MAGA Communism

Stalin, Beria, Gulag with the 20, Comrade Thomas with the 5, American Step with the 10.

What's going on, everybody?

I see you.

Okay guys, today's stream is very important and um

Thank you, Dictator.

Appreciate you, man.

Guys, today's stream is going to be very important.

I'm going to

Um speak very carefully right now.

You need to strap in, you need to take notes, and you need to pay attention to what I'm about to say.

Because I would like to begin this stream by criticizing you, the guerrilla army.

And the reason I'm doing that is because recently a video has gone viral.

Which is rehashing the oldest and most tired accusations against our movement and somehow, by extension, our party.

Syop, thank you.

And I am extremely baffled and surprised it's gaining the traction that it is, and that people somehow find it compelling.

Amila with the 10, thank you so much.

I'm very surprised by that.

Now, the reason I'm mentioning that is because you'd think for arguments that I have so systematically dismantled and meticulously torn apart hours on end across dozens of hours of streams over the past two, three years, you'd think that this community would be equipped with the means of combating these lies and misrepresentations of our movement.

And the fact that this type of shit gets as widespread and spontaneously and mysteriously viral as it does and the fact that people keep repeating these narratives and it has the narrative strength that it does means that this community has not been doing a good job of educating people and correctly representing to people our positions.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, okay?

I'm gonna do it again.

I would not uh so the video in question is called The Nonsense of MAGA Communism.

And I actually was shown this video a week ago when it had 500 views, and I said this is nonsense, I don't care, right?

Okay, it's sitting at 20,000 now.

Randomly, over the past two, three days, it's picked up massive steam.

It's going super, super viral.

Okay.

And I watched the video and I'm baffled at at, you know, why people find this compelling or why people buy into this.

American partisan, thank you.

But it speaks it speaks to the extent

That our movement is such a mystery to people, all right?

This whole MAGA communism thing, it's such an enigma and mystery to people that anyone can just say anything they want about us as long as it has cherry-picked stuff that can form some kind of coherent narrative, assuming that you are concealing the things that conveniently debunk that narrative, which this person did.

And people will eat it up.

They want to attribute us to LaRouche or Feds or whatever because we are a mystery to people.

You guys need to do a better job of actually you need to go on Reddit.

I'm just gonna be fucking honest.

Like, you need to storm and you need to storm the Reddits and fight the battles, and you you need to be there because

I don't know where this shit is coming from, but it's been two to three years and we're back to LaRouche, we're back to having to respond to that and explain that.

It's a little bit fucking ridiculous, alright?

Osos, what's up?

And of course, you know, the the the the the video, it could be Fed boosted, it could be botted, we don't know.

But

We don't know, that's the problem, okay?

And this live thing I'm doing is going to be only one.

Of the responses, we're going to be launching a barrage of responses in response to this.

And because we're not responding to Brandon, because his video is extremely mediocre, it's poorly researched, and it's on its own merits not worth responding to.

But we are responding to the notoriety and fame and virality it's getting.

And that's why we're taking out the time to educate seize upon this moment to actually educate people not only about what our party is, not only about what we're all about, but

The actual theoretical foundation of my perspective, Infrared's perspective, the party's perspective, these are not the same thing, although this video recklessly treats them as the same thing, as evinced by the fact that in the title it says the nonsense of MAGA communism and the thumbnail has our party's logo, even though MAGA communism has no actual official status in the party.

It is not an official ideology of the party.

Never mind these details, right?

Who cares?

I will give Brandon the credit of creating a very well-refined, meticulously crafted narrative.

Um

It's not based in truth, it's not based in uh fact, but it is a narrative that has selectively taken things, a lot of different things out of context to form this overarching narrative where

Because people have such a lack of familiarity with the classics of Marxism-Leninism, they might have familiarity with Brett Tube's presentation of Marxism, right?

But not the specific applications of Marxist analysis concretely in Marxism-Leninism.

We end up looking like a big mystery.

If you were familiar with Marxism-Leninism, we would not be mysterious.

That's why people like Paul Cockshot don't call us fascists or LaRussites.

Paul Cockshot sees our program, he sees our rhetoric, and he's like, They're just communists.

Anyone's familiar with communist history knows that we're just communists.

But when you have ignorance and a lack of the basic rudiments, as far as education is concerned, about Marxism-Leninism, we are a big mystery.

So people can irresponsibly seize upon that fact and misclassify and mislabel us as things that we're not.

And that becomes compelling and convincing to people because of the gap in education about Marxism-Leninism.

And I'm trying to keep my cool and keep calm, but it is incredibly frustrating because there are plenty of people actually popularizing Hitlerism and fascism openly, and we are actually an alternative to that vector of radicalization that is taking an entire generation by storm.

And we've gone to such great lengths to combat that ideology and present ourselves as an alternative vector of radicalization for a generation of people that are inevitably going to be radicalized because of what's going on.

