ITS HEATING UP 🔥 | DEBATES | IRAN WAR

What,

Paris

Watt,

BADYi BADU BADU BIDI

BIDI BADU BIDI BIDHA

BIDG

BIDG

Paii

BADU I mean, I mean, what, too, my name, what, too. I mean, what, and I'm gonna,

you know,

and I'm

a little

I'm

like I'm I'm

I'm

I think

better

I'm better better

I'm and I'm a buddy I'm

I'm

I'm B'i B'i

B'i What? What, what, what, what, Oh,

what,

what

and party party party white chai'ixtap borkmane borkmane

party party party party chateau in four parties ii badee

i bade

party party party party party and I'm gonna a bat a and

I'm

and

I'm

and

I'm and I'm and,,,,,,,, and She and what you say. What do you want to do.

What?

What?

What?

What? and party party. White, party. Yvesant

Party

and party i bidei shi bide wad bai baiiwaii

and what tuatubbarii shi bai baiiwafiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and got it. I'm going to be. I'm going to I'm

a lot of

I'm

a and we're going to be able to see a man. I'm like this.

I'm looking for

I'm going to

get a and Biden. I'm a better a lot of

a

Biden party two four two a

party

white

party

party I think I'm gonnaeco, I'm gonnaeco

and I'm gonna

imagine

a little

Fon

Fon and what you know what to what my name

my name

what what and What? Oh, my, a lot, what, what the

I'm

I'm I'm I'm I'm The Bye, bye, I'm a what to, I did what a two, I did what to, I did, what, too.

And... and I'm going to be. Oh

I want to go. and the other people and I'm going to

I'm a

I'm

a

and

I'm

a I'm going and and you get to go to bea got to bea and

you know

I'm going to I'm

and a lot of

I'm going to I'm going to and the other people and get a lot of

I'm not

I'm not I'm I'm I'm not

I'm not

I'm

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

I don't know. And I'm not.

And I'm a lot.

And I have a lot. and I'm not

I'm

and

I'm gonna

and a

yeah

and

I'm

a

and a

I'm

a and a I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm a lot of you know,

and

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm not going to be a lot of me. I'm not. I'm going to

I'm going to

I'm I'm I'm

I'm going to Hey yo!

Hey yo Hey yo

Yellowstone

With the 10

What's up bro? I appreciate you bro

Comrade kid with the

Five what's going on with that

Infrared Vision

Mordor with the

5 we tuned in to the cult

What's up bro? I appreciate you

Welcome cult members

Welcome

Y'all see some

That this shit's going back up to one thousand i know for a fact i'm manifesting

it's out there just wait patience patience is key well i'm back to my usual self because i did my spartan curls today for the first

time in about two weeks it's been nearly two weeks since i've done my spartan curls if you can believe it.

And I'm back.

I'm going to keep getting bigger and bigger

every stream. You're going to be seeing it.

I'm going to be back in no time

to our original state.

Okay, so today's stream, I have to talk about something that we are kind of behind

down on it as a community.

And there's a lot of discussion and debate going on already about it.

Hassan Piker, Nick Fuentes, all these kind of people.

And it's because we're coming up on the midterms.

So it's about time that we outline our political strategy for this year.

And don't worry, don't worry, don't worry. I'm going to tell you what I think.

I'm going to tell you my thoughts. I'm a thought leader. I'm a cult leader. This is what I do.

We're additionally going to be getting back into the TikTok debates. That's also not something I've done for two weeks. I was banned from TikTok live for approximately five days. And the ban has long been lifted and the ban has expired long time ago, right? So there are many things that we have today to talk about and to cover.

So first things first, ladies and gentlemen, first things first, these midterms are going to be an extremely important type of data for our party we want to get a pulse on where the nation is at i have no fucking clue i can guess but like 20, this election is going to help us understand just how much the internet...

Inside the fucking hiccups, curse my life. Don't curse my life.

Save me from these hiccups by dropping 20.

Anyway, it's not going to save the hiccups, but, you know.

Look, um,

look, 2024 proved that social media is now a huge factor in terms of politics.

I think that's, I mean, you could say that's really vague.

You could say 2016 prove that for sure.

But I feel like 2024 was won because

of X, because Elon Musk acquired

X. That's why the election

was more or less one. Of course, everyone was sick of

Biden and so on and so on. But just

in terms of the explanations voters

would give for why they're voting for Trump over

Biden, you could tell they were getting

it from some kind of like social media online discourse. So I think 2024 was the breaking point

as far as that's concerned. Now two years later, with the release of the Epstein files,

the Iran War, you know, the increased anti-Zionist sentiment of the population, I am genuinely curious to see where that's going to play out in terms of how people go to the polls.

I think the big winners for 2026, actually, something I want to talk about, the big winners for 2026 are going to be the Democratic Socialists and Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party.

That's a prediction I'm going to make. I could be totally wrong. But the generation of politicians that I think is dead that are going to have no place in the future are going to be the traditional centrist

or establishment Democrats.

They are fucking done

from what I could tell.

Their electorate,

their constituency has always been this kind of

meandering boomer generation. And I think they're on their way out just

demographically and in terms of age. I think the changing in terms of demographics and ages are

going to lead to leftists winning big time in the Democratic Party.

Could be wrong about that, but that's an instinct that I have.

So that's actually going to happen.

I mean, I know people are floating AOC for 2028, and she appears to be the frontrunner

in the polls for the Democratic Party for 2028, which is quite significant, actually.

And Logo has predicted this, and we all saw it coming, and we know what's coming.

For sure, for sure, for sure.

You know, the Millennial Reich. That's what Logo likes logo likes to call it basically we're talking about

cat abugazala a nato hitler fascist dictatorship democratic socialism at home and imperialism abroad

pretty much adolf hit, pretty much Hitlerism

in America, right?

But that's the major

trend and shift, I think, is mainly

going to happen in the Democratic

Party. I think the Republican

Party is in disarray, obviously,

but there is still a solid Republican evangelical constituency that will continue to be reliable in the deep south and elsewhere across the nation, regardless of what fucking happens, because these people get all of their information from megachurches, and they are also very old, boomers, who have not yet died.

Unfortunately.

But that's just a fact.

Okay?

So we're looking at a situation where although, i i don't you know what i don't

want to continue hearing from people i don't want to continue hearing from people this thing where

we're just going to say oh you know the elections of sham let's just ignore it and guys don't be

retarded don't be retarded. Don't be mentally

retarded. We always have to continually

be, we always have to continually

analyze the contradictions within

the nation. However, they

manifest, and one of the ways

they manifest is through politics and is through elections.

So we have to pay close attention just to see what's going on. We don't have necessarily a clear idea of where everyone's at.

But understanding the shifts in terms of where people go and how their votes swing, if a radical shift occurs this year, we know that social media and cybernetics is in the driver's seat.

And that will be like the truest, fullest vindication of it, you know?

Zoran Mamdani, there could be more Zorans that win in 2026. I think I expect that they will.

Actually, we should play close attention to the Democratic primaries leading up to the elections in 2026. Will progressives

win within the Democratic Party? If they will win, and maybe they do have a chance of winning,

but if they will win, then we are going to be looking at a very interesting situation.

We want to know the shape of how the American Civil War 2.0,

which is inevitable, by the way, is going to take.

There's a civil war coming.

There's a constitutional crisis coming.

And I think it all points to the fact that yes there's a kind of progressive

leftist wing of the democratic party that is accelerating toward a specific conclusion of look

however people narrativize politics, I sound like a postmodern, whatever,

because I am. However we narrativize politics, narratives are fucking important. I'll explain to you

concretely why. We are looking at the necessity of scrapping or somehow going outside the bounds of what is allowed within the U.S. Constitution.

The driving force of the Democratic Party's agenda is going to be defined by if they secure victory in 2028

even if they win in 2026 if they get a clear majority in the house in the senate which they

very well could right they're basically going to be driven to a point of

saying we can never allow trump or something similar to trump or the disaster of the trump

of the trump administration both number one and, we can never allow that to happen again.

And therefore, we have to go beyond the framework of the Constitution to fundamentally change the

institution of democracy, to be more resilient to fascism, whatever explanation they're going to give, right?

And then on the other hand, if the, if Trump or the Republicans want any motion going forward, and if they're, they want to be able to win, they're going to also have to say, well, look,

the Constitution has prohibited us from doing what needs to be done when it comes to mass deportations,

when it comes to fulfilling the electoral mandate of Donald Trump in 2024.

Additionally, you know, we cannot allow the Democratic Party to win because of the have these

radical plans once they take office and it's existential, right?

So both sides are gearing up for preparing the nation for a constitutional crisis regardless of who wins.

And it's specifically a consequence of the post MAGA narrative that's going to be the driving

force of politics from this point forward, right?

And that's going to solidly split the country into.

And whenever you have a situation where the country is split into, just solid down the line 50-50,

the reason is basically because it can go either way because it doesn't

actually necessarily make much of a difference because both sides of the contradiction are true why

because the contradiction is true when contradictions are truly a fact, right? When you truly have contradictions at the level of the governing or the ruling political institution of your country, then both sides of the contradiction end up being correct because the contradiction is itself what's correct, right? So that's why there's objectively going to be a civil war. There's not going to be a civil war because there's going to be a good guy and a bad guy. There's not going to be a civil war because there's going to be a good guy and a bad guy.

There's not going to be a civil war because there's one, you know, comprehensive vision for the future that's competing with another.

There's going to be a civil war because the contradiction that is at the heart of the American Republic and the United States of America is just a objective contradiction.

It's a real contradiction, right?

So we are looking at a civil war.

Everything has to be fit within the context of civil war, including the upcoming elections and midterms.

Now, we're also seeing the proliferation and rise of disruptive forms of politics that aren't categorized along traditional partisan lines. Specifically, Majorie Taylor Green has really come out as a um like far to the left of anyone on the democratic party frankly and by the way if imperialism is the primary contradiction then your stance toward foreign policy determines where you are on the political spectrum.

Not your attitude towards transgender's, not your attitude toward political correctness, not your attitude toward abortion. The thing that matters is your

attitude to imperialism concretely, right? So we have witnessed the rise of a new left wing in the

form of Majorie Taylor Green, Tucker Carlson, and others, and they represent a resurgence of left-wing populism.

Even Thomas Massey, you could probably argue, right?

Now, Tucker and Majery and others, these people are not, and Massey's a libertarian, so you could give them that. But most of these people who are in massie's a libertarian so you could give them that but most of these people

who are adjacent to tucker and stuff they're actually like left wing when it comes to

economics as well not just foreign policy so if they're left wing when it comes to economics

and their left wing when it comes to anti-imperialism, what makes them right-wing?

Their attitudes toward sexuality and nebulous nonsense that shouldn't matter if you're at like you forget about being a marxist material is just

from the perspective of common sense that doesn't fucking matter right not nearly as much as the

other two things that i mention right so we are witnessing the political realignment i've always talked about happening it's just continuing

to happen and this what we should really think about is how can we accelerate the development

of this anti-epbstein popular front.

Because I genuinely think that the rise of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party,

that is not going to actually conclude in, you know, I'm speaking to the choir here, but it's not going to

conclude in somehow like pushing the country left or something. You're going to have a very

aggressive moral center of the U.S. Empire. The U.S. Empire lacks morale right now, right?

The thing that's going to restore to it moral legitimacy and reinvigoration is democratic socialism.

100%. Kat Abu Ghazala is the model of the future in terms of what could plausibly continue the U.S. Empire and build sufficient popular consensus for war with China, which is the ultimate game plan of the U.S. elite, by the way, is War with China. Everyone knows that, right?

So I'm not being a sectarian. I'm not being a sectarian leftist when I identify AOC and others as a genuine fascist threat.

From a very pragmatic, realistic perspective, I am pointing out the fact that they are gearing up to be the saving grace of U.S. imperialism that it's so desperately needs right now.

Trump was that in 2026. Of course he was. Trump duped a bunch of anti-system conspiracy theorists into supporting the system.

Now, where has the ball shifted in terms of anti-system and anti-hegemony sentiment? Well, because

the Republicans are in power,

it's shifted to the left.

So the ball is going to keep swinging

in these directions, like Obama.

Who did more

for American imperialism than Barack

Obama? I don't think anyone did.

Barack Obama really, really gave the U.S. Empire a lifespan that it otherwise wouldn't have had, right, longer.

And then it was Trump. And then it was Biden. and there was not a lot of clarity under biden see

everyone needs to understand biden represented the last generation of these centrist democrats

they're fucking dead now just like biden i don't know if he's still alive or not. He's definitely mentally dead.

But Biden, when he won, all the Bernie people and the progressive leftists, they were also

disappointed by it, right? But like that form of politics in the Democratic Party is literally dead.

It's gone. It's been discredited

with Trump's election in 2024.

It's been discredited

generationally because the old people

are literally just dying off by

the year. And

at this point, the only saving race of the Democratic Party are going to be the AOCs in

the progressive wing.

They have nothing else left.

Zoran Mamdani, he's going to inject new energy into the Democratic Party that it hasn't

had before.

And I see the light at the end of the tunnel, the light, if you can call it that.

And it's going to be a reinvigoration of the U.S. war machine,

providing the necessary moral justification the U.S. Empire needs to embark on a worldwide crusade against Russia,

against China, against others for being, you know, backward and whatever reactionary.

My words sound crazy. They sound crazy.

They sound hyperbolic.

They sound kooky.

But Logo agrees with me.

That means something.

And it also makes a lot of sense.

The U.S. just doesn't have the ability to build popular consensus to sustain itself anymore this is the only path forward for the democratic party okay

i want to briefly respond to the geese magazine people whom I haven't had a lot of time to talk about on stream.

I...

Actually, I don't know if I should spoil this, but...

I want to bring back debate among Marxists.

I want to bring back polemics.

I want to bring back there's something quite dark about the geese people in a way that I actually find a little amusing and maybe even promising, actually.

It's going to shock you that I'm saying this, but, you know, leftists have been shills of the Democratic Party for a decade, right? For a decade. And what I find so fascinating

about the geese people is that they're finally translating this implicit corruption and unprincipledness, which is what it has been, into the form of a definite, like, theoretical self-awareness.

The main people of the geese movement are not stupid they are they do actually have somewhat of an impressive given their stances understanding of dialectics they do have they have red linen, actually,

and they have clearly thought about their positions in

ways that, in

their mind, make their position and stance

principled. But what they

don't understand is that they have adopted

a very dark position. They've created actually a critical distance toward the otherwise implicit, unspoken, corrupt allegiance to the Democratic Party, where they now have to justify that position by way of a completely autonomous and independent type of logic.

Now, when the logic is autonomous and independent, I actually don't think it's going to take a lot for them to realize that their position is wrong, because they're justifying their position

in a way that's independent

right

so that there's something dark about them

and they're not

naive Democrats so to speak

they're not buying into it they haven't drank

the Kool-Aid they're you know like they don't ideal They're not buying into it. They haven't drank the Kool-Aid.

They're not ideologically invested in the Democratic Party.

