MASSIVE DEBATE with UNHINGED Enemies

I don't know why I can't.

My breath, I could explode.

Yeah, I could die for a single term.

Uh

What is the

Is up, everybody.

We got a great

Stream.

We should have a great stream lined up because if I recall, while I was traveling, some people made the observation, some pussies actually, that's what they are, that oh, why didn't you do your confront the chairman?

You must have been ducking me.

Well, here I am, bitch, back home where I can actually physically conduct these confront the chairman's.

I already started the space, so if anyone can co-host it, any OGs can co-host this shit, I'm much appreciated because I can't see everyone who requests.

But I already started the uh thing and I'll I'll I'll share the link with y'all as soon as we get into it.

Um, I uh I want to talk about a few things before we do that, though.

So, first of all, Donald Parkinson, the DSA guy.

So, the DSA guy, Donald Parkinson, gotten a little spat with me today because he was contesting my objectively correct statement that there's never been a successful revolution that has come from within the polis.

It's always from outside.

So, Allende, you know, Julius Caesar, even Robespierre, and so many, so much more examples.

All of these represent failed attempts to change things from inside.

Effectively inside the system, inside the political institutions that prevail.

It's never happened.

Every single successful revolution in history has always been brought by external barbarians.

You know, Genghis Khan is the best example of this.

Now, you know, some people take this a little too literally, so they, you know, they hold, they have unreasonable expectations.

Point blank, what's up?

They don't understand the essence of barbarism is not the superficial appearance of being a literal middle-aged steppe nomad.

By the way, even for that time during the Middle Ages, the barbarians, that's the whole point.

It's an irony.

They're never actually barbarians from the prejudiced perspective of the settled populations.

The Mongols had culture, they had poetry, they had literacy, they did have an extent to which they were interacting with settled civilization, quote unquote.

But nonetheless, it was precisely because they were outside of the established institutions of power that they were able to actually challenge real power, right?

And again, you're talking about a minority, a small amount of people that just stood on business.

They went and they knocked on the doors of these cities.

And all they did is reveal these structural and systemic dysfunction that was always there.

I mean, you guys need to understand something.

I talked to Marcello a lot about this, like who runs America, whether they're, and it's like, it's total incompetence.

Nobody knows what they're doing.

I mean, that's their trajectory of quote-unquote civilizations.

They are not very well organized, just in general, right?

And most, you know, law and order is maintained through illusion, you know.

In a moment of crisis, is the state actually able to, in a centralized manner, marshal the standing army and have this be organized and efficient?

Usually no, actually.

And that's why, you know, foreign barbarians often are able to topple empires because they just call the bluff.

They reveal deep systemic dysfunction and incompetence and just a lack of structural soundness in general that was always there but was never actually tested.

In any kind of way, they're more coherent, they're more organized.

It doesn't take, you know, I heard a guy once, and I totally believe it.

He said, All it takes is 1,000 special forces operatives to take over the U.S.

government.

I totally believe that shit, you know.

Um, anyway, look, but as I was trying to say, um, yes, uh, the great masses have always been activated outside the centers of discourse, the centers of power, and that's why, in a sense, in this sense, politics itself is bullshit.

Marxism doesn't concern itself with quote-unquote politics, it subordinates politics within a bigger revolutionary strategy that involves the overthrow of the political itself to the creation of a post-political type of authority and power, which is exactly what Soviet power was.

Soviet power was post-political.

Are you kidding?

You think Stalin was a politician?

You think people like Mao Zedong were politicians?

No, they weren't.

These were post-political forms of power.

They were not bound or constrained by the discourse or the enumerated procedures and formalities of the polis.

They drew their real power from the rural masses, the real masses, the popular masses.

So, you know, people need to understand that Marxism is not limited by politics by any means.

Okay, the political.

Is a very limited category of what actual real authority and power actually is.

And we're clouded by ancient Greek prejudices, which neglects the fact that the, you know, the development of real this is why within the framework of classical Western Marxism, the state has its origins in ancient Greece, which is a little ridiculous actually.

Because look at the profoundly centralized, grand, highly organized, you know, um.

What do you call them?

You can't call them polities.

You can call them authorities of ancient Babylon and Akkadia and Assyria and Mesopotamia in general and Persia, Cyrus the Great.

These were pre-political or post-political or not merely political at the very least forms of power.

They were much more highly developed and much more advanced in terms of concentrating authority for the marshaling and development of the productive forces.

And yet they don't fall within the Marxist definition of what a state is or the Western definition of what constitutes the political.

Right?

So, Donald, but Donald, he's very confused, honestly.

He was saying something along the lines of, no, you're completely wrong.

This is Bakuninism.

And I had a flashback.

I had a kind of deja vu because in my previous life, I was a member of the Russian Bolshevik Party and I would read all the pamphlets and polemics in my previous life.

And I could have sworn that's exactly what the Menshevik and Kotskyite and other kind of Plakanov and all these other orthodox, quote-unquote, orthodox Marxist opportunists.

That's what they'd call Lenin.

They'd accuse Lenin of being a Bakuninist.

So I yawn at this, frankly.

It's total nonsense.

I don't know.

This is a pejorative.

Oh, you're listening.

Orthodox Marxism was a project created during the Second International.

And Marx wanted nothing to do with it.

Marx himself said I am not a Marxist in reference to the early prototype Orthodox Marxists.

I think he was referring to the French ones.

But in Russia, for example, on the Russian question, Marx did not side with the Marxists.

Now does this mean that Lenin was wrong for his polemics against the Narodniks and the populace and and Lenin's defense of Marxism?

No, Lenin was right though.

And but actually read Lenin's polemics against the populace and A you'll find that he takes a lot for granted from them already, just as the baseline.

Where he started polemicizing with them lies in the simple fact that they did not comprehend that the peasantry was being divided along class lines.

It was developing in such a way that the class distinctions that you could find in urban centers within Europe or even Russia at the time were actually taking hold among the rural strata.

Now, Lenin was not going back to this pre-let's pre-Narodinist, Narodnik, dogmatic Marxist position that the revolution is going to begin in the urban centers.

Of course, the Mensheviks held steadfast to that view, Plakanov and others.

But Lenin himself still took for granted that the real revolution was going to happen from the countryside.

He just understood that it wasn't enough to glorify or exalt the peasant as the subject of revolution because class contradictions were taking hold among the peasantry themselves.

And ironically, it's precisely this added distinction of understanding class antagonism among the peasantry that permitted Lenin the possibility of actually activating the rural peasant strata in ways that the Narodniks and the left SRs could not.

This big, broad-tent kind of peasant populism that rejects a comprehension or even an institutionalization of the recognition of class distinctions within the form of the party that can't interface and marshal and mobilize the peasants as effectively as the Bolsheviks were able to in a centralized capacity.

I mean, the way the Bolsheviks mobilized the peasants was like Genghis Khan calling upon the Mongol hordes.

Okay, the left SRs or the SRs, they weren't capable of that level of commanding and mobilizing the peasant strata and population.

And it's perfectly dialectical exactly why that is.

It's a dialectic of form and content where by Lenin recognizing distinctions within the peasantry, he's able to have a better grasp and a better understanding of what essentially made the peasants have revolutionary potential with respect to the established institutions of imperial hegemony within the Russian Empire.

Were he to just do what the populace did, which is have this one-dimensional peasant subject as the subject of revolution, then he would not have been able to actually earn the respect and authority in the eyes of the peasants themselves or lead them effectively.

Because the peasants are not going to go with somebody who's just kissing your ass or who's just glorifying.

The peasants are going to go with the one who proves that they can wield what Lars Lee understood as something common to the entire Russian imperial tradition, which is this kind of super political type of authority that was partial, that was irreducible to politics.

You know, the word Soviet power, Sovietskaya, have lost that word, that second word, doesn't actually just mean power in the sense of the English language.

It does have more in common with this more nebulous or intangible, or some would even say mystical, I wouldn't like that, but some would even say notion of imperial power, which the Bolsheviks could only grasp in the eyes of the peasant insofar.

As they recognized antagonisms within the peasantry themselves, there would have been no way for them to command authority among the peasants had they not done this, because they would not have been able to develop the same level of strict discipline and exclusive organization, which means one-sided power, power as a one-sided determination rather than something all-inclusive.

And thereby, they would not have been able to actually be a force of power and authority, in particular in the eyes of the peasants.

You know, the

The SRs claimed that the peasant was the subject of their politics, the peasant in general, right?

However,

Um they were not able to actually establish any institution or type of power that could effectively lead the peasants.

And that's worth considering.

They they were thoroughly bourgeois in their uh orientation, at least relative to the Bolsheviks, because while they considered the peasants the subject of politics, the class distinctions that they were ignoring among the peasantry themselves were very much a huge factor in what was going on in terms of who controls the logistics, who controls the modern machinery, the railways, all this kind of stuff.

That was very much a battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

And, you know, the only way to open the gates for the barbarians, so to speak, is to effectively, yes, have a strategy within urban centers to topple the bourgeoisie.

But never forget what the strategy ultimately is.

The strategy, that's not what Zoron is doing, for example.

That's not what reformists are attempting to do.

They're not subordinating politics to some greater revolutionary strategy.

They consider politics to itself to be a vector in the direction of intensifying the contradictions in the revolutionary process.

And politics alone are not that.

Absolutely not.

Politics by themselves cannot be a vector for the intensification of contradictions in that way.

Um, so I don't know if you guys understood that argument in particular, but but yeah, Donald, he's very confused, you know, because um, then he said something like, Well, what about the Petrograd Soviet?

And I just have to tell these people, it's like, look, these cities that the Bolshevik base of power was in, I already made the argument, it's like these were kept in check by country bumpkin, illiterate peasants, sailors, and soldiers, okay?

And even the factory workers themselves that actually supported the Bolsheviks were precisely the ones that had the deepest connections to the rural to the rural masses and to that to having rural backgrounds.

The more entrenched labor movement that was there for decades and decades and decades and didn't have that much of a connection to the countryside, they were more with the Mensheviks.

You know, also the Bundis, you know, the Bundis, the Jewish workers movement in Russia, didn't really have a connection to the countryside, right?

They were decidedly in favor of the Mensheviks and the right, so to speak, of the revolution.

So the Bolsheviks' real bedrock of support was barbaric, absolutely barbaric.

And, you know, people try to ignore this and downplay it.

Trotskyites especially love to do this because Trotsky had this idea that it's all 4D chess.

The revolution, so to speak, and that the whole point is to affect

And institutionalize this urban dictatorship over the whole country that for Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks was just a kind of temporary thing.

But I digress, I digress.

Um

So, yeah, people are totally delusional about the facts of history.

And you know what's great about history is that it doesn't end with 1917.

Then what happened?

Then we had Mao's Revolution, okay?

Then we had the Cuban Revolution.

Then we had so many revolutions that just confirmed the same thing.

And, you know, oh, was it just a one-off?

Apparently, they're like twisting themselves into a pretzel to create this idea that the October Revolution wasn't overwhelmingly a rural revolution.

But then all the other revolutions that came after that followed the same pattern, even the non-Marxist ones, like in Iran, right?

I admit there are some ways of interpreting an official Soviet dogma, even that there was maybe an attempt to downplay the rule, the force of rural revolution within 1917, because it contradicted Orthodox Marxist dogma, which you could argue the Soviet state still institutionalized in a lot of ways.

Mao was famous for disagreeing with Stalin precisely because of that, right?

So, uh, you know, and and also Donald, he had he he gets he he gets into this psycho babble, right, where he's like, Haas wants this pure

This pure barbari I'm I don't know what you're talking about, dude.

You're like pure this, pure un un um unaffected by the corruption of civilization.

It's like

I think you're deeply confused, okay?

I think that yes, civilization has inherently decadent tendencies.

I mean, Engels observed this as a cycle within Asiatic societies, for example.

Marx and Engels were very unambiguous about the decadent tec tendencies of capitalism.

Um, just because we can acknowledge a basic framework in which there is a dialectic of the decadence of sedentary civilization, which is often reversed and often as a countervailing tendency, barbarism comes.

I think Engels actually said this directly.

Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Didn't Engels

Directly talk about how barbarism was like a revitalizing force that like saved civilization.

I'm quite sure he did.

Could be wrong, though.

Someone check me on that.

I'm sure Volk Vulture has that.

Anyway, it's a very basic truism for anyone with a rudimentary sense of history.

Doesn't mean we have these undialectical notions of pure barbarism or pure.

No, there's nothing pure about anything.

Okay, these are all interrelated processes and they are suspended in the dialectic.

And that's the whole point.

Uh Volk, was it not Engels who said something about how barbarism replenishes civilization?

Was that in the origins of the family?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was.

I just said the quote was something along those lines: the way barbarism replenishes decadent civilization.

