source of the value of a currency or of exchange value.

Yeah, it's not so much I can see where you're coming from.

It's not so much the value of it.

It's more so once taxation was the demand where it cuts out any other currencies.

We had all sorts of currencies before the US dollar was a taxable income and it enforced us to all kind of like you know rally behind the US dollar.

But I think it's not enough to explain the intrinsic value of the US dollar.

It's not the taxation's not enough to explain.

Precisely, yeah.

It could explain how they could establish a monopoly on the currency, but why it is that currency specifically inhere the specific magnitude of exchange value that it does.

There's a lot of cohorts that goes involved with that as well, right?

Like especially globally.

But it's not so much, we could talk about like whether or not we keep the US dollar around or whatever, but the theory behind how to utilize a currency to control society.

That's the key elements of MNT that make a lot of sense to me.

The ability to fund certain programs.

And your key thing that you're keeping in the back of your mind is inflation.

And you're utilizing taxation as the lever to control inflation.

Either utilizing taxation or you're utilizing it to give more currency.

I don't mean to cut this short.

I'm just a little distracted by the chat.

Sorry about that.

If you think that debunked his LaRushite roots, okay, buddy, my infrared channel is public.

You can look at some of the first podcasts and things I've ever said on this channel.

You can absolutely ask, oh geez, the first message I was bringing, like from day one, the idea I have Larousite roots is a lie.

You are a liar.

And if you're just trolling, you know, we're waiting for the punchline and what's funny about this.

Getting a reaction from someone who's like not even really famous is not an accomplishment.

That's like the most unemployed thing.

Like, oh, this famous guy is reacting to my nonsensical claim.

Okay.

Or do you feel proud of yourself?

I'll say this to you in person, no problem.

Don't fall for rage bait.

It's like, but what but people take it seriously.

Like, who how am I supposed to know this person is just joking when people say this on Reddit?

Isn't ACP mega communism?

Um

No, but I understand why you make that association, because I am the inventor of the term mega communism.

And it was absolutely the most vindicated understanding of communist strategy in America in the past twenty years.

The only revolutionary core right now in America are all the ex-Trump people.

They're the they're all the Democrats under Biden would not raise their voice about Ukraine when Trump.

Revealed his hand, that same base that we called MAGA four years ago all turned on him.

And the only ones left is what, Laura Loomer and Rhino Republicans and people that really were just conventionally not associated with it, all the major MAGA influencers, they've all turned on him.

When Biden was launching was bringing us to World War three with Russia, how many Democrat influencers turned on Biden?

So, the Democrats are not a reliable base for the recruitment for the creation of a revolutionary movement.

But evidently, MAGA was and is.

Uh very clearly disposed to anti-imperialist politics, anti-regime politics, most importantly, anti-regime.

Sleazy, are you do you have like a smug face when you're typing that?

Do you feel like smart?

Do you feel intelligent?

Do you feel intelligent that you can't confuse Major E.

Taylor Greene or Candace Owens or Tarko Carlson from the millions and tens of millions of ordinary people that they're representing?

In fact, you can't, you reduce it to their personalities, failing to articulate that they actually represent tens of millions of working class people in this country who are fundamentally disposed to being against the regime and against the system and have lost all faith and trust in the ruling institutions of society.

Is that meaningless and immaterial to you?

Do you find yourself to be more intelligent and superior because you haven't been able to actually articulate that and you think this is just about a personality named Majorie Taylor Greene?

As if Thomas Massey and all these people don't have the significance that they do because they represent so many people in this country who have become conspiracy theorists.

Bad faith argument.

What's bad faith?

You haven't made a single argument.

You've made smug, snide, sarcastic, smarmy comments about how smug and intellectually superior you think you are, but you have yet to prove.

So what are we talking about here?

You've you haven't made a single point.

You haven't articulated a single argument.

You haven't sincerely and in good faith.

My distaste for Dems and Republicans is equal, but at least Republicans take the mask off.

Okay.

But the premise of the MAGA communist idea is that the so-called MAGA movement were not simply conventional Republicans.

It was a completely novel development in American politics.

Uh now was that enough to to to get rid of the Republican hegemony?

No, and Trump is controlled by the Republicans, we know that.

But there was a novel development of mass American consciousness that MAGA was a symptom of, which showed there is a huge growing constituency of people in this country fundamentally disaligned with the regime.

And that was the premise that you have to look to those people and win them away from the Republicans, and that the conventional mass base of the Democratic Party can no longer reliably be said to be a reliable foundation for left-wing politics.