They genuinely think, you know, this is a simplification, but they think what they're doing is a type of Machiavelli and political realism.

That already, you may not want to admit it, guys, but that already puts them in a strange

degree of proximity with us. They have the totally opposite position of us but what they have achieved is the ability

to justify and articulate their stance in a way that is independent of the movement of you know nebulous

leftism or whatever, right?

So, um, I just want to, I just want to say that because I think you guys are very hostile

toward them.

And we need to

pick our battles in terms of who we're actually going to bully

and be hostile to and

berate and, you know,

bully and stomp on and stuff.

And it's like, look, if someone is articulating themselves purely in the language of theory,

then respond to them in the same language.

And I'm saying that because it's like, look,

um... we have to have the confidence that we can justify our positions in clear

lucid Marxist terms, right?

And that's the most important thing.

Now, when it comes to people who are irrational to us, then of course, fucking stomp them, crush them, destroy them, you know, online or whatever, not in real life.

Don't commit any crimes, of course.

But you get the idea.

I'm just telling you guys, I want you to have that distinction.

I want you to know the distinction between people who disagree with us theoretically and try to propose arguments about why they disagree with us

and people who just point at us and call us Nazis and whatever and hysterically attack us.

So understand and comprehend that distinction.

I, for one, okay, I don't even know.

I want to like put this out there because if I announce it, if I announce the idea,

it's going to be sabotaged somehow.

But here's an idea I have for this year.

I want to convene a

forum

of civil debate and discussion

of Marxists and people who claim to be communists from all major factions

of the U.S. independent, you know, independent left. If we are able to do such things with the platypus people,

with whom we very much disagree on fundamentals,

Grayson is,

Grayson, Carlos, they're constantly speaking at platypus panels.

Why don't we just expand that?

And I'm thinking we will include the geese people.

We can invite Donald Redditson and the Reddit Mug caucus.

They've done some despicable awful things that I think cross lines, but it's like,

uh, how much do I care? And then we bring in, um, we could bring in other DSA people. You bring

in representatives from the PSL. And we all accept Marxist realism.

We sit down and we say,

what is the way forward for Marxism in America?

And let's just have a forum to actually disagree.

Right off the bat, we fucking disagree with each other. I agree. But why don't we have a forum where we can articulate our disagreement in a civil and productive way, just so there could be clarity as far as where we actually stand, what our arguments are, and so on and so on, right? So this this is something i propose and i think we should have

in america i think it would do pretty well i want it to be civil and i want it to be i want it to be founded upon the principle that Marxists are independent in the sense that, like, we can have debates and disagreements among each other.

We are committed to the legacy of Marxism and of Lenin and so on and so on.

And we need to articulate our differences and our disagreements in a way that, you know, through the logos, through speech, through language, through theory.

So this is something I want to propose for this year.

And this would only be for Marxists.

This would only be for people who consider themselves communists or Marxists.

And I'm not going to spoil who has already signed on to agree, but you'd be surprised.

You'd be surprised that actually some people have already agreed that they would, they're,

they're interested in it, right?

So you'd think it's a long shot, but no, actually.

It can happen.

So that's something I'm going to put that put out there.

I want to tell you, I want to give you, this is my way of giving you guys the idea.

I've already told people in the EB the idea.

I guess the whole party can just hear the idea right now.

And, you know, I'll continue to update you as far as what we can do.

How much progress has been made when it comes to that, right?

That was an extremely long tangent.

But, critically,

why are the geese people in Hassan Piker wrong

when it comes to... I keep seeing the geese people and Hassan Pike are wrong when it comes to...

I keep seeing the geese people.

They're basically... I think they have Hassan's one-for-one view on this.

I keep seeing them make the argument.

They're citing something from Lenin, 1920s, with respect to the elections in Britain, right?

The logic is, let's support AOC, let's support Zoran AOC and all the other progressives,

so that once they do get elected and inevitably betray the proletariat,

we could acquire the concrete basis for a left-wing opposition to democratic socialism

and social democracy.

So the idea is that thus far, our only opposition is rooted in ideological sectarianism, right? And that in order to actually create concretely the conditions by which we can actually successfully challenge AOC or democrats or zohran from the left we actually have to help them win to prove to the masses the betrayal concretely and then seize the opportunity to articulate to be at the vanguard of providing

the explanation basically for why they did why they committed the betrayals that they did and and thus

um voila like thus it's and and thus,

um,

voila,

like thus,

it's,

first of all,

two things, this,

this will sound familiar.

Because,

first of all, it's quite a sophisticated dialectical logic that does come from Lenin.

Lenin uses that same argument for the British Labour Party.

When he tells communists, you should actually help the labor leaders in britain win so that because right now you don't have a concrete basis with which to distinguish yourself and oppose them right so you need to create the conditions by which you could concretely draw out these contradictions to tell the workers, see, you know,

we are the only ones that could provide an explanatory paradigm for why these labor leaders have

betrayed you. We Bolsheviks, we neo-Bolsheviks, we communists, whatever, right? In contrast to the reformists and opportunists and the ranks of the Labor Party.

So the logic is actually quite clear.

But what's ironic about employing this passage from London is, doesn't it kind of sound like the entire

logic of MAGA communism?

Like the whole point of MAGA communism

is we're going to be here with the MAGA

movement and then when Trump

inevitably betrays them

we're going to be able to provide

so that's, that logic was absolutely clear.

The difference is, of course, we're not assisting Trump winning the election, but the Leninist

logic of basing yourself in the concrete development of politics, and then waiting for the opportunity or participating in the process by which the contradictions that justify your stance acquire a concrete existence,

like instead of just saying, trump is a scam artist and and he's

a lying to you and he's a he's a he's a zionist instead of just saying this to maga in 2022

ideologically you know

it's true and so you're just telling it to

them wait for them

to see it with their own eyes concretely

and then concretely there's going to be a contradiction

you can then have an advantage

because you have an explanatory paradigm

that lends itself to a superior narrative

that you could capture and make sense of right so the reason why you should not dismiss this argument out of hand, so to speak, is because it's the same logic behind Maga-Communism in 2022.

So what should our response be?

Should we,

how the,

you guys are,

am I a clone?

Am I real Haas?

Should we support progressive Democrats so that we could create the circumstance

concretely by which we could

justify

the contradiction

taking form within the Democratic Party?

No.

And I'll tell you why.

Are you ready to hear the real reason you know to be a little sadistic i want to i want to ask the

community what do you think the reason is i want to see if one person understands why this is wrong

as an argument.

So I want to see if one person understands why this is wrong.

I'll look at the chat.

Does anyone understand why it's wrong to say that this Leninist logic of

helping

the progressive Democrats win so that

we can create the conditions

by which the left-wing opposition

to them could be justified concretely.

Why is that a wrong

argument?

Democrats and leftists are dereadicalizing.

That's true, but

it's not, you're not getting to the

key argument here.

The why. Why are they

de-radicalizing, right? Because it's, because there's one person kind of got close.

There's no social democratic movement, only Democrats. No, that's not a good argument. Because the masses

will remember, I actually think that's an intelligent argument, which I will touch on, but that's not what good argument because the masses will remember i actually think that's an intelligent

argument which i will touch on but that's not what i'm looking for per se um okay well i want you guys to stop trying because you're not going to get it.

If someone got it, I didn't see, then I'll apologize.

But, no, it's actually a lot more simple.

Okay. no it's actually a lot more simple okay Kyle got it

Kyle got it

the truth is

this did already happen

that's the hill I'm going to die on this did already happen.

That's the hill I'm going to die on.

This did already happen.

You know, in 2015, it happened multiple times, actually, but to be clear, in 2015, I actually did see promise in the Bernie Sanders movement.

Do you think I was a Social Democrat or a Democratic Socialist in 2015?

I really wasn't.

I really wasn't.

I was very much a fanatical communist who believed in revolution and

I thought Stalin didn't go far enough and so on.

Like I was not a democratic socialist but i still thought

bernie sanders's movement was promising why did i because i have read lennon i understand the logic here

my argument against the Democratic Party since 20s, since that, has never been, you know,

oh, well, it's not even that the Democrats are Zionists and that they're pro-imperialist and that they're anti-communists or whatever.

It's actually concrete.

When Bernie had the elections rigged against him, that should have concretely proven to the masses, which it did, by the way, it fed Maga. Maga's the one who was able to absorb all that. But like those elections were basically rigged. They were basically rigged they were basically rigged okay that would have been the

causes belly by which you could have you could have begun the process of building uh like a

very strong left-wing opposition to the hegemony and against the

Democratic Party. That concretely justified breaking from the Democratic Party. Even in the eyes

of the insurgent masses.

Now, in the eyes of all the masses in America, no, but enough of the masses to be decisive in

getting Donald Trump elected in 2016.

Trump was elected in 2016, in part because the elections were rigged against Bernie, in part because the institution of neoliberal democracy had already concretely been discredited.

Now, if you don't find that to be a strong argument,

I'm going to tell you another thing that's going to be very strange to you.

I thought, I liked the idea of the progressive Democrat run for the midterms starting in 2017.

AOC and all these other people I don't necessarily remember.

But I thought that was actually promising.

For the exact same reason.

AOC did get elected, in fact.

She did get into Congress. And what did she do? She betrayed. She betrayed, you know, the progressive momentum that got her elected. That already happened. Finally, if that's not enough in 2020 i was paying very close attention to bernie sanders i thought this is the momentum we need to build up a left to clarify the various contradictions

within the democratic party and despite everything i said maybe this time you know we need to

accentuate these contradictions i was that you, you know, the analogy was the Hassan

versus destiny dispute. I was absolutely saying there's so much promise in the Hassan wing of this

dispute. You think I was some naive, retarded democratic socialist?ists no i was a Stalinist actually very very

hardcore Stalinist at this time so but what happened the election was basically rigged a second time.

Obama made some phone calls.

Everyone dropped out of the race very suddenly and immediately.

And structurally, they maneuvered against Bernie Sanders.

And that, to me me was my MAGA communist moment by the way my MAGA communist moment started then that's when infrared came on the scene and basically said, you know what, it's time to fully abandon this specific strategy altogether.

Maybe it was mistaken from the beginning, but it had already been decisively proven in the eyes of the masses in 2015,

2016, that neoliberal democracy has been discredited, that the hegemony has been discredited.

COVID also accelerated this to a huge extent. The big story in 2020 was not Trump. Where was MAGA? Where was Trump? What was that? Well, it was QAnon. It was the vaccine skepticism. The big story was the proliferation of conspiracy theories and the Jeffrey Epstein thing breaking. Everyone forgets what happened, but the whole Jeffrey Epstein stuff, it began around 2019, 2020, in terms of captivating the public consciousness.

And, you know, it wasn't there, it's not like there was this white, that was when you could clearly observe a unforgivable type of opportunism that started

to seize hold of the progressive left and this is the origin story by the way of Jackson

Hinkle and Jimmy Noore, kind of, and others.

Because there was this ambiguous

conspiracism that was on the rise

among the population, and it was ambiguous.

It was absolutely not attached

to any specific comprehensive ideology.

But AOC and all these progressive leftists and Democrats, they would look at that phenomena

and they would reduce it and they would crucify it on the cross of being far right white nationalism, racism,

Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan or something. They were lying. They were lying about this resurg,

this insurgent kind of populist sentiment that was nebulously

associated with MAGA, but truth be told, even at that time, wasn't reducible to it. And it was the most

clear and obvious symptom

of mass discontent with the system

was rearing itself in 2020 in this way

and in popular media

and popular culture,

I guess the movie with Joaquin Phoenix,

the Joker,

was a big symbol of that in a lot of ways,

if you remember.

But there was just this very general

anti-system

consciousness that was

emerging outside of the confines

of U.S. politics

that U.S. politics

could not contain, really,

and it was like a thousand, I have the theory, the cybernetic malign sovereignty, like a thousand maligned cybernetic forms of popular sovereignty, like rogue AIs were on the loose and taking shape.

And this was in fact something that was happening.

So

that was the moment that I began to realize

that leftists

were agents of the system.

They were reducing that

to the right wing, but it wasn't inherently

right wing. There was potential

within that for building

out the basis of the left.

Foo, what's up? And Jackson saw that. Jimmy Dore saw it. And, you know, an exam, that was the whole purpose of the force to vote thing in late 2020, which is you want a majority in the House and the Senate. so why don't you force a vote for health care, for Medicare for all or whatever, right? And, you know, it's like, that's why that contradiction was drawn out in the way it was the force

to vote movement

and everyone

that's what that that was you know

the rest is history that's when

Vos started saying

you know these are the Nossbols the

Red Brown Alliance

Jimmy Doors are Red Brown that's you know, these are the Nossbols, the red-brown alliance,

Jimmy Doors, a red-brown.

That's when even Hassan Piker was saying the same thing.

That's when AOC, that was when really, like,

I think a decisive contradiction began to emerge within the left between

you know the

so-called you know

I don't know

tankies and

progressive mainstream

Democrats and you can say

well you're tankies and you're so

marginal and whatever but it's like well when you're tankies and you're so marginal and whatever.

But it's like, well, when you understand it as part of this broad third estate within politics of conspiratorial consciousness and momentum and stuff, associated with the release or the the the the news that

Epstein killed himself COVID the post-COVID era and so on and so on no it's not in the

minority it's actually the symptom of that within the left right it's the way

the left started to conform and bend in the shape of a completely new era right and so infrared came on scene. We took the stances that we did and the rest was history.

I love how everyone gets so fucking bored when I recap history, when I, when I do this. And it's because people are mentally retarded

and it's quite sad to me actually it's quite sad and pathetic that people

cannot track the importance

of recapping things that everyone has forgotten that happened six years ago so the reason it's wrong to apply the logic of lenin with respect to the labor party in the twenties harold thank you so much with the five.

The reason it's wrong to attempt to apply that logic, so to speak, is very simple.

Because, yes, it would have been true.

Maybe in 2015, maybe in 2016, 2017. But the logic has already played out.

And the left has been missing. Marxists have been missing. Communists have been missing. Maga-communism was the loudest and most

aggressive way in which we wanted to draw out that fact, that Marxists were missing. Yes, the masses are ready for a very radical change, for a very radical alternative, concretely to politics.

The conditions are ripe, absolutely for it.

And who but Marxists and communists should be

the ones to place themselves

at the avant-garde

of this third

estate, let's call it, whatever,

anti-epstein popular momentum

that has been brewing

since for a decade now.

Okay?

Now, you're not going to be able to do that by, you know, participating in a symmetrical political

strategy.

You have to use that as the basis for the emergence of an asymmetrical form of politics,

where our electoral strategy is not based on Democratic Party or Republican Party or anything,

but it's an independent strategy based on maximizing the hegemony

or sorry, maximizing

the supremacy of counter-hegemonic

and disruptive political forces

within the country.

I think only a communist party,

only an organization of that type, could consolidate and centralize the implementation of that kind of strategy.

And that's what I have to say about going forward. Our party is not big enough to be decisive with respect to

participating in elections in that way but if hasan pike or another started throwing their ring in it

throwing their hats in the ring

if significant portions of the left

started to get on board

we could precisely do it

without any issue

and then um without any issue.