Um

Yes, I'm quite sure.

By the way, I don't know who's requesting.

There's only one guy named Psychonaut.

I want this Trotskyite pussy who

Who who who told me I should go down to the swamp, quote unquote, and then he said I dodged the n uh last confront the chairman.

Where is that fucking guy?

Go get that guy.

I forgot his username.

But he claimed he wanted to confront the chairman

And he claimed that while I was on an airplane 30,000 feet in the air, I was dodging him personally.

Let me make Sewell a co-host because maybe you can see him.

Yeah, where's that pussy who said that I was dodging him because I was in an airplane?

And let's bring him up.

Okay?

Uh because here the the the chairman is here and I don't see this pussy anywhere, okay?

Now, let me continue.

There's a lot of people on the internet.

I saw in Donald's replies, it was so cute.

You had all these people going, Hawz is sheltered, and he's not a barbarian.

And you have social anxiety.

Anxiety, keep on watching me.

Anxiety, anxiety.

It's like you don't even fucking open your mouth.

You're typing on the keyboard and you have social anxiety that makes you like incapable of using your voice to say anything.

I mean, you probably like are scared of public speaking.

Okay.

Let's not talk and gibber.

Your discernment and your judgment about who's what, who's made of what means nothing.

Okay.

You have anxiety and keep on watching me.

What's that song?

Let me play it.

If let me play that song.

These people literally, they rock out to this song.

This bitch, this is the song they rock out.

Look at Engels.

Only barbarians are able to rejuvenate a world in the throes of collapsing civilization.

And there you go.

Was Engels guilty of some Bakuninism there?

So, yeah, you have fucking anxiety, okay?

Can you shut the fuck up about talking shit about Haas and the stupid keyboard comments, you pussy?

If I saw you, I would slap you into the pavement unless you snitch.

Otherwise, it's a joke.

But

A lot of people, they yap, they yap, they yap, they yap.

And then in real life, I'm sure some have seen me in real life, they've never confronted me.

'Cause I am actually crazy and I'm a I'm about it.

Um, yeah.

So that's the truth.

Uh, I don't know what to say.

I think what it is, guys, is that like.

People get too comfortable because you know I'm not a tall I'm not tall, so they're like, Oh, this guy must be small and then they see me and I'm wider than Putin.

You know, they say in Russia that I'm Putin too.

They say I'm wide Putin too.

When I go to Russia,

And I passed through their like uh their T S A

They they say, I can't believe this 'cause the door is too narrow for me to pass through.

They say only Putin is wide enough where we have to like, you know, uh remove the door and chain he said we only do this for Putin.

You're you're the second person.

I'm that wide.

So people are terrified when they see this, you know.

Um

So

Anxiety.

I keep on anyway.

Who's gonna come up?

Who's gonna come up?

Now you got two requests, but both seem sympathetic.

I don't really think they're.

I thought a lot of people were coming to challenge the chairman tonight.

I don't know what happened.

I thought Haas was dodging these people.

Where are they?

Where are these tough guys?

One of them said, come down to the swamp.

I don't know what that means.

Come to the swamp.

Why am I going to a fucking swamp?

Okay, you come to me, you fucking bitch.

As far as I'm concerned, I told you I was in California.

I told everyone, I told the world, California and Texas, you want to find me.

I wasn't hard to find.

I didn't find anyone.

Um she goes, Come to my swamp and stick fight me.

Come to your swamp and stick fight you, what the fuck are you talking about?

What what does that even mean?

That sounds like like weird.

What the fuck?

He was like White Knighting for his uh for his beloved.

For his Swamp Queen.

Uh, some pussy who can't even apparently he claims that I dodged the last confront the chairman when I was 30,000 feet in the air.

But where is he now?

Can't find him.

Can't find him anywhere.

Where's he at?

Oh, where's he at?

We don't know.

He's got anxiety.

That's why he's a pussy.

So every time you type on that keyboard talking about fighting, I just want you to know that I laugh for a min three minutes minimum of uninterrupted laughter.

Because I remember how these pussies can't even use their voice to confront me.

And you're gonna physically confront me, really?

And you're too nervous to do so with your voice?

Not how it works.

You're talking to someone that's not even there.

I love challenges because I want, you know, I want to, they test people.

Are you going to follow through with your...

Somebody challenged me to fight in a parking lot.

I showed up.

I didn't know if they were going to go there with a gun or a knife or something.

I went and then I showed up.

And then nobody ever fucking said shit ever again because, yeah, I'm that crazy.

Now I don't take you seriously.

You're a bunch of pussies gibbering.

Talking shit from the safety of your keyboard.

It means nothing.

It's worthless.

The only thing I could now respect is if you can find me.

Say it to my face, bitch.

I'm not going to nobody.

Anyway...

I don't respect people that have social anxiety when it comes to matters of power and authority.

Now, can I respect you if you're like this shut-in who's like not claiming all that?

Yeah, I can.

But if you're out here talking about revolution and communism and Marx and Lenin and Cheguevar, if you're in Mao, and you have social anxiety, anxiety, I keep on watching me.

I don't...

Who the you're Weenie Hutt Jr.

You're like SpongeBob to me.

You're nothing.

You're Weenie Hutt Jr.

You're like literally an ant.

I can't take you seriously.

Someone named Matthew claims he's crazier than me.

Dude, you're literally a name in my chat that has social anxiety, right?

Every time I see people like you, it's just the same thing.

Anxiety and keep on watching me.

Like, what are you talking about?

You don't have my respect.

Want to earn my respect?

Then uh

The only way to earn my respect on the fucking internet is if you bring up a single intelligent point that I could not have thought of before.

It's never happened.

Like, say something that I never thought about before.

I will at least tell you, if you can do that, I'll at least say, you know what?

That's pretty interesting.

I'll think more about that.

If you wanna challenge me and you say some dumb shit that I could have predicted and programmed you as an NPC to like, do you guys want me to debate myself?

Once if you want me to debate myself, 'cause like I could debate myself better than these people could.

Like, I could debate.

I'll just debate myself.

Sure.

I wish I had glasses.

All right, I'll put the glasses on.

You know what, Haz?

Yeah, I'm here to debate you.

Here I am.

So first of all, why do you think that MAGA has any revolutionary potential when Trump is a Zionist and there's a bunch of MAGA people who are Zionists?

You think they have more potential than my liberal neighbors?

Well, yes, I think you're evaluating their potential with respect to consciousness too superficially.

You're not looking at the essence of the matter, what these things mean for these people.

And that's why we're seeing in huge numbers these same demographics turning against Israel, because they realize how much it contradicts the orientation toward turning away from managing a global empire and focusing on our own affairs.

And that was done without the aid and assistance of MAGA communists.

And it's happening in mass numbers.

You know what, has, but you guys are bigots.

You're excluding huge percentages of the working class by being bigoted toward people's sexuality preference.

First of all,

People that happen to be of a working class background that have these other characteristics doesn't mean those characteristics are inherently tied to the working class.

Before we get into anything, okay?

For example, someone could be a fan of Captain Crunch, the serial.

That doesn't mean that fans of Captain Crunch are that's a that's a protected working class characteristic now, an immutable part of the working class.

It's just a logical fallacy.

Somebody could be a member of the working class and be part of the KKK.

Does that mean Klan members are immutable, essential proletarian characteristics?

No.

But in any case, I'm just addressing a logical fallacy onto the actual point at hand.

All we are ever guilty of.

We're not guilty of any discrimination or hate or bigotry.

We're guilty of two things.

Okay.

One, we will not pay tribute to any other flag but the red flag.

We're not paying tribute.

To your movements and your nonsense.

Your private issues have nothing to do with politics.

Second of all, yeah, we tell jokes and there's a lot of humor in this movement, and we're not going to change that.

And you can shoot me in the head before I'm going to start sacrificing comedy for people's feelings.

And then you go, well, no, something as funny is funny.

Okay, everyone should be able to laugh at anything.

Comedy will never be illegal under my regime.

Real comedy, not just trying to be hateful, because then people go, Oh, yeah, I'll show you funny.

And they'll like go to your house and shoot your dog and be like, Ha ha, this is my joke.

I'm gonna shoot you.

That's not comedy.

That's you being a psychopath whose feelings were hurt by a joke, and you're trying to get back at us by just being like angry, angrily motivated.

Strail Sandy with the five, what's going on?

So that's the truth, okay?

Uh, you know, we don't, yeah, so you're this is just a false premise, uh, entirely.

Okay, Haz.

Okay, I hate to interrupt this very good debate, but we have DGEN solutions.

I'm going to bring them up.

Don't know who that is, but bring them up.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

See, I can debate my s I could debate these people better than they could.

Or they c I could be them better than they can be me.

Go ahead, D Jen Sul.

I don't know what the hell this name is.

It's uh not a

Very good name.

He's connecting.

Alright, I don't know what happened to him.

Don't know what happened to him.

Alright, he uh he wrote a message under your uh space saying he wanted to debate you, but n as soon as they brought him up he left.

We have another guy though named Gabe.

Go ahead, bring him up.

Bring these people up.

Go ahead.

Gabe, your speaker, go ahead.

Uh low, can you can

Yeah, so I think well give me one second.

Go ahead.

I think this dude got anxiety.

Ye yes.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Yes, I I'm not actually a hater.

I'm more of a friendly.

But I wanted to talk did you see the Chanch tweet?

I wanted to talk about that.

The self-criticism tweet.

Yeah, that's funny.

How can you self-criticize me on my behalf?

I don't understand how that works.

Kinda seems like a person living vicariously through me that has no business doing that.

Like, how do you be like, let me do a self-criticism, and the criticism is targeted toward me?

And it's just like killing vibes.

It's not even a criticism.

It's literally somebody walking in to a party where everyone's having a great time and being like, you know what?

I don't like this.

You don't like this, then fucking leave.

Don't fucking ruin our mood and ruin our fun.

Anyway, go ahead.

Oh, it I I thought it was constructive.

I didn't think it was I didn't think it was just like a tearing down style hit.

I thought like uh why did he choose a frame of me getting down from uh from the um table as if I was like hopping around?

Like he literally meticulously chose that frame to make me even like for some reason to try to make me seem more ridiculous.

Uh that sounds like somebody who is not operating in good faith.

Well, do you think that's the case that he was trying to, you know, small you down?

Or is he just taking the picture and then put it putting it on the tweet?

Like, he's a communist.

I think he was trying to embellish a substanceless point with, you know, like, oh, look at Haas.

He hops around like the Easter bunny.

And that's kind of just not what was going on.

So I thought it was, I talked to him just like a day or ago.

He does TikTok lives.

So I called into his show and I talked to him.

And I thought like he had some pretty good ideas here.

If I could like, dude, I don't know what these ideas are.

I thought that stream was incredibly great.

The only problem was that it was in the middle of the summer.

Otherwise, it was pretty great all around.

I liked it.

You're not going to change my mind on that.

And I can't take advice from people who have no experience.

That's another issue.

I've been doing this thing where I'm appeasing you, boomer shills for one year to be respected in your eyes, to be quote-unquote professional.

And it has not grown my army.

I'll be frank.

And it hasn't warded off my vicious enemies either.

So I'm just going to go back to doing what I actually enjoy doing and what I actually, what has worked.

I'm not doing this thing where I'm going to just appease people and pretend, you know, oh, how cute.

Let's all just pretend to be professional because boomers 70 years ago were like this.

And why do I respect these like old boomer pedophiles that go to Epstein Island?

Like, why should I respect them?

Why should I care about this like false notion of formality that is institutionalized by dead people and like has no basis in anything but a bunch of like millennials that are trying to like be respected by their fathers as they age older?

They're like, I want my dad to respect me.

And that's all this whole thing is coming from.

Like, you know, come on.

I think the idea is a bit more in like a different direction.

No, I think we're living in an age of I show speed and we live in an age of, you know, everyone losing a sense of norms and everyone losing a sense of normal and losing a sense of anything.

And it's totally just a free fresh slate for people to rediscover these things in an authentic way rather than simulate the appearance of, you know, I'm not, I'm not, you know, you could be the kid who like tries to like act like their grandpa, you know.

And well, that's tried and tested.

It's like, listen, dude, nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

The least you could do for people is make them smile.

And that's why Logo is a great idea of doing carnivals.

Because I don't think he wasn't saying that you should be more professional or something like that.

I kind of I see what you're saying there, that more of an authentic expression is kind of what connects with people.

We were more talking about like if you want to get like the ACP base, the demographic is going to be like young Midwestern white guys.

I don't think like talking and fighting with the DSA and these kind of types, like coastal types, I don't think that that's going to really generate interest from that crap.

I think like the far right, those people are who are yeah, but they don't debate me.

They don't debate me.

Those people don't debate me.