That was the premise.

Instead of playing this game of fighting over latte professional bourgeois, you know, artisans and professional, respectable institutional types and have this war between progressives and conventional Democrats, let's just go straight to the people that Democrats use as blackmail against the left and win them.

You know, whenever a left-wing challenger tries to challenge Democrats,

They're always using the MAGA base as blackmail.

Like, well, if it's not us, the MAGA candidate will win.

So we, the left, should just go take the MAGA base and take their leverage.

You know, that was the premise.

Yannis Veroufakis said the same thing, by the way, on Hassan Piker's stream.

But nobody called him a right-winger for it, for saying the same thing the MAGA communists have for four years.

If we want left-wing politics is not Democratic Party politics.

If we want to break from the Democratic...

See, the problem with the left is not that they're wedded to Republicans.

They are objectively wedded to Democrats.

Now, if leftists start tailing Republicans, I'll be the first one to call it out.

But they're not taking money from the Republicans.

Objectively speaking, right now, the American left is wedded to the Democratic Party.

So that's the primary contradiction.

How do we get the left to be distinct enough from the Democratic Party that it's its own thing?

Now, being distinct from the Republican Party is already from where we're starting at.

We don't need to accomplish that because that's already the case.

But if we want that independence from the Democratic Party, we have to pull from the traditional base that we called MAGA, the traditional Trump supporting base.

We have to take from them and make them our base.

Otherwise, the left will be tailing Democrats forever.

So that was the premise of MAGA communism.

What is so wrong with that?

Like, how is that not common sense?

And once you realize that was common sense, now you see why the feds, the actual feds, did everything they could to drag our name through the mud and tell people that mega communism was something it wasn't.

Right?

This would be like the last person.

Go ahead.

What's up?

So I'm kind of on the echoes kind of bad.

But I'm kind of on the edge of deciding if I where I lean economically.

I kind of lean more capitalist.

I guess I just have a couple questions because I think communism can be a little corrosive to a society, especially because I'm someone that doesn't like instilling all my power into one authoritarian government.

Like I tend to be more liberal.

I question authority.

So how in like your ideal communist society, how do we go ahead and like break away from corruption?

Yeah.

The way is that the most fundamental authority that you could submit to is a principle.

Not a person, I agree, but a principle.

Not an institution even, a principle.

Right.

And the devotion to a common principle as the supreme authority is our aim.

Right.

Now that contrasts with individualism because individualism says my whims and fancies are the highest law.

But the devotion to a principle that is beyond any individual, which simply

Is a receptacle of what we believe the fundamental cosmic truth is, right?

It is more powerful than a personality.

And it's more powerful than an institution.

It's even more powerful than a party.

So, the goal of communists is to make everyone submit to a common principle in some sense.

Well, yeah, of course.

Uh that's not really what um individualism is.

Individualism isn't just selfishness.

Um it's just providing uh free will as long as you don't harm the other person, uh the the freedom to make your own choices.

It's not really just people should be free to make their own choices, but

Uh that doesn't mean

That's at the level of the individual.

We have common obligations.

We share a cosmos.

We share a society.

We share a division of labor, right?

And at some level, there has to be a central authority that establishes how we interact with each other and how we are objectively united, right?

And we can't conflate the dimension of the individual for the dimension of how we are accountable to the principles that unite us as a society, which we are, by the way, objectively a society.

Well, well, of course, everyone believes that, like, even liberal societies believe that it doesn't really amount to everything, anything saying that we have to should we should adhere to a principle and something higher to us.

I I guess my real question is is just um from the transition of um having a capitalist uh class to um like do you believe in like a vanguard party to go ahead and okay so when we're in in trusting all these like top um I guess the aristocrats with all this power to go ahead and um transition us to a communist regime, how can we be sure that that that power doesn't become corrosive?

Join the party yourself.

The party is a binding commitment that you're going to serve the common good, that you're going to uphold a certain set of values and principles, which everyone in theory should agree with, right?

And so, if you believe there's corruption, join.

Join the party.

You have to have skin in the game before you can have a say.

The party is simply those people who have made it their life's mission to serve the common good.

99% of people are not going to be like that.

99% of people are going to make it their life's mission to serve their art, to serve their practice, to serve their engineering, to serve their specific division of labor.

Most human beings will not wholeheartedly devote their entire existence to serving the common good itself, right?

So, those people who do that can actually have the right to be distinguished within society and have more power.

But that doesn't mean they're unaccountable.