And videos like this, by accusing us of being fascists and accusing us of being fascists wearing a communist disguise, videos like this aid the efforts of the fascist, actual open fascist ideologists, because it reinforces the idea that fascism is such a strong, compelling, and powerful ideology that even the people calling themselves communists are secretly fascists.

And all that does is make more people interested in fascist ideology than they otherwise would be.

The random bystander that finds us interesting and actually likes what we're saying and is getting on board with it, if they become convinced that we are fascists, rather than running in the opposite direction, a whole lot of those people are going to run to Nick Fuentes.

They're going to run to the actual Nazis and fascists.

Because why would they choose the people who are lying about what they are rather than the open, avowed fascists and Nazis?

It's incredibly irresponsible to associate a principled anti-systemic position with far-right or fascist ideology because this generation is inevitably going to rebel against the system in some way.

And all you're doing is helping the actual fascists.

So you are a fascist collaborator if you're irresponsibly spreading this accusation and this narrative.

Finally, I would also like to say a second thing right off the bat.

The entire premise of this video is as follows The American Communist Party

although presenting themselves as communists and orthodox Marxist-Leninists, are in fact fascists disguising themselves as Communists.

And if you look at the history of fascism, you will find that there's precedent for that.

Mussolini and the German Nazi Party both hijacked socialistic and revolutionary rhetoric

That came from the left and did it to misguide and lead workers into fascism, into support for the fascist parties and system.

So people, midwits mainly, I don't want to insult or call people names because apparently that means people won't listen to the actual rational argumentation you're presenting.

But people see that and they're like, oh my God, the Nazis called themselves socialists to mislead people, and the ACP is doing that with the Communist label.

It makes total sense.

Because the ACP, they are not like the Marxists we're familiar with, like BreadTube and ContraPoints.

I don't know what these people are, Hassan Piker.

So they must be doing that again.

They are far-right Nazis in the modern age.

That's the whole his video begins with that premise, and Cherry picks as much as he can to conform to that premise.

He's arguing the premise effectively without proving it, right?

Um

Just one problem.

There's one problem with that.

That I can that anyone who deigns to think about it with the bare minimum of conscious awareness would be able to understand.

The one problem with that

is that in contrast to the nineteen twenties and thirties of Italy and Germany, America doesn't actually have a left-wing movement.

Now I'm saying a left-wing movement because it just adds insult to injury to that premise.

Because they had socialist and communist movements, very lively and popular ones, right when the Bolshevik Revolution happened.

This was in the midst of the first successful proletarian revolution in world history that was taking Europe by storm.

This was the context and the atmosphere.

That fascism emerged in reaction to.

I am not even.

Qualifying the ridiculousness of the premise of Brandon by simply pointing out the fact that we have no socialist or communist movement in the U.S.

I'm saying it's so bad we don't even have any left-wing politics at all.

We just have the Democratic Party.

If you want to claim that the DSA is a left-wing movement, it's not a party.

It doesn't have political independence.

It's an appendage of the Democrats.

If you want to say influencers like Hassan Piker are the left, Hassan Piker was just at a rally for the Democrats, Bernie and AOC.

So the left in America is the Democratic Party.

If you believe the Democrats are left-wing,

That's fine, you can believe that.

But you will be pressed.

You will find a lot of difficulty drawing a historical continuity between the left wing in the communist sense throughout history, the actual historical left wing, and today's Democratic Party.

I know that the media calls Democrats the left.

I know that the Republicans love calling Democrats the left, but they are not actually a force of left-wing politics.

And even if they were, you see how charitable I am being in my systemic dismantling and destruction of this premise?

I'm not calling him names and I'm not making fun of his voice.

I am very calmly and rationally explaining why this is such a ridiculous accusation to make against us.

Even if we were to concede and acquiesce to the ridiculous idea that the Democratic Party and Bernie was the left and that's a real independent left-wing movement in America, even if we were to do that,

There's one slight problem.

Not only is that just not even one percent of the zeitgeist that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced to Europe.

Not only is that not even 0.001%.

Of

the strength and power of the left that existed in Italy and Germany, and the widespread popularity and the sentiment and the mood at the time of a victorious proletarian revolution at hand.

The Democratic Party is in retreat.

It's a party in retreat.

The the so-called left in America is in retreat.

If it exists, according to you, that would have to be the Democratic Party.

If you believe the left exists in America, you would have to say it's the Democratic Party because nothing else exists that could possibly be called the left that has any significance.

But the Democrats are in retreat.

How is it logical that we would want to disguise ourselves as left wing, let alone communists, while in fact being fascist or far right, when it would just be much more lucrative and sensible for if you were indeed a fascist or a far right person to just openly be that?

Why the need to disguise yourself?

Why would that be necessary?

Can people please comprehend with meticulous precision the line of argumentation I've laid out here?

I have explained with so many different charitable, good faith devil's advocate qualifications how whichever way you look at it, the premise according to which we are lying about who we are and we're not actually communists, but we're merely fascists disguising our real views makes no sense.

Why would we disguise ourselves as a fundamentally unpopular position right now?

When actual open fascist ideology is way more viral, way more lucrative, and way more successful right now in the US.