And also, you know, I actually disagree with that because I think that, you know, a lot of the time when these people that got into the far right pipeline see me actually distinguish myself from these like retarded liberals, they're like, oh, I didn't know it was possible to be chill like this.

You know, they feel like they have to.

Can you understand something?

You know, all these people you're talking about, I talk to a lot of them within the ACP, like so many, right?

All these white, young white people.

And you know what they'll tell me?

They'll be like, you know what?

I was in PSL and I was in DSA.

And like, what they would tell me is that, sit down, you're white.

You can't talk because you have white privilege.

And like all this crazy shit.

And they were like, had I not found you, I would have become right-wing because like I can't just like live with this humiliation and indignity of just being targeted and attacked for some dumb.

It's like it's so like disempowering.

Okay.

Yeah, I agree.

I think that's where.

So it's like what's where I see ACP could come in anyway.

That's an alternative vision.

Yeah, I know, but when they see me distinguish myself, that's how they found me.

They realized they didn't have to.

The people think that ACP exists.

To like put left-wing people into a far-right pipeline.

That's not true.

What ACP does is it in or what infrared does, I should rather say, because we've been doing it for a long time.

What infrared does is we intercept people who are bound for that pipeline and we show them there is a communist alternative.

Like, you don't have to go with the right.

You don't have to do this shit just to maintain both your dignity and a type of radicalism against the system.

You can just be a communist.

You can just roll with us.

We are the chill ones.

Just a lot of people don't know about us is the problem.

And like, that's my experience.

Like, my experience is that people, if they know that we exist and we're viable, they go with us.

The ones that are too far gone are the ones.

That have already made and established themselves in the right-wing circles.

But, like, you know, that's why the Bappists and then later the Fuentes people, they had to create this lie that, oh, Infrared and Jackson, they're just third worldists and they hate white people.

And their reasoning for us hating white people is that we don't hate black people and we don't hate, we don't think they're subhuman and are inherently inferior or something.

So they claim that we're anti-white because of that.

And they had to go, they had to roll with this lie, you know, because they understood that we were so dangerous in terms of ruining the pipeline for them.

There's a straight pipeline for I debate Grapers on Discord.

I've had some few conversions into communism with my friend Adrian.

Like, communism is not, you know, in the non-woke sense, you know, without all the identity politics, it doesn't really turn off these Midwestern young white guys.

And that's why I think 99% of normal people just want to be able to tell jokes without someone screaming at them and ruining the vibe.

They want to be able to chill and not be like, have a fucking social environment be like made really awkward.

And like, you know, like, I was chilling with the, with, with, I think it was with like the Texas guys.

And I was just like, you know, you know what, like leftist social environments are like, like, everyone's sitting here laughing, having a good time.

Then somebody walks in and is like, okay, I know you guys are having a great time, but remember, trans kids are dying.

And then everyone goes silent.

Like, everyone has to like pay a tithe, just even socially, like on a social level.

Just like completely killing the vibe.

And like, nobody's allowed to just like chill or like, you know, I don't want to say enjoy, but like, yeah, that's part of human experience is like being able to.

Enjoy, you know, have a commercial environment that's enjoyable.

So it's like you have to take a moment to do like land acknowledgement or some shit.

And it's like, you know, that's like 99% of it.

Honestly, most people are totally fine with communism.

They don't, you think people have a fucking problem with the idea of like nationalizing shit and like expropriating the capitalists and giving the wealth back to the people.

Nobody has a problem with that.

What they have a problem with are these sour-faced, just unbelievably like just like.

Horrible people to be around in general, just vibe killers and total just fucking losers that are like leftists who just do not be around.

Yeah, I'd say the yeah, yeah, Haas, like on two levels, I think I think in like the coastal area, like New York City and LA and Washington, I think they're more tolerant of this kind of like Puritan identity politics.

You know, they flourish there.

I don't think we can deny that, but certainly not in like the Midwest and the South.

Like this folk stuff is not, you know, no one likes that.

Yeah, but you know, the whole thing is almost over because everyone's just going to the far right right now.

So, you know, the way I see it is that, you know, it's not a marathon.

Sorry, it's not a racist marathon.

They shit the bed.

If they would have not, all they would have had to do is not attack infrared in 2021.

If the DSA pieces of shit would have just left me alone in 2021, I would have single-handedly stopped the rise of the far right.

Absolutely 1,000% I would have.

They're the ones who put all of their resources into making sure that I was gate-kept away from getting a bigger platform, right?

And that included getting me de-platformed on platforms like Twitch.

And just being slandered and gatekept, having these stupid big streamers say nonsense about me, call me a Nazi, call me a fascist.

And now, look where we are.

You know, they got what they wanted.

They got what they wanted.

Good thing we stopped infrared, the fascists, and now the actual like Hitler people are like straight up, just like running shit.

So, yeah, you said they're gatekeepers.

I don't know if they're gatekeeping the Midwest at all.

I think they're probably gatekeeping the coasts.

They're gatekeeping the infranet, dude.

Because the whole fucking strategy they did, how dirty it was, what they did, the dirty ass shit that they did was they said, Haas and infrared are fascists.

So, all these people that fucked with my message, or that would have done so.

They're like, why would I go with Infrared, who's a crypto fascist, and not just an actual fascist?

So everything that I did that was good for communist politics or communist principles, fascists were able to take credit for.

And it's like what they were, they tried to portray me as a fascist.

And in doing so, it didn't make me less like it didn't make it that less people fucked with me.

It just made it so that those people respected me less because they're like, oh, if you're a fascist, then.

But Haas, what demographic are you talking about?

People in the Midwest don't even know about any of that drama.

I didn't know about any of that.

But to whatever extent.

I think I'm like the average architect.

To whatever extent these people would discover me, all they would see were the Reddit threads and all these fucking pussies saying, Infrared and Haas are fascists, yada, yada, yada.

So that just made them more interested in fascism.

Because they're like, why would I go for the fucking fake shit when I can get the pure undistilled version?

Right.

And then they lost their minds going.

So all the people that I could have saved, they dumped it.

They squandered it.

That's why I call these people fascist collaborators.

But Haas, what I'm saying here is that I don't think the DSA is like their audience has no overlap with the ACP target audience.

That's why I don't think there's any issue.

They used to.

They absolutely responded that they used to.

Three years ago, they did.

A lot of these people were watching BreadTube and shit.

There's a pipeline from BreadTube to the far right because of that.

They were.

They were watching it.

Absolutely.

Yes.

But what about now?

Now it's, you know, now is a different world.

But what can I say?

You know, the far right, you know, my prediction is the far right's just going to fail.

It's going to fail.

And then we're going to come in.

I'm like, we're the only ones that haven't lost our minds.

I think you guys should try to exploit that right now.

That's why I think the ACP should be debating far-right people and be a contender.

Okay, so sorry to interrupt.

It's been about 10 to 15 minutes.

Pause if you want to continue.

You can't.

Listen, dude, I have no problem debating those people.

They just don't want to debate me.

It's just the same thing.

Yeah, we got in the same way the leftists would gatekeep.

They do the same shit.

They fucking.

My name is blacklisted.

It's like a black.

They tremble.

They tremble in fear at my name.

So it's the same diagram.

Thanks for the conversation, guys.

For sure.

Let's bring on who okay, who do you want to bring on next?

There's three people here you could choose.

There's one who's a former naval aviation guy.

There's a social nationalist and then like a Roman warrior guy.

All right, bring the aviation guy.

All right.

All right, Sean, you're speaker.

You could go ahead.

Oh, hello, Am I hi, I just popped on about five minutes ago, um and boot me if this derails the conversation, but um what is the ACP?

American Communist Party.

Okay, see you're communists.

Um

I'm not here uh

you know, argue or be hostile or anything.

I'm not a communist, but could you what would you say to me?

I'm like a, you know, Midwest white guy, got a wife and kid and house.

What would you say to me to

Give me over to your side.

Well, what I would say is pretty simple.

Our country's been hijacked.

Its resources are stolen and centralized in the hands of people that are not loyal to this country or its people.

And they're using that as leverage to turn the population here into serfs.

And the only sorry, I didn't interrupt you.

You mean like by corporations, right?

Uh, corporations, banks, BlackRock, uh, you name it.

And that would be like how you know, like housing has become unaffordable for a lot of people and that kind of stuff, right?

Yep.

Okay.

So, like, what what would you guys like to see happen to fix all of that?

I mean, when I hear communism, I hear like total state control of everything.

What how No, it's it's not we don't see it that way.

We see it more like, you know, communism means you put the common interest first.

And what does that look like?

Well, first of all,

This debt that we have, that's 40 trillion, we did not constitutionally and in the sovereign capacity vote to take that debt on.

It was imposed on us.

So let's cancel the debt.

That's the first thing, and that's in our program.

Cancel the debt.

And, you know, communists.

We think that the USA, the land, the resources, the wealth, ultimately it belongs to the American people themselves and no one else.

Now, does that mean everyone should have to share their personal belongings and the stuff that they make themselves and earn themselves?

No, not at all.

But what it does mean is that, you know, at scale, when it comes to the things that we all depend upon in common, you know, our natural resources, our infrastructure, even our giant companies that are at scale and things like that, those should be entrusted in the common interest.

Those should be managed and administrated for the purpose of the people.

We should be the stakeholders in the entire thing, and the whole thing should be meant to serve us and nothing else.

Not foreign investors, not people sitting in New York, not speculators, not gamblers, but we the people, you know?

And that does mean that does mean violating the private property of BlackRock and violating the private property of these giant forms of control and institutions.

But what they've done is that they've said, oh, you're going to violate private property.

What did they do in the 50s?

They started to try to say that private property just means individual property.

So we all have a sign on our lawns that says private property, right?

That's what they people in their head and they think private property, they think this is my lawn, this is my house, this is my car, this is my stuff, this is my garage, these are my tools.

And that's because they brainwashed us to think that's what it means.

That's not what it means.

Those are just what you those person, those are the things that belong to you as your personal belongings, your individual belongings.

Private property, it's an institution where they basically take, they rip apart from our Commonwealth crucial portions and they entrust them for the sake of profit mongering for its own sake.

Interest, debt, these are the things that flow from the principle of private property over common property.

No, it's that's very interesting.

I I've I've often wondered how um

What the differentiation was there, and that was a that was a pretty good explanation.

I was I was also wondering too, like, how um

Uh you know, if you know, we don't we don't

like how these big corporations are you know basically gobbling everything up the

The resources and whatnot.

Um

Yeah, that's not great, I get that.

But who who is in a better position or who should be in the position to, you know, make these decisions or or call these balls and strikes?

I don't know if you like my answer, but what I'll tell you is that the problem right now, and this is a direct answer, so don't think I'm trying to get around it.

I just want to better explain where I'm coming from when it comes to what does it mean to entrust that in the common interest.

Now, can we guarantee that if we do that through some kind of institution or through some kind of alternative system, that it's going to play out in everyone's favor?

And there's not going to be corruption, and there's not going to be people who try to abuse it.

Of course, we can't guarantee that.

But the difference is, if we institute a principle that says these things should serve the purpose of serving the interests of we the people and being administered for we the people, then there's accountability.

Then we have a standard to hold the system to.

Then we can say, this is your job and this is what you're supposed to do and you're not doing it.

We can't even do that right now.

Can we tell Bill Gates that he's not managing our farmland the right way?

Can we tell Monsanto that what they're doing is not good for us, good for small farmers, good for our land, good for our crops and resources and our health in general?

Can we tell these companies that deindustrialize that what they're doing is not good for people's livelihoods, that they're taking it away?

Can we tell people poisoning our common environment that what they're doing is not...

No, we can't because ultimately all these things belong to them on paper.

It's their private property.

They can do whatever they want with it.

And yet, it's affecting us in common in ways that are negative.

And we literally, there's no accountability.

There's nothing we can do about it.

I frankly, like, I'm inclined to not agree with anything you people say, but that was a that was a pretty good answer.

You know, I can't really disagree with a lot you said.

I don't know who, like,

Again, I don't know who who would be in a better position to

Police all that?

I mean.

And I go back the old the old uh

The old saw and bones of saying, Well, look at how communism turned out in other countries in the 20th century, but

But we also got to be wary of where, you know, do we trust what we're told?

But look, I I I Yeah.

Fair point.

I don't like

Communism, but I also don't like what I've been told about communism, I guess.

Yeah, but also don't I also don't like the way things are going at the moment either.

I mean, you know, the Black Rock and all that and all that stuff.

We communists believe.

We don't think anyone's going to come save us.

We don't think there's going to be a big state that comes and saves us.

We don't think there's going to be a big savior that comes and rescues us.

We don't think there's going to be someone, including myself, that has great ideas that's going to come save everyone.

We believe that the only people that can save America are the American people themselves.