And then I want to talk about also why the Leninist logic is not necessarily applicable, because there's a presumption, there's an assumption that it is applicable, and I think that's wrong.

So the reason why it's actually not applicable, strictly speaking, is because the Labor Party in the 20s is not the equivalent of the Democratic Party today.

Projects up. Actually, the Labor Party was quite a new party.

It had a foreign policy stance that concretely was beneficial to the Soviet Union, it was actually a progressive

party relative to the conservatives in terms of, you know, the labor movement and imperialism,

marginally more progressive. So the today's equivalent of the Labor Party would not be the Democratic Party.

It would be Thomas Massey.

It would be Tucker Carlson.

It would be Majorie Taylor Green or something.

Again, the only thing that makes people associate them with the right now is their stance on, I don't know,

transgender's or something, but what are our priorities here? Why is that the decisive thing?

You know, the Labor Party in the 1920s was a new party.

Not something, not an old establishment.

It was a new party.

There's no equivalence whatsoever between that and the Democratic Party.

Project 2036, thank you so much for the five.

So the boring part is over, I guess.

And let's talk about our way forward.

What is our way forward?

What's our vision forward?

So, we cannot tie ourselves down to elections and participating in elections and canvassing.

It's a waste of resources. It's a waste of money. We don't't have it we don't have the ability to plan

anything like that out city councils i think are doable we should where we can i'm going to

very strongly emphasize where we can because I am extremely conservative when it comes to what this actually

fucking means. In our party, we cannot afford risky gambits when it comes to politics.

None of this bullshit of,

oh, I have a dream I could do.

I don't give a fuck.

Tie yourself down to what is concretely realistic and doable.

Not, don't make everything an opportunity to fulfill the american dream it's a cancerous

type of derangement all americans seem to have don't use our party as a platform to realize

you're retarded american dream because it's not going to happen.

We're not here dreaming.

We are very concretely rooted in what is realistic and possible based on what we can appraise in a scientific and grounded way.

Okay.

I just want to say that.

No long shots.

But if there is a possibility for winning an election anywhere for our party, I don't

give a fuck what the office or what the post is. I mean, Chris Hulali won

High Bailiff. Obviously, we should do it. Should you spend tens of thousands of dollars on it?

No. Should you expend so much resources beyond our means? No, let's not spend beyond our means. Let's not expend

beyond our means. But if and where it is possible, we should absolutely be doing it. City councils,

even if it's, I don't know if it's possible for mayorships i don't know draw up

what's possible what we can do we should take i will say that some yes yeah, some elections are uncontested.

So what we can do, we should do.

What we can take, we should take.

I want to strongly emphasize that.

No long shots.

I'm not talking about long shots. There's no room for long shots i'm not talking about long shots there's no room for long shots in our

party here right but where it's possible let's actually get our people in elected in positions of power

and in office it builds our party up. It's for our party.

And that's something so, you know, at the chapter level, you should be analyzing this.

If you've gotten the impression

that I think that our party

can simply desist from established

politics, electoral politics, altogether,

I've never said that.

I've simply said that we have to

reject being tied

to the established parties.

But we still need to recognize where the masses are at, obviously,

and we need to be very realistic, very sober, not get ahead of ourselves,

not get excited in a frenzy thinking that we're on the cusp, you know, of, uh, look,

I want to tell you something. A third party is almost impossible to build up right now.

Because it would be domineered by personalities,

potentially wealthy people that have the money to do it,

but personalities.

And Americans don't know how to form movements.

Everything is a cybernetic system.

Americans aren't mature enough to form alternative parties or movements by and large.

And they don't do so in the Democratic and Republican Party consciously.

They acquiesce

to impersonal systems that have been

established by convention and

by habit and other things

usually

whenever there has been an attempt

to put together

some kind of third party or alternative coalition. It's just, it was just

marked by the psychopathologies of specific personalities and individuals and conflicts and between

them and pettiness and nonsense and smallness.

And that's why we should not overestimate.

We should not overestimate how the anti-Ebstein

popular momentum is actually going to translate

into politics concretely.

The way we translate it

is by having a political strategy

that it's based in asymmetrical electoral politics,

where you're not doing it on the basis of there's one third party versus the two

parties you're doing it on the basis is everywhere you can centralize and coordinate a single

strategy to to um to assist in the supremacy of forces that disrupt the two-party system.

And it can be very, maybe here, it can be the Green Party, maybe there, it can be something else, and there it can be independent or whatever. It's not so important. The important thing is you have your own independent political strategy and outlook where on a case by case basis, we can decide who is actually the best.

And our resource, I mean, how can we be decisive in the outcome of those elections?

No, but we can use that as a platform for our party to acquire more relevance and more power

at every local election in a local election there's this like based mayor who's running right

if our party kind of starts getting involved in that and the discourse

surrounding it and the propaganda and the debates and the arguments, it's actually going to grow

our party's standing. It's going to create the concrete and material conditions for us to acquire

political relevancy.

And that's kind of what I mean when it comes to this.

And I've talked about this before on previous streams, by the way.

This asymmetrical political strategy that I've been talking about, right?

So... political strategy that I've been talking about, right? So, yeah.

So, uh, yeah so uh this is quite interesting quite interesting indeed um yes okay so uh i want us to be on the same page when it comes to the asymmetrical political strategy.

And we absolutely do need to take elections seriously because even if that's not the case for us for the American people still

that is politics that is what politics is concretely and materially and we have to

if we want to be a political party we have to acknowledge that fact

and we have to acknowledge it uh we have to acknowledge it in a practical way.

So there's a lot else I want to talk about, but it looks like... You know, We really got to go back to YouTube.

This is fucking crazy. You know, Um... um

yeah anyway

um I was going to talk about the Dan Bolzerian run and Nick Fuentes accusing him of, you know, some kind of crime or something like that.

Really, and by the way, like, I don't know

Dan Balsarian at all. I'm just going to be like completely honest. I don't know him at all.

And I have no familiarity with him whatsoever, but I know for a fact Nick Fuentes is lying because he made another weird lie about me when he said I killed Charlie Kirk.

So that immediately led me thinking about, okay, why is Nick Fuentes lying about Dan Bozzerian in the way that he is?

And the reason is obvious to me, because I do actually think the feds or the controllers or the people in power in some kind of way, do think that what Dan Bolzarian is trying to do is very dangerous.

Running a meme campaign against Randy Fine, using your social media influence as a vehicle to disrupt the political system, think about this.

Like Randy Fein is living in a low energy

district full of

a bunch of boomers and pensioners

who just vote

for him out of habit and convention.

There's not a single saint-sentient

person in this country

who prefers Randy Fine over anyone. And so if Dan Bolzerian can bring

energy into that district and use some of his social media pull to mobilize people to unseat Randy

Fine and like, imagine if that actually happened, right?

I think that, actually, I think that would be, they, the regime does consider that a threat.

Just because of how disruptive it would be.

It doesn't matter if you agree with Dan.

I mean, Dan Bolzarian says a lot of crazy things about the Bolsheviks and whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that if he was elected into Congress, it would cause a stir objectively, and it would be extremely disruptive.

Right? So I think Nick Fuentes is being mobilized. Maybe he's an asset because of January 6th or something. But it just seems completely obvious to me that he's being mobilized to do that, to discredit or attack or malign Dan Bolzerian with respect to that election.

And it goes to show that I think that the system is clocking the fact there is an anti-Ebstein popular momentum.

A lot of that is being translated in the form of, you know, eclectic social media influencers using their social media pull to disrupt electoral precedent and basically the political

establishment as such. And I think on some fundamental, they do clock that as a threat.

And so we need to keep in mind

the fact that

what did they say the

dam is about to break

so to speak I think it's pretty clear to me the dam is about to break, so to speak, I think.

It's pretty clear to me.

The dam is really about to break

when it comes to the future of U.S. politics.

And we're getting to a point where there's just a change in generations the boomers are dying off

but the way that's going to affect U.S. politics is going to be extremely disruptive and I think

they're very carefully maneuvering to contain it

with everything they have they're they're trying to contain it right

okay well we're just going to begin our TikTok debates.

We're going to begin our TikTok debates.

Because we've got to bring some content in here

i have not been streaming for weeks and i got to build it up again

probably got to probably get back on youtube to be honest.

What the hell?

What's that I mean?

Like, you know, you're fucking doing back.

Sorry, I was in the kick home page.

Comrade Thomas with the 10.

Appreciate you.

You guys, slowly but surely, we're going to be, um're going to for sure get to that 1,000 mark.

Slowly but surely, we will get back there. Okay, so I have to turn on this virtual camera. I'm gonna go here.

I'm gonna go here, the settings.

All right, perfect.

All right.

So we're starting the debate right now.

Jesus fucking Christ. You know, So we are beginning our debates, our TikTok debates. and we are going to see we're going to see who's going to join so

I think a lot of these libertarian types,

I have to say something,

a lot of these libertarian types,

I don't know,

I don't know if you have to divide the libertarians

between the Thomas Massey's,

the Ron Pauls,

but then you have the ANCAPs.

And that British guy that I debated weeks ago, I noticed that while I was in Russia,

not a day had went by that they weren't coping and crying and completely just

desperately attempting to change the

narrative about what everyone saw with their two

eyes when it came to that debate, which is that

he was not able

to actually present

an argument or something that I

couldn't just immediately shoot down in response. We had no idea what Marxist materialism was. Someone had told him that Marxist materialism is the same thing as an extremely crude mechanical determinism

that I don't even think

self-proclaimed

determinists believe in

and basically

like he just like

realized that this was going to be a much

more difficult argument

crashed out

and then and then

his like supporters

or whatever

his two fans

kept like spamming

uh

coping

I don't know saying

oh Haas you got destroyed

you got destroyed

it's like

yeah but there's nobody who actually will watch that debate and think that,

who's like watching it in good faith, I think.

And, you know, I actually had to think about it a little bit.

Like, why did he keep spamming the argument?

Where do alternatives come from?

Where do alternatives come from? And then

I thought about it and I'm like, oh,

he actually thinks

that the reason why there are

different things in the universe

is because it's somehow

chosen.

Like, if there's two rocks on the ground and one rock is shaped like, you know, I don't know, it's shaped like a sphere and the other one is shaped like a square.

He thinks the alternative between the two rocks comes from the choice itself, the capacity to choose between them, rather than the fact that there are different things so i guess that's what

he got confused about he doesn't understand that the alternatives don't come from your will they

come from the fact that there are different determinations within the universe not even the crudest of determinists deny that there are different things in the world. That there are, that there's Earth, there's Jupiter, there's Mars, there's, like, there are different planetary bodies, there are different chemicals, there are different planetary bodies there are different chemicals there are different compounds

there are different elements there are different particles there are just different things

he was genuinely asking that.

I didn't think he was stupid enough to be asking such a ridiculous question.

Where do alternatives come from?

As though even the crudest caricature of determinism would not, if you were semi-literate,

would not represent it in a way that argues that, you know, they think that somehow there's only one thing that exists.

There's there as you in one choice existing and one thing existing, so it's quite sad actually and then bouncy ben the other guy's that person, I didn't meet him in person per se. I was in the same room as him in person. I would have never, I didn't even know who that was. I would have never expected that guy to be so mentally scarred and like violated for the rest of his life to the point where any time I'm on X and I see anything related to me whatsoever, I'll click it and in the replies there is Bouncy Ben making AI doodles of himself that looking superior and stronger than me. He needs

AI to pull that off, by the way.

And he's just so violated.

Like he's just, I keep getting it, seeing him get

smacked around by the guerrillas and

by the people in our community.

And I'm just like,

wow, this is really sad, actually.

This is super sad.

Because I was like, I thought this guy had clout and maybe had their own career or something.

But no, they're just like a mental, they're mentally scarred by me forever.

And I just, it's kind of awkward to me. Like, I don't know what to do. Like, I agreed to debate him.

I, per the Oxford rules or whatever, I triumphed in the debate and he lost and I destroyed his

whole life. He can't, like there's nothing he can do except think about me for the rest of his

life. I just literally live rent free in his mind forever and I kind of feel bad for him.

I'm just kidding. I don of feel bad for him. I'm just kidding.

I don't feel bad for him at all.

But, yeah,

he's Bouncy Ben.

Bouncy Ben.

Yeah, I'm talking about,

he called himself Prax Ben,

which is such a cringy name,

by the way

but uh bouncy ben it's like

he is like i i honestly i imagine him crying every night about me like going to bed

crying like shaking angrily in tears and crying about me

and then he goes to bed involuntarily

just because he exhausted all of his energy

uh coping and crying about me

so that's bouncy ben

and um So that's Bouncy Ben.

And, um... So let's, um... Let's see who's going to request to debate me.

No requests yet.

There are no requests yet there are no requests

i'm a terrible live streamer i i don't even know if I should be a live

streamer.

I'm not good

of live streaming

guys.

I just...

Actually, I am.

But...

I don't know.

I don't know how

much I love

the live streaming

medium. I don't know how much I love the live streaming medium.

I don't know how much I used to love it.

I used to be so good at it.

And now I just kind of just like I just kind of feel like it's just kind of I don't know

I feel like it's not real

when I when he's like who is Haas

and you're like live streamer it's like

it's not really accurate

it's not really enough to capture what I've become.

Yeah, I've gotten too old and shit, and it's like,

I'll still do debates and stuff,

but I don't know about the whole the whole the whole live streaming thing.

It's like, I don't know.

I took a two week break.

Took a two week break break. Took a two-week break.

And I kind of got used to it a little.

I don't know.

Genuinely, though, if you guys want to see the streams continue support the streams because otherwise i got to find a different way to i got to find a different way to support myself which I can, you know, no problem.

No problem.

Let me bring this person on.

What the head?

No way.

Haas.

Yeah, what's going on?

I've been following you for so wrong, bro.

I don't know what they say.

I can't believe you let me up.

Amila, what's up?

Appreciate you.

Thank you so much with the 10.

Oh, I'm sorry, what you said?

Texas Star with the 5.

What's up, man?

Phil Fo.

What's up, bro?

I appreciate you.

That's awesome, bro.

What do you want? What do you want? What do you want? What do you want?

What do you want?

What do you want?

Oh, I didn't know if you heard me.

I'm sorry.

American Communist Party, right?

All right.

Well, I'm bringing on people to debate me you want to debate me you can debate me

if you want to waste time and jibber i don't know what

i can tell you

sunset with the one appreciate you bro thank you I can tell you.

Sunset with the one.

Appreciate you, bro.

Thank you.

Thank you, sunset. You know, all right there's someone else requesting let's see

it's just

who know who knows the only person who wants to debate me.

Like I said,

the ANCAPs,

they,

you know,

it's the thing

about ANCAPs,

they have no

idea about

Marxism.

Not a single

one of them

can produce a

single argument

against Marxism.

They have no understanding

about the labor theory of value.

They somehow think Marxist materialism

means mechanical determinism.