If you feel so strongly and so passionately about matters pertaining to our common existence, become accountable for that and join.

See, a liberal could reproach me and try to say the same thing.

Haas, if you feel so strongly, try to work your way into American politics, join the Democratic Party, join the Republican Party, and start running, right?

Get involved in the democracy.

Now, that would be a good argument if it weren't for the fact that the objective truth is there is a systemic and institutional ceiling and barrier that's rooted in corruption.

And what is that corruption ultimately based in?

Well, the fact that politics is controlled by the capitalist class.

The people who have money determine everything in a way that's unaccountable to us.

So it doesn't matter how much I selflessly devote myself to the so-called democracy.

If I'm an anti-corruption guy and I try to run fair and square, they're going to block me out.

And they're not going to do so on the basis of having the correct line.

They're going to do so on the basis of they can and they will because they have more money and more resources.

Only in something like a Vanguard party does the line, the correct line have to be established versus the false line.

Only in a communist party is it even possible to challenge the prevailing line.

We have a prevailing party line, but it's not even articulated into discourse.

Is it a party line articulated into discourse anywhere that an Epstein elite is just going to control our politics and gatekeep anyone who represents the people from having a voice?

No, but it's the objective truth.

The only way for truth to become

The only way we can be accountable to the truth is if truth becomes discourse, and the only way truth becomes discourse is if there's commitment.

And you know who understood this was Plato, actually.

As much as I disagree with Plato, that's why Plato in his notion of the Republic there is an elite, but the elite are just those who are devoted to the discourse of truth and power.

If you're not devoted to that, if you're not committed to that, if you're not responsible to it,

Then

your priorities are clearly in order.

But for those that are, the possibility of avoiding corruption exists, so long as power is constantly suspended,

and rooted in principles that can be articulated discursively.

Well, yeah, there's a couple of things I can agree with you on.

And then in the large part, I don't really feel that you answered one of the core things I was questioning.

But yeah, I can say capital influencing politics is a bad thing.

There needs to be more constraints on the capital class, on how they interact with our congressmen.

In order to do that, you have to establish an authority that is above them.

And the only way to do that is look, ultimately, political authority is going to be rooted in the material reality.

That's just a fact.

There's no avoiding it.

And

There has to be a different class in charge.

If you want to rein in the capitalist class, there has to be a distinct class with a distinct material foundation.

The proletariat who lives by their labor.

Represent and embody a different principle than the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie lives off of profit, the proletariat lives off of labor.

So, what does that look like in practice?

Well, skin in the game.

Politics should be ruled by those with the skin in the game.

First of all, uh

Representatives, of course, are inevitable and have to exist, but the principle of proletarian dictatorship means that only people with skin in the game can participate in politics.

You can't just have money and say, I have money, I want to influence it.

It doesn't mean anything you have money.

What matters is, do you get your hands dirty?

Do you serve the people?

Are you involved in any kind of way in party work that shows you're committed and devoted?

That's what actually rules.

And the reason the corruption can be avoided is because the entire means of production are accountable to this principle of the party politics.

I mean, the party basically, yes, controls the wealth of the society.

Yeah, and and I agree to to some lengths, but there are people running their campaigns right now about taking uh no corporate uh donor money, so to act like um what's gonna stop them from maintaining their principles once they take power?

They're not accountable to get to the party they're not accountable because AOC promised that, then she lied, but she still gets elected out of convention and habit and because she gets the money she needs to raise the election.

But only a party could could establish and prevent this kind of corruption.

Well, I did really want to speak on the authoritarian aspect of this.

So, when we're exappropriating land, I guess there's obviously going to be some type of resistance.

And there will be no resistance from any landowners, business owners.

No, I'll explain.

From civil society, no.

We don't have to worry about that.

Is there an institutional hegemony that's going to try to fight?

Yes.

But you need to understand something.

Okay, well, we I want to explain something about our society, okay?

We have the legal pretext to jump into communism.

We have the legal pretext because every single major

Every major means of production, including most of the agricultural land, right, including the factories, including all the major means of production, they're not only owned and controlled by monopolies, these are monopolies that are entirely dependent on government subsidies and the tax dollar of the American worker.

And what we have done to bail them out, how much has been expended out of the public coffers to prop them up, they legally already we've already paid for them.

You understand?

We've already paid for the means of production to be owned in common.

And so it can simply just say it's ours.

It belongs to the public.

Absolutely it does.

None of the major automobile manufacturers, Boeing, all of these major corporations, means of productions, energy companies, where would Chevron be?