We just think communism is a good framework when it comes to matters of principle to be the leading principle for that.

How do we bring to the American people the self-confidence?

How do we bring to them the consciousness?

How do we bring to them the ability to wake up and realize the power that they already have?

That's how we see communism.

But we don't think anyone's going to save the people but themselves.

I like that, but how is that going to manifest itself?

Is it going to be a revamping of our government?

Is it going to be...

I think so.

I mean, I think that our Constitution has not protected us from what's to come.

I mean, they're dismantling it.

They're creating their own.

And I'm not saying this is just a Trump thing.

Biden was doing the same.

They've been doing it for decades and decades.

And eventually the government's going to stop working as it is.

And we're going to be left to fend for ourselves and figure it out ourselves.

I think communism is a good principle because instead of us being divided on racial lines or on other lines, it's a common framework for the common interest of the American people.

So why do you call it communism?

It doesn't sound exactly like communism, like how people, when they hear communism, doesn't sound like the same thing.

Well, you know, communists 100 years ago in this country sounded exactly like I do right now.

They were here during the Dust Bowl.

They were going down during the Great Depression, during the Dust Bowl.

They were helping ordinary Americans and they were coming to their aid.

Everywhere Americans needed justice, the communists were there to help them out.

Labor, local farmers, you name it.

And because of that fact, what did the system do?

The ruling system, they went on a crusade and they demonized all things communism.

They made it a dirty word.

They made people terrified of it with the red scares.

And there's a reason for that.

They didn't just do that because.

Uh they decided they wanted to be honest.

They did it because the moneyed elites were terrified of communists being successful in this country because the message used to really resonate with people here.

It used to be an all-American thing that people that Americans really did agree with because it made sense to them.

Because our country was supposed our country was founded

You know, as a constitutional republic by for and of the people, a simple principle of unifying us, you know, out of many, one, e pluribus unum.

And for a lot of people, communism made sense, you know, where nobody could claim to be superior than another because of their lineage.

Like, for example, in Europe, they had the aristocrats with powdered wigs, and they would say that they're superior.

Other people had to be serfs and slaves.

And Americans didn't like that.

They agreed with the communism that we all, in the eyes of God, we're all equal.

Now, are we all equal in the sense of our ability and our talents and skills and our physical characteristics?

No, obviously not.

But in some sense, yeah, nobody's better than another.

Everyone has a soul.

Everyone is given equal purpose.

Yeah, yeah.

So, dang, dang, I should have had a notepad because I had these questions I'm thinking of and losing as you're talking.

My question is: then, see, do I'm not well versed on communism.

Is your communism has like a tinge to it, a dirty, a dirty feeling or whatever?

Do you believe in communism?

Like, okay, so it sounds like your view of communism is not the crackdown on the personal property side of things, it is the crackdown on the private property side, meaning the corporate interests and the corporate control and that kind of thing, right?

That's exactly it.

That's exactly it.

So, is that the classical definition of communism?

Because when I hear communism, let me hold on, I could please finish.

Because when I hear communism, I think, you know, the state takes over everything, you know, just like you hear the stories from the Soviet Union.

You know, you had a farm and they come to collect the grain, and if you were to have been found to be hiding even a kernel of grain, then you and your whole family are dead because that was not your grain, that was the people's grain.

Now, how is what you believe different than that vision of communism?

And if so, how?

Well, I'm not going to speak to what was said about the Soviet Union because I don't think that's accurate.

But to your point, I would say my div my vision is different because we also believe in a lot of things that came from the Constitution, like the Second Amendment.

People should have a right to self-defense.

If there's tyranny, people should have an ability to keep tyranny in check.

So we believe in that.

We believe in people we believe in a grassroots rule just as much as we believe in a centralized rule.

So both.

And, you know.

If some highness stuff is going on, you know, where there's actual tyranny and families are being killed for, you know, touching the people's grain or whatever, it's like, you know, there needs to be people need to it's it's it also goes back to what I said before.

The only people that can save America are the people themselves.

The people need to be vigilant and have the ability to defend their rights in the same way that they restore their rights.

They need to be safeguarding their rights and defending their rights.

That's what we believe.

Otherwise, you know, how are we going to restore our rights?

It's the only way it's going to happen is if the American people themselves wake up.

All we want to do is wake up the American people.

We don't want to force them to do anything.

We just want to wake them up.

And if they're awake, as long as they stay awake,

No government and no tyranny will ever be able to abuse them again in the way that they are now.

Well, man.

Like, I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't hear anything that you're saying other than the word communist, which just is, like I said, got a certain connotation to it.

I hear anything you're saying that's like super alarming to me.

And again, I just jumped on this space last, you know, just out of the blue.

I just bored on a Thursday night and said, hey, I'll see what's out there and rattled on you guys.

But, um,

You know, right on, man, I don't I don't really disagree with a lot of anything you're saying.

Yeah, and you know, look, um, we get that a lot.

I get that a lot.

If you if it it may come as a surprise, but a lot of people they do agree with what I'm saying or what we're saying here, you know, it's just there's a stigma.

You gotta ask where the stigma comes from.

Why are we being conditioned to respond?

Well, let me ask you this.

If I may.

Using a different word, except communism?

Because I feel like the word communism right off the bat just turns a lot of people off.

Yeah, I I've heard that too, but I'll tell you what my response always is consistently, you know, I think our system is so corrupt and rotten.

And it's so beyond salvaging.

That I mean, again, all you got to think about is 40 trillion in debt.

Okay, now that's just the tip of the iceberg, frankly.

You keep going down the iceberg, you see Epstein, you see a lot more, but that's the tip of the iceberg, right?

And there needs to be a radical wake-up call in people's consciousness where they stop taking everything for granted and they start re-evaluating the fundamental principles of what makes us as a nation.

You know, the thing that people are scared of, that word communism, I think that's the people scared of their own shadow.

And we don't want people we don't want to sidestep that.

We want that fear to be confronted and conquered.

And

I understand there's an initial reaction of

The word is bad, it's dirty, there's a kind of fear, there's a distrust, there's a dislike.

But the only way to overcome uh put it this way: if if somebody is being kicked on the ground.

That person, if they're being bullied enough, they're afraid of their own power.

They're afraid of their own shadow.

The only way you're going to get them to stand up is if they look at their own shadow, finally face their fear and confront their fear and own it.

And once they can do that, nobody's going to be able to kick them down on the ground anymore.

They're not going to be the bully anymore.

They're going to be able to defend themselves.

That's how we see it with the world communism in this country.

And that's why we don't want to use a different word.

We want people to have that confrontation where they take their power back, take back the thing that they're made to fear, which is their own ability to take this whole thing back.

I don't know.

I don't I don't again, excuse me, trying to finish my supper.

Um, I don't disagree with that either.

I mean

I'm not trying to tell you how to run your page, your organization, but um

You know, you sound like a real people people first, common man uh first organization and I just feel like

Look, I I jumped on here 'cause that word the the communism word piqued my interest.

And I've got a very negative uh you know reaction to that word.

But what you guys are saying is not super crazy, you know, like like reeling the power on the

you know, all the people wheeling and dealing and gambling and racking up the debt and

You know, the puppet masters and all this kind of stuff.

I don't I don't have a problem with that really.

But

That word is so so damaged throughout the 20th century.

Oh, trust me, I get it.

I get it.

But every time someone asks me it, I gotta tell them how I see it, you know.

Well, so what, what, what, I'm sorry to drill down on this so hard.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but why, why insist on using that one word?

I mean, like, what about what about your ideals as communist exactly?

Well, because we see it as a tradition.

You know, we're not the first.

And there was people who understood these things that came before us.

And they had varying degrees of success in this country.

And that's another way of saying they had no success because they were totally eradicated.

And uh they were in this in this I'm sorry, in this country they were eradicated.

Yeah, they were they were made criminalized and their reputations destroyed and they were blacklisted and are you talking about like the Red Scare kind of stuff?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Correct, please correct me if I'm if I'm mistaken.

I'm not probably as well versed in this as you, but they were talking about like straight-up communist, like state control of stuff.

Like that was the concern back then, right?

No, no.

These were communists that were going down during the Dust Bowl in the 30s, and they were going into labor, and they were fighting for the common man.

And, you know, there was a lot of fear that was generated about them by the same corrupt people that had everything to lose.

They had this corrupt thing going where they were trying to create a shadow government through Truman.

I don't want to get too much into it.

And basically hijack the Constitution, create all these unconstitutional federal agencies.

And they were worried the Communists were going to keep 'em in check and uh challenge their agenda.

So, what they did is they demonized all the communists to shut up the only opposition, and the rest is history, you know.

Like, you know, that they had the Kennedy assassination about a decade or two after that, and th the the empire was born, you know, and the communists were the people that were gonna stand in the way, the first ones.

You mentioned something that I well, you mentioned the uh unconstitutional federal agencies.

Mm-hmm.

Which which ones would those have been?

Well, you name it.

The CIA is probably the biggest one that's been terrorizing the American people.

But you've also got the FBI, the ATF.

You know, you could just probably every single one of them is unconstitutional, frankly.

Gotcha.

I thought you meant like, when I hear like federal agency, I think like, you know, EPA, FDA, that kind of stuff.

Well, you know, that's...

It's kind of subjective, you know.

I mean, we don't want our food to be poisoned necessarily.

No, me neither.

Yeah, but, you know, look, the NSA and the CIA and stuff, and even the FBI, you know, what they have done, their track record, it's not exactly clean, you know.

Well, what they have to deal with is just rife.

It's a fertile ground for corruption and, you know, skullduggery or whatever you want to say.

It's really horrible.

I mean, I feel like we know less than half of the junk going on out there.

I'm trying not to curse.

I'm really trying hard.

Oh, it's okay.

No problem.

Cool.

Yeah.

It's not.

Right on.

Well, do you have more to say?

I'm willing to listen.

Otherwise, I'll do whatever.

Well, look, all I'll say is I don't know what state you're out of.

What's the Minnesota?

Oh, wow.

Firstly, Communist already.

Well, we've got, you know, we've got small chapters in most states, including Minnesota.

I'd say visit our website.

You know, if you're interested in attending a chapter event.

Um

Just to meet our people and you know, you don't have to join, but you just can meet our people and talk to them.

Yeah, I've had a great, I've had a great time chatting with you guys.

And like I said, I don't mean to bang on this, I don't want to sound like an asshole or anything, but you're not based on just the tagline or whatever title of this space, I wasn't sure what to expect, but I didn't expect a conversation like this.

There's a whole lot of people that they claim to be leftists or whatever, and they have a big problem with me because they don't like the way they don't like what I'm doing.

You know, they want they have an agenda.

The Democrats don't like me because I try to tell people we need to break out of this two-party system.

Um, but yeah, you seem you seem to be outside of the uh typical political spectrum, yeah, absolutely, and uh, a lot that's put a target on my head.

But look, you know, if you're in Minnesota, I'm not trying to, you know, all I'm saying, our people, you know, what we do is we do community service, we do labor organizing, we throw barbecues, we have events, it's full of normal, ordinary people.

Um, and they, you know, they're trying to do right by their communities, they're trying to discover and investigate corruption, they're trying to defend our rights, and if you meet them yourself, you'll find that, you know, you'll see that.

I always tell people, go and try to meet our people, try to see who they are yourself with your own eyes, don't just take it from me, you know.

And I've always kind of thought that, like, you know, we can all watch, we can all listen to the radio or watch the TV news, but you know, you and your neighbors and most of the common folk are just trying to scratch together a living, you know, be cool, you know, absolutely have a roof over their head, feed their family, you know, have a little fun.

We love the word common sense because most of everything is common sense.

We're just so brainwashed that we're taught that what's common sense is just the opposite sometimes, you know.

We're taught that giving all our money to foreign causes is common sense when it's just the opposite of that.

Well, so let me ask you since you brought that up so like what do you what's your guys' stance on like foreign aid and the whole Ukraine and Israel?

Shut it all down.

Shut everything down.

Shut all of it down.

Are you kidding?

I mean with how much taxes we spend, every dime needs to be going back.

And we need to see results.

They can't just say it on the books.

We need to start seeing having better roads and highways and infrastructure and transportation systems.

We need to see it.

So that's what I'm saying, man.

It's kind of like an America first.

Don't let the Trump thing infiltrate this, but it's kind of an America first.

Like take care of our shit here first, right?

It's common sense.

Absolutely.

That's what a country's supposed to do.

I mean, it pisses me off because in Minnesota here, we got, look, I understand things are not good all over the world, but we're bringing in so many people here.

And we got a lot of Somalis and African refugees, and I'm sure things are rough there.

But my thing is, hey, as long as we got one American homeless person on the street, what are we doing?

You know, helping out somebody else halfway across the globe.

We put our bases over there.

We're causing all these problems there.