Even if you believed the Democratic Party was the left and that we have a left in this country.

The Democratic Party is in retreat.

That wasn't true for the Italian socialist and workers' movements on the eve of the black shirt reaction.

And it wasn't true for the German left and German communism or even German social democracy.

They were very powerful, well-established forces in German politics.

Again, that the Nazis and the Italian fascists, respectively, emerged in response to.

If we are fascists, what are we emerging in reaction to?

The popularity of communism that's gaining steam?

The truth is that we contributed to that popularity ourselves.

I have been here.

since 2021 when communism with a capital C was extremely unpopular.

We were here technically since 2020, but we just didn't have any prophilicity.

And I have been a Marxist since I was twelve, thirteen years old, okay?

Studying Marxism almost every single day since then.

My whole life is about Marxism.

And you mean to tell me that since I was twelve years old, this was all a conspiracy by Lyndon LaRouche to disguise myself as a Marxist and a Communist, the square one of just having a rational and sensible critique of us and our movement is acknowledging the fact that we are sincere.

You may disagree with the idea that we're communists, but claiming that we are lying about who we are, that we don't believe that we're communists, is just patently ridiculous.

It's just patently false and ridiculous.

You need to contend with the fact that there are other interpretations of Marxism than the one you have.

And if you watch this video long enough, you will actually learn

Maybe a thing or two about

About what possible interpretations of Marxism there can be, and it will probably lead you to re-examine the one you've taken for granted.

And I'll teach you something about Marxism-Leninism that you didn't know before.

And so that's what I'm gonna try and do this with.

And I'm gonna do it with MS Paint.

And we're actually gonna have full-on education.

And that's how I'm gonna try to contain the deep frustration and rage I have for the fact that there are self-proclaimed communists who are instead of actually combating the open fascists and trying to actually educate people about communism are deciding to attack us and badjacket us as fascists in disguise.

Shreyl Stani, thank you so much.

In a way that's completely baseless and devoid of any grounding in reality upon minimal scrutiny.

I'm going to hold your hand throughout this video and meticulously break down

Why is it fundamentally divorced from reality, made from a position of bad faith?

And collapses upon minimal scrutiny.

I don't think I should have to do this because I'm going to be repeating myself, but it's your job in chat.

To pay very fucking close attention to what I say and not zone out, because I don't want to keep repeating myself.

You guys need to learn how to use logic and argue.

Use your head and just think.

If you just think, it will not be hard for you to explain to people why the things that are said in a video like this are fucking stupid.

You just have to fucking think.

And you guys don't do you ignore what I say and you zone out and you gloss over it.

You need to actually fucking turn your brain on and have conscious awareness.

Videos like this do well.

Not because they're based in any kind of disinterested reasoning or logic or fact, but because for pathological reasons they are narratively compelling.

We are a mysterious movement, and here this guy is attributing our mysterious movement to some weird obscure cult from the 1980s, and audiences will find that compelling because he's filling a gap that you are not.

And that's what every single person here needs to take away.

We are very mysterious.

If you don't fill the gap and shine light on who we are and what we believe and what we're about, people like this guy will and they'll badjack at us and accuse us of some kind of deranged, bizarre thing that we are not, in fact.

So let's go point by point.

And get right into it.

Um this person has an extremely warped worldview that is fundamentally divorced from reality, and I'm just gonna go ahead and say that I think their voice probably reflects that fact.

I if you want to

Sound like this guy.

Then by all means acquiesce to their psychosis and think like they do.

You will probably start speaking and sounding like them.

That's my ad hoc personal attack, by the way, in case they try to reduce everything I say to that.

So this is one hour long, but don't be intimidated because they just talk really slowly.

They might have some kind of speech disorder.

And I'm just going to put the speed higher and they'll talk normally with that speed.

On July 21st, 2024, an organization calling itself the American Communist Party popped into existence.

With a two-minute trailer of AI-generated imagery, the American Communist Party proclaimed to be a brand new Marxist-Leninist party ready to wage the fight for communism in the United States.

And this seemed to be a formidable enterprise.

A letter of declaration was published on Twitter showing a bunch of chapters of the Communist Party USA, the oldest and historically most significant Communist Party in the U.S., apparently defecting to the ACP.

On the executive board of the new party were the online personalities, Eddie Smith and Noah Kriedovic of Midwestern Marx, Haz Aldin, and Jackson Hinkle.

And the party already had a Selenika new website ready to launch.

However, very quickly, within the next few hours after the ACP launched, something a bit curious happened.

A bunch of chapters of the CPUSA who were listed as defecting to ACP took to Twitter to clarify that, no, they were not joining the ACP and harshly condemned the ACP as chauvinists and reactionaries.

The ACP in that chapter or in every case the people who own the social media accounts of that chapter defected over us.

What we did claim is that if you read the letter within the context of the dispute going on within the CPUSA's national convention, the voices of independence within those chapters.

So those who represented the independent will of the chapter rather than the forces of Joe Sims coup did in fact defect and sign off to this.

