They're FREAKING OUT about us | Iran NEGOTIATIONS BREAKDOWN

I am faster than sound, I keep on jumping around.

Blue hedgehogs, darling, with incredible speed, I'm I'm

I'm The The I'm not you're

I'm

I'm They call me

Cause I am faster than sound I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speed, I'm moving my feet.

They call me Sonic, I'm faster than town

I keep going jumping around

Blue hair pots on it with incredible

speed

I'm moving my feet

They call me sonic Sonic Thank you all this sonic Blue Hedge hot sonic I'm going to be. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The They call me sonic, because I am faster than sound, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speed, I'm moving my keys.

They call me sunny

Because I am faster than sound

I keep I'm jumping around

Blue hair's hot,

With incredible speeds

I'm moving my keys

Then you call me

Sonny I knew that my kids Then you're calm and sunny You're calm and sunny They call me Sonic

They're calling me Sonic because I am faster than sounds, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speed, I'm moving my feet. I'm the king of the ring.

They call me Sonic, because I'm faster than sounds, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speeds, I'm moving my feet. Thank you. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. No. No. The The The I don't know. I'm going to be. I'm going to

and

I'm

I'm I'm I'm I'm going to

and

I'm

a and I'm going to go and I'm going to

I want to be able to

I want to be there I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. Oh I'm Oh

And I'm

Oh

Hey Uh and I'm gonna be a good and a lot of

I'm

Ahead and the I'm going to

I'm

and

I'm and the uh... and

uh...

I'm

No I'm I'm

I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

I'm going to

I'm

I'm I'm All right, it should be working.

My, Vortex.

What's up, bro?

Appreciate the 10.

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

The last time we're going to have to do that shit with the onesie. Oh, youes, one's y'all. The last time we're gonna do that shit

with the onesie on the day.

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 want to jinx that, but I think I fixed it.

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

What's up?

All right, 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, 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. I don't give a fuck because I'm not one of these weak fucking people that need

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, 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 gain the stock market to do something else i mean uh 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 you all are at i hope you all are plugged in and, brain-rodded 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, is 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 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 an 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 going to 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 don't know what I to talk 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

you know we were leave we let

we fucking left everyone along 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,

you know, come on. Nobody's saying we're fashionistas, 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 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 tens.

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, I'll shut my mouth about it,

I'll never talk about it again.

But Rev is talking about it and it's

set people in the same panic that they did when I mentioned it. Anyway, I want to show you something

really funny. 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 toolbell.

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 glass is

wearing bullshit posture

was faking

expertise about the reality of the

as if they're the Navi 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 Navi 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, you know, 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 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 really know the

psychology of, um, these like

glasses wearing

like, you know,

academic, I don't know what you really call them

nerdy type of leftists.

These nerdy lip-tar 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, you stop giving them the ammunition that they need to jack themselves off in this disgusting, like, grotesque way where they're like,

ha ha ha ha ha. They have that fucking smug face on their face. And they're just like,

oh, you 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, left left is can you stop looking a little retarded

and then the you know they 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

and 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 going to 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 and whatever so i'll teach you how whenever you present a clear binary like this, 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 boughted 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 your 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.

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,

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 Communismunism was a dialectical art that went into it. There was so much

dialectical sophistication that went into that, you know? And, 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 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 uh uh um barista or something i don't know

uh 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, it has nothing to do with the Libthard 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, uh, the bourgeoisie are the real proletarians. The professional bourgeoisie are the true proletarians, you know, the coders and I don't know, the, the, uh, interpretive dance, uh, teachers

or something. And then, and meanwhile, you know, the, 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 type 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 and...

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 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 and 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 basic kind of...

Oh, people mock the tri-part Hegelian structure, which doesn't come from Hegel directly. You know, the thesis, antithesis, and then, you know, thesis, antithesis, and the off-hebong, the supersession, the synthesis the synthesis you know people call it synthesis but that tri-parts 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 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 tri-part structure is actually, like, basically the gist of Hegel's dialectical system, or 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 is, you know, being, nothingness, and then becoming.

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

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

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

but that tripart structure is very much baked in.

It's an eternal spiral, not a tri-part. Okay.

Okay, but the spiral

has a rhythm to it.

Okay? And the way you can articulate that

rhythm is through a tri-part 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.

And because they're petty bourgeois, they're parasites.

Now, a good faith, proletarian attitude would

already see in this the tri-part

structure completed, right?

Because they straw man

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 that.

But when all is said and done, the ACP is a party with, what, 50% blue collar membership?

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 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 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

better

and superior.

We showed the video of us burning Jeffrey Epstein.

They called us LARPERS.

Donald Parkinson and all these other swine.

We're at the vanguard of counter signaling our anti-Ebstein 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, 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 Groypers 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 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 Reb 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 Reb 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 Marx

I always go back to that where he's like

you know we will not make any apologies, but the

royal terrorist, 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, their scoundrels.

They have this

pretence to moral superiority,

but their fucking double standard is crazy

in the way that they apply it.