Then we take the refugees, and I'll tell you what the purpose is.

They are trying to drive the wages down for the American worker.

They're trying to make it.

That's exactly what it is.

So they're trying to cheapen labor and weaken the leverage of the American worker.

And the whole thing is designed to drive our quality of life down so that they can save a dime.

It's like, what is this all for?

It's not for us.

It's not for our best interests.

It's for them.

And all their money, it's all in these islands.

It's in these Caribbean islands.

It's in these islands, offshore banks.

And they will leave the minute anything they feel any kind of pressure, they feel any kind of, you know, the gravy train comes to an end.

They're just going to leave and go live on their islands.

Just like Epstein had his island, you know?

I would never have guessed that coming into this space that we would agree on so much.

It's absolutely bananas to me.

It's that damn word, man.

You guys got to come up with a different word, honestly.

Hey, man, look, we're going to keep rocking with it, but we're also going to stay the same.

Just like how I talk to you here.

You talk to my people, they'll tell you the same thing.

And you said you're in Minnesota.

We have a nice Minnesota chapter.

And, you know, if you meet these people yourself and you see with your own eyes.

You know, you'll that word slowly and slowly, it'll stop being so such a bad word, you know.

Because the way we see the word, when we hear the word communism, we hear the common man, we hear the common sense, the common interest, the common good, you know?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it, and you've explained it to me, and I kind of see it from your point of view now.

But you gotta, just from a marketing perspective, you gotta understand how the rest of the world sees that, right?

No, I get it, but I also think that the world's going upside down, the country's going upside down, and we need to, we need people to shock people into waking up, shock them into their good senses, because people are asleep right now.

You know, people are too distracted by the ball game, and you know, they're not awake, they're not living in reality, they're living in a it's a it's like the you know the frog where they boil it and it's yeah, that's the that's the American people right now, yeah, it's not it's not going in a good direction.

So, how do you guys align with like the uh uh DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America?

What is how do you guys we don't really like them and they don't like us, and the reason is because

You know, those guys

They don't

What they want to do is, they just want more taxes and they want to create more welfare.

And we don't think that's the solution.

And you know another thing about them is that

We think they're corrupt.

We think they're tied in with the Democratic Party and with the system.

And uh you know we want we want to work with whoever we can work with.

We're not we're not

We're not uh exclusionary, but they don't like us.

They hate us.

They hate our guts.

Uh a lot of them do at least.

And the reason they hate our guts is because we're calling out the corruption and they feel like they're got cro caught in the crosshairs of that 'cause we're saying the Democrats and the Republicans are corrupt, not just one, but both.

So they're all they're all stuffed up into the the big corrupt system too.

Yeah, I think so, yeah.

I mean, they, you know, they just want to all uh they promise expanding welfare, but I don't even think they're they can keep their promises.

You know, I think Bernie Sanders was a sellout.

I think AOC was a sellout.

She got elected.

You know, she talks a lot, but she promised a lot she didn't deliver because these people are corrupt.

They're politicians.

You know, the DSA are a bunch of politicians.

Well, it was a very interesting move here in Minnesota.

I don't live in Minneapolis.

I live in Sartell.

It's about an hour and a half northwest, but.

you know, Jacob Frye was the is the mayor of Minneapolis and the new guy, um, gosh, Omar Fateh, he won he won the Democrat primary in Minneapolis, but he's uh in the DSA.

And I'm thinking, oh, geez, man, like, that's not good, right?

And our governor, Tim Walls, he actually did not endorse the new guy, Omar Fateh.

He endorsed the incumbent.

Well, I see all these people as a bunch of scammers.

Like, Obama was a scammer.

Okay, you've got the scammers AOC, Zohron.

This guy's the newest scammer.

And it's a front for corruption, more corruption.

And we are not at the stage where we're really involved in elections for mayor.

We're trying to build from the grassroots, from the community, because we think only we, the people, can do it.

We don't trust politicians in suits that are smiling at us.

We believe in building the community from the ground up.

Building the connections, building the organization.

Yeah.

No, it's just interesting to me that, you know, Zomar Fateh, I don't know.

I'm not for sure if he was born here or as a, you know, first, second, whatever.

I mean, who knows?

A lot of these people, they're CIA.

You got to remember that.

They're recruited from all around the world for the CIA's agenda.

That's a fair point.

I just don't understand what the CIA's interest would be in endorsing or enabling somebody that would come in and basically do harm to this country.

It just doesn't make sense.

What I think.

I think that a lot of the young people don't like the Democrats anymore because they saw Biden and they saw what was going on with Israel and stuff.

So what they're doing is they're trying to get the youth back into the Democratic Party by creating these new Obama scammers like Zohron and NYC and this guy Omar.

And they're trying to make it more trendy and popular for the young people.

And then ultimately, it's just going to be the, you know, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

The same old Democrats will be in charge.

It's just they're going to be bringing young people into it.

So they put a shiny, they put a shiny new name on it and then the old guard is just pulling the strings.

There you go.

That's exactly it in our view.

Yeah.

No, that's that's not a.

I can't find any fault in that.

Yeah.

That's how we see it.

Well, look, man, it was great talking to you.

Yeah, man, me too.

Thanks for having me on.

I really didn't know what to expect coming in.

I get it, man.

I know it must be a little surreal, a little strange.

But if you're interested further, you know, I I recommend linking up with the Minnesota guys and, you know, you know, the do doing more investigation and doing more, you know, whatever you got to do.

Is I genuinely think that y you know, I'll tell you something crazy before you go.

I think e I think most regular, ordinary Americans are communists, but they don't even know it.

Could be.

Again, that word's still a little hard to swallow, so don't take my silence as the negative.

I get it.

Trust me, I get it.

But uh that's what that's what we think.

We think most people are communists, but they don't even know it.

And uh if you're curious, you know.

I recommend that.

I'll check it out, man.

I'll check it out.

I dropped you a follow and, you know.

I'll keep in touch or whatever.

Great.

Good stuff.

God bless her.

Women, God bless you.

Take care.

Take care.

Alright.

So Sue, I gotta make him co-host again.

Is uh

Can't see.

And let's.

So there's a guy named Rousseau.

There's Doctor President.

Let's bring on the Doctor President.

Go ahead.

Well, may I speak?

Yeah.

Okay, so uh

I I am Canadian.

Um and our friend uh Shane that was just speaking uh is Minnesotan and is pretty much Canadian in my opinion.

Uh but

Jesus, like I I don't know, like like y you guys have a two-party system.

In America.

You know, I don't know what's going on.

I just, you first, you said Minnesota is below.

I don't know if that was a joke.

I very much disagree.

And it just kind of sounds like you're riding off the back of a moose right now, drunk.

And I don't appreciate it.

Let's bring on the Rousseau guy.

Go ahead, Rousseau.

Go ahead, Rousseau.

There's one guy, the warrior philosopher.

He's been DMing me.

He's pretty interested in speaking with you.

Yeah, he'll go right after.

Let's just get Rousseau.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Rousseau.

Can you hear me all right?

Yep.

All right.

Um you can humor it.

I don't wanna give any like uh

Material to your opposition, but I thought I'd plug the idea what um.

Would you consider a kind of Balkanization campaign with uh with like white nationalists that want to go after liberalism?

No.

So the

Let me let me pitch it briefly.

Kind of like a Molotov, uh, ribbon trough type thing.

We wouldn't not even under the auspices of like a uh fourth blood of theory type.

Um, I don't know what you're talking about.

We no, we would not because.

You know that we have a lot of white people in our ranks, okay?

What are we gonna tell our white people, my white comrades?

I'm gonna tell them to go be white nationalists?

That's nonsense.

Okay, we are we are one unified tribe, one American tribe.

We don't tolerate those kind of divisions.

I'm talking about a geographic zone like separatists within America.

So that you split it up and people who want to be white nationalists can go there.

Everyone else can go where they want.

White people don't want to be white nationalists.

That's whatever.

That that would be the point of a United Front.

Well no, because we don't we don't believe in Balkanization, first of all, and then second of all uh they tried this before by the way, it totally is a failure.

There's no point in signing off on something.

If you if you're trying to challenge the government, I don't care what your ideology is, you are it's suicide to make it on racial separatism.

And the reason is because if you can't create a principle that unifies the people in this country, then you're gonna be picked off and the government's gonna unify everyone they need to to destroy you.

So we totally think it's a suicidal strategy.

Forget the morals of it.

Forget the, you know, in principle how we reject

The racial divisions, just on a pragmatic level, it's suicide as a strategy.

This doesn't work.

It'll never work.

Well, you wouldn't be picked off if you had a united front, if you had some kind of critical support just for fighting this regime, and then you go yourself.

You're not going to make a united front with all these like petty racial nationalisms.

You're going to create a united front.

Of a framework that unites all Americans.

One American Nation.

You know, I don't know what else to say.

It's like even if you on the off chance manage to convince black separatists to support you, is the wider black community gonna support you?

No, they're not, 'cause all they all the government has to do is say that you guys hate black people, which is not too far off the mark as far as a lot of your representatives.

Uh and then you're done, you're toast, you know.

Just gotta tell Latino people that you hate Latinos.

You're toast.

It's like you you the the whole point of and and I'll even say, look, the the Black Panthers, what they were doing was noble, but there's a reason they failed.

The reason they failed.

Was because they couldn't discover a new unifying American national principle.

And so the government was able to have so much power to crush them, to isolate them.

They were trying to create coalitions and all this stuff.

It was too late.

So, you know, that's why we believe in one American nation.

That's it.

Well um

I mean, it wasn't some extent the Soviets?

Were they not kind of broken down into ethnic blocks?

Yeah, but the ethnic groups were actual ethnic groups with different languages and traditions and customs.

And these ethnicities had a a territorial, you know, history being in certain places.

And so it was totally different.

We you know America

What are the different American ethnic?

There's so much different crossover between the quote-unquote ethnicities or subcultures here.

That it's difficult to make them it's all they're all interconnected and interrelated.

That's the issue.

So I mean I don't see how it's so crazy to say look let's say we want Soviet America and we want a white Soviet and like African-American.

No, there's not going to be a white Soviet because the majority of the population is white.

It makes no sense.

There's not going to be a white Soviet.

That that's meaningless, okay?

That's not an ethnicity.

That's just a that's just a term that basically says I don't want to be on the bus with black people.

All right.

Um, that's all it means.

It doesn't mean an ethnicity, it just means I don't, you don't want to be distinguished from all the darker colored races, quote unquote, right?

So.

You're gonna have to get over that.

You know, in our party, we have white people and they all are sitting around the bonfire, we're smoking pipes, we're telling stories, it's white, black, brown, it's people from all races, we're all telling jokes.

You know, that's what we believe in.

We don't believe in this nonsense of dividing people by race.

We can all tell jokes, we can all have a good time.

That's what we believe in.

Yeah, fair enough.

I appreciate you, man.

All right.

For sure.

Uh let's bring on the warrior.

Go ahead, warrior.

Hear me?

Yep.

Hey, Haas.

So I just kind of wanted to have a conversation from the position of the right concerning your sort of project.

And what I wanted to ask about from the beginning is I wanted to find a thinker that we might find common ground on.

And I wanted to get your thoughts on George Sorrell and what you think about his sort of unique blend of Marxism, which I think is something that nationalists have certainly been more privy to, whether that's Action Francais, which you join later on, or Mussolini.

What are your thoughts on Sorel?

I've never been impressed by Sorel.

And the reason is because the syndicalist framework was a total cope.

Because it ignores the rural question, it r ignores the peasant question, the the question of the people that are outside the modern urban institutions.

So Sorel was more.

Sorel very much was oblivious to that dynamic.

Is Sorell somebody like are you f pretty familiar with him, someone we could talk about to sort of contrast your vision, or is it better for me to bring someone else up?

Last time I read Sorel was ten years ago, so it's been a while.

You've brought up Plato, I think, before in some of your uh podcasts, if I'm not mistaken.

And what what are your thoughts on like Plato's uh sort of elite theory with the Guardian cast and his vision in the Republic?

Like is that something that you have any agreements with?

I don't I don't I don't know if Plato was actually envisioning a political system as much as he was making uh

you know, as a system of mind.

But um

I don't I don't I think the problem is that it's there's no way to institutionally select for elites.

I think elites rise organically based on their abilities, not based on whether some sterile system is selecting for them, which I think is impossible.

But do you think that the organic um elevation of elites 'cause like in my in my perspective institutionally, you know, the the most abled and the most skilled will rise to the top based on what they can do.

And isn't this something that Marx opposes?

Like this natural organic evolution?

Like, isn't the Marxian project inherently anti-hierarchical?

No.

It's just anti- No, Marxism is against the institution of the state and of private property, which is literally the opposite of that.

It's an institution that's applied indiscriminately against everyone, regardless of their particular talents, abilities, and skills.