Not only mechanical determinism,

but a mechanical determinism

according to which

there aren't different things. as in there's like only one

identifiable thing in the universe and nothing else and then they also have this idea called the

economic calculation problem which was literally discredredited within the same year that it was

proposed. And then they shifted the argument to something else, which is even more laughably

a non-problem. And so, you know, we just kind of get to the point where they just have no arguments against Marxism, no arguments against communism at all.

Hello.

Hello, how are you doing?

I'm fine. Yeah, how you do? I'm fine.

Yeah, I got a question.

American Communist Party, that's like a political party in the States, right?

Yeah.

Okay, so, for example, what kind of transition would it be like if that party were to be, were to take power in the states? And what would that look like for the big American companies and other entities down there?

Do you have any idea of that?

Yeah, have you read the program of the party?

No, I have.

You haven't?

Well... you haven't well we would basically embark on a massive process of re-industrialization

unleashing the productive forces transitioning into a new

mode of production more or less that is primarily based on the rise of unleashing cybernetics basically. We would unleash the power and potential of socialist planning through AI. We would convert most of the existing corporations

into state-owned enterprises, because they already owe the public since they've been bailed out

so many times as they only exist on the public's dime anyway. We would destroy the Federal Reserve Banking System and implement a national estate bank in its place.

We would eliminate the real estate industry entirely and embark on a campaign of ensuring there's affordable housing and that construction and housing is based on a principle of people living in homes and not speculation.

So there's all sorts of things.

We would, the really important thing that we would accelerate technology, the transition into the fourth industrial revolution, you know, we would really, really strongly emphasize just expediting the acceleration of that transition and you know to completely eliminate government bureaucracies based on old systems and old technologies and you would see a measurable a very stark difference in everyday life based on this all the vestiges of the old all the vestiges of the old system

and the old era would be destroyed

um

they would just be gotten rid of

is the AI thing a big part of the policy for

ACP

yeah it is.

And would they

be in trust in, like,

governance to

any part of

AI?

I don't know what,

I don't know how that could be

I mean,

governance can't be artificial intelligence.

What can be given to AI are the various bureaucratic institutions.

Okay, I got you.

And systems that implement governance or participate in governance.

And what would be the reasoning behind doing that?

Well, the reasoning behind doing that is for having people in an office.

For one, freeing up people's time.

Yeah.

There's an immense waste of our time that's happening because of how outdated these systems are.

So much time could simply be saved.

That's a big... I mean, we only

have about, what, 80 years to live?

Yeah. Saving ourselves time means

a lot.

So what about big, industries like, let's say Chevron and stuff like that, these huge oil companies?

Those would all become nationalized.

Immediately, immediately nationalized.

I mean, we're talking about a level of nationalization for them.

I mean, it's like, it would be such an overnight seizure.

It would be just like an immediate takeover, total arrest of the shareholders and the board of whatever, the people who sit on the board of trustees or whatever.

It would be like a complete, we would send in the revolutionary army,

busting through the skyscraper

on the top floor where the board of trustees

is they'd just be like they'd have the rope they'd be

like in call duty ghost they'd be busting

right in

and they would just be taking that shit

they would just be taking that shit right away

all the oil rigs would be secure.

I mean, that's the first thing.

We're just going to take that shit.

We're taking it.

We would seize that.

We would seize that.

It would be seized. It would be seized.

It would just be taken without

a question. Immediately.

Chevron

Even

whatever BP has here.

We would take it all.

We would take it. we would take it exon mobile would be taken there wouldn't be a

transition it would not be a transit it would in me overnight in one night it would happen.

In one night.

I'm not saying two nights.

No, no, no.

It's not two nights.

I'm not saying three.

I'm not saying one and a half.

I'm not saying one and a half. I'm not saying one and a half.

I'm saying in one single night it would be taken.

Probably less.

Actually, the minute the revolution happens or whatever,

the minute we're in power,

the second after, like after a millisecond, it's being taken. Yeah, I'm just using those big industries as an example for...

Every big industry is just going to be taken.

Even Apple is going to be taken. I don't know what we're going to do with Apple

we probably turn Apple into a military company

for the Red Army

the Red Army needs a special

you know I don't know

we would take everything.

We would use Apple's technology to persecute the enemies of the revolution.

Siri.

Siri is going to be tracking down and identifying reactionaries for us.

I don't know how it's going to happen.

It'll happen.

And I suppose you would be normalized in relations with Cuba?

Immediately. Uh, be normalized in relations with Cuba immediately not just normalizing

immediately we're going to

we would probably ask the

Cubans hey do you want to just join

together and we would ask them

and they maybe would do a referendum and we would talk about how we would want that to work and we would probably immediately just join with Cuba.

And how would you envision this style of government

spreading to other countries around the world

once the states has it

well I mean when the U.S. Civil War happens is going to cause a global civil war

and the whole world's going to be knee-deep in trouble so if the Communist Party can arise

from that civil war and provide an example of a way out of the dark ages to come.

I think a lot of people are going to follow suit by that example.

So you don't think your party will be elected except after a civil war, like not through an election?

Not through an election?

Not through an election. Okay, man, that's all I got thanks for i answer my questions all right but that wasn't a debate

it's like this is literally the the the british guy all over again you just keep asking me

questions instead of actually debating me about

anything.

Where do the alternatives come from?

Because I think

that, you know, the distinction

between Coke and, it's just because people

choose. Yeah, the fucking giant

corporations, Coke and Pepsi, exist because of people's choices.

And they don't exist because they get all these institutional government backing,

control of supply chains, yada yada, like,

where did the alternatives come from between, you know, between living on Earth and living on Mars?

Yeah, we just chose Mars to exist. We chose Earth to exist. Before we were born, we chose, that's where it comes from.

The distinction between planets is a consequence of our will. That's where it came from, right?

Diego. That's where it came from, right?

Diego.

Diego, go ahead.

What's up?

Yo, the fucking ACP, you guys were just a revisionist fish of shit, not a lie.

Not a single communist

has ever been like, oh, you know, the ACP? I love those guys.

Not a single actual comedy has said that.

Ever.

Except the largest non-governing one in the world, right?

Which one?

The KPRF?

Sure, sure, but you guys

are just LARPERS. Because

so first

of all, so I'm

Hispanic and I know this guy who went to the

Soviet intern that it was called.

And he talked about how I went, right?

And he said that you people were saying, oh, we need communism, but we also need to preserve the traditional family

yeah a based guy from a based guy from the moldovan socialist party said that he was a based guy

and uh that's base to you people he was a based guy he was had the based credentials, so I don't know what to tell you.

And he was upset about something that guy said apparently about traditional values.

And, well, what is your argument here?

Because the Moldovan is is literally a generational

communist comes from a former communist state he knows what communism is he knows what socialism

is he lived through it he breathes it his whole civilization and upbringing is downstream from that.

Everyone that was in attendance who came from the socialist world did not find what he said to be contentious at all.

The Sandinistas were there.

They had no complaints.

So some random guy from where Argentina or

Chile or something?

Mexico. Yeah, from Mexico

had a problem with it.

Well, okay, maybe he should

humble himself. Maybe he doesn't know a lot about

what communism or socialism is compared

to these people. You like that?

You think that we must preserve the traditional

family in traditional values?

I think

that's a very

acceptable opinion for a socialist

or communist to have. Acceptable.

Yeah, it's an acceptable opinion.

Okay, so when we say to keep traditional values,

we mean to, you know,

keep the patriarchy stuff like that.

Do you agree with that?

But that's not what he said.

As a communist, no, because when you say

traditional family, what does it mean? Oh,

the father goes out there

to work and bring money to the

family. You know, you have such a lack

of self-awareness. If a guy,

if a Gen X or a guy from Moldova

is talking about the traditional family,

he's probably talking about the family

structure that he

experienced under socialism itself,

which for him is the traditional

family structure.

So, like, what are you talking about?

No, because he said, like,

oh, we must preserve those values.

Those values are, you know,

keep the wife home.

He literally lived under socialism

in the USSR.

You know that, right? That was what he lived under. in the USSR. You know that, right?

That was what he lived under.

That's how he was raised under.

Yes.

That's where his father came from.

That's where his parents came from, his grandparents.

So it's like,

why are you crying about this

also just because

the guy was born in the fucking

USSR that means that wherever he says

is right

you know there's some people who there was a member of the

fucking Russian Communist Party who said like, oh, the USSR was rabidious and the USSR was the bad thing.

Member of the fucking Communist Party of the USSR.

Which one?

What do you mean? I had the name. Hold on what I mean

I had the name

hold on

I mean

it was spirit

there was something

like that

in my version

of the Communist

manifesto

he wrote the intro

so hold on

okay so

you're going

you know what I want to understand?

You used a specific word.

You said that we're revisionists.

How are we revisionists if we're talking?

You realize the traditional communist view, the traditional Marxist view has been the monogamous family structure between a man and a woman as that the normal and healthy thing.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Under Enverhoja's Albania, under Chairman Mao, under Stalin, that's what was promoted.

So if you're accusing me of defending the traditional family, I'm not the most, I didn't even give that speech, by the way.

Why are you calling me

a revisionist when you're the

revisionist? You're the one that's trying to

revise and change what

socialist countries

under Marxist-Leninists have already

established as the norm.

Well, one, you must understand that

communism evolves in a way, right?

Why?

How am I revisionists?

There's some things, but there's some things that have to say for communism to be communism.

You cannot have communism with traditional

values. That is not a thing.

How are you supposed to

how are you supposed to

liberate the working class without liberty

in women? How are you supposed to do that?

Why is liberating women

incompatible with

preserving

With ACP?

Why is that incompatible with

the Moldovan guy's argument

or what he said that, you know, the family structure in which

man and women find purpose and mutual whatever, like, why is, why is that, why is liberation

always freedom

from determination

that's what I don't

understand

because you know

in the liberal view

to be liberated

means to just

have no form

and in the Marxist

view

or the materialist view

liberation

means insight

into necessity

it doesn't mean

you're just becoming a free

floating, you know, Cartesian

subject that's abstracted from all

determinations, norms, and conventions.

So I just find your logic

to be completely twisted and warped, you know?

Well, Warren, we must understand that why the patriarchy is a thing

right

what is the thing because of capitalism

all those bad things like racism

sexism um

um what was they call for can I ask you a question is some sexism.

What was they called for?

Can I ask you a question? How old are you?

I'm 19.

Oh, you're 18 years old?

19.

Oh, you're 19. Okay. I'm 29 years old, and I started being a communist at 12.

So let me ask you a question.

Do you think at any point in my life

I might have thought about all these things you're talking about?

Like, do you think I'm not familiar with this

and I haven't thought about it or had a lot of time to think about it?

Yeah, of course.

Okay.

Yeah, I really have, actually.

So what you're telling me is maybe new to you.

It's not new to me.

And you need to actually think critically about the words you're using and what they mean to you.

Okay.

The patriarchy can mean a lot of things it's not a word that marxists have conventionally used it's not something that is conventional within the language of people who have actually built social estates and communist states

i don't see a use for such a word at all but if by the patriarchy you simply mean what um by oppressed the oppression of women

the oppression of women that that prioritizes men over women things like that one of those really vague and ambiguous, but I definitely agree that, you know,

women have been oppressed historically. And I think that the, but I, I, we probably

completely disagree about, okay, if women are oppressed today, what form does that take?

For example, I think the form of women's oppression today is the sex industry.

I think that's the principle and fundamental form of oppression of women today.

The commodification of women's sexuality, the commodification of women's sexuality the commodification of their bodies their physical form so to speak the way in which their existence is constrained to the extent of the that is all that is true. That is all part of the patriarchy.

Yeah, but what is the fundamental form of that? Because some people would say, well, the fundamental form is that women are, you know, in this superficial way being put

down that's not true the media

is all about the girl power

stuff I mean none of that is

the whole girl bossing girl power

stuff that is just some liberal shit

okay but that's actually then

that's been the norm for a long time

now. So, uh, I don't

think that the patriarchy

or whatever you're talking about or women's

oppression takes the form of, you know,

a lack of woman's representation

and movies and that's not,

I'm not talking about that. I would go so far and say and that's not I'm not talking about that

I would go so far and say

is that women's oppression

today is a is definitely

something that

is at least partially a

consequence or partially course I don't know why they left partially corresponds

to bourgeois feminism itself feminism or bourgeois feminism is an integral part of the

oppression of women today it's a fundamental part of the architecture by which

the existence of women is turned into something accursed. Their health is under attack.

You know, I'm not for banning birth control, but I just want to go ahead and say

birth control is very bad for women's health, by the way.

I'm not saying like, you know, it should be banned. I just think that the health significance of it,

there should be more,

it should be more known, right?

So women's health, I think, is under assault.

Their psychological health, from the time that their think, is under assault. Their psychological health

from the time that their little girls

is under assault.

You know, the socialist

attitude is that women's liberation doesn't mean women have to abandon womanhood.

It means that they can have the room to freely be women while simultaneously not being constrained by a specific commodified form of what that is, and allow the free development of their personality to occur based on

their real inner abilities

like their capabilities

they want to be engineers and mechanics

and soldiers

and doctors and whatever

I mean like those doors

are open to them.

So that's what liberation means.

You know, it doesn't mean you just become completely abstracted from the determination of being a woman itself.

And it doesn't mean you go out of your way to, you know,

denigrate men and put men down and say, oh, this, you know, this, it's not about resentfulness

toward men.

Because men and women both resent each other because it's sexual resentment, right?

Jealousy and all these things

they're like a huge factor in

human relationships

yo

so

uh someone in chat was saying you support

a multi-polyarity is that true

it's not that I support it's that I support it's that I recognize it saying you support a multipolarity? Is that true?

That's not that I support it, it's that I recognize it.

Like, in what way?

Because I don't think...

Multi-pularity is an objective

fact.

Okay, so they took out a context,

then.

Well, multipolarity is a fact okay yeah yeah understand it's a material fact because yeah under the breton wood system there's a single

developmental paradigm uh based on the simultaneous import and export of capital based on the overall development of the economy.

And that has kind of decentralized in a lot of ways in the sense that there are parallel

in emerging alternative systems of polarity.

Yeah.

Kind of creditor, debtor, scissogy as a developmental paradigm.

You know, alternatives to the IMF and so on and so on, they're emerging in opposition to the unipolar system.

So, those are merging that are

regionally based and more concretely

grounded in the

various geographies,

supply chains, trade routes.

China's Belt and Road

initiative is a fundamental example

of this because it's like, what is the basis by which you are

issuing out these loans to develop economies? And well, the direct, there's a direct participation in the creation of those collaterals in the form of the creation of infrastructure, the securing of supply chains, the, you know, kind of geographic orientation rather than this abstract global orientation.

So, you know, Russia has a poll.

There's a poll emerging in other parts of the world.

But it's impossible without political independence, of course, to fully take fruition.