And we regarded them as the legitimate representatives of their chapter.

Why?

Because they were the voices who represented their chapter in an independent capacity.

We did not say that every single person from that chapter defected.

Just like when the letter of declaration declaration of independence was signed, not every single person from that state signed that letter.

Just the representatives and the voices of independence from that colony.

Signed it, and in that capacity they represented the voice of independence.

So that is what gave them the right to represent the will of the colony because they were the only force of independence.

Everyone else was just acquiescing to the status quo.

So that was our logic.

We never, it's absurd to expect that every single person and every single, moreover, every person who controlled the social media account would have defected.

But yes, every single chapter we listed had legitimate representatives from that chapter defect on over us to us, and that much we can prove.

fact, has a lot of bad blood with the Communist Party USA.

Their declaration letter is spent condemning CPUSA and proclaiming it no longer fit to lead American Communism.

They express grievance at how the party leadership rejected their interpretation of Marxism Leninism and accused the leadership

This is not true.

I don't know why you would lie about this when anyone can just read the Declaration themselves.

The specific issue is not about our interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

Everyone's free to have their own subjective interpretation of whatever they want.

The grievances were as follows one

They rigged their national convention and suspended and liquidated the party according to its own constitution.

That's the most that's why we did it at this time rather than another time.

Two, they were tailing the Democratic Party at a time when the a huge or at least significant mood within the party wanted them to change course and change their policy and pursue independence.

They cracked down on the freedom of criticism against the Democratic Party for years.

But leading up to the national convention, that was when the promise had been made that a spirit of open debate would be allowed to prevail on the question of the party's stance toward the Democratic Party while Joe Biden was overseeing a genocide in Gaza.

And they suppressed criticism, they suppressed democracy, and didn't allow any of those sentiments to be given expression at all.

So that was the main context for the um reconstitution of the party, at least at that specific time.

of breaking the party constitution to suppress dissent, and so they decided to go off and make their own party, the American Communist Party.

So all this begs the question of what exactly is going on here.

There are all sorts of schisms and sectarian squabbles on the radical left, but this situation seems a little different and unique, even at a surface level.

Some of the leaders of the ACP are social media personalities with considerable audiences.

Jackson Hinkle has almost 3 million followers on Twitter.

Eddie Smith of Midwestern Marx has 300,000 followers on TikTok.

Haz has 100,000 followers on Twitter.

Rev Laskaris has almost 300,000 followers on Twitter.

They seem to have a pretty decent amount of money.

They're able to rent venues regularly for in-person events.

Executive Board members are able to regularly go on international trips.

These guys are far more well-resourced than your typical Communist or self-described Communist Party.

The leaders of the CPUSA apparently disagree

I mean, that's not it's n oh well, we we were already influencers, so to that extent we had resources because of the money we made from the internet.

Now regarding the thing about international trips, I won't say much, but I will say

It's interesting you make the assumption that in all of these trips we are paying out of pocket.

I don't know.

Could be true, could not be true.

But, you know, maybe think about it.

Let's take a look at the most well-known leader in the ACP, Jackson Hinkle, a former progressive liberal and environmental activist who appeared in a get-out-the-vote ad for the Democratic Party in the 2018 midterms.

Hinkle has since taken a radical and interesting turn in his politics.

If you take a look at Hinkle's Wikipedia page, it says So upon opening up the question of what our interpretation of Marxism-Leninism is, he doesn't consult our Constitution and he doesn't consult our Declaration.

He consults the personality of Jackson Hinkle.

The ACP was formed collectively by a diverse array of personalities and influencers or whatever who all had to come together and agree upon a shared principle and a shared interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

To reduce our interpretation of Marxism-Leninism to the personality of Jackson Hinkel, myself, or others.

is to reject the possibility that there could be a

An impersonal principle of collective organization and a shared common agreed upon interpretation of Marxism-Leninism that is not just the personal views of every single constituent member of the founding of the organization.

So, off the bat, he's committing a big mistake.

He's not actually asking the question of what is the party's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism as an organization.

He's asking the question of who is Jackson Hinkle on a personal level and what are all the things he's ever said in the past.

Red Design, thank you so much for the sub.

Appreciate you.

That's not how organizations work.

To found an organization that's just more than one person or personality, you have to officially have an outlook.

You have to officially have a worldview that's institutionalized within the party.

Again, these nuances are lost on stupid, bird-brained people who think it doesn't fucking matter, but it does fucking matter when you're making a transition from being an internet personality to committing to a collective organization.

It is of fundamental importance to be attentive and aware of those distinctions.

Yes, it matters.

And I'll explain why.

As of that, he's a promoter of something called MAGA Communism and references his self-description as an Okay, the idea that the party's official interpretation of Marxism-Leninism is MAGA communism.

You look at our constitution, which states our official interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, and MAGA communism, that phrase is nowhere to be found, because MAGA communism is not a particular interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

MAGA communism is a slogan and a strategy, perhaps coined, it's a meme, it's an idea, it's a slogan, whatever, coined years before the founding of the party, which was primarily based in an initiative to create a new dialogue between the American MA movement and Marxism.