And it doesn't recognize people's unique abilities and skills.

It basically just puts everyone under the common standard of money, and that's how everyone's measured.

It's nonsense.

Sure.

So, like, you know, I also agree that an economic elite is not an ideal governing body.

But I guess what I'm asking is you said naturally occurring elites, organic occurring elites, is how things are.

I'm telling you, the class society doesn't come from people having natural abilities over others.

It comes from institutions.

But then you establish.

Yeah, over time.

So would you say that the initial establishment of a hierarchy is something based on people's abilities?

Because obviously, whoever established themselves initially in a hierarchy, whether it's like a military elite in ancient times or even new regimes initially, like initially that institutionalize it.

Yeah, they didn't have to institutionalize that.

Some would rise and some would fall, some within the same generation.

Somebody's going to be the best guy at riding horses and then someone else takes this.

I mean, it was totally fluid.

You don't need to institutionalize it.

If you're institutionalizing it, it's because you're scared somebody's going to come and prove they're better than you.

So you institutionalize it to prevent that from happening.

That's why they had these incest marriages to protect their property because they're afraid somebody might be better skilled.

See, look.

Can I just make a point really quick?

In a tribe that doesn't have private property, hierarchy is so fluid because.

People rise to the system.

It is fluid but it exists and it's paternalistic, right?

It's based on tradition, it's based on things like that.

But people fall just as much as they rise, and it creates equilibrium.

I don't disagree with that.

Nobody's sitting at the top forever.

Okay, but what I'm trying to get at is within a Marxian system, isn't there nothing that is institutionally regulating one individual from essentially, you know, like let's say let's say for example, like you're talking about the natural fluidity of hierarchy.

That also means that someone naturally fluidly can come up and sort of circumvent social contract and non-aggression principle to be the most powerful person in society.

Doesn't Marxian system sort of inherently reject somebody attaining more power than the rest, even if it's naturally, even if it's not due to sort of institutional materials.

What do you mean power?

Do you mean somebody that literally just wants to abuse and beat people for no reason?

Because I don't think anything.

No, that's just like the sort of Machiavellian power, but power manifests in lots of different ways.

You're talking about power in terms of...

Well, like Xi Jinping, for example.

That's a rise to power, right?

And you could say it's for good means, you can make that argument, but he's still rising to power, sometimes at the expense of others, sometimes maneuvering the political system to end up in power.

What's wrong with that?

I would say where does Marx go against that?

Well, with this conception of a stateless society, I would say inherently getting rid of any government structures.

This is a common misconception.

What did Marx and Engels mean by the state?

So, the state, I'll say two things: the state, first of all, was the institution of the polis created in the Greek classical age in classical antiquity.

So, technically, Marx and Engels, in their framework, they don't even consider the Persian Empire to be a state.

The state was a common institution that was created to safeguard the interests of the new class of private property holders in ancient Greece.

So, the state is a very specific type of institution.

Can I ask a question about that?

It's a permanent state of affairs.

You said Persia, like let me continue.

So, Asiatic societies had dynasties.

The dynasties were cyclical.

They rose and they fell.

Those were not states per se because they didn't have the steady state quality.

Okay, then, second of all,

Um, let me continue.

Mao Zedong said something really interesting.

He said, Yeah, although Marxists sometimes say that the state will wither away, he said, What about our courts?

We have an ancient tradition in China of courts, they settle disputes between people, they settle squabbles.

He said, Those are going to continue even into communism.

So, the state, the withering away the state doesn't mean it's a free-for-all where there's no authority anymore, there's no central authority.

Central authority is not the same thing as state.

There's going to be central authority far into for all humanity's existence, there's going to be central authority, but there's not going to be a state, there's not going to be a permanent institution which is set against the living population in the interest of preserving some enshrined status quo.

There's going to be authority.

Can I ask a question?

So what's specifically about their system doesn't make it a state through the sort of uh Marxist view?

Because the Greek principle of statehood, if you read Engels' origins of the family and private property, it was basically this cartel that institutionalized and enshrined the right of the ruling class to have private property.

And it enforced their stake on land and private property and on debts at the expense of the rest of the population.

Whereas in the Asiatic societies, they didn't recognize private property at all.

The whole purpose of the quote-unquote state.

was not to enforce the interests of one group at the expense of another,

But to basically um

Mediate conflicts.

That's a bi that's the one Mao meant, you know, with the courts.

Standardize weights and measures to clarify and make trade easier, to facilitate it.

They also had the function of reparcelizing and distributing land, of canceling debts.

And you know they they basically um

They were they enforced the law.

They were a central authority that upheld

By the imperial institution, though, right?

Like the imperial institution of the Akhmen.

It was an imperial bureaucracy, sure.

But so, I mean, it was a centralized armed body that enforced justice, that's true.

But it still wasn't a state as per Engels' definition, because it didn't maintain private property.

So we can have a hereditary empire, and it would still fall within.

Like, if you had a hereditary empire, you would potentially support that if it fell within, for example, Marx's thing is about these hereditary dynasties is that

They were very fragile.

So they were they became hereditary and then they would just get overthrown.

And it'd be a cycle.

Sure.

Usually.

Um.

They the the the the lineages they never u would last that long, you know they would usually there'd be they'd come and fall, they'd rise and fall, and usually the lineage thing it's it would be ceremonial, you know.

The f the mythic heroic founder of the first revolution, and that's how they would have the succession play out.

And then there'd be succession crisis, you know, there would always be problems.

So I guess my question is you would potentially be supportive of an empire if it fell within specific uh what's your definition of an empire?

Well I would say an an empire for me would be you know, i I think an empire has to expand because it has to encompass uh multiple generally it's like what multi multi ethnic um like uh political apology, right?

So it would have to expand.

I mean it could be by peaceful means technically, but generally it's going to be I don't believe in uh

Enslaving other nations and violating their right to self-determination in the form of colonialism.

So, you don't agree with the Persian Empire, obviously, because they did that.

They're just not escaping.

The Persian Empire unified various different policies, but there were no nations and there was no principle of self-determination at all.

There was no such thing.

So, you're saying because they conquered other kingdoms.

No, no, I'm saying there was no such thing.

There was no such thing.

They didn't have any notion of self-determination.

The policies, or whatever you call them in question, these small city-states that they would conquer.

Well, sometimes kingdoms.

Yeah, kingdoms.

Large kingdoms, right?

Like Egypt, right?

Yeah, those were not like they there was no institution of popular sovereignty to begin with.

So because they weren't democracies or they weren't like ruled by or and they didn't have any conception of national self-determination, so you had totally fluid open borders, literally, right?

Where whoever was, you know, whoever had the better military usually was the king.

I mean, you literally have the claim.

That's how people got the claim in the first place.

It didn't take the form of one nation conquering another and then subjugating another, though.

It was the Persian Empire was one universal, it was like the Soviet Union.

It was one universal.

Well, people did revolt, I mean, against the Persian Empire.

I mean, the whole thing revolted in the Soviet Union, but it wasn't a.

They have the authority to crush an independent, like a people's will to be an independent power, right?

Like in the Soviet Union, for instance, right?

Whether that's like the key thing is that it didn't take the form of a colonialism.

It took the form of one great universal community.

Well, can't we say that?

Yeah, but you still had a structured, was it?

Like the elite of the Persian Empire was specifically, I believe, at least for, you know, at the very top, it's from the original tribe that spread out.

So it's still like tribalism.

Over time, it becomes pretty exactly universal.

Like, could anyone become the emperor of Persia?

Anybody who is a subject, could they become the emperor?

No, but people could rise to their equivalent of nobility and distinction.

Sure, but that's true even in European colonialism in Africa, right?

You had regional leaders who could still rise, but they could never, you know, no, they couldn't go, they could join the House of Lords and shit.

No, they couldn't.

Come on.

No, they couldn't join the House of Lords.

But what so you're saying that?

So are we talking about like a spectrum here of like how much because clearly you can't get to the very pinnacle in the Persian system, right?

And you can't get it to pinnacle, even in like China, right?

Okay, look, this is pet, this is this is kind of China now, right?

This is, you need to stop interrupting me, all right?

I'm not interrupting.

I'm just trying to get my point across.

Okay.

We went from talking about one race subjugating another inferior race or whatever.

It didn't happen.

Well, I never said that.

Did I say that?

Well, that's what I was saying.

It was different, okay, from colonialism in that respect.

Now you're talking about one family or one tribe having preeminence.

I never denied there was a preeminence of the king, the Shah, right?

Of course there was.

But that doesn't mean it took the form of one nation subjugating another.

It's very different things.

The Shah subjugated the Persians or the people that live in modern-day Iran just as much as Egyptians and everyone else.

Okay.

So you're saying because there was no real idea of popular sovereignty that it didn't matter that they were expanding, is that what you're trying to say?

Um, yeah, more or less.

There was no notion of uh nation states or nations or national self-determination.

But don't you also kind of nations?

This is the mythical origins of nations themselves.

I mean, the expansion that happened within the territorial extent of modern-day Iran, okay, follow me here, right?

Those were not a unified people.

Okay, so this was an expansion that happened that eventually over a thousand years, they become the nation of Iran that we know today, right?

Sure.

So they didn't have that in the past, though.

They were still in this mythical age of the formation of nations.

They didn't have nations to oppress or to or for some nations to oppress others.

They didn't have that.

So it was very different.

So isn't the nation state today even like you say, you know, kind of there's there's like um some idea of popular sovereignty or self-determination, but nation-states today are still generally ruled by an economic elite, right?

They're still sort of inherently oppressive in the sense that there isn't a fluid hierarchy.

Like I also I mean one place where I agree with you is I don't agree with the sort of liberal democratic system, which is basically an economic elite and that's the institution that gives you power is like you know this abstract concept of constitution.

Elites, it's too ambiguous, okay?

Right.

I'm not against elites, I'm just against economic elites, or like an elite that doesn't represent the true strength or the true.

We're talking about an institutionalized monopoly, okay?

That's what we have in liberal democracy.

I also oppose it today.

I oppose what we have today as well.

I'm just to be clear, you know, the word economic elite, it sounds like these are like the elite sigma males who rise to the top because they're really good.

And that's not no, these are in power because of manipulation of because of institution, institutional power.

Can I ask you a question?

Like, something that I believe in, why you would say it was wrong.

Because I generally believe in something, like, so I'm not a traditionalist, I would say I'm a futurist, right?

But I do think that there's value in the past in a military caste, right?

Where generally, at least initially, a military caste was the elite because they won power through force of arms, which was a direct representation of their quality, right?

And then they established their hierarchy, etc.

And I think everything degrades when you get like a sort of mercantile class.

Can I just tell you what my general gist so I can see where you disagree?

Because I'm trying to understand your system versus mine.

Because I think there's, you know, like there's some things that we kind of share.

I'm sorry.

I'm done with this fucking talking fast shit.

It's like, holy fuck.

I mean for fuck's sake you're talking about fucking military cast.

Do a fucking push-up.

Be in the military for fuck's s I hate this way of like reflexively describing it.

Like, like, like from a distance.

I don't fuck with that.

I am a warrior.

I don't you're gonna systematize it and make it like a big system.

It's so fucking that's not that's someone who's in a lab coat with glasses.

I don't like the glasses talk.

This guy has swords in his name.

Go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Uh-huh.

Oh, so it's like a debate?

That's what the fucking title says.

Yeah, um, I I support Israel and I don't think they're they're causing a genocide.

Uh how are they not causing a fucking genocide, dude?

Um because the Palestini because uh you know the land is promised to the Jewish people thousands and year thousands of years ago.

Hold on, that so hold on.

How is that not a genocide?

You could say that you bel you support the genocide, but to say there is none at all is a very different claim.

No, there's they they don't even they they barely have even there's like nobody even really died.

It's like I'm all made up.

Nobody died?

Not many.

People are like no, I'm not.

People are like, Oh, this is like worse than the Holocaust.

Dude, they said sixty thousand people died, bro, and the Holocaust killed like four like like thirteen million people, bro.

You know, it's not a genocide.

Uh, it's just everyone's being ethnically cleansed and terrorized and killed.

What how many so okay, so what's your point here?

Point is is like that's like war, is it?

Is that not just war?

Is that just not what happens in the middle of the city?

They're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and starving them and r uh blocking the flow of humanitarian aid.

That's not just war, that's a deliberate attempt to kill those people.

Okay, but that's what Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union and no one called that genocide.

I would absolutely call the Nazi atrocities against the Soviet peoples genocidal.

Absolutely.

What about when the Allies were bombing Nazi Germany, like civilian centers there?

Well, it wasn't a system it wasn't a systematic attempt to eradicate the German people as a whole, whereas the Nazis did have plans to, you know, wipe out what they considered to be inferior peoples.