Without the US military industrial complex.

There's no free market here.

Every single major public sorry, every single major corporation is in debt to the American people and and the and the taxpayer, right?

Like, we have taken out debt for them.

Absolutely.

It simply can just be taken.

And it would be completely legal from the perspective of classical Roman whatever law.

I'm not talking about if it's legal or illegal.

There's going to definitely be some push.

No, no, no, but I understand that.

But from civil society, the resistance is not going to come from the farmer.

Okay, the farmer is struggling in debt right now.

Farmer would love nothing more than debt relief.

The farmer would love nothing more than the ability to just.

Um get some relief on what they're doing, right?

The the the the the resistance is going to come from two major sectors, okay.

Lumpenized hired thugs.

Bought out by the super financial capitalist elite and bribed off.

And then the professional petty bourgeoisie.

So people that are paid a salary, that are attached at the hip to the institutional hegemony, who simply work for the hegemony and live off of its parasitic financial revenues.

This includes academics.

I mean, it includes the democratic civil society types, you know, the people that are like responsible, respectable, institutional, professional bourgeois types.

Absolutely, they're going to the same people that now are dancing, protesting ICE, I'm against ICE for sure.

But that class demographic is reactionary.

If there is a proletarian dictatorship,

They would be at the vanguard of opposing it.

And they would have the dinosaur costume and whatever.

I mean, absolutely.

Because those people are attached at the hip to the institutional hegemony materially.

And their material interests are bounded up with the interests of the status quo.

I mean, so you just agree with me.

There is going to be some type of resistance.

But it's okay.

It's a tolerable resistance.

It's no problem.

I'm aware, but all I'm saying is the fact that communism's necessitate, or basically the exappropriation of land and ownership necessitates some type of pushback and some type of resistance.

No, no, the land.

First of all, so look, farmers are already in debt and rely on the government for subsidies.

All the government would simply have to say to farmers is: okay, we will continue to support you and so on and so on.

However, we're going to put a cap on the possibility this could ever expand into monopoly.

And then, second of all, the production of agriculture has to align with a common plan.

We could have absolutely a Chinese-style system where the government owns all the land, but farmers retain usufrunct rights and so on and so on.

That has to be determined by civil society.

For example, I'm going to actually continue on this point.

Russia had collectivization because within civil society of Russian civilization, they had a communal structure already there within their kinship relations and so on.

It was seamless.

We have foundations of this ourselves with experimental communities and so on.

So we would promote a collective type of agriculture that is rooted in the foundations of our civilization.

All these different shakers and all these different kind of experimental communes that are at the foundation of America, we would peacefully promote something like that.

as an alternative to individual uh farm ownership, and it would not be forcefully imposed, but it would be more if it becomes more economically viable, the cooperative type of agriculture, obviously it would excel, you know.

But uh the the suppression of farmers is absolutely not

They are not kulaks.

Kulaks are people

that were created according to the Stolypin reforms, where land was ripped away from the peasants in common and given to individuals in parcels.

And these people started hoarding grain and becoming immensely wealthy through parasitic kind of price gouging and things like that.

Current American farmers, there's no resemblance between them and Kulaks because they farmers can't even make even.

They can't even reproduce their basic subsistence, right?

Because they're in debt and they rely on the government for subsidies.

And plus they're being targeted by Monsanto and so on and so on.

Okay, well, all I was trying to say with the point of there being some type of resistance is that there will be resistance.

Yeah, I'm just saying that they're going to have to need some type of military or some type of arms.

There's going to have to be some mandate from the top down from the party saying that there's going to be a certain groups of individuals that we need to forcefully by whatever means.

No, no, it's not only the party.

This is like George Orwell.

No, it's all of society suspended in a struggle.

Society will be in a struggle, just like society is in a struggle now.

You see, you go among the newly awakened American consciousness that exists now, they're already creating struggle between us and the shills of the system.

There's those of us who are independent-minded and free, and then you have the shills of the system.

Now, what's wrong with that logic developing in such a way that the party takes it up?

It's coming from the top down.

The divisions are created within the society.

The party doesn't impose them.

The party articulates and wields the mandate of the people against the enemies of the people.

The party doesn't create the enemies of the people.

Society itself is defining what that is as we speak.

Well, that's very idealistic.

No, it's not.

Do you deny that right now there's a division going on in our society where people clearly identify shills of the system and shills of the regime versus freedom fighters and independent-minded people?