That

That slogan and that inceptual goal has not been institutionalized or officialized within our party.

Our party does not recognize the MAGA movement in any way.

We recognize one American working class, and our party seeks a dialogue with the American working class, regardless of whether it's pro-MAGA, regardless of whether it's anti-MAGA.

That's our party's stance.

The MAGA Communism slogan was never even a different interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

It was a slogan we thought was a logical conclusion of being a Marxist-Leninist in the American context and applying it in the American context.

But to investigate the question of what particular interpretation of Marxism-Leninism could possibly give rise to the coining of that slogan is different from just reducing it to the slogan itself.

Now this is a very nuanced, meticulous

Argument that I'm making that takes a lot of intelligence to just follow as a line of argumi a line of argumentation.

But why do I have to sit here and yell and be angry to get people to fucking think just logically and rationally?

I know it's hard, but bear with me.

Maybe some specific interpretation of Marxism-Leninism could be responsible for a slogan like MAGA Communism.

But to say MAGA Communism is that interpretation would be making an unjustifiable leap.

And he is not investiga investigating the source, like interpretation of Marxism-Leninism that led to that.

He's just saying this is their ideology, because that's what it says on Wikipedia.

Lenin, thank you.

And moreover, is that ideology the ideology of the ACP, or is that interpretation officiated within the ACP?

If so, why has the ACP not adopted that slogan officially?

I just clicked some shit I don't even fucking know on my computer.

Lenin Dubois, thank you.

All right.

American conservative, Marxist-Leninist?

This just creates more questions.

What the hell is a MAGA communism?

How can one be both MAGA and a communist?

And how on earth can one be both a conservative and a Marxist-Leninist?

Well, let's hear it from a self-proclaimed MAGA communist himself.

In an interview on Chinese media last year, which Jackson Hinkle did with fellow MAGA communist at Grayson Walker, Walker explained that MAGA communism is just the application of Marxism-Leninism to the particular conditions in America and nothing more.

But the audiencing spirit was to try and reinvent or rediscover the meaning of Marxism-Leninism in the American context.

We don't see any real contradiction between the spirit of being an American and the idea of communism and what that means for America's working class.

With MAGA communism, of course, we can go into this as this show progresses.

The contradiction is only apparent.

When you dig down to it, what we're doing with MAGA communism is no different than what Marxist-Leninists have done in every successful revolution in history.

It's taking the ideas of Marxism and meeting the working class at the level of consciousness that is currently at, which today is in MAGA.

Now, this doesn't mean endorsing or tailing the most backwards elements of MAGA.

It doesn't mean for example endorsing everything Trump says or Danon and so on.

But it means going down to the people and learning from them and working with them and trying to advocate oneself as a champion of the people.

Right, and when we talk to thinkers from China who are Marxists, specifically the ones that are Marxist thinkers, they say this is the same thing that Mao did.

That's what they say.

And Hinkle runs on this aim, presenting himself as a communist who wants to liberate the American people.

I can see that the policies that Washington DC has adopted and run with for the past several decades, you know, since before I was born, are actually hurting the American people.

I mean, whether it's our uh you know our outsourcing of American jobs, whether it's the hyper-focus on Wall Street and financial capital reigning above all else, reigning above manufacturing, like good jobs that our people need, whether it's the wars and the foreign policy, I mean it's disgusting what the people who are leading our country are doing in our name.

So that's a mega communism.

It's just a Marxism-Leninism, but applied it to the American context, with a dash of a patriotisma phrase like this.

No, not with a dash of patriotism.

Here the historical illiteracy and theoretical illiteracy is shining.

Socialist patriotism is the standard position of orthodox Marxism-Leninism anywhere in the world ever.

To reject socialist patriotism is to reject Marxism-Leninism wholesale.

Socialist patriotism attempts to integrate the revolutionary and progressive history of one's nation with the construction of a working class socialist or communist-led movement.

That is the standard Marxist-Leninist position, and it has been canonized and officiated in official Soviet textbooks, um and it's been standard for a century now.

So that's not a dash of anything.

That's just the standard Marxist-Leninist position.

However, communism ever as an organization.

See, the meticulous difference between the voice of a party and the voice of individual thinkers and personalities is a very important distinction to understand because not everyone in the ACP agrees with the MAGA communist strategy.

And it's not officiated within the party.

So why are you saying the ACP attempts to explain this or that?

This is what Grayson and Jackson Grayson was representing infrared here explained.

This is what I've explained more or less.

But the party itself doesn't need to defend itself against MAGA communism.

Notice I will never use the party.

Notice I will this is never going to be done on the party's official accounts.

Explaining MAGA communism.

I'm doing this as infrared right now.

Okay?

It's a very important distinction.

And stupid people don't think it is because they like to simplify things, but it's an extremely, extremely important distinction, which apparently takes a lot of intelligence to understand.

However, is this really what mega communism is?