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.

And I feel like people implicitly hold us to Okay.

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, 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?

It kind of 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 backseat 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 you know at the end of the day they're they're basically

saying i'd rather have nothing at all than have, 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, Meaning I'd rather 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 uh 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, dower state that it's in,

then 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 going to constantly

have to depend on these petty

bourgeois left pipelines where people

are becoming democrat ass hurt democrats getting radicalized into and being deceived into thinking

that you know Marxism is just Kamala Harris, but really more hardcore and extreme. And, you know, we're going to 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 it's just fucking crazy.

I mean, like, everything they say about us is a lie.

I just, I'm just kind of exhausting at this point.

I don't even know like what are we supposed

it's just crazy

you know that

his video is at 135 views

135000 views right now

and it's like you look at the comments section.

It's just a bunch of people congratulating themselves on their like stupidity and retardation.

Socialism for all.

People, there's, look at his, I mean, he controls this common section to be fair.

We don't.

But, uh... I mean, he controls this comment section, to be fair. We don't. But 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 these people are human or their npses or their bots literal bots yeah the x algorithm is pushing anti-acp shit

i know that for a fact 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

randomly is on there

for you. Three thousand impressions five likes

like they're just pushing pushing it pushing it pushing it if you're on left

twitter they're pushing pushing pushing pushing anti-ACP shit um 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 most of their existence

underground. We are a half-underground movement. You need to understand that. We can

dominate the algorithm. 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 uh 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.

However, as long as we exist in the under, look, it's like we are basically, I'm 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.

Discursive hegemony of the state or you know what alt du ser 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 easy going 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, you know,

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 rat, 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. 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,

you know, behind the scenes type of shit.

Like,

imagine, 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 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.

Cuzzads 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 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 but the but the reason it's fully legal is just the law has not caught up.

Amila, 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 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, 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'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 on one of the

one to 60 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 uh everything is what it appears right so we're fighting them we're literally fighting them

but because we we were 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. It's like, think about it this way. You know,

you've seen the movie The Matrix, right? Wouldn't it make sense that people think Neo or the

black guy, what's his name? Morpheus, Mor morphius and neo wouldn't it make sense if people

think morphius and neo are working for agent smith because what do agent smith morphius 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 uh 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, he's 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 Maoist,

you fucking retard.

It's like you're literally

a telitubby,

and we are Wagner Maoists.

That's the difference.

Like,

we are, we're literally like wagner and you're fucking a tell you're like literally a tally tubby 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 yeah uh genia progosian

that guy didn't have any fucking illusions about where reality was okay we. 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 Cocoa Mellon.

We're not coquole 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. Why?. 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 get to the nitty gritty of the true state apparatus. They get to

the nitty gritty of the true material

foundations of what politics actually

are. They have no fucking illusions

and they have

absolutely, they're absolutely

like fighting in the real, right?

So, 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 and what we are for the. We're outside of it in the same sense.

Are we cracking people's skulls with sledgehammers like Wagner is? No. But we are proverbially doing the same fucking thing psychologically to people

because of the fact that we're not on the front page of Reddit.

So, um, I've,

I've,

what I'm trying to say is that I very much run out of patience. When it comes to dealing with people's naivity, when it comes to this, you know? hold on.

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

People's reception to us that is like, oh my God, are you guys are not like what conventional Libtar left us are. It's like, okay, well,

you

you have clearly not taking 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 leftist yesterday it's like look you're not living in the

real world you're just not um 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 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?

It's the easy thing to do.

These are blue pills.

Honestly, the Liptar 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, 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 met of, their metaphysical worldview is based on this notion that real being, the real logos, so to speak, underlying being is irony. Everything is just an irony. Everything is just, you know, a punchline, so to speak. That's the punchline to reality. It's kind of an

absurdism, honestly. They dwell in an absurdism. You know, sometimes I see 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

progosian with a hammer just smashing them in the head.

Because, you know, it's like, they say like, you know, it's really funny.

Neese leftist humor here.

You know, Trotsky, if he was in power,

he'd be way more of a menace to the capitalist

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 Lenin is saying this filth?

Am I the only one who takes the 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-Lennon is. 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 I 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.

Autistic, thank you, man.

But I hope you're not that guy.

You're not that guy. It's not a different guy.

But, uh, leftist humor on it 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 I of all, who the fuck is Zulu?

Okay?

I only I looked at my notifications the other day.

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 5,000 followers.

So I'm supposed to fucking keep track

of you and know who the fuck you are.

First of all.

Second of all, comraderade what's up second of all what what is this for i mean i'm the guy who literally goes i'm like aching for debates. I'm fucking desperate

for debate content actually.

Quite desperate actually.

Matt, what's up?

It's like, you know what?

It's like you can almost say I'm like an in-sell,

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 going to send your flaccid 50-50 fan base

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 wildebeest

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...

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 with powers.

We're actually collectivist.

This army

what 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 collectivist.