That's kind of broad, but I guess.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, so that logic will continue in a revolutionary circumstance and develop into a principle of dictatorship.

No, when one class or a certain group of individuals have the say on how the military should be conducted, at the end of the day, like the Bucks opposite them, right?

They have the, I don't say, like, ideally, they are supposed to be moved by the people and they're supposed to take the people's will and act upon it.

But the problem is that this system is really corrosive to the fact that people feel like they have to say yes.

They have to agree with this class.

I'll conclude it by saying victory and supremacy goes to he who fights.

He who lives on his knees deserves to be a slave.

He who fights.

For principal?

Can represent the masses.

It takes one person to stand up.

So if there's corruption, as long as no one fights, let it be.

Well, the corruption being fought would be the government could easily have said this person is a defector.

They're trying to go against the communist project.

Okay, and people call me a fed and people lie about me and they say other self-proclaimed communists lie about me.

Does that mean I've stopped fighting?

No, I still fight because truth can prevail.

Maybe it doesn't.

You don't have a regime that would kill you for those.

Huh?

You don't have a regime that would kill you.

Okay, okay.

No, okay.

Let's say I'm gone, okay, and I disappear.

Someone else can take my place.

Even if it takes hundreds of years, even if it takes centuries, this is the nature of what it means to be a human being.

Is that a better society that we're living in now?

A slow incremental change.

A better society is one that ultimately is one where you can have your children go on the bus and be in the park and not have to worry about them.

And you won't die from healthcare.

This is a better society, right?

There are metrics of an objectively better society.

But what is a better life?

That's the question you're asking.

What does it mean to live a better life?

Because society is not going to deliver a backbone to you.

Society is not going to deliver virtue to you.

Society is not going to deliver to you.

The dignity that is befitting of a human being.

Society can make it easier to develop that and should.

And our society does the opposite, I agree.

But at the end of the day, the burden will always fall on you to stand for your own principles, to fight for what you think is right.

No society is going to be able to replace that ever, no matter what form it takes.

Okay.

Um I don't know, I just wasn't really responsive to what I said, but I mean, I guess absolutely, there's no way to engineer a society to replace the free will of man given to us by God.

Yeah, I know, but I all I was trying to say is that in uh these regimes that are able to hold so much power and determine who's in the in group and who's in the out group of that power power should be as great and power should be great

Absolutely.

Power should be magnificent.

Because the power is how we incarnate truth in this world.

And one who knows where power comes from is not afraid of the effect of power.

See, the things are tanks, surveillance, moderns.

Yeah, okay.

This is the effect of power.

This is not true power.

You're conflating power and force.

One who knows where power comes from does not fear force.

Hengis Khan began with nothing.

Who is more powerful according to your definition?

The ruling dynasty of China or Hengis Khan who lived on his horse in tents.

Just go on.

Absolutely.

Now you understand.

Hengis Khan perceived the basis of real power, which has humble origins, has always had humble origins.

Lenin started with nothing.

He had himself and his Bolsheviks.

He had Stalin in the mountains of Georgia.

He had the entire machinery of the Tsarist state.

All of the guns, all of the power, all of the force.

And Lenin, because he correctly perceived the laws of history, he knew where the true power was.

The the true origins of power are humble.

A coward who fears a powerful state fears only themselves, fears only that they'll be too cowardly to stand up for what they think is right.

Okay.

Well, um, I'm I'm I'll I'll go, but it didn't seem you're like that responsive to anything I said.

But I I did like to I I do want to say that if it didn't speak to you, it wasn't for you.

All the left comms that are here.

You know, I don't know what to tell y'all.

Y'all have become nihilistic.

You've become completely devoid of

You just see everything as a sick joke, because reality will never conform to your

uh ideal notion of what virtue should be, of what correct the correct application of theory looks like.

So everything in the meantime is just going to be a sick, sick joke to you, and uh you live a very miserable, pathetic existence, and I don't envy you.

What's the correct application of theory?

The correct application of theory.

I'll quote the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

And with that, I'm wrapping this up.

See you guys potentially tomorrow, actually.

Right.

What are wonder ones if you had a great time?

Once have you had a wonderful great time?

I'm starving.

Alright, uh we're done.

Hope you guys, it was a three-hour stream, guys.

It's a long stream.

That's a long stream, for sure.

That's quite a long stream, okay?

Don't say I'm not putting the effort, and that's all that's quite a long stream, all right?

No, for real, guys, good stuff, good stuff.

We will uh end here.

I'm gonna go eat.

Bye-bye.