For example, the general plan for Ukraine or whatever, where they wanted to kill everyone and just take all their agriculture.

starve them out.

General Plan Ost, you know, they had these plans.

They were genocidal in their intent.

They had the intent of genocide when it comes to their atrocities.

But the, um you know, Dresden and stuff, that w that was uh those were crimes against civilians, but it wasn't with genocidal intent.

So, you think Israel is killing Palestinians because they think they called them Amalek, and they said that, you know, we got to look at the rhetoric inside Israel.

You'll find all the evidence you need for genocidal intent.

Oh, okay.

I didn't know that.

Yeah, well, we learn things new every day.

Yeah.

I guess maybe I should be doing more research.

I guess so.

All right, well thank you, Haas.

Okay.

I'm glad I couldn't get one person to re-evaluate.

I feel like that was the lowest hanging, like.

I know he's a troll, but like what he was LARPing as was like a guy who just like

Very passively was just like captured by like Zionist propaganda.

But like very low-hanging fruit style, where like he was on YouTube and he saw one of those 30-second ads that are pro-Israel.

And he's like, Oh, I guess this is my opinion now.

And like all it takes is to talk to them for like two minutes to totally undo that.

But Israel doesn't care.

They're just hoping to get as many people because they know the probability of those kind of encounters are very low.

It's like a very like passive capture of Zionist propaganda.

I think I've I've brought this guy on, this weird white face

Japanese banner.

I don't know what this is.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

This strange, strange account.

Yeah.

Okay, uh sorry, I'm I'm in the mountains, so if I You're in the fucking mountains, okay.

Yeah, okay, okay.

Hawk, we talked last time.

You probably uh you probably know you probably know where I'm gonna go.

No, I don't.

I forgot about last time.

Okay, okay.

Um

You know, I like a lot of what the party says.

got really alarmed 'cause normally I'm on Instagram.

What?

Hello?

Bro needs starling.

Did did you hear what he said?

I didn't hear anything.

I know.

He's been going in and out.

I haven't heard anything.

Okay.

Hit hide, if you're speaking, nobody could hear you.

Is anyone else requesting?

Slime, but I think this person has been here before.

Well, bring him up anyway.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, I don't remember who this is.

Slime, you have speaker, go ahead.

Alright, bring on JoJo.

Slime is not gonna speak.

Alright, there's this guy named Joe who requested I brought him on.

But I think he's going all right here he is.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, Joe.

Joe, go ahead.

Uh Joe, you gotta unmute yourself.

All right.

Should be there uh working now?

Yep.

Him in?

Yep.

Yep, yep.

How's it going?

So um I just posted a comment.

Let me just repeat basically what I wrote, that uh I saw an accusation that the ACP is kind of anti-finance but pro-business.

Um but I did see uh

that online you've posted plans to take over c certain parts of the private sector and make them public.

But is it accurate to say that you're opposed to total public ownership?

Um, I will only qualify that.

All right.

So, let me break down a few things you just said 'cause I have to.

So, first of all, pro-business, no, not in this we don't we're not pro-business interests, uh, established business interests.

Are we pro-social entrepreneurship?

Absolutely.

Very different things.

Entrepreneurship, it's uh very different.

You know, 'cause you say pro business, it sounds like lobbyists and business interests and we don't agree with that.

So, um, second thing is public ownership.

Let me actually uh let me actually blow your mind here, okay?

Uh let me upset some expectations you might have.

Public ownership doesn't have to mean ownership by a centralized state institution.

Okay?

Do we believe in every ownership being owned?

by a centralized state bureaucracy no.

But public ownership over all of the economic means of production, we think that is something to strive toward.

Uh if

Part of that public ownership could be local cooperatives.

Local small scale cooperatives, local entrepreneur, social cooperative entrepreneurship.

Um

Or forms of entrepreneurship, even if they're not cooperative, which ultimately benefit the public interest.

Now we don't think that can happen overnight, but it's a good thing to aspire toward.

So

Right.

Now we're just talking about the things that concern the public.

You know, for example, if you have a garage and you just want to work on a car because it's yours and you that doesn't have to be the public doesn't have to be concerned with that.

It's yours.

It's your business.

Right.

But when it comes to things that take from public resources, we want people to give back.

Just give back as much as you take.

And most people want to give even more.

for free because they they they they you know, they they it makes life worth living for them.

But at least as much as you take

Right.

Well, I mean uh to an extent I agree, uh but I I

I tend to think that at any time where you have entrepreneurship, it's inevitably going to lead to some level of inequality, you know, just for mathematical reasons.

So I view it more as a physical inequality is absolutely unavoidable.

No way to avoid it.

Um, some people can jump higher than others.

What can I say?

Some people are faster than others, some people can do more push-ups than others, you know.

Some people.

You know?

Some people got more Riz than others, that's the truth.

Some people got more charm.

Some people Right, but we're talking about I'm talking about obviously financial inequality, monetary inequality.

Where if you have Some people are better at managing uh resources than others.

That's the truth.

Nothing.

True, true.

But, you know the the question is whether we're gonna allow those people to how h how much can they be allowed to profit from that?

Ine inequality is bad when it's institutionalized.

Institutionalized inequality is bad.

There's a natural inequality that's okay.

The institutionalized inequality is a problem.

Right.

But I I guess my question is So for example, if somebody if somebody's really good at something and they make it to the top, they shouldn't be able to institutionalize it and say all my descendants will now enjoy the fruits of my accomplishment and we're going to be this aristocracy that rules over everyone.

That's no, you everyone's got to earn it constantly, constantly, regularly, like a meritocracy.

Yeah, yeah.

So if but I'm I'm wondering how you how you put that into a policy framework.

So you're you're envisioning, you know, cutting off uh inheritance?

No, not necessarily.

But what I'm envisioning is cutting off the ability for.

Things that take from public resources to be institutionalized in such a way that they're free from public accountability.

Uh sorry, how so?

So, for example, if somebody becomes really good at managing a uh a dam.

You know?

They shouldn't be able to eventually say that, okay, I'm so good at this, I can do th wi with this whatever I want, regardless of how it impacts the rest of society.

Yeah.

Yeah, but I'm just I'm looking for I mean that's that's a case that we we already see most dams even in capitalist countries we see those being managed privately.

I mean publicly right but yeah but if we look at it if we look at but even with things like that we don't have any safeguards that prevent those things from being privatized and things like that are being privatized all the time public infrastructure that we rely on this right so you're so you are opposed to the mass privatization of I am and not because I think government bureaucracy that we have is good but more so because I understand that these companies and corporations that are gobbling it up they're not doing it for the purpose of improving anything or attending to anything it's all one big sell-off for speculators and creditors who don't care about anything physical they're just trying to make their bottom line in in in the you know in the in the clouds these financial abstractions

And that's the issue.

See, that's where we're going back to your concept of finance.

But I think this comes down to capitalists, these people who, I mean, traditional capitalists, not finance capitalists.

They become one came from the other.

The financialization, first there was the traditional capitalist, and then that became monopoly capital, and that's how it became financialized.

Yes, yes.

But I'm just trying to nail down: are you opposed to both forms of capitalist activity?

I'm not trying to return to the old capitalism.

I don't think it's possible to return to it.

It's a matter of is it possible?

It's not possible.

Yeah, to an extent I I agree.

Uh

Then but then

I mean, uh, it sounds to me like you're you're you you want to target the the financial aspect of it first before you come in and and and target, say, uh factories and and things that are actually producing things.

Is that accurate?

Wait, would you say?

So I'm saying if you come into power as the leader of the ACP, you're going to first go after finance capital before you try to privatize the factories and the actual modes of production.

It depends on the scale, okay?

There's not a lot of small-scale industry in the true sense that exists anymore.

So it depends on the scale.

We definitely don't.

We don't want it would not be ideal for us to have to expropriate small-scale production by force.

Actually, we would be opposed to that.

What we would rather want.

But look at what there is, though.

So we still produce cars, right?

So are you going to privatize Ford?

Are you going to privatize Tesla?

Are those all going to come over under one embroidery?

The amount of subsidies we give those companies, absolutely, we'd nationalize them.

Absolutely, we'd nationalize the big auto companies.

I mean, immediately, we'd nationalize them.

But Walmart's that kind of company is that becoming nationalized?

They're going to become state-owned enterprises because they already owe us that because of how much of subsidies we've given them and how much we bail them out and how much credit we pump into them through money that's on our dime through the Federal Reserve, where they pump out the money and they put it into the investment firms that just give it to them anyway.

So they belong to us already.

We own them.

It's just that we're being scammed and robbed.

So.

Yeah, but okay, with smaller scale stuff, here's what I'd say.

I'd say, no, our philosophy isn't to just take it.

Our s philosophy is prove the superiority of the cooperative model on the marketplace and that way make that more make that more competitive.

And uh win on the market.

I mean, how do you do that?

Because I agree.

I agree that there should be space for cooperatives, at least in the early phases of socialism, of an American socialism.

How do you see that those get promoted over the more technology has a direction of more socialization?

So the more technology advances, the more socialized labor and production becomes, right?

So that's all you got to do is you got to connect the two things.

I don't see the connection.

I don't see the connection between technology and someone saying technology deepens the connections and cooperation between people.

Absolutely.

Let me give an example.

So say I have an idea to become, you know, I have a new 3D printing idea, and I'm going to start this business.

And I see that I can make more money if I employ people, right?

So how do you how do you encourage me to, rather than employing people, how do you encourage me to make this a cooperative?

Right?

Because I I I don't see how I'm going to make more money as a cooperative if I'm a capitalist who has a new idea in 3D printing uh and production that way.

Um

I think that when it comes to new technologies, you need credit.

Nobody can just do it off the market.

You need subsidies and credit to roll them out.

So it would be based on a centralized credit system that would be owned publicly, not by private cartel of banks like we have now.

Right.

So you're saying that you you as the you you as the creditor, you you have a p a maybe a public credit system or a or a a that would that would favor you stop you stop you stop crediting you stop providing loans to or or you could just further incentivize by giving more loans if you uh well, I don't even think it would have to be like that.

I think that you know the cooperative model would have to just be based on something more socialized, you know, when it comes to information technology.

Uh it would be more it would be better economically.

It would be inherently better, I think, um, than the reverse, just from the competitive I just don't know what that means.

I'm having tru can you provide an example of what that would look like?

It would it would it would look like enterprises that are more dynamically adapted to the new information age, uh, just in terms of how they operate and how they function.

Uh they could be managed in a hierarchical way.

That's fine.

But without this you know, without this baggage of this more

Capitalistic form of ownership, they could be more responsive to changes in the forces of production, such as the rise of digitalization and the fourth industrial revolution.

They wouldn't have the prejudices of the past.

They could be more dynamic, more competitive, more adapted.

More people have a stake in them.

And uh more people have skin in the game and that that just all sounds great, but you have to you have to have some means to to force it to manifest.

You just gotta force it, you just gotta make it more competitive on the market.

Yeah.

And so what that's why I was saying you need you need a you need you need to make it so that the capitalist cannot acquire loans to start their business unless they make it a cooperative.

Wouldn't you agree?

Uh to start, yeah, pro possibly, sure.

Um

Hold on, wait.

All right, well i if that's what you actually believe, then I I guess I don't have that much uh to um to say.

I'll I'll let you, you know, move on to the next caller.

Sure.

Oh wait, hold on.

Alright.

Why doesn't it fucking work?

Hey guys, type infrared.gg in your browsers and tell me if it works.

Just infrared.gg, none of the www shit.

Just infrared.gg.

'Cause I don't think that's working.

Into working for me.

Oh, is it?

Yeah, I just without the W part.

Yeah, without the W part.

Okay, cool.

Hey, guys, so we did a revamp of the website.

Uh so people are saying so the links weren't working before.

The links are now fixed.

Uh there's more changes that are gonna come, but this is just the new version of the website we have.

Uh you know.

Um, thank Darg.

Darg did all this.

Darg and uh Jordan, actually, apparently, Darg got his help.

So this is just like the new framework.

And you know, we are updating the logo eventually and stuff, but this is the new yeah, there it is.

So, people were saying the old website wasn't working too well and they couldn't, you know, get into the community.

I d so there you go.

Guys, the problem with InfraWiki is there are a lot of stupid articles on it, and that needs to be fixed.

All right, the Hittite Slazer guy, let's bring him on.

Go ahead.

Everyone thank Darg.

Hey, I'm back.

Can you hear me?

Yeah!

Oh, thank god.

Okay, sorry, I warned you that you're I was gonna lose connection.

Hey, uh s I I don't wanna like repeat myself again.

Where did do you recall where it cut me off?

No.

You spoke for like five seconds and then you cut off.

We heard literally nothing.

Okay.

Um Haas, um lately uh since the last time we talked I brought up trans issues.