Every single person here is a blind Kizelbash cult member.

Okay?

Like a radical Shiite militant, literal Hasbullah, okay?

Literal Kisdlbash.

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 going to be a P-P-A-P-P-A person.

So I'm going to actually present a response to the entire retardation of P-P-A-P-P-P-P-P

Propositional Logic, if I have to.

But, yeah, they want a 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 about it. I'm not going to change. I'm not going to change. You need to understand that about it.

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

I'm about, I'm about, 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 out of 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 this 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% is going to fucking happen.

100% is 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 are 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, like,

has a limit. The limit is that we're being suppressed. The limit is that there's a barrier

when it comes to 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,

this is what it fucking is.

How can you be presented

with our message and reject it? Tell me 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 rejected that's what

I want to know how the fuck do you get presented with this shit and say oh no I'm

gonna 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 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.

Do 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 lip-tard leftist pissant retard has. When I look at these people, I see fucking children. Just groping in the dark confused

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 devil's advocate more than me against me.

But guess what?

I'm locked the fuck in.

I am locked the fuck in on this shit Nossbole 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, Pinkin, you're a fascist.

You're a...

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

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

I saw that video where Goofy's fucking yo 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. 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 of... I'm not denying

that. There's

thousands potentially, who knows.

But

you're just squeaking at us like

what wow am I supposed to be bothered by this shit

oh but but

then some good faith that sometimes

they try to tell me privately some people that are sympathetic

they go Haas listen

just try to be more likable to these people and then I say some people that are sympathetic. They go, Haas, 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 Hock

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.

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 I'm going to make that smooth journey for you.

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 going to 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 Redditer?

What did I do? 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 bullet hit its target, so to speak. 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 going to 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 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 in trying.

No exceptions. You'd think

they can maintain slavery

just through the whip? Every

fucking slave in Greece and Rome

and throughout all the 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 condition them to love their master, condition 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 libtar leftists, they would cry.

No, no, no. Forget Trump.

If the American state mark my words.

Wall I believe there's truth to this.

Mark my words.

Like, what lie believe in my head that will I believe there's truth to this. Mark my words.

Like,

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

Mark my words.

When the United States dissolves,

the first people that are going to cry about it are the Lip-Tard 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 going to cry

about it like a slave shedding tears for their master. And me, I'm going to say, whoopty fucking do.

We already were there. 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,

be more likable.

Stop being so mean.

Be more loved.

Be more.

I can't.

I'm sorry. I can't. I'm sorry.

I can't.

I'm not... I can't give you a message compatible with your existence.

Because I think your existence

is based on falsehood.

You understand?

I can't pander to your feelings,

because I think your feelings

are ultimately rooted in a love for your own slavery.

And I can't...

I could not be responsible...

I could not responsibly make my message compatible with that. 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 overwhelmingly liked?

How could it be?

Yes, the feds are on us.

Yes, they're biding 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 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 in 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

some real motherfucking shit. They have our own. I'm 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 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 what have you. Why do they, why does it, all their

energy goes into it? Why do the Libtar left is all the right? 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, 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 want to know what hurts?

The only thing, actually, that hurts more than the master's whip.

You want to know what it fucking is?

Freedom.

The pain of emancipation,

the courage, the

energy hard 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 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.

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

No, no, let's be real. In Rome, in Greece, you think logistically those fat petterass

in Athens

or even in Sparta

the LARPers of Sparta

you think logistically

they could control the slaves

in every Greek city state slaves 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 bumrushed 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 practitioners.

They were scared shitless, right?

That wasn't the norm.

But all it took was Asparticus.

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

Fuck, no, I couldn't.

Fuck, no 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 brutality and harshness that we're associated with. Look, okay.

You 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 series? You want me to be Frank and Barry? The Halloween series.

You want me to be

Francophone?

Who wants me to be frank as fuck?

You want me to be frank? You want me to be frank you know the things that they say are culture war? I'm talking about the Rev Posts.

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

Do you think it's because we just dislike alternative people?

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 don'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 Spartacus, when he looks at his fellow slaves, he's going to 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 for 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 are you going to free yourself from the fucking

system if you can't even free yourself from Twinkies how are you going to free yourself if you

don't have muscle you don't have willpower if you can't have muscle, you don't have willpower. If you can't even fucking stand up

and fight, motherfucker, how the fuck are you going to be shit if you can't be? You know what I mean?

It's like, how are you going to 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

dare I fucking say it

men have to be men if you want to be

if you want to be a revolutionary man

you got a 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 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 got to stand on some fucking business.

Like what are we talking about here?

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 skined.

You have to actually like, be like, oh, but Haas, you're not six feet.

You're not six feet.

It's like, when did I make this a beauty pageant?

I don't care if you're 4'5 foot 5.

You could 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 made-up arbitrary 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, you know, your presentation.

I'll be like, well, they embody the values.

They embody the Spartacus.

They like, they have the Che Guevara to them.

They're brave.