Nothing, nothing you say is crazy, so I don't get why people say, like, oh, you are unmarked

for revisionists, because everything you say is to be written in like everything like in

the books

yeah well

um

like what's the logic behind that

like why do people think that like what do you think

is the main contention

I think some of the greek the the the communist

party of greece adjacent people and parties take issue with me because i think what the

communist party of greece has created as a a larp prison they they call Marxism, where

basically they're just kind of dogmatically

reenacting and rehearsing

a theory that was meant to

correctly describe the world

at a different time than now.

And they have no interest in actually applying Marxism

to the world today. They just want to correctly

rehearse and recite. Oh yeah.

That was true in the

past for sure but

you know the problem is Marxism is always incomplete.

Whatever era you live in, you have to see it as incomplete.

It's not complete.

It's not a complete theory yet.

To make it a complete theory, you have to actually apply it to the world.

That is true.

Successfully.

So revolutionaries in their time and place completed Marxism.

But we can't just rest on their shoulders and claim we've completed Marxism.

We have to complete

Marxism in our own way.

Well, one thing

I did notice that's the ACP is very good at that

because you've been using social

media very well. Same with Midwestern Marx.

Yeah, I mean, it's what Lenin said and what is to be done.

You know, you have to maximize media presence.

One thing that annoyed me, though, is that when I see other communist parties,

they're using, like, newspapers or they're doing things that are very inefficient.

I tell you why, because in what is to be done, and

in Lenin's early writings,

he writes about how

his central argument

was the creation of an all-Russian newspaper.

Yeah.

But it doesn't apply to the modern day.

He was polemicizing with all the rival Marxists about that.

Like, he was painstakingly arguing for an all-Russian newspaper.

So that has led an entire generation of self-proclaimed Lennonists to think that newspapers are central to party building.

Yeah, I found that very stupid because I was like, I think CPSA.

But they never actually cared to pay attention to Lenin's argument.

Because Lenin's argument was that

the reason

we needed in all

Russian newspaper is because

we need an information system

that centralizes and consolidates

everything that's going on

in the country at the scale of an entire nation,

capable of reaching as many people as possible.

You want to do that today.

You don't want a newspaper.

You want to be on social media.

Yeah.

Okay. That's all. I didn't really have any like debates i agree with your things i was just very confused on why people were so for sure like yeah i wanted to say that bouncy ben and all these

self-proclaimed an caps or whatever who have smoke with me, they're very, they're fantasizing with AI on X about how they think they can defeat me and all this stuff. Can a single one of them request and join and debate me

about any topic they want?

Where do alternatives come from?

But where do the alternatives come

from? The alternatives

they come from our choices.

For example,

when I go to the store and I choose between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the alternative

comes from my choice. Yes. When I was born, Coca-Cola and Pepsi didn't like already exist.

I created the distinction between those choices.

Through my free will.

Different things exist in the universe because of choices. The moon and the earth are different because of choices.

Difference is because of choice. Where did the alternatives come from?

Hi, I'm Bouncy Ben. I have the face of a...

Bouncy Ben has... you know he has the face of... he has a face of a bouncy ben has you know he has the face of he has a face of a fucking

Pixar character once you see it you can't unsee it bouncy ben looks like a Pixar character

he looks like a character from a Pixar movie.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And he has the most soy, like, expressive.

It's such an emotive and expressive face.

He has a very expressive face. Like the slightest movement in his face conveys such a world of difference of emotion. And that's how you're dealing with an extremely feminine, estrogenic male.

Because that's a quality that

we, it's women

have this quality. You know, a slight

change in a woman's face. It's a world of

difference in emotion.

See,

these are the different, this is the range of emotion on my face You see, it's just like,

it's a very small range of difference,

but his face, it's like every time he talks, he's like... It's like...

It's like such a fruity thing he does.

He has such an emotive, emotive Pixar-like face, Bouncy Ben.

It's so emotive.

It's like a Pixar character For sure he's autistic

For sure I mean I'm just saying, for sure.

Um...

But he's so obsessed with me.

It's crazy.

It's like, you think this guy wants to fight me or something?

She begs the question.

Why hasn't he?

In person, when he sees me?

He's like, oh, you know, can I tell you the truth?

He's like, he keeps saying at the do, Haas wouldn't look me in the eye.

Haas wouldn't look me in the eye.

Because during the debate, I'd be like this.

I'd be looking away from him. And I'd be like,

well, the thing about China is that actually, in the People's Republic of China, this is the way it is.

And he doesn't, he's autistic, so he doesn't understand the, the body language or the, the meaning of this.

I'm not going to look at this.

He's, he's looking at me the whole time like this.

Like begging for my attention, begging for my recognition.

And I'm not giving him recognition. I don't recognize him. I don't respect him.

But he's like begging for the, it's like, it's like, he's giving me these puppy eyes begging for my recognition.

So once in a while, I'll be like, I'll be like, uh, but when shit gets real, you're really going to get fucked up.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like every once in a while, you just got to like, Matt, you're in the court of Genghis Khan.

He's not going to look at you.

You're beneath, he's not going to look at you.

But maybe when he wants to threaten you, he'll look at you and he'll say,

We have enough horses to stomp your bitch ass.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like, he, when you, this continuous eye contact he was trying to make with me, was not an example.

It was like some masculine type of dominance.

It was a little puppy trying to feign approval and recognition from me, which I would not reciprocate.

Honest to God, by the way.

He wasn't trying to be alpha. No, he wasn't. He was trying to gain my recognition. Like,

Hans, look at me and speak to me.

I'm here.

Haas, look at me.

Like, I'm not even kidding.

I was uncomfortable during that debate

because these are the vibes he's giving me.

Like, Hans, I'm here.

Please.

Like,

and, and, I mean it though You don't you think I'm uh You think I'm just trying to make fun of him

And no that that's actually

How I felt

How his stares

Like he's like

Begging for my approval

No I'm not gonna give you my fucking recognition,

you little bitch.

Like,

um,

yes,

it's a form of disrespect

to selectively,

you know like every once in a while I'd be like

I'd be like I would check him basically

I'd be like

it's like

I am Paul Pot

you know what I mean like that type of shit

just to remind them

that uh the reason I'm looking away from is

ain't nobody scared of you

nobody respects of you.

Nobody respects you.

You're nothing.

I'm talking about bouncy, bouncy Ben, of course.

I'm talking about bouncy Ben.

Bouncy Ben was shaking and bouncing the whole time.

Why do I call him Bouncy Ben?

You want to know why I call him Bouncy Ben?

I'm not just doing this shit to be mean.

I clock people.

I clock people.

I clock their temperament.

I clock their personality, their archetype.

What kind of person they are.

Bouncy Ben, he's, he is autistic for sure, but he's one of those autists who don't know how to stand or walk.

So he's just, he's like really awkward in person and he's kind of like,

like that's his archetype.

That's his like his, his, his body language is like, I'm in public for the first time in my life.

I've never lived my computer in my life.

Now I'm in public and I'm nervous and I don't.

It's awkward.

Like that's his whole thing.

You know?

He's like a shaky, bouncy

autist.

I didn't have the patience.

The whole time I'm just like, I'm going to get this shit over with.

He has the Nick Flint. No, he doesn't. Nick Flentes is quite different actually.

Nick Fuentes is more like

say what you want about Nick Fuentes

but he is more

focused than bouncy Ben.

He is more focused for sure. I mean he's a little weasel. He's a weasel. He is more focused for sure.

I mean, he's a little weasel.

He's a weasel.

He has a weasel archetype.

Fuentes has a weasel archetype.

You understand?

He doesn't have this bouncy autistic

archetype that

that bouncy Ben has

dude you're definitely on the spectrum

so why would you use Autist as an insult

um

but maybe

I'm a high functioning one, you know.

I definitely don't have this thing where I don't know how to stand or walk.

I'll tell you that.

I definitely can be social.

I definitely can put myself in an environment where I could be very able to just kind of chill.

And he doesn't.

And it's not, maybe it's just because he's terminally online for the rest of his life.

Tesla, go ahead.

Where is communism worked?

Everywhere.

Okay.

So, like, why isn't Russia still communism?

Everything about Russia now that works is from communism.

But why aren't they communists right now?

Because they ideologically don't have a ruling Communist Party party but the system that they have and the institutions that keep russia together now are inherited from the communist era that were built by communists and are communists materially so they're your positions like they're communists except they're not?

They materially, the system, all of it was built by communism.

I get what you're saying.

Yeah.

But they're not currently communist.

So they're objectively communist, but they're not subjectively communist, but they're not currently communist so so they're objectively communist but they're

not subjectively communist in the reason they're not subjectively communist is for philosophical

and ideological confusion okay so you're you're basically saying they're not communist because they're confused?

Absolutely.

Who's the electorate or like Putin?

Russia as a nation is confused.

Okay.

So are the people in russia like inherently wrong or not wrong just confused not wrong

just confused i i feel like that that's kind of a weak argument though because like how do you articulate

confused like confuse what like do they think they're not communist but they are or do they really want to be communist but they're afraid they're not they they don't know how to reconcile the material fact of communism and this subjective crisis began during the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. They don't know how to existentially

make sense of what is the meaning of life, what is purpose, what is principle, what decisive significance do these things have, ideas, when our system has

already consolidated as a socialist or communist system, even our political logic is communist.

So what is left of the spirit? What is left of belief? And the Chinese had a similar crisis, which they articulated through the cultural revolution. And they went through that experience. And it's because they gained wisdom from that experience that China is still ruled by a communist party today.

I would say that they're not really communists.

Well, they are.

They are.

So does China have classism?

Did China under Mao have classism?

Not really, not to not to the

coefficient that they have today.

So like we know for a bad.

Is it a qualitative or is it a qualitative difference?

And how do you discern the difference?

Easy. You can you can quantify it by looking at the population itself.

We know that there's a working class.

We also know that there's an elite class.

There were elites under Mao as well.

Sure.

Then I would say

Mao probably isn't a pure

communist then.

But then there's never been

pure communism.

So then how is it great

and how does it work

if it's never been executed

in like a perfect form?

But that's what you're saying,

not me.

Well, no, I'm trying to seek to understand because if communism is great, like one of the

core, this isn't like a...

To save yourself from confusion, let's not define communism on the basis of some nebulous,

abstract theory of equality, which...

Classism?

That's like the number one thing that communism fights

for is to the downfall

class. I don't know where you're getting this

where you got that from. You got that for Wikipedia or

something. No, this is. Communism

is not defined by

some nebulous abstraction. Commun communism is defined by what it actually was materially

and the experience of communism so the experience is not having an elite group in your society

yeah everybody is equal, it's not.

There is an elite group in communism.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Really?

Where, did Marx talk about that or Lenin?

Yeah, they did.

Where is that written?

Do you have any, like, any sources?

Like, do you have any, like, quotes from either of them saying that there's like classism that makes its way into communism classism classes are based on different relationships to the means of product to the mode of production

okay

so there are

different

relationships

of production

or you

you said that

like

Marx and Lenin

though

like embrace this

I'm asking you

no they didn't

wear

what do you mean embrace

it? Embrace the idea that

there is class. The idea, the

idea that they're either going to embrace

or reject classes depends

upon the view that classes are a consequence

of some kind of normative

position or some kind of subjective decision that we make in our consciousness.

But they didn't understand, that's not historical materialism doesn't regard the determination of history to be a consequence of the whims and fancies of our consciousness.

I mean, that that's a long way to say, though, that communism in its pure form.

Okay, you know what? I'll just speak like a dumb guy for the dumb people.

It's not, it's not dumb. No, no, I'm going to speak dumb for you

because you don't want to hear

the smart response.

Because you can't quote Lenin or Marxism

or class.

So quote where it says class is allowed

in communism.

There's differences between classes and elites.

They're not the same thing well in china it's not

elites there is classism there is wealth inequality in china there absolutely want to make the

argument that there are classes in china that's not because communists decided it should be so it's because the material conditions have not yet gotten to a point where class distinctions have been eliminated entirely well why not have unilateral power in china the c? The CCP is its own governing body.

Lenin and every Marxist Leninist, everyone in the Marxist canon understood that classes will continue to exist for a considerable period after the revolution and the seizure of political power.

And that they cannot be abolished by fiat or subjectively.

Only the logic of production could lead to the dissolution of classes only insofar

as it develops

but that's too

complicated for you so I'm just going to

if you're just going to tell you the dumb guy

response. What are the basic principles

of communism? Yeah I'll literally

say the dumb guy I know you want a dumb guy response I'm'll literally I'm a dumb guy response.

I'm trying to give you the dumb guy response.

The

official principle is to create

a classless society.

It's the whole point of communism.

No, the principle is not to create

a classless society.

The principle is to unleash the fetters of the productive forces via politics,

via our response to the history and world that we live in,

to allow reality to develop in the way that it is already developing

without, with the fetters upon that development removed.

Okay?

Anyway, I'll give you the dumb guy response because this is all too complicated for you.

It's not.

Instead of thinking about communism as everyone being equal and being hippies, think about it

in terms of like big tanks and missiles being used to destroy the entrenched opposition to the regime and to the imperialists.

Communism is like big, powerful tanks that are used for the creation of a political dictatorship

that completely

crushes

the power of capital.

That's communism.

Don't worry about this stuff about equality.

You just learned that.

You got confused.

I don't know.

You learned it in high school or something

or Wikipedia.

Just go with your gut instinct and your intuition. Did you play the game, Red Alert

or something? Like that's closer to

communism is. Whatever. Like, if you actually just like

Okay. What you can't do though is say

that somehow me saying

that a classless society is like some

foreign ideology within communism

because it's not it's not this strange

subject but it's been so

twisted I know it's not foreign that's why I said it that

that is one of the pillars

and you acknowledge

you acknowledge that they

that the principle is it shouldn't exist

but it takes time to get rid of it. That is

what you just told me. It's not about should

it's not norm there's no normative dimension

sorry.

There is. You just said

that a classless society

takes time to build. Eventually, classes

will disappear in the Marxist's

sense of classes. So there you

go. So it shouldn't exist.

No. But it does't exist. No.

But it does.

If I say eventually...

You're talking about dumbing it down for me.

You need to dumb it down for yourself.

Yeah, I need to give you a logic course on logic 101.

It's not logic.

I know you're getting triggered, dude. I know you're getting triggers. You don't understand what you're getting triggered, dude.

I know you're getting triggers.

You don't understand what you're saying

and you're contradicting your own words.

Can you calm down for one second?

I know.

So this is one having a Tourette out of Sun and...

Can I give you a logic 101 course that you desperately

need? If I if we say that

something will happen, it doesn't

mean it should happen.

And this pertains

to class how?

If we say that if we say that the logic of history is such

that it's developing toward the dissolution of classes

as we understand what classes are

class distinctions and private property

that doesn't mean that if we fail to realize that fact by way of our will here and now,

that means we are not living up to some kind of principles.

Because the whole thing doesn't depend upon our principles.

The whole thing depends upon the development of the productive forces.

So you're saying you can still have a communist society with the abandonment of some of the core principles because the core principles itself don't make up the...

Okay, so

Why are you talking about core principles?

Who, like, are you a robot?

Are you like, are you like?

Because you can't defend it.

Core principles.

Where are you getting core principles from? Where are you getting core principles from?