When mega communists get hard with the label of reactionary, when Wikipedia describes Hinkle as far right, is this just a slander?

Are people just Yes, it's absolutely slander!

Absolutely, it's slander!

Misunderstanding their ideology?

Well, for help answering this question, let's turn to an appearance Hinkle made back in 2023 on the Fresh and Fit podcast, hosted by Myron Gaines and Walter Weeks.

Now, if you're familiar with the Fresh and Fit podcast, then you're probably already going, uh-oh.

But for those who aren't aware, the Fresh and Fit Podcast is a talk show which is known for having certain views about women and relationships, views which have led the show to be demonetized on YouTube.

So, what is Jackson Hinkle doing on this podcast?

Is he challenging their views?

Well, let's see.

During his appearance, the conversation steered toward the topic of women.

Now, I would show the clip of this exchange.

However, the contents of this exchange are such that I am sincerely worried about this video getting into trouble for hate speech.

Even though it's not me saying it, I still worry because YouTube has historically taken down videos of her hate speech, even if the creator of the video is responding to said hate speech and not espousing it.

So, for 30 seconds, I'm going to put text up on the screen of the exchange and let you read it.

And I'll have a link in my sources to a video file containing the exchange, which you can view and verify that the text I'm about to put up is indeed accurate.

Okay, I'll pause it so we can all read it.

Okay.

Now, it's very important.

This is the thing where I want you to have the intelligence and conscious awareness to follow through the line of argumentation here.

Because this is going to be a test of whether you can think critically or not.

So, Brandon made the claim that is it justified to call them reactionaries?

Is it justified to call the party a reactionary party?

Or or MAGA Communists for that matter.

Now let's break down meticulously the problem with that framing.

The party could not possibly be reactionary because of anything Jackson Hinkel did years before the founding of the party.

Because A, he did not do so in any uh capacity of representing the party officially.

because the party did not exist at all,

and B, for obvious reasons,

I mean this should just be a no-brainer, right?

The party never ever communicated any kind of views comparable to this.

in any way.

So off the bat the framing is wrong to say that the American Communist Party can be penalized.

At best you can say one of the founding uh personalities of the party has said reactionary things in the past.

So let's intelligently and meticulously not let them get away with this false framing.

First of all, okay?

That's just first of all.

That's some background.

That's not actually my main argument here.

Now follow here.

Intelligently, have the awareness, please.

Don't zone out.

Follow what I'm saying here.

The claim is made that what Jack what Jackson said here, the deeply offensive things that they've said.

You know, um

Where he just kind of acquiesces to what Myron Gaines says that she has to vote, but under the authority of manager, uh so I think I agree with that sort of mindset.

So

Let's actually add some context here to investigate the question of whether Jackson is operating as a right-wing ideological actor here.

Okay.

Now, the claim that Jackson is right-wing because he said this assumes that he himself established the context for the Manosphere, for Fresh and Fit, for this type of sentiment, and so on and so on.

But in order to understand the vector of radicalization and the strategy Jackson is employing here, we need to know who's who and who's responsible for what first.

Again, follow me here very carefully with conscious awareness.

Before Jackson went on Fresh and Fit, it was already a very, very popular podcast.

And it was very much a podcast with a very large audience that represented the general trends and tendencies and vectors of radicalization the youth or an entirely new generation is going in already.

If Jackson is an actor fighting for communist politics and fighting for Marxism and fighting for the revival of left-wing politics, what would be the smartest strategy to employ if he were to go on this podcast and try to actually

Promote the left or promote communism.

What would be the smartest thing to do?

Now, you can disagree with Jackson's strategy here.

That's completely fine.

You can say that his strategy was not the most effective one.

You could say, you know, Jackson, he did it all wrong.

You should have gone in there and started yelling at everyone and been an incredibly incapable of being normal.

And you should have just been totally offended and totally outraged by everything that they're saying.

And that would have actually persuaded and compelled the audience to be more in favor of communism.

You can think that in your head.

I'm not even going to respond to that.

I'll let you just think that, right?

I'll let you believe it.

But what you're not going to sit here and say.

is that the vector of radicalization that Jackson is pushing toward

Is toward the right.

The right context is being established.

The right-wing context is being established by Myron.

What is Jackson saying?

Uh, I don't know.

It's difficult, you know, in this country.

You know, I've been to other countries, women are more traditional.

You know, because obviously in Russia, women have voting rights.

Jackson's not prepared to sit here and say women should not be able to vote when they can vote in the DPRK, they can vote in Cuba, they can vote in Russia, they can vote in China.

You know, it's a ridiculous position.

How can he actually maneuver through this situation without appearing weak and thin-skinned and so on and so on, and you know, come off looking bad in front of this audience?

So you could already tell he is not comfortable with this.

He's saying, I don't know.

I think I agree.

And I know this because I called Jackson after that and he's like, that was really tough.

He's like, they put me in a tough spot.

And it's not a tough spot because we have a hard time saying we think women should have the right to vote.

But it's a specific strategy going on podcasts like this.

And presenting a position that's compelling to the audience, that you're in front of.