They're courageous. 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 talk 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

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 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 i'll tell everybody to

shut the fuck up by 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.

How could I do that? 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,

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 maybe in a hundred or 200 years

everyone is going to look like a retarded fat person.

How would I fucking know?

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 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 because they took steroids they cheated and they can have a, 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, 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 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? Just remember I said that. When they open their voice,

their whole soul is revealed,

right?

But

they fit the bill.

They look like a, you know, masculine,

whatever, but like they're literally, 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 cuckled subhuman

I have the

I have far more respect

if I saw a random transgender

then if I were

to see one of these cuckled

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 cuckled conservatives than I do for all the

LGBTs. To whatever extent I have that, right? You say I have that.

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

You know, I'm not a superficial person.

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'm in the middle of it. finally can recommend because

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 going to say I copied

this book, even though I never heard of it until

recently. But I'm going to 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 libtard woman who wrote it, but it's an

excellent book.

Very well written.

Very, very...

I mean, you guys want to...

This whole cosmology,

revolutionary dynasty,

Allah, revolutionary dynasty,

Allah, Cosmos,

Xi Jinping.

Read this book,

Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs,

cultural landscapes of early modern Iran.

Catherine Babayan.

I just so much information, so much knowledge in it, it's going to teach you a lot.

Persian cosmology, astrology, all that kind of stuff.

The Kisalbos, the rise of the Safavia Order.

This book is so powerful.

Look, guys, the Safavilla order,

the Kizelbos, they started as the Safavir.

You know why they became the Kizelbos,

and they went from Sufi quietism to militant Shiite

guerrilla warfare,

and they became like Bolshevik revolutionaries because the safavia order

was the one of the only sufi orders that decided instead of strictly internal transformation

let's start being economically let's make our economic existence compatible with the Haq, right?

With devotion, with Tahweed, right?

So they started actually becoming economic, the Safavilla 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 Safavit Iran, which is the foundation of Iran today, began from there.

This is like the hidden lost history. It's so informative. I could not recommend it enough.

Mystics, monarchs, and messiahs, I reckon. It could not recommend it enough. Mystics,

mystics, monarchs, and massis.

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 want to know more, right?

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, You know, You know, We're going to start this right now. all right i started it's been started okay hold on hold on, guys.

I will be right back.

We're starting the debate right now on... It 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 going to have to briefly leave and come back.

And I will be right back, everyone.

I will be right back.

So first of all, you know. You know, You know, You know, You know, All right, everybody, I'm back.

Okay, so... uh... okay so

uh...

let's get into it

so we have two requests let's see Huh Yeah

Yeah, for

Go ahead

Can you hear me?

Yeah

Yeah, dude

Kill old niggers, man

Like, fuck niggers am i right

like fucking kill

him

so right off the bait

right off the bat

we just maybe we restart the live

because this is a way

they can censor the live, getting

the live restricted, you know?

It's basically the point of them doing that

just to get the live restricted.

Basically like a little

snitch, like a little,itch like a little you know uh you know that kid in class who was a snitch

that just trying to like tattletail is basically a larry ellison uh you know little snitch trying to get me 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, it'll continue'll continue well I think

it's permanently

restricted

they're not

giving me

an end

an endpoint

it will remain

yeah

they're not

giving me an end point

this person

with a hammer

and sickle

and 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 imbibed the made-up things that they say about communists,

just goes to show you're not, I mean, you're not fit for this label that you're repping.

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

Oh, you watch the introduction video? Oh, congratulations. Did you watch the systemic dismantlement

and refutation of Socialism for All's video and Brandon Torres's 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

these are genuinely these redditors

and I got completely de-boasted

so how long is this

hate speech thing going to last

does anyone know

because

you know

they completely just de-boasted it right away.

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

He just said it got flagged.

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

I just have to restart it.

I'm going to 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 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 is 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 right winger decided to get me censored

because they are a, you know, words we can.

They're a cuckold, basically.

So let's restart this. I don't know why you're saying restarting it won't do anything.

Okay.

I'm pretty sure restarting it will absolutely reverse right well let me see You know, Yeah, it's incredible how they hold me accountable for what a guest does on the stream.

That's incredible.

Any unity we can make with the Libertarian Party. I mean,

I look, 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.

Ideological disagreements are not an obstacle to that.

It's like, look, 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 is 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?

Why? Why? right um why why is the apis 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 using, what do you mean socially progressive, right? 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 to these conventions about

this language that we use, progressive, socially, what is socially progressive?

For example, there's alternative sexualities, okay, well, that existed among the reactionary ruling circles in Greece and Rome.

And even under the Tsar in Russia.

There's nothing, I mean, what is intrinsically about, what is intrinsically

left wing about that? I don't know.

Beats me. Che Guevard didn't think anything like that.

I mean, uh, the Bolsheviks

didn't. Che Guevard didn't.

Mao didn't. Nobody has ever, nobody

in Robespier didn't. Nobody has ever, nobody in Robespierre didn't.