I'm trying to tell you it's not normative.

How many times when I told you it's not normative?

How many times you're literally not even human?

How do I educate someone like you?

Classless societies in communism is not normative.

Yeah, communism is like normative. Yeah,

communism is like a brochure.

It's like a handbook that says,

we just want no classes because we don't want them.

And if there are,

our continue to be classes,

it's because we didn't follow the brochure.

Is that,

are you like retarded?

Is that what you think?

Oh,

so,

so we're going to go,

we're going to go there

because I questioned you on classism,

which is clearly something I've conned you're dumb ass.

You pulled it out of your dumb ass.

You act like I dug deep into the books of communism to find it.

Name me a single citation by Marx that says that the dissolution of classes is normative.

That that's a normative act That that's a normative act. That's that this is a

normative thing that pertains to the usage of our willpower and the exorcism, the conformity of

our will to the whims and fancies of our moral consciousness.

Where in Marx or Lenin or any Marxist do you find that?

Please tell me.

Where they talk about how class shouldn't exist in the society? Yeah, name where they use that word should.

Can you please find where they use that word should?

Okay. I can look.

It better be should, by the way. Should.

Classes should not exist. Where does Mark say that?

Please find it for me.

I will.

Calm down, bro. The deep breathing in the microphone's crazy, dude.

Find it for me all right let's see

every every single person should drop 20 subs right now every single person should just do it and not even think about it

okay would you like to quote?

Yeah.

In a place of the old bourgeoisie society, with its classes and class antagonisms,

we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Shall have, shall have.

You shall the same word is should?

Yes, it is.

Should and shall are the same word, buddy.

How do you spell that?

That's like saying is can't and cannot the same word.

Shall and should are the same word. Are you going to argue that? I don't think they are the same word. Shall and should are the same word.

Are you going to argue that?

I don't think they are the same word.

Okay, chat, is shall and should the same word?

Or are we going to go to the semantics?

They actually really are.

Dude, this is embarrassing

this is actually embarrassing for you buddy

your own chat is saying it's embarrassing

they're really not the same word they are okay so well what is

shall mean they're not the same word though

okay so what is the difference between them

Marx is saying that it same word though okay so what what is the difference between them

marx is saying that it will be so that in the place of the old society there's going to be

a society based on the free development of all or whatever right? So when he says we shall have

that somehow is saying that's

not should? He's not saying

we should. He's saying we will have it.

So

that that's even more concrete

than should. He's saying that that is what will happen that's

but if if saying something will happen this is incredible no he's saying we shall he is saying

we shall in communism under my ideology we shall have a classless society is

what that quote says. Oh yeah. Where does he

say that?

Because he's talking about the old society.

Where does he say this is my society? Where does he

say that? Well, it doesn't because it's a collective.

So it says, we, we

shall, in the name of communism,

in contrast to the Borszwa-Gi or however you say society with classes.

By we, who is he referring to?

The people.

No, he's talking about literally

he's a collective

he's talking about

dude

you're trying so hard

it is so simple

I pulled up the chapter right now

so I can read it to you

do you want me to read it to you?

Yeah, please.

When in the course of development, class

distinctions have disappeared and all

production has been concentrated in the hands

of a vast association

of the whole nation,

the public power will lose its political

character. Okay, so right at the outfit i'll skip a few things because it's really long i can read them if you want along with these conditions have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally and will have thereby abolished its own supremacy as a

class. So, um, he's not talking about voluntarily affecting something in reality because he thinks it

should be so. He's talking about something that will happen as a consequence of the logic of history itself and of the development of history. And in that sense, it's not about should. It's about it will happen according to the logic of history

according to the logic of the

development of the productive forces

Okay, when he talks about the

bourgeoisie, what is he talking about?

He's talking about

a, what he regarded as a outmoded class of a

where classes of existence have ceased to be justified by the material

corrections. So the class where business and private properties by the material Correct.

So the class where business

and private property

and factories

and money

and that exist

and he talks about

the proletarian.

Are you human?

I am.

You are just getting

dragged by this

quote that literally says we shall have

an association where there's no blast.

And then you went so, yeah,

because you went so fucking far to say

shall and should are different.

They are quite different.

Shall actually is worse for you.

They're not.

Shell is even more concrete.

It's not worse for me because I've been making the argument.

It literally is.

The fact that you're fighting with yourself that shall and should are...

Why, I feel like I'm being a little gaslighted here.

Have I not been making the argument that Marx and Engels consistently

said, that Marx consistently

said that it will

happen, that doesn't mean it's normative.

Just because you're saying something will happen

doesn't give that

a normative dimension, okay?

Do you know what a synonym is?

How is it worse for me?

How is it worse?

What is it?

What is it? What is a synonym?

If this thing is not going to happen as a consequence of the exercise of our moral consciousness into reality, then how can you justify reducing it to some kind of normative

normative goal or something?

Like, how is it worse for me if it's actually just inevitable?

Are shall and should synonyms, or are they not synonyms?

They're not synonyms. Okay, not synonyms they're not synonyms okay so you're wrong right like a simple

like look into it would tell you they're the same word okay okay let me ask you a question

there's a homeless guy in the street. He goes, I shall have $1 billion. What is he saying?

He's saying, I shall, like, I should have a billion dollars.

No, he's not. He's saying he's going to have a billion dollars. He's going to He's saying he's going to have a billion dollars.

He's going to take it or he's going to find a way to get it.

That's the same way as should.

No, because if he says, I should have a billion dollars, everyone's going to walk past and be like, well, nobody gives a fuck.

Like, who cares what you want, right?

So, like, you know, you see that he feels entitled to it, in other words.

So shall and should are not the same thing.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Are they synonyms?

Are they synonyms?

No, they're not, they're not synonyms.

Okay.

So when, when mark says that

there shall not be a classless society

yet there are a

class society and all the

examples that we have in our current day

it goes against what he's

not saying we're saying we when he says we shall have an

association, basically we should expect that this will happen. Oh, oh, oh, you just said should.

Uh, yeah. You just said should while trying to explain shall but the difference

the difference is okay

we just said the word

we should expect

you know the difference you just fucking did it

we should expect

there's a difference between we should expect

but we should expect is not the same thing as we should.

Can you calm the fuck down?

Just explain shall what should.

That was so funny.

Look it.

We can see it's fucking crashed out.

Should expect and should are not the same thing.

Then why did you just say should to describe shall?

If I am going to take a hammer and smash your head with it,

and you, then you should expect it will happen if I'm going to do it.

That doesn't mean I should do it.

It's about what you should expect or not.

So the thing happening is not normative.

It's not dependent upon your normative position.

Yo, this is fucking funny. How do you not understand this distinction?

You just use the word should to describe shall in your own

fucking sentence, you dwee.

No, I'm not, but I'm not using. Okay, I'm literally, can you,

can you not be, can you let me speak for 30 seconds?

Why, maybe don't use the word should to describe

Sean. Okay, I'm going to mute you or remove you from speaker so I can speak.

Then remove me from speaker, buddy. Okay. And then I'll bring you back on. And if you don't come back on, you conceded the debate because you can't contain yourself. So saying that it should happen is not the same thing as saying you should expect it to happen.

Saying it should happen means that it happening is depending on your normative position.

Saying that you should expect something to happen means you should change your expectations

based on the appraisal of whether it's inevitable or not.

So in this case, the thing is going to be inevitable, and it doesn't matter whether you think

it should happen or not.

So what you should do is change your expectations. You should expect. So I was

being charitable and generous to you by trying to translate how shall could possibly be related to should

in this case. And in this this case it would be should expect. But should

expect is not the same thing as should. Now, I'm going to let you back up and ask you if you

understand that. I was being extremely charitable by trying to explain to you

should expect is not the same thing as should if you if there's any sense in which we shall could possibly mean we should it should be we should

expect because it's going to happen whether we think it should happen or not whether we think it

should happen or not is irrelevant. It's going to happen. So the thing we should do

is expect it to happen. We should expect it to happen. We shouldn't make it happen because it's not dependent

upon our will.

Is there a single person confused about this?

Exactly. If I say we should expect it to storm tomorrow.

Is that the same thing as saying it should storm tomorrow? No. Because saying it should storm tomorrow implies that, you know, in this case, like, you know, it's moral or it's more fair for it to storm tomorrow but storming is not dependent upon anything within our will right it's like how do you not understand this do you not understand

the english language nowhere does mark's right shouldhere does Marx write should.

He doesn't write should.

He doesn't say classes should be abolished.

He doesn't say that.

You couldn't find a single passage in which he said that.

I'll give you another example.

I'll give you another example. If a homeless man says, I should have a billion dollars, I deserve it. Okay, he's just being entitled. But if he says, I shall have a billion dollars, he's implying that he expects he's going to have a billion dollars so based on the probability of whether that's going to happen or not it would be fair to say okay you should expect he's going to get a billion dollars that's not the same thing as saying you should have a billion dollars. Do you not understand that distinction? Okay, I'll let you back on. I just, I literally just

wanted to say that, but you kept interrupting me.

If you don't come back on, you've conceded the debate. I'm afraid to tell you.

Go ahead. Okay, so based on what I said, do you understand now?

Yeah, I understand the cope that you have to try to differentiate the word shall and should.

But they're not the same. Ultimately, okay, sure.

I'll go with what you're saying.

They are grammatically not the same and the definitions differ.

When somebody said, it should storm tomorrow

you could say it shall

storm tomorrow the idea

is registered the same

they don't have to be when carl mark says

there shall not be a society with

classes and you are in control society with classes and you

are in control of the government

and you can control communism

then there shall not be a society

with classes. No, he's making, he's saying

something, but he's saying it shall

happen. This is the cope. He's saying,

how is it, anything I say,

like, you can't even listen to,

like, you know,

because you,

you went on five minutes

to explain how shall and should are different.

If you can't even participate

in language without just,

cope,

cope,

I can you even,

are my words even intelligible to you Are my words even intelligible to you?

Are words even intelligible to you?

Of course they are.

And they are to you as well, which is why you're getting triggered.

Can you calm down for two seconds?

I'm calm. I'm calm. You're the one who started...

Marks is not saying it shall happen

because it should happen. He's saying it shall happen because it should happen.

He's saying it shall happen because of an objective material logic of the development of history.

So he still said it then.

So he said it shall not have classes.

No, he didn't say we shall not have classes.

That's not what he said. That is what he said. He said, what we shall have, we as humanity, we as history shall have, is an association which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

It's not the same.

But that's not the same as saying we should.

I understand.

You said this probably 10 times now that the word is shall and not should.

And that is where you're like hooking

the fish and setting the hook

on this I get it. What he

is saying is... I told you to find a passage in which he said

it should. It should be the case.

So okay, if there's no

passage that said that there should

there is a class list. Yeah, there is. So, okay, there's not passage that said that there should be no

class list. So, okay, there's not.

So does that mean communism somehow

doesn't believe like classism

isn't a thing?

Are you going to sit up here as this

ACP, whatever you're a part of

and say that

communism has this caveat

where classism can exist.

We don't use the term classism.

We would use the term the exploitation

of man by man or

a class society defined

by exploitation or something.

So like China.

Or the oppression of the proletarian class.

Got it.

So China does that, right?

No, I don't think so at all.

You don't.

So people who work in, you know, sweat shops that make like, you know, no money, the lowest GDP per capita, uh,

that that's not exploiting labor.

No.

No.

So working in a sweatshop is not exploiting labor.

You're, you're going to die on that hill?

Uh, China's so-called sweat shops yeah they they don't exist

no they existed uh during a period of the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s and they don't

exist now is what you're saying.

They're not really that widespread in China, actually.

But for the purposes of argument, we could talk about when they existed at the time that they did, because they did exist.

No, I'm asking, do they exist now?

Just simply, yes, no.

Do they do sweatshops exist in China?

They're really not

widespread, but we... I'm not asking them.

But it's not even relevant because for the purposes of argument,

you can't answer a question. You're so

bad faith. Yeah, some, some probably

might... This is so bad faith. I'm not certain

if any exist in China now,

but we could just for the purposes of argument, say at least one might.

So people who live at the factories that they work at, they're not being exploited, people who live at factories.

Well, actually, as per the Marxist definition of exploitation. No, actually.

Okay. So is that, dude, do you endorse that then for communism that like you should work in a factory and not really make a lot of money, but because it's pushing the means of the overall government, that's okay for communism?

So based on China's level of development at the time,

you can't say people were making no money.

They were making enough to support themselves

based on the level of wealth and resources

the society had at the time. In order for society to have more wealth and resources to enable a higher standard of living, it was necessary to develop and build up their industrial capacity and production. By exploitation of labor? Well, you're calling it the exploitation of labor, but I just disagree with that definition.

So do you acknowledge then that sweat shops did exist in a wider variety?

They did.

Okay, they did.

We could have just jumped to that argument right away sure sure okay great so

china developed itself through sweatshops primarily right they became the world's producer of all

like commodity goods right so yeah so but compared to what was before i'm not asking compared i'm asking about now

the cp by your definition exploited labor by utilizing the means of the people to increase the overall output of the CCP

of the Chinese Communist Party.

But you could say that happened under Stalin as well.

Sure. You very well could.

And then I would question the validity of communism

because they're doing what they preach against.

But it's, but we've met

Communists in or preached anything.

So communism doesn't preach about

Exploiting Water? So it doesn't

preach about classism and now

you're saying it doesn't preach about it. What communists say,

what communists say is that

regardless of the system people will have

to work so the question is what are they going to

work for

that's what are you working for

I'm not saying that they're not working we're talking

specifically about working in sweatshops

where people are immensely underpaid.

If the conditions of your work are poor and they're not high quality, that's because your society is poor and you haven't built up enough technology or productive forces to have enough wealth. It's not because we know there's

classes in China. We know that there are very rich

billionaires in China that have yachts. The yachts are public.

They fly the Chinese flag. If you're saying that you don't think that

the wealth that China has produced has overwhelmingly gone to the betterment of the people. You're wrong. It has. It takes a lot more. I'm not saying that. You are. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is how do you have Chinese billionaires with yachts? Explain that. How do you have billionaires with yachts in China?

But hold on. The yachts are a drop in the puddle compared to the other men. Okay, here we go. More cope, more cope and more like, oh, there's only like four of them. Is this how you debate?

You just don't let the other person get a word in?

No, it's not to be.

You don't.

Why are you so afraid of me getting a sentence completed?

Completing one sentence.

Why are you afraid that I complete once?

You don't answer.

Don't answer any. But what if it's important information I'm trying to communicate?

What if there's important information I'm trying to communicate? Is it impossible?

Because you don't answer.

What do you mean I don't answer? I don't tell you what you want to hear. You think that's different from not answering. You're wrong. I'm just telling you. No, I asked you about sweatshop. You couldn't answer about sweatshops. You can't. I could easily answer. There probably maybe are some sweatshops in China now, but it's not a dominant or prevalent thing in China today.

Kind of maybe.

Can you just say yes?

No, because you're trying to paint a picture of China.

You're trying to paint a picture of China.