What's the point of going on this podcast if you're not trying to win the audience in some kind of way, to the best of your ability?

You could oppose us.

You could say that's wrong that you did that.

You could say that I disagree with your strategy.

You could even say that our strategy is ineffective and critique it.

I would be open.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The problem is claiming that our intentions are to promote right-wing ideology.

Does this look like Jackson is the one with the intention to promote this ridiculous thing about women not voting?

No.

He is trying to.

He is trying to maneuver himself through a right wing context already established to present a strong position in front of this audience that's already poisoned by Manosphere bullshit.

And this is the issue with this line of criticism this guy's coming from and a lot of people in general.

Why are you making the assumption that when we are going on fresh and fit, this proves that in essence we are right-wing actors disguising ourselves as the left?

Why are you writing off the possibility?

You're not even entertaining the possibility that the reverse could be true.

What if we're doing Takia and sometimes appearing like Manosphere and so on and so on to get a foot in the door to promote our ideology, communism, Marxism?

What if it's the opposite?

You know, what if this thing Jackson's saying out of context, it's like, oh yeah, Jackson's far right because he's saying this.

But he's already being put in a far right context with the goal of setting these far right, this already consolidated far-right audience down a left-wing pipeline.

He thinks this is the most effective way to do that.

Therefore, he is not an agent of the right.

If Jackson just said this ex nihilo, if he just said this, you know, on Hassan Piker's stream, if he said this in China or in Russia or in a context where it wasn't necessary to respond to, then maybe you could say he's a far-right ideological actor who has these extreme views that women should not be able to vote, right?

But given the context, the only thing that actually makes sense here is that Jackson is trying to do the best he can to maneuver an already existing far-right environment in order to get people on a vector of radicalization toward communism, toward Marxism, toward our position.

Now, what I just said is a mouthful.

What I just said is difficult and takes a lot of intelligence to understand, right?

Apparently it does.

I'm going to painstaking lengths to talk slowly and as simply as I possibly can.

I'm not trying to obscure anything.

I'm not trying to make it difficult.

Is this really that hard to understand that this doesn't prove Jackson is far right, it just proves that he's putting himself in far right contexts and environments in order to strategically hijack that kind of rhetoric to push people in the opposite direction?

I think that's really simple.

I think when in an environment when the far right is dominating

And the subject are the masses.

The subject, you know, are these huge volumes of people that find this convincing, they find it cool.

That's the most dangerous thing.

You know, it's like it's not like this is an ideological thing where they've adopted this as a theory.

They see this and it makes sense to them and they find it cool.

So you have to win them.

Now there's a lot of people who live

in bubbles on college campuses and don't think it's important.

to win this generation that the far right is dominating.

And a lot of leftists will go as far as to say that, well, they're just settlers and there's no hope for them, so we should just huddle together in our college campus and call everyone a fascist bigot.

You can actually have that position and present it to me.

I think it's stupid.

I'll disagree with it.

But you can't say that just because we reject that view and that we're actually trying to push people into an alternative pipeline and vector of radicalization, that this means we are responsible for the dominance of the far right ourselves.

We are not responsible for the dominance of the far right and for far right ideas.

That is the situation and the context that is being forced upon us and everyone else that we have to work inside.

Now look.

Uh let me be very clear about this.

This was one of the most inflammatory and offensive things Jackson has ever said.

Period.

You have to weigh this.

Up against everything else he said, and you have to weigh it up against my appearance on Fresh and Fit.

When I was surrounded by women, at the time I was in a relationship, so I was being especially tame and uh, you know, especially professional.

And you have to weigh that against

What I said on that podcast and how I behaved.

You have to not present a one-sided picture where you're cherry-picking the most offensive and inflammatory thing Jackson has ever said.

And saying that that is that that is the essence of the American Communist Party.

You have to actually have everything.

You have to present the the full context and let people come to their own conclusions.

That's not what Brandon did.

Brandon took one of the most offensive and inflammatory things Jackson has ever said and he's trying to make it seem like that represents our official ideology or interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

That's just extremely dishonest.

This is just this is just an extremely manipulative

thing to do because you're trying to craft this narrative where people only have so much time to see what this whole thing is about and you're just cherry-picking these things out of context and falsely presenting these as the essence of everything we believe.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of hours of footage of us streaming, of us appearing on things like this.

And you are going out of your way.

How do you actually choose a general representation of what we're about?

Well, you should choose the things that actually explain the recurring themes in our rhetoric.

Choose the things that actually represent not the exception but the norm.

This video did not do that, as you'll see.

So I think that covers the entirety of the Jackson bashing he engages in here, but let's see.

So that appears to be one of the founders of the ACP, espousing views on women, which are pretty reprehensible.

This is a major red flag, to say the least.

The communist movement has historically been feminist, and yet Hinkle appears to be not.

No, that's not true, okay?

The communist movement has not been historically feminist because the word feminism has been routinely denounced and critiqued by every single communist state in the 20th century.

The thinkers of the woman's question rejected feminism as bourgeois.