So why, why has this become the, the, the, the most important thing? I don't understand. I've yet to be convinced. I'm you want to work with the ones that say it wasn't right

um american You want to work with the ones that say it wasn't right?

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, you're like a daintest. Are you a dynist?

No, you said we're a Fed party. I want to talk about that. What about this?

No, I'm just... I was just a bit of a friendly banter. Are you a dynist?

What does that mean?

Do you agree

with dang shall ping's reforms of chain

yeah and so did

Mao

why did you leave

why did he leave

Why did you leave?

Why did he leave?

That bothered him that I said, so did Mao.

All right.

I guess we just met the limits of discourse.

There's no such thing as Dengism. First of it was mow se dung 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 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 Dang did was make another step, which is we're going to go from 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 Zay Dung who initiated the debate

of what did Lennon 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 Redguard factions, you know, like his own wife.

So this notion of Dengism is just nonsense. let's see there's no such thing uh so this is an anime this is

very much uh hello yeah um i saw some people talk about communism rejecting

the idea of liberalism.

And

I wanted to ask you that since you

I think you're knowledgeable.

Okay. What about

it confuses you?

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

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

Did you think that from a communist perspective that liberalism causes degeneracy?

Yes.

Marx and Engels believe

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 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 and conformity to the system. system this This 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.

Strah, Stanley, what's up, bro? Faced, what's up, bro?

Face, what's up, man?

You didn't even request once.

So, yeah, the...

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 entreatism into the Green Party.

All these people have in common the view that a basic Marxist land in this party is impossible

in the 21st century in a way that actually basic Marxist Leninist party is impossible in the

21st century in a way that actually

adapts to the time that we live in.

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 going to 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 some employment?

Easiest block of my life.

Go get some employment.

You're not even requesting.

You're spamming my replies.

I bet you have an iPhone holy hypocrisy

okay

who makes the iPhone

China so communism made your iPhone

cry about it

without the Soviet mathematics 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 available to consumers.

Communism made your iPhone, actually.

Sorry. communism made your iPhone actually sorry does the ACP support

is writ

what what no you must have us confused through the so-called CPUSA, which does, in fact, support the Israel.

Let's see. Go ahead. Hi. I'm a Spanish communist and sorry for the accent. I love the ACP and I like it other positions, but I don't understand why did you defend the posture of things helping?

Like, why they're returning to capitalism and where they're 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 Dang actually made to it.

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

Dang'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

YH.

Hello, sir.

Are you?

Fine.

Nice.

I really enjoyed your debate, your conversation with Dugan.

I heard you say something on one of your streams once, andan and 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 sciop or something.

This is from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat,

some way to distract them from their revolution in 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 U.S. 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.

Now, regarding the phenomena of...

And you can request again if you want to continue debating this.

Here's my actual position.

I think that the phenomena of...

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 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 when it comes to things

like that.

And 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 knowing about

but that is endemic

it's just across everything

and some people decided that some of these things

and subcultures they're going to give a flag to

and they're going to confuse

for some kind of political movement. I just have

no interest in

making a political discourse of that.

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

Does that strictly a sci-op by the bourgeoisie? No, what I think is a sci-op, I think that's a, that is a consequence

of changes in the nature of our civilization. whether those changes are decadent or whatever, and I'll leave that to debate.

But what I will say is that the sci-op, I think, is the fixation, making that an object of discourse. I think that is a sci-op. 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 sci-op. I think that, conversely, on the left, the inability to actually establish a working-class movement for socialism, to directly target the bourgeoisie was undermined by that type of identity politics for sure.

So these were all siops, but, you know, people will,

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

I just don't care. I'm not, I'm not here to single person is a sciop themselves. I just don't care.

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

Liam, go ahead.

What is the deal here?

I don't know. What's the deal?

You just kind of walked in

me. You were talking about conservative.

I'd like you to figure it out before requesting. Go ahead, Mike.

What's up, dude?

Yeah, that's up, man. 84, 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 losing.

Is your boyfriend?

You sound so happy for him.

Is that your boyfriend?

Right.

You guys are losing.

You're losing the young people.

You sound so happy about your boyfriend.

Yeah, get it out

Hodge,

get it out dumb hod.

You're a fucking

dumbass brown clown, dude.

Like, you guys are

not serious people.

Why aren't we serious?

And there's an echo

coming from your shit.

This is like,

why aren't we serious?

By the way,

I know you have a neurodivergence.

That's okay.

What about us is unsurious?

You sound like a typical roiper, by the way,

the neurodivergence in your voice, the kind of lispy,

lispiness.

That's kind of the clear autistic tech nerd.

Anyway, go ahead and explain what's unsurious about us.

Yeah,

I'm getting there.

She 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 up.

Okay.

Well,

that sounds like a you problem. That's one way you're not serious? The other way you're not serious is...

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 have you raised?

Without, like... Without...

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 going to vote for the DSA? No, are people voting for the dsa you're supposing that we should

make some sort of third party as if i'm just saying like 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 do with our support.