You're trying to paint a picture of China that it's like all sweatshops and stuff and that it's the same as it was in the 90s and that's not trying to.

You can't say yes.

So everything is black and white?

No, I'm asking, do sweatshops?

So if one sweatshops exists in China, that means it's characteristic of the general trend within China.

Is that what you're saying?

Is there only one?

If I concede that there are like some marginal maybe sweatshops in China

but as a minority

of the overall trend

does that mean

it's the dominant trend because

you're saying maybe

you can't even say there are

because I don't even know for certain

I don't know for certain

if they if they do now stop playing dumb stop stop playing dumb I don't even know for certain. I don't know for certain.

Stop lying to you.

Stop playing dumb.

Stop, stop playing dumb.

Yes, they do.

Every country.

Okay. Does America have them?

No.

Not at all.

Okay.

No.

So I'm not going to concede it then.

If America doesn't have them by your definition, then why should

I think China still has them?

Because there's proof. You can look at where all the

all the clothing is sourced. You can look at

where all the cheap plastic. They're not every

factory that produces clothing is a sweatshop.

Okay, explain Alibaba then,

and Ali Express that sell things for literally...

A lot of those are actually small businesses.

A lot of those are small businesses.

They're not old.

There's no private businesses in China.

There's no small businesses in China, really?

There's no like small

manufacturing companies.

No,

there's no small mid-sized level

manufacturing companies, really?

They're not private.

China owns all the means.

There are small mid-level companies

that are mainly run by people

in a capacity.

They're not private.

Under your definition of private, yeah, they are actually.

No, there's not. There's no private business in China.

Take the glasses off. There's no private business in China. Look the glasses off.

There's no private business in China.

Look in the camera and tell me that there's private

businesses in China.

Go ahead.

Say it.

ACP.

Say it.

No, I'm just going to let you say that publicly and just

let it speak.

You say, I mean, you, so there's

kind of maybe sort of sweat shops.

That's your answer.

There's kind of maybe sort of yachts.

There's kind of,

kind of maybe sort of

that. There's kind of maybe

sort of that.

You can't answer anything. you can't answer anything.

There can't be

nervous watch.

This is like the same thing.

Did you kill my dog?

Or did you not

stop beating around the bush?

Did you kill my dog?

Or no?

This is the same situation where there can be no nuance.

It has to be black and white because I'm not a nuance.

There's kind of so.

I'm not emotional.

The only time there's no room for nuance is when you're being emotional about the topic.

So what about this topic makes you

so emotional?

No, I want to know.

What about this?

Because like if I killed your dog

and I was beating around the bush

by not being like direct

and you were, I would understand

why you would like be emotional.

But like, this is a case where we do have to have nuance and we can't understand why you would like be emotional but like how am I emotional?

This is a case where we do have to have nuance

and we can't just say

China's economy is characterized

by sweatshops because

I didn't say that could be the possibility

that there are some that still

exist. You won't even

say there's some. You said there kind of,

there maybe is some. Maybe

I don't know. Because I don't actually know.

Because I really don't know. I don't actually know.

The one example of China

is the number one example

of communism in this

world. You can't tell me if

there's sweatshops. Why? Because it's exploitation

of labor. China's a country of labor

of labor of laborer of people. I don't know if they still have

them at all.

If they do, it's marginal.

That's what I can say for certain. If they do, it's marginal that's what i can say for certain if they do it's marginal

but we both agreed even if we don't talk about now one even what we're talking about no like

that's not how the world works i'm sorry you you already conceded that the beginning of China did use sweatshops widely.

So you are saying it's okay for the exploitation of labor to uphold communism or advance it forward.

But communists have not, no, because it's not exploitation of labor if the goal is different because the goal is

it is they're they're paying people nothing to work in slum in factories and sweatshops yeah they're

paying them nothing you're right it was basically yeah i mean it is they they live and they would

just die because they couldn't eat and they couldn't afford food and they would just die i mean Yeah, I mean, it is. They live in terrible condition.

They couldn't eat and they couldn't afford food and they would just die.

I mean, in the 80s, that's what happened, right?

And the Chinese famine?

Yeah, how many people died in the 80s?

That's right.

There was a famine in the 80s.

You're right.

Yeah.

And how many people died there?

20 trillion.

Okay. How many people died under Mao?

In the famous 1980s Chinese famine, trillions died.

Okay. How many people died under Mao?

More than trillions. More than trillions more than trilliones

quadrillions

I don't think it actually matters

about how many people died

you want to go in a boxing ring and box

like why are you so mad

do you want to like just take out your anger?

I'm literally not mad bro you're the only one

you're like so upset you keep like literally chipping out.

You're so, like, upset that reality is more complicated than your cartoon picture.

You can't say that there's sweatshops in China.

Look, here you go.

No, no, either what I think is true or the opposite is true.

Either what I say it's true or the exact opposite is true,

there can be no nuance.

It's not nuance.

I ask you, is there sweatshops in China?

And you can't even say yes.

You have to beat around the bush.

You have to add nuance because that's how you have to

Why can't you work with this response?

If there are, they're marginal.

Why can't you work with that response?

Because we don't know if there's, if we know there is.

You don't care if they're marginal or not?

You're saying if there are.

You're not even acknowledging there's a marginal. You're saying there might be. You're not even acknowledging there's a

marginal. You're saying there might be. But if they're

marginal, why does it matter? Hold on. If they're

marginal, why would it even matter? Because

you can't even acknowledge they exist. But why

would that matter if they're marginal? Of course, because

they're exploiting labor. Okay. And they weren't

marginal. Their beginning weren't marginal.

Their beginning was not marginal.

So you already conceded that.

Okay, can we, okay, so why don't we just

pretend that was in the beginning?

Can you stop making weird noises with your throat, you fucking wild animal?

You need to be slapped into the ground.

You're a wild animal making noises.

I don't like the noises you're making.

I don't like the noises you're making with your throat.

You're really like Pennywise the clown.

It's really like weird and creepy.

Really weird.

I know.

Move the conversation because you can't acknowledge that China built itself off

exploitation of labor. And you can use any

fucking word in the dictionary that's long. It's not expectation. Okay, it's not.

So people who live out of factory and work for their life?

It's not China's fault that it was, yeah, China was poor, and it's not

the fact that China was poor doesn't mean it's exploiting.

Not China's fault, okay.

Yeah, you don't automatically have a good standard of living.

You have to build one up.

You don't automatically have a wealthy country. You have to build one up. You don't automatically have a wealthy

country. You have to build wealth.

You don't automatically have it. I'm sorry.

By exploitation of labor?

It's not exploitation, actually.

Why? You're saying it's exploitation

because people were poor.

No, they were paid nothing by China and they took the profits

and they ran with it. They were paid

relative to what China

had. It was

a fair amount. Really?

It was a fair amount. You're saying people in sweat shops were paid a fair amount. Really? It was a fair amount.

You're saying people in sweat shops were paid a fair amount.

Relative to the level of development.

Relative to the level of development of what China had.

Relative to the level of development, working a

sweatshop. Okay. And that

is the, that, that's just like,

that's it. So I made

an argument. Relative to the development

China had, and his response was,

I heard this was the debate, this is how it went.

He was, relative to the development.

So he just repeated what I said with a different voice.

And that was the only response he could give.

That was the only response he could give.

If you can actually make an argument, you can come back up. can see the debate i've given you multiple opportunities to respond to my arguments all you're doing is interrupting me and making weird uh voices and you're outraged by the suggestion that if a country is extremely poor, that if workers are living in conditions you would consider unacceptable as an American, that's necessarily exploitation. That's not true. That just reflects China's level of development. In order to

increase your productive forces, you have to work. Work is not inherently exploitation. It becomes

exploitation when the purpose of your labor is to valorize

capital and capital alone. But when the purpose of your labor is to build up your country's

productive forces and contribute to the overall development of your nation, it's not exploitation. So it's

really that simple. Now, if you can respond to what I just said, I'll let you back up. If you can't

respond to it, don't request. But I just gave you the

argument I was trying to make, but you kept interrupting me. So if you want to come back up and

try to respond to that, I'll give you that opportunity. Mordor, what's up, man? Barnaby with the

10. Appreciate you, bro. Thank you so much, guys.

Let's continue dropping the 20s just for the shits and giggles, right?

So I'll let you request again if you can actually respond.

If you can respond, yeah.

So there you go.

I wasn't interrupted and was able to make my argument so i'll give you the

opportunity to respond to it sure uh to succinctly put this your argument would make sense

if the people who worked in sweatshops

worked their way up and collectively

China was equal and wealth was shared.

Those people's standard of living

has gone up considerably.

There's also billionaire oligarchs

in China that have

again yachts that are flown

under the CCP flag

that are businessmen that have made

billions of dollars off the backs

of Chinese people. If that

didn't exist, I would say your argument makes

sense.

But it does.

Are you prepared for me to respond, or will you just interrupt me?

Well, I mean, you interrupted me as soon as I started speaking, so I don't know.

Okay, so I'll just disconnect you and bring you back up when I'm done making my argument, because you're a fucking animal who can't help themselves. So

actually yachts are a drop in the bucket

compared to the amount of wealth

that it takes to uplift the standard

of living of over a billion

people. You just have to compare

them actually. People don't understand scale. a billion people you just have to compare them actually people don't understand scale

a billion people

having their standard of living going up

is much much more wealthy than all the wealth of the billionaires that

they personally consume combined

all the things these billionaires consume on a personal level is a tiny, tiny, extremely

small drop in the bucket compared to the immense amount of wealth that goes into uplifting

a population at scale.

The second thing is that actually these billionaires do not control billions of dollars

in liquid assets.

You yourself said there's no private businesses, so to call them billionaires is absurd what you

maybe can be said to be our correct about if that's what you're trying to say is that there are

there are vast differences in the standard of living between the wealthy in China and the middle class and, you know, the average Joe, so to speak. Yeah, there's huge disparities. There's some people in China who can have yachts and have this crazy level of consumption on a personal level relative to others.

Sure.

I don't actually consider that outrageous, and I don't care about it.

Communists don't care about that.

There were differences in lifestyles and, you know, in the Soviet Union, even under Mao to an extent.

But that's not actually decisive in terms of what defines a class.

The important thing is that the Chinese billionaires cannot assert their interests at the expense of the nation.

They cannot influence politics at the expense of the nation. They have no lobbying capacity or ability. So are they organized as a class? No. Are there immense disparities in people's consumption and lifestyles between the top 1% and the rest? Yeah. It's not the same thing as classes, though. Maybe Fox News taught you different, but I'm sorry to educate you from a Marxist perspective and rock your world. So if you have a response, I'll let you back up.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so there's 516 billionaires in china right um 902 in the united states um so if china is a communist

country why why is their place at all for

I could maybe see one or two billionaires

but 500?

That's not a drop in the bucket

at all.

But if there's no private business in China, like you said,

how are they billionaires?

Well, because they're CCP members, right?

These are people who pioneered some of these large manufacturing companies very close with CCP officials.

They still have access to capital.

So you'd think these people would be in the standing committee of the cpc and they would

enjoy disproportionate political power perhaps i i don't know i'll pay maybe they really how do you know

how do you know well because for example jack ma Ma was called a billionaire,

and the minute he decided to speak out against the party, they just,

he just disappeared,

you know,

for a long time.

Billionaires are constantly sentenced to death in China,

and they have no political advantage in China.

So are individuals who are extraordinarily skilled when it comes to business and entrepreneurship allowed to manage companies that are worth billions and billions of dollars? Yes. Do they own that wealth and liquid assets to do whatever they want with it?

Not at all.

They're completely controlled by the party.

So it's really wrong to call them billionaires in the way that there's a billionaire in America.

I'm not saying that.

They're holding tremendous wealth,

though, which is the whole principle.

But how are they holding it if it's not liquid?

If they can't just do it where they want with it.

No, it's not.

Okay, where, where, where,

how did they buy the yacht?

Yeah,

it does, billions of dollars

don't go into a lifestyle.

I get it.

How did they buy a yacht?

If they don't have liquid cash,

where do the yacht come from?

I'm not saying they don't have any liquid cash.

I think the billions are not liquid.

They might have 10 million liquid. They might have 10 million liquid.

They might have 50 million liquid.

They don't have a billion liquid.

Most billionaires are not full liquid.

They're investments and they're valued at that.

Sure.

That's not like this unique Chinese thing.

When they're being called billionaires,

they don't own

those billions of dollars

entirely. Some of it

and by the way, usually they're not

buying a yacht directly from

these assets

that they are said to own.

They're doing it because

banks will give them loans

and trust that they'll be able to pay it back

or they're doing it because

so the yachts are finance.

Or they're

they can sell stocks

and so on and shares.

So they're liquidating their wealth.

I get it.

If you don't just go to the bank and buy a yacht, right?

Like you have to be extremely wealthy to have that type of luxury.

I just, it doesn't make sense in a communist society that you can

have hundreds of billionaires that

have immense wealth

and they're able to buy things like

super yachts. It doesn't make sense.

Well, why, if the yacht

is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall

national wealth, why does it matter

besides resentment and jealousy like why should we care well i don't care i'm not i'm not a

communist i'm trying to figure out we're not we're not driven by resentment we're driven by

what is necessary to uplift people's and nations.

I don't care if some people.

And by the way, Marx was clear that people are different.

Some people will be more skilled and smarter and stronger, and there's nothing wrong with that. But he also doesn't say the more skilled and smarter and stronger and there's nothing wrong with that.

But he also doesn't say the more skilled

and smart should have yachts, right?

Like the whole point... I don't think yos existed.

I mean, it doesn't even matter because

what is... Why should I be outraged by the fact that

there are yachts as a communist? Well, it's not about... You don't have to be be outraged by the fact that there are yachts as a

communist? Well, it's not about, you don't have to be completely

outrage, like I don't think just because yachts

exists. I want a yacht. I want a yacht.

Can everyone give me a yacht drop 20 subs right now

so I could have a fucking yacht? For real?

Why don't we just prove this guy right now and I could have a fucking yacht for real. Why don't we just

prove this guy right now and show

that we are pro

yachting?

Everyone should fund a yacht for

me right now.

You should drop 20 subs right now.

I want you to watch this.

I want you to watch this.

I want you to show you.

I want to show you.

You have 30 people watching your life, dude.

You have like your

that's not true

but having like a propaganda

that's not true

but uh

it is

I'm looking at the

the

yeah

the thing right here

is there's 35 people

on TikTok

yes on TikTok that's true okay is there's 35 people. On TikTok. Yes, on TikTok.

That's true.

Okay.

Is there like this like Discord platform or something?

Um, it's a, so I don't know what the rules are, but, uh, it's on a, it's on a green place.

But anyway, it's true though.

I'm going to say something, DeVito's my, my. Oh, wow though I'm gonna say something

DeVito's my

oh wow

I'm ending the stream

holy shit

Amila with the 25

I literally

scammer the generation

can you believe this

this is what communist

believe apparently amila thank you Can you believe this? This is what communist believe.

Apparently.

Amila, thank you so much for the 25.