That's how we um that's where we started our conversation.

And uh I've been paying a lot of attention to politics lately and just on Instagram and just YouTube.

I mean they're just like pumping.

I don't know what's going on.

It's just in the algorithm they're just pumping the Quintes.

Like I mean his videos are just like drawing like hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Stuff like that.

And um what just kind of concerns me is I'm it I feel like I feel like the party does a lot of good work, you know, and you're the um hello.

I think they that's okay, we're about to wrap it up anyway.

Bro beans, go ahead.

Go ahead, Brobeans.

Go Jesus Christ, they also disconnected.

All right.

Uh we're done, we're done.

Space is over, okay?

Space is done.

We will be back.

I'll see you guys.

Hold on, I'm not ending the stream.

It's kick.com/slash infrared.

Actually, I'm gonna I'll just talk here.

Sure, why not?

So, guys, Cala Walsh, Cala Walsh.

Um, Calla Walsh condemned us.

Um

Kalwals went to Iran.

And

Uh she

She's okay, she's pretty cool.

Uh she has a she has a principled line on the resistance.

But she said what did she say?

Let me find it.

When she was she was asked about ACP, she goes ill.

Pretty damning.

Okay, here it is.

Let me read it.

Um she and then she has a longer answer and she said uh settler, racist, misogynist, chauvinist uh

Interesting.

Extremely suspicious history of many high profile members who are constantly courting me.

Fascinating.

That's quite fascinating.

Um

Hmm.

Let me see.

No, I don't have any DMs with her, so

I don't know I don't know what that means.

Anyway

Um maybe she means like politically.

Uh yeah, I don't know where the courting is coming from.

But anyway

Let me continue what she said.

She said, uh but really it comes down to politics.

Are we trying to save uh the US or destroy it?

Do we see the US as a prison house or as a vision for revolution?

That's the line in the sand.

Uh she said there's no difference between the American Communist Party and an Israeli Communist Party.

Okay.

So.

To answer her question, do we think we can destroy the US?

We can't.

There's nothing you can do to contribute to the US's destruction better than the system already is doing.

So the USA is bound for dissolution, and we acknowledge that in our declaration as a party.

The USA is basically dead.

It's all but dead.

It just lives off of inertia.

So there's no need to debate about whether to preserve or save or rehabilitate or whatever.

It's it's the USA is done.

It's over.

It's going to be reconstituted one way or another.

And we believe but we believe in the continuity of the historical revolutionary tradition for the creation of an independent, unified American state on this land.

of the people that live on this land.

So and independent from Europe and colonialism.

So yeah, I I think there is quite a difference from Israeli Communist Party or something because Zionism was only based on the institution.

Of colonialism, right?

But even if hell or high water, the whole state collapses in the USA, people will still fucking live here and be here.

Even if it's decentralized, or they'll still be living on this land, part of this land.

If the Zionist state collapsed and all the foreign aid collapsed, they'd scatter to the wind, they'd go back to Poland or Ukraine or somewhere else.

So there's a fundamental qualitative difference.

The people here will are tied to the land, okay?

They've been indigenized.

I know you people might hate hearing that, but it's just the truth.

Um

And the principle we believe in is a unified American state.

Bye for one of the people, I don't know why that's so terrible.

Uh so then she says they promote the myth that Israel controls the US not the other way around.

Well, it's neither.

D does the US Constitution control Israel?

No, 'cause it doesn't even control our government.

The truth is is that the U S A is controlled by a transnational financial capitalist elite

That, you know, um

is more institutionalized in Europe than it is here.

And potentially in Europe as and Israel as well.

But it's not that Israel controls the US or the US controls Israel, it's that a gl you know, a a global capitalist cartel

Controls the US

And it's this cartel, which was from also the British Empire.

Uh that created Israel in the first place.

So

No one country controls the other, it's just that there's a ruling class that controls both.

Super simple.

Oftentimes Israel

Is a way that this same ruling class circumvents our constitutional rights.

Against us, so they they use let me put it this way.

There's an Anglo-Atlantic global capitalist class, not strictly Anglo-Atlantic, but that's where it's based from.

And yeah, there are some Jews there, sure.

Not mostly Jewish, but definitely, you know, Rothschilds, whatever.

And the ruling class, one of their tools of controlling the U.S.

population.

is utilizing these foreign states that they also control.

Against us and to rig our election.

The CIA does this.

So, this is the framework, okay?

This is the end to the debate.

Uh ACP is particular reactionary, but its main contradiction, um focusing on building socialism in the US rather than defeating imperialism.

Hey, you y y uh uh Calla, you're great and all.

But like Iran doesn't need you to be anything but

A spokesperson for an alternative vision for America.

You think Iran likes you?

Because why?

Why do you, Kala, why do you think Iran wants to bring you to Iran?

Because they need you to be in the besiege forces?

They want you to be their IRGC strategist or something?

No, you're there because you're an American and they want to see more Americans show solidarity with them because America is a powerful country.

And if more Americans use the leverage that they have and the power and privilege they have, that you could take a lot of.

burden from Iran's back, you know.

You know, Iran doesn't want you to become Iranian.

They want you to stay as an American and fight for your own flag and/or your own home at least.

Uh and fight in the belly of the beast, okay?

So

And she said, Please stop trying to recruit me.

Goodbye.

Oh, man.

Oh, man.

Uh I guess that's over guys.

We're not she's not joining us.

Um all of our

Lear attempts to recruit her.

Um they've all failed.

Um

Hmm.

Hmm.

Callowals

This is the white people going full Hamas.

Very interesting thing.

We're very interested in it.

Um

It I honestly, it is very interesting, but

She is uh I guess she's young.

She just needs to learn more.

Because she needs to learn that, uh, you know, look, no these other nations don't want you to b join them.

They want you to stay in your own and provide an alternative.

You're of no use to them.

As a non-American, you're of no use to them.

You're of no use to anyone in the world as far as solidarity as an individual.

You know, these the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, they don't want you as an individual.

They want you to be a representative of your nation.

That's what internationalism is, solidarity between nations.

It's not solidarity between indivi sh so she has this delusion that it's an individual thing.

Um and she said the US is a prison house of nations and this is a flawed framework because this framework acknowledges a white nation.

If you believe in a white nation in the USA, then you have de facto taken the side of white nationalists, which I'm not here to cancel anyone for anything, but just put your cards on the table.

Don't opportunistically condemn us because you get brownie points from leftists while not admitting that you support white nationalism.

To them.

If you want everyone to just be able to have free speech and have whatever position they want.

Then I agree.

Let's all have free speech.

But this you're clearly playing into this opportunism.

You know, you just respond, Oh, ew.

I mean, what is that supposed to mean?

Uh, everyone hates ACP and your nebulous social circles, so you get brownie points.

Well, well, well.

And what is this?

Uh, Cala Walsh is retweeting the Liberation Caucus.

What's the Liberation Cauc Oh, it's a D S A Caucus.

So why am I mean do I mean to

Would I be would it be fair saying that Cala is joining DSA?

Okay.

Well, well, suddenly someone who is interesting becomes a lot less interesting, frankly.

I mean, if all this crazy white girl shit, if the whole point of it was just go back to the DSA, that's quite disappointing.

Alright?

That's quite disappointing.

But, alas, there are many strangeness and oddities in the world still.

Callo went from

You know, october seventh to

Uh Zoron.

October Zoron, okay?

What can we say?

What can we say?

What can we do is except express disappointment?

The crazy white girl has become civilized.

That's all we can say.

Ah, okay.

Anyway guys, we're ending the space.

Guys, my latest tweet, y'all gotta boost that shit, alright?

It's like the worst one I've had in a million years.

Well, it's my fault because I just repeated kind of the previous tweet.

But

Let's start let's start getting on X again.

Okay, let's let's let's start getting on X again.

Let's start boosting X again.

Let's start let's start reactivating the guerrilla army.

You ask people to set up debates with you.

I did Donald Parkinson said he would.

So that's cool.

It's about barbarians, who's the barbarian?

Really?

Black Red Guard she's she's uh that's who she's like allying with?

It's just so d it's also disappointing.

It's also tiresome.

It's also tiresome.

Really?

Like, you're just gonna sell out that early?

That is so sad.

Ugh.

Ed oh man, that's just terrible.

It's like the that guy's the ultimate sellout, by the way, you know, but yikes.

Yikes.

No, the swing set, he was more based when he was a swing set guy.

I mean, it was still retarded, but at least it was funny.

Now he's straight up a fucking Democrat.

Okay, he's literally like a Democrat.

You guys need to understand this like disgusting opportunism.

Like DSA, it's like the worst.

Holy shit, it's like the worst.

Like anything but that, you know?

Go go back to fucking blowing up swing sets.

Anything but DSA.

Um

It's terrible.

Like Jason Unruh waving his airsoft gun is better than D S A, straight up.

It's just Trotskyite nonsense.

Yikes.

I mean, where do I even begin?

I'm I'm even surprised, like really, D S A?

Um it's not even a party, it's a fucking

It's a Zionist organization to the core, it was founded by that guy.

Michael Harrington.

Michael Harrington is like the American Hitler.

I'm just kidding, but it's so Hitlerite, like We are the Democratic Socialists In contrast to the Marxist doctrine, we democratic socialists

Uphold the institutions of democracy, not the Bolshevist, the Bolshevist way, the Bolshevist criminals, the Bolshevik dictatorship thug criminals.

We are the democratic socialists.

We have the purity and the cleanliness of the democratic institutions, purity of the democracy and the institutions of the civilization.

We are the democratic socialists in contrast to the criminal Bolshevik thug of the Bolsheviks, the Bolshevik dictatorship that came at the expense of the democracy.

YOU AFTER DEMOCRATING!

And fire and retain the democratic socialism and the Bolshevismus thugs are the uncivilized Asiatic barbarians that banned LGBTQ rights and the democratic socialism, civilized like Nordic, Nordic, Nordic socialism, Aryan race led by the Indian guy, little baby Gandhi.

And finally the democratic social socialism done left.

Here's the new gobles, he's going to have it on Wikipedia page.

Right.

Sorry guys.

Sorry guys, I don't know what came over me.

I don't know, it came over me, I uh

I watched a little too much of um

I've uh bread tube and I

You know, that just was a natural reaction.

Nazi Sanders

Very much I'm un

We must vote for Biden to serve the worst President in history.

Alright, if you make a clip of this, make the clip.

Don't don't make it the video of me.

Make like my voice overlaid on like an AI Hitler with like pink hair or something.

And or Zohron or something or like something like that and like just use my voice, not the video.

It's like way more funny.

Alright y'all, I gotta go.

I gotta go.

Um

I'll see you guys.

When I see ya.

Alright?

I'll see y'all.

Guys, for real, like on some real shit.

You may not see me for a while.

'Cause I am leaving the country

Or one week.

But I'm gonna try to stream

Strail Staney with the Five, what's going on?

Appreciate you.

Thank you so much, bro.

I appreciate you.

Uh yeah.

Project, what's going on?

That impression I did was so funny.

What a funny guy I am.

Anyway, y'all.

Are y'all?

Yo.

Yo, I'm so fucking hungry.

Hey, you know what?

Thanks, guys.

For this.

The gift that um Strail Stane just paid for my pizza.

Thank you, bro.

Shogunner with the five.

What's going on, bro?

Thank you, brother.

I appreciate you.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna get a Diet Coke on the side now.

There you go.

Thank you, Showgunner.

Um China could be happening for real.

Uh actually for real.

Okay, you know, I'm at total transparency.

Um

Iraq.

It's not costing me anything.

Okay.

So don't worry about the financial side of things.

It's not costing me anything.

Um.

It's a special

Event

Um

You know, I just I'm just I'm just going.

I'm going with Jackson and Chris.

Um

Give me my money back.

But honestly, the gifted subs are much appreciated anyway because.

Uh shit, guys.

You want this whole thing to expand?

You want this shit to get better?

You want the IRLs to improve?

You want fucking infrastructure to upgrade.

You want to see crazy good things and cool things.

Um

Let's fucking keep the gravy train.

What do they call it?

Rolin.

You know, put it in the war chest.

Uh

You know, there we go.

Anyway, y'all, I will see you when I see you.

Hopefully, next time we'll be in IRL.

Uh but I'll see y'all when I see y'all.

What else can I say?

Oh, you know what, guys?

I straight up.

This is why your donation matters, Australia Stanny.

'Cause I need to get a new fucking phone.

Holy shit.

I need a new phone.

I'm going to buy a new phone like tomorrow.

Like straight up, just like down payment.

New phone.

So.

You know, much appreciated anyway.

Y'all, I will see you.

I'm ending the stream.

Um.

On some real shit.

I'll see y'all.

Bye-bye.

See y'all when I see y'all.