What is being done?

I know 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, uh, you know,

the, the assassination thing of, you know, 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 yeah you guys don't have that equivalent on the left and you have

no one even comes close.

Well, why do you

think that is? Because it's

not popular, huh?

Really? The left is not popular?

This

venue, I guess, this sort of

angle that you guys come from, it's not popular now.

Right. 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. 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 shout, 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.

Because 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 it's tertiary all 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

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.

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

But, 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, 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?

S4 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

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...

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 pic-mees or something, right?

So, you know, you just kind of 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 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, can I see your females? It's like, it's giving, it's giving uh can i can i see your females it's like it's giving it's pretty creepy

actually go ahead adam yo hos you're a stalinist on this right yeah um he was he was agnostic, right?

Or was he atheist?

Formerly atheist, but...

He was pretty vehemently atheist, right?

No.

He was formally, officially atheist, but in private,

there are 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

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 block Who had who tried to create a bridge between Jainism and socialism.

And we're selling some lower-level officials, not Stalin himself, on the prospect that maybe, you know, 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 released well. 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 Gurian, was presenting himself as an enlightened socialist, entering a new age of coexistence and peace and prosperity, 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

Zionism, 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, and 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.

Well, Haas, a lot of us have, 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 actually prospering right now.

I still feel it distaste.

Do you feel it?

No.

I feel like it's cope.

And like we're heading towards the end times and I feel like the Chinese cope. And like we're heading

towards the end times and I feel like the Chinese

are kind of cool. I just think you have a culture shock

toward China in general, probably.

You think so?

Yeah. I think it's just culture shock

with a different culture. But

okay. About the blockade too, right? Because now that's culture shock with a different culture. But, um... Okay.

About the blockade too, right?

Because now that's going to 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 we'll see, you know.

Okay.

I had 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 don't even know what kind of question this is because it's like chicken what's what's so wrong with chicken

i mean like are chicken nuggets bad for you i mean they are bad for but like, what's so wrong with them?

Like, I don't understand. anyway, do we have any people that watch 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.

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

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 called me a a lorushite and then using

us because I used it so the proof that

I'm a lorushite is that I use the very slur

that you have used against

me let's talk about

how I could plausibly

be a lRushite.

If you can plausibly make the argument that I'm a LaRushite, 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 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 soles of Chinese characters in the debate between Stalin and Mao

Mao was correct

for sure

you don't have

5,000

I definitely

and certainly

do

no we're not

nationalists

we're internationalists all right I don't know what else to tell you. We are objectively internationalists. What we are not are furry, furious, or whatever. Are you a nationalist because you are not a furry?

What about me as a nationalist?

I want to understand that.

He has 5K 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 just the point we've gotten to.

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

American Chud Party.

Someone named Lesbian Hojahist 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

socialism for all and all likelihood of 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 has something

to do with landlords.

So put yourself on 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 whoourges 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 social and for all is a reliable source on anything.

The American Party of Labor Okay, go in a...

You notice the difference

in ACP and the new members

of the American Party of Labor

who are 15 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.

Calling us American Chud Party.

There were probably more women at the ACP event in St. Louis than there are in the entire party you're part of.

Ken, Can of beans, go ahead.

Yeah, 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? What do you mean? Why can't they leave?

What do you mean?

Why can't they leave? Because there's travel restrictions

when it comes to

how far

North Korean passport

can actually get you

because they lack

the bilateral relations

with most countries.

I, you can is they lack the bilateral relations with most countries. You can't go to Russia right now freely, unless you have 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?

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?

Do you think that the process of getting a passport is fun in the U.S.?

It's pretty easy, really? I know a lot of people who are just...

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 how how convoluted and how much time it takes

well it just kind of takes like months and you just have to like wait in the dmv you have to set

aside a whole day for like 14

hours waiting in the... Oh, that's super hard, huh? 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?

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 the THS 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?

1,000%

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? Uh, 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 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?

It's not, 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 DHS works, knows that when you travel to

countries that are unfriendly with the United States, you can ask ChachyBT this, the

probability that you're going to get stopped increases drastically, right?

So,

uh,

you know,

you find that hard to believe,

God bless you,

and good luck with that.

This guy's name is God's lonely Stalinus.

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 schmitian 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 Shai. 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 Leninist, it's useful for us to see this perspective

and understand how there is a structure, basically, he's'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, 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 go 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 Klausvitz 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 uh political military thinking

that all marxism is founded upon since marks it was Marx and Engels.

First of all, Engels was a military historian,

and Marx and Engels created the framework

of recognizing Carl von Klausovitz

as a seminal and foundational thinker

for their worldview, right?

Lenin further draws upon Klausvitz,

so does Mao and so on.

Klausvitz is the originator of this

science, so to speak.

So the real bad guy

that people try to identify in my world view,

it's literally Klausvitz.

But it's baked into Marxism from the beginning.

Damn.

And because Klausvitz establishes that, you know, what he's famous for,

war is an extension of politics.