Anyway, here's what I'm trying to tell you.

You're just trying to tell me that all these contradictions can exist because it's a drop in the bucket.

You've said the word drop in a bucket 100.

It is a contradiction.

That's why you're justifying it by saying it's a drop in the bucket.

Of course.

It's a drop in the bucket.

It's not a contradiction.

Well, there's some sweatshops. It's not a contradiction. Well, there's some sweatshops,

there's only a couple.

And it's not exploitation of labor

because it's bringing them all up collectively.

But the billionaire class,

it's not all liquid.

They may have tens of millions of dollars,

but it's not all liquid.

You sound like a...

You sound like an angry, hysterical

50-year-old woman.

Yeah, I'm trying to mimic you.

And all the yachts are finance, apparently.

You know, they go to the banks and they

ask for a loan.

Like, the fuck are you talking about, bro?

Is this? I'm stupid.

Like, just acknowledge, like, yeah, man,

the CCP's, like, 85% communist,

but there's some shit they do

that's not really in the communist ideology.

Instead, you try to find a cope

for all the

ailments in their society that go against

communism. Where in Marxism does it say there

can't be... I know. Where in Marxism does it say anything?

Because you just take direct quotes

and you talk about it for 10 minutes

about how it doesn't mean things

that it absolutely means like classism.

I wasn't taught about communism. No, I wasn't.

So where did you learn this? Because I've

read so much Marx and Lenin and stuff

and nowhere in their works

is your perception justified

so nowhere am I in where I

said classism that that doesn't exist

in any of the teaching of the comment

because you're no that's from intersectional

theory made by

yeah intersectional theory which says there's racism,

sexism, classism, and they're like all different

forms of discrimination.

And that mainly is

a kind of neoliberal theory that has nothing to do with Marxism.

Got it. We don't say that class is like a form of discrimination we need to overcome.

We identify classes scientifically within the framework of historical materialism as distinct relationships

of production

that exist

they're not like

forms,

they're not forms of discrimination.

They're objectively distinct

relationships of production.

Should billionaires exist?

Should they, it's not,

their existence doesn't depend upon

our ability to

decide.

So, of course it is. You can

control, you could absolutely control the amount of wealth summit has.

Should the sun exist?

Well, we don't have control over that, right?

You have control over how much people made.

The government could easily tax and take half the wealth.

They could cap it off and say anything over, you know,

$1 million or $10 million is taxed at 100% to get back to the collective good of the country.

You've made enough out a million dollars, enjoy your luxury life, but you don't need any more.

So if you're saying that billionaires are the same level of an uncontrollable like the sun,

then you're fucking crazy.

You really just compared a billionaire to the sun where they're that uncontrollable?

No, you could,rollable no you could

through policy you could

eliminate people's ability

to have access to that much wealth

do you think that should be

part of a communist policy

you know it's actually a debate within china so i'm not going to say no

i'm not talking china i'm talking about you i don't know what your name is i'll call you

infrared um i would say i don't really care that much but if gun to my head i would say yeah

we can get rid of them let's get rid of them gun to my head i would say yeah we can get rid of them let's get rid of them

gun to your head you really as somebody who's like following this acp movement

whatever yeah because you have to be gun to the head to say that billionaire shouldn't exist

exactly because it doesn't have to be nothing has to be a central

contradiction you can say like hey though this is a drop in the bucket it's wrong I

don't think billionaire should exist right just because there's a handful of I

don't think it's as important regulate guns it's not as important as the question of

should they be able to actually hijack our sovereignty

in the way that they do in America.

I'm not resentful and jealous of billionaires. I'm not jealous of them. I'm not resentful and jealous of billionaires.

I'm not jealous of them.

I'm not envious of them.

I don't think anybody's envious.

I'm trying to become them.

But I don't think people are envious.

I'm trying to become them.

I think they look at the billionaire and they or, like, jealous of a billionaire.

I think they look at the billionaire and they say, okay, you have enough wealth.

I'm trying to become them. At what point is it enough? But I'm trying to. I don't think there's anybody who's like, okay, there shouldn't be rich people in the world. Like, maybe there's some on your side, on the very far left of your side or something.

Maybe.

But, like, I just think as somebody who believes in communism generally, the easy answer should be like, no, billionaires should not exist.

Like, I don't know what the cap is, but, like, there should not be a billionaire in our society.

Like where does that fit?

I don't get it.

Maybe they were like a philanthropist maybe, right?

But like they're not.

I don't care if they exist.

Okay.

But then at that point it's like so you're okay with some people being able to just like hoard immense well just like the not in a way that would affect others well how how does one become a billionaire right it's

through some sort of,

some form of capitalism or some gift.

It's not capitalism.

It's just given to them from the government.

So like,

they have to make it off.

What you're talking about is mainly, like,

it's mainly an issue of, like,

what kind of civilization and culture should we have?

And it's relevant to communists, but it's not like the make or break of what a communist is.

I'm not saying it is.

You're taking this question as like, okay, if I say

billionaire shouldn't exist, like, it should just, like,

emphasize my whole position on communism.

It's not. I just ask simply, and you had to be like, okay, gun to my

head, like, just say you don't want

billionaires. I don't know. Or if you don't really care about it, then I question, like,

what is your goal then a communism? If it's not to, like, stop the hoarding of immense wealth,

what is it? Like, I mean that so sincere.

The goal of

communism is to realize

and fulfill the

conclusion of history.

I got it. What does that mean, though,

for people existing today? What does that mean? If I live in a communist society run by infrared, what does that look like for me?

The rapid development of the productive forces.

Okay. And what do I get out of it?

A life where the individual and collective existence are made harmonious.

Okay, harmonious in what respect?

Every respect. Okay. okay harmonious in what respect every respect okay and how what is like your general idea of harmonious does that mean like working in sync or equal or what no not necessarily equal it's like from each

according to their ability to each according

to their need

to their need so is there a need for

like immense wealth

if civilization

and culture decides

that some people will be more skilled and smarter and will

probably be rewarded socially with more access to resources that's like how just

educate me though like how is that in any way communist ideology why shouldn't it be

well because you're you're saying that just because someone like maybe has a skill for example

like if we're in a tribal society where like everyone shares things

generally but like like some guys like really good at hunting and like you know he's like super skilled

at it he's like the leBron of his era and like he

is like all the

huss love him

and he's like people like constantly

are giving him gifts

gifts and so he just like has more

and I get the gift thing

I made that I made that

comment earlier about billionaire. He has

a better life and he's more respected

and it's like things are going well

for him.

Like

do you guys deny that that's probably going to be inevitable

in any society? No, we don't deny that.'s probably going to be inevitable in any society?

No, we don't deny that. Well, no,

but what you're talking about is like gift giving

and like this barter system, like we're giving

people. It's kind of the same. It's like

the same thing though, because it's like, you know, in a

way you, like,

think about influencers. Like, they get so wealthy and it's like, you know, in a way, you, like, think about influencers.

Like, they get so wealthy,

and it's just because people are gifting them subs.

Just like how Emila gifted me 25 subs.

DeVito,

gifted me five subs.

Rocky Mountain Mongol,

gift to me five subs. Rocky Mountain Mongol gift to me five subs.

Has there ever been a billionaire

that has made a billion dollars

off of, like, internet

life? I don't think

or gift or gifted subs?

I think under communism, those will be the billionaires. They're going to get gifted subs i think under communism those will be the billionaires they're going to

get gifted subs that's how it's going to be in your in your society people honestly

unironically how create like this amount of wealth yeah we, we should have like a feedback system where we reward people that,

that you people want to like patronize and like reward for contributing to society.

And it's like a cybernetic system where it's just like people decide like, yeah give that guy more give him more give them more so that they could continue doing great things and like that's going to be the form of inequality under communism like some people are going to have that and some people won't. But then why would the communists in your society?

Like I show speed.

Like I show speed deserves it.

I don't have a problem with him being rewarded.

I'm not saying he doesn't, I guess.

But my quite, we're sure.

If you talk about the internet, like you can talk about giving gifts that don't really cost people money.

I'm bored of you.

All right.

I want to go to bed.

Um, if anyone wants to continue gifting subs, I encourage it and welcome it.

But I'm super bored of that conversation.

So first of all, guys, I got to like find a way to build up my live streaming again because this is crazy. Like, this is crazy. Like, I've been away for two weeks. I think I got to go back to YouTube.

I probably got to go back to you.

Kick is just not working out for me.

It's, oh, it's just I've been away for too long and, you know,

but I need a way to make money.

That's the problem. I need a way to make money that's the problem

need a way to make money huh I need a way to make money

I need a way to make money

Algo doesn't like brakes.

Yeah, it really doesn't.

So I could continue being on kick.

Oh, I could go back to Twitch.

I need money, though.

How do I get money?

Oh. ways Get a job. I mean, I'm not like, Hmm.

I mean, I'm not like saying I need money, like, in the sense of, like, I'm going to be in a crisis, which I wouldn't be.

But I'm saying, like, how do I stream on Twitch and make money?

I could quit.

If I wanted to make money in an alternative way I could just quit streaming all together

straight up I just stopped streaming

you stop streaming I could make money no

problem but

if I want to continue making content

and doing this

I have to make money

there's I have to make money.

There's many ways I can make money,

but that would come at the expense of my ability to do this. So we'll see.

We'll see. guys don't talk about podcasts my like we're not even at that point i'm talking about

live streams if i want to sustain the live streams if If I want to stream

on Twitch,

the only reason

people stream on Twitch

is because they have

sponsors.

I don't have any

sponsors.

So I could

stream on Twitch

and be very good

at it and successful

at it,

but I don't have sponsors. And the subs on Twitch,

the amount that it would take, it's a lot, actually. It's a considerable amount.

Streaming on X makes no money.

So streaming,

you know,

no, you don't need sponsors.

You do to make money.

To make money, you you need sponsors for sure.

Oh my God, what happened here? Once again, I keep getting advice about,

guys, I don't need advice about how to make a living.

I really don't.

I'm talking about live streaming.

If you want me to, if I want to become a big streamer again,

you guys,

I'm getting actually pissed off.

Like,

like,

I'm getting pissed off by these responses.

You're not even understanding what I'm saying.

If I want to go to Twitch

or even YouTube,

I'm not, like, you're literally like that guy I was debating nobody's listening

literally no one's listening it's like fucking

crazy

all right

I don't need advice

on how to make a living.

I can do that without any issue.

I could quit streaming and do that.

No problem.

Talking about if you want me to stream on Twitch,

how do I do that for YouTube?

How do I stream there and grow the streams there while also paying for it?

So like all this other stuff,'s not relevant you understand uh you need i would need a sponsor so

uh i i you know i think what i'm going to do is youtube probably i'll tell you what i what i think could work

i'm going to start just being on youtube and posting on the infrared channel and making money off of ad revenue and you know the super chats and stuff but like all combined with ad revenue i could

i could stream a lot on youtube if i do that i would just have to like take the streams make

videos out of them it'd be easy so that would be be like, that's probably

the way forward

that I'm

thinking about

actually.

It's more

ambitious,

but I think

it is the time

for ambition.

It's time

to take a leap

and bring

infrared into the

new era.

I've been

wanting to do

this entire year, actually.

That was the whole goal of the year.

So, yeah, what I'm thinking is I'm just going to be going on YouTube.

Hick was a nice vacation, probably.

But the purpose of kick was not to grow.

It was just to kind of continue doing what I was doing.

And after two years of being on kick, I think, continue doing what I was doing.

And after two years of being on kick, I think I'm going to start just fully being on YouTube and just plunging, taking the risk.

And like, it's going to be work, but I'm here for it.

It's going to reinvigorate everything.

It's going to be a lot of work.

But I can postpone those books.

I want to tell you guys the thing that I find it's bad news and it's good news.

The reason I haven't been doing that is because I've been prioritizing the books.

But to be honest, guys, it's not your fault.

I don't blame you, but like one of the conclusions I've drawn from that thing I wrote, the geese response or whatever, is that books are not, people don't fucking read. They just don't. So like, I was constantly in an internal conflict of like, how much time should I be spending writing and focusing on the writing thing as my main goal versus YouTube or video essays or like something like something else like that, right?

And when I saw how the response to the book the mini book that i put up was just kind of pretty lackluster actually and um it convinced me that

I can postpone this book

and just put it off

and just

go on YouTube

should focus on YouTube

you know who gave me this advice

is Jackson

Jackson told

me that all my writing is a waste of time.

It's like what I've been

focused on in terms of content

for the past two years, reading

and writing and preparing for this big book.

He keeps saying, like, it's a waste of time.

It's a waste of time. It's a waste of time.

And I'm like, damn.

And, uh,

actually, I don't know if you was talking about the book or was he talking about something else

no he was talking about the responses the written responses

but uh no i've i think i've been convinced actually which is good i needed to know

you know what the way forward is

no i know i'm not saying i blame you guys for not being able to read, you know, because of the time constraints. I just needed a clarity on the way forward, you know?

So infrared's going to be coming back on YouTube.

And who knows, you know, maybe I will also simultaneously churn out a book as well but yeah

I think that's the conclusion I'm going to draw

I need to get the

content needs to be at a higher quality

than what it is now it's just not

there

you know

I need my content to be good I need my content to be good

and uh...

and uh...

yeah

got a pump over the quality

all right guys how many views on youtube it's

take to a hidden average kick stream revenue the kick kick has been like better uh for the revenue but it also has come at the expense of growth

And so I need to take the plunge and just like take the whole month just take the risk

And I'm not gonna stress about it because at the end of the day like I'm never going to take the risk.

And I'm not going to stress about it because at the end of the day,

like, I'm never going to be in... I don't think I'm going to be in a position where I'm like,

you know,

having to stress or worry.

But, uh, so I'm going to start experimenting.

I think the next stream will be on YouTube.

Next stream is going to be on YouTube.

Why not multi-stream?

Honestly, it's the most retarded suggestion I get is multi-streaming.

It's like genuinely a retarded suggestion that I continuously get.

It's like a really bad idea.

That's just, yeah, let's just divide the viewership.

It's a really dumb idea.

Um... We're back to the three. It's crazy how we're back to the three it's crazy how we're back to the 300 spartans every time it's like there's

always the 300 Spartans you know so y'all are the ones I'm telling.

I'm giving you this 4-1-1.

Whenever we're at the 300 Spartan thing, like there's a big change that's a foot, you know?

It's a big sign that there's a big change of

foot it's a big sign that there's a big sign that there's gonna be a we had

some of the weak the weaklings we had some of them we've shaved off some fat some weaklings have been shaken off of us

we're back to our purest form.

And we will now grow.

The last time we were at 300 Spartans,

ACP was born.

Remember that?

The last time we were reduced to the 300 Spartans,

fucking crazy things happened, right? I didn't. I never focused on growing the streams too much, but the last time we were at 300 Spartans, we had ACP, right?

So now we're going to go back and we're going to have a content explosion of infrared all right guys i'll see you uh see you soon see you tomorrow hopefully tomorrow or thursday but hopefully

tomorrow bye-bye