It's inherently political, right?

War is not, 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 Klaus Fitz 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, and you told him to read him. Yeah, yeah.

But there was one more thing and I hope I can get this, get into this.

You said

that inquil's, insults, 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.

No, no, I really disagree with that.

I think that if you can be

someone who has some anti-social tendencies

and

who is

not easily moldable by groups and crowds, and very much there are a lot of steps in between that and becoming an inquil, you know?

There's a lot of steps between just being an introvert and becoming an inquil.

That's 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 cite.

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, like,

what, there's no bridge left to any LaRushites. We had one bridge to the Schiller Institute, which was Daniel Burke.

And that's burned and it's gone.

So what's left? Caleb Maupin

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 everything You know what's funny?

Leftcoms, who are trying to say ACP, Israel, whatever,

leftcom is the Tel Aviv Marxism.

That's literally Tel Aviv Marxism, is leftcoms.

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 Zionism.

And it absolves the Israeli guilty conscience of any, like, unique or exceptional evil.

And it creates this kind of what aboutism where they could be like, oh, well, you know, everyone's bourgeois.

We're all the same.

So you're literally a Tel Aviv Marxist if you're a Lefcom you know

which is

true you check

the Lefcom

bios on X

it always says

from Israel

many times

Israel

whatever

you can't even

say it

without getting

deboasted.

Debate spawned.

I'll debate anyone who requests

um You're just going to have to go ahead and request by the way y'all uh if you were planning on dropping a 20, I just want to say that, I mean, for no reason. Comrade Kid, Oh my God!

Holy shit, bro. Thank you.

Axa the legend.

Philpho. Thank you, bro.

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 notice that huh

debate the

I don't want to do that

that

okay this guy, IG, go ahead.

Yeah, what up?

Oh, you're a Peter.

Yeah.

All right, well, he was one of us, by the way.

Peter, this Pete Ray.

Ray, Ray Pete, was one of us.

So you're like a, what are you, a Leninus, Marxist, Mowers, Slur.

Yeah, just like Ray Pete.

Just like Ray Pete.

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 be to politely explain to Daniel Burke how we're not LaRoucheites 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 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 La Rouscheite

Carlos

what's up man appreciate you

you subscribe to his newsletter

no I didn't

that's like not even true

that's like not even true that's like not even true

I subscribe no I didn't

you know anyone can take my email you know someone took my email and subscribe

me to Trump and his updates I have no control over that.

Matter of fact, I think I can sue whoever is doing that or something, right?

Anyway, 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 Lerushians, we agree with his philosophy.

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 is death? what is funny?

Like, are you actually committed to the view that we're La Roussites?

I'm trying to speak reason to you.

If you don't think we're La Roussites 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 La Rousites, 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. 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 paying attention to the chat right now

since you're too afraid to request

to speak

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 2019,

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 U.S. foreign policy on Syria in 2019,

where she was a Bernie bro that broke ranks with the AOC left because she kept critiquing

U.S. foreign policy.

She became popular from among the entire alt-mediasphere.

Ben Norton praised her.

Fiorella Isabel met her in person and hugged her.

All of them were best friends with Tulsi-Gabird.

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

okay

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 there 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 leasy how are we feds go ahead and explain

like maintain the don't you don't 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 5,000. 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,

I can't say that here.

I'm so like,

it's like I'm absolutely certain you the i want to walk you through the critical thinking that's needed

to actually evaluate anything right go ahead Go ahead, Xavier.

What's up, family?

I just wanted to ask you about

modern monetary theory, what you guys

take on it. If you'd keep

the U.S. dollar around, and if you

prefer to the currency.

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.

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 exchange value?

Yeah, it's not so much, I can see where you're coming from.

It's not so much of the value of it.

It's more so once taxation was enforced.

The demand, basically. It creates the demand basically it creates 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

rally behind the U.S. dollar

but I think it's not

enough to explain the intrinsic

value of the U.S. dollar.

It's not, the taxation's

not enough to explain. Precisely. precisely yeah it could explain how they could establish a monopoly of on the on the of currency but why does that currency specifically uh in here 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 U.S. dollar

around or whatever, but the theory behind how to

utilize a currency to control society that's the key elements of M&T that you know 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. You're utilizing

taxation or you're utilizing your country and more currency.

I don't mean to cut this short. I'm just a little distracted

by the chat.

Sorry about that, but

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 La Rousheite 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.

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 is an ACP MAGA communism um no but I understand why you make that association because I am the inventor of the term maga-communism.

And it was absolutely the most vindicated understanding of communist strategy in America in the past

20 years

the only revolutionary

core right now in America are all the

ex-Trump people

they're the other all the ex-Trump people. They're the,

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 Lumer 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 launched 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.

Very clearly, disposed to anti-imperialist politics, anti-regime politics, most importantly, 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 Majorie Taylor Green or Candice Owens or Tucker Carlson from the millions and tens of millions of ordinary people that they're representing.

You 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 Majory Taylor Green?

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.

We 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 haven't made a single point. You haven't articulated and in good faith my distaste for Dems

and Republicans is equal but at least Republicans take the mask off

but the premise of the Maga 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.

Now, was that enough 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 winmail. 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. Janus Verofakis

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 um kind of on the

on that echo's kind of bad but uh i'm kind of on the edge of deciding if i um where i lean economically i 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. I tend to be more liberal

when 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.

That's not really what individualism is.

Individualism isn't just selfishness. It's just

providing free will as long as you don't harm the other person, the freedom to make your own choices.

It's not really just your own ones. 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, 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, of course, everyone believes that, like, even, you know,

liberal societies believe it doesn't really amount to

anything saying that we have to,

we should adhere to a principle with and something higher to us.

I guess my real question is,

is just

from the transition of

having a capitalist

class to

like, do you believe in

like a vanguard party to go ahead?

Okay. So when we're

in trusting all these like top um i guess uh ristakrats 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 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 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 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.

Right. So it doesn't matter how much I selflessly devote my... determine everything in a way that's unaccountable to us. Right?

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 line have to be established versus the false line? Only in a communist party is 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 don't really feel that you answered one of the

core things I was questioning. But yeah, I can say

like capital influencing

politics is a bad thing.

There needs to be more

constraints on the capital class

on how they interact with our

congressmen. But 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 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.

A congressman, right?

No, the proletariat, right? 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,

representatives

of course are inevitable and have to exist but the 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

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 i agree uh 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,

what's going to stop them from maintaining their principles once they take power?

They're not accountable to us.

Their accountability.

But I do want to get to the point. But without a 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 i did really want to speak on 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

ex-appropriating land,

I guess, there's obviously going to be some type of

resistance.

There will be of resistance. No, there won't be.

There would be no resistance from any land owners, business owners.

The, no, I'll explain.

From civil society, no. We don't have to worry about that.

Will there, is there an institutional hegemony that's going to try to fight?

Yes.

Well, 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 um every major means of production including most

of the

agricultural

land

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 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 production energy companies, where would Chevron be without the u.s 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 the tax payer, 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 or roman whatever law

well i'm not talking about if it's uh legal or illegal there's going to definitely be some

push back 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 okay the farmer would love nothing more than the

ability to just um get some relief on what they're doing right right? The, the, the resistance is going to come from two major sectors, okay?

Lumpanized 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 necessarily the ex-appropriation of land and ownership necessitates some type of pushback and some type of resistance. 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, you know, 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 user-fronk 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 it was 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

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 the suppression of farmers is absolutely not, they are not Kulaks.

Kulaks are people that were created according to the Stoleipin reforms, where land was

ripped away

from the peasants in common and given

to individuals and 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 koolocks because they farmers can't even make even they're they can't even reproduce their basic subsistence right because they're 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 and...

Can I just...

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.

Absolutely.

Saying that there's going to be certain groups of individuals that we need to

forcefully by whatever means.

It's not, no, no, it's not only

the part. 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 Conscious 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, you know? 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 bucksopped thumb, right?

They have the final 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 say, victory

and supremacy goes to he who fights.

He who lives on his knees deserves to be slave.

He who fights for a principle 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 say

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 see other other self-proclaimed

communists lie about me.

Does that mean I've stopped fighting?

No, I still fight.

Because truth can prevail.

Maybe it takes time.

Well, you don't have a regime that would kill you for those.

Huh?

You don't have a regime that would kill you for those. Huh? You don't have a regime that would kill you for the idea.

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 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 can, you won't

die from health care. 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.

I don't know.

It just wasn't really responsive to what I said, but I mean, I guess.

Absolutely. There's no way to engineer society to replace the free will of man

given to us by God.

Yeah, I know, but I was trying to say is that

in these regimes that are

able to hold so much power and to determine

who's in the in-coup and who's in the out-coup

of that power to 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.

Hingis Khan began with nothing.

Who is more powerful according to your definition?

The ruling dynasty of China or Hingis Khan who lived on his horse intense?

Kenghis Khan?

Absolutely. Now you understand.

Hingus 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 true origins of power are humble. A coward who fears a powerful state.

Fears only themselves. Fears only that there will be too cowardly to stand up for what they think is right.

Okay.

Well, I'll go, but it didn't seem you're like that responsive to anything I said.

But I did like, I do want to say.

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 you.

You 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 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 you live a very miserable, pathetic existence existence and I don't envy you.

What's the correct application of theory? The correct application of theory.

I'll quote the Bible.

You shall know them by their fruits.

And with that, I'm wrapping this up.

See you guys, potentially tomorrow, actually.

All right. What are one... potentially tomorrow actually all right

what are one no ones if you had a great time

ones if you had a wonderful great time

i'm starving.

All right.

We're done.

Hope you guys. It was a three-hour stream, guys.

It's a long stream. 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.

Good stuff.

We will end here.

I'm going to go eat.

Bye-bye.