Feminism as a phenomena was rejected in the Warsaw Pact as a uh a bourgeois phenomena that was coming from the West.

Now, did communists maintain a notion of women's equality?

Of course they did.

But that's not the same as feminism.

Feminism is a very specific

Kind of movement that does not intrinsically unite the woman struggle with the class struggle as one and the same thing, as bounded up as one and the same.

And the reason that's important is because feminism carries a lot more baggage.

Feminism, for example, tries to overturn almost all of the norms of gender relationships and critique those on the basis of the patriarchy or whatever.

Communists rejected that.

Communists didn't reject all gender norms.

They associated certain habits and cultural norms as part of the capitalist past.

Sure.

For example, prostitution, the sex industry.

and so on.

And also the notion that women were the property of their husbands and couldn't pursue their own careers.

But in general, this is a terrible, terrible truth, I'm sure, and I can show you the proof right now.

Communists also did associate womanhood with motherhood.

Fundamentally, actually, I can pull up Lenin himself doing this.

So, let's see, Lenin.

This is his interview with uh Clara Zetkin, the woman's question.

So look at Lenin talking about, for example, what he thinks women should be doing, you know, as far as the woman's question and so on and so on.

And his rejection of this kind of free love nonsense, right?

So Lenin, he's kind of here rejecting the way the young people are rejecting all sexual morality.

He says the youth movement is attacked with the disease of modernity, right?

Um, and they can easily contribute to overexcitement and exaggeration in sexual life.

You must fight against that.

There are not a few points of contact between the women's and youth movements.

Our women, comrades, must work together systematically with the youth.

That is a continuation, an extension, an exaltation of motherliness from the individual to the social sphere.

And all the awakening of social life and activity of women should be encouraged, so they should be allowed to pursue careers.

They should be allowed to participate in public life.

But even in the way Lenin frames the liberation of women, you know, from the strictly private context of family life to the social sphere, he calls it an extension and exaltation of motherliness.

So women can take on motherly roles in social contexts to help nurture better societal social environments, right?

So that was the type of rhetoric Lenin used, for example.

That is not a feminist type of rhetoric, okay?

Because according to feminists, that's a patriarchal logic.

You can disagree with Lenin, that's fine.

You can say Lenin was a product of his time and he was backward and we're more progressive now.

I don't care.

I have a problem with framing such a notion as inherently reactionary or antithetical with Marxism.

Not just a misogynistic, but a radical extreme misogynist.

And we can assume by the fact that Hinkle remains on the executive board and that seemingly no one in the party takes any issue with this that this Yeah, but how in practice is Jackson a radical misogynistic in practice?

Notice I emphasize that word in practice.

Evo Morales said that he is the type of feminist who likes to tell sexist jokes.

Is he a misogynist?

In terms of policy, he literally calls himself a feminist.

Yet on a personal level, he says misogynistic, inflammatory, and offensive things about women.

So Jackson clearly has said offensive and inflammatory things about women in his personal capacity.

How does that make him on a social and ideological level a misogynist?

That conflates the principle of politics with personal banter and nonsense.

Personal humor, personal, um, personal uh, discourse, right?

That is mainly done to make yourself more relatable on a parasocial level, you know, more likable on an individual level as a personality.

But when it comes to the institutional question of the women's question, never once has Jackson proposed to us as the executive board that we should advocate for stripping women of their independent right to vote.

And the absurdity of this notion reaches its high point upon examination of the fact that if you read our party constitution, when we are given unlimited power to determine the role of women on an institutional level, which is within our party, what have we done?

We have institutionalized an absolute principle of women's equality in practice.

In practice, we have institutionalized the equality of our women comrades.

Where is the actual misogyny in practice?

When have in our own party women been discriminated against because they're women?

But because Jackson engaged in inflammatory, unserious rhetoric years before the founding of the party, that is somehow misogynistic,

That our party as a whole is misogynistic?

That is completely warped, bizarre, illogical nonsense.

Just meticulously think about and break down the chain of reasoning that is being employed by Brandon here.

And you tell me if it holds up to the bare minimal scrutiny of criticism.

This is a permitted opinion in the ACP.

In fact, here's a woman named Aslava Jalili, who is in the Politburo of the ACP, appearing to affirm these views.

She doesn't appear to be bothered by Henkel's views on women, because she seems to largely agree.

So again, these views are the same.

Hold on, but we.

We did not order Slava to say this.

Slava was expressing her personal view.

This is her personal view about women in general.

It's her own.

It's not where has our party institutionalized this view.

But you know what's crazy?

Even what she said here

Was the same thing Lennon said, right here.

No, not here.

Um

That was what I had linked before in his conversation with Clara Zetkin, where he talked about the exaltation and extension of motherliness from the individual realm to the social realm.

So this is not the same thing as saying you don't think women should vote.

That's not the same thing.

Also, Slava is allowed to have her own opinion.

We didn't restrict Slava's ability to voice her views on this question.

Slava is one of our female comrades within the party who is entitled to her own view on the matter.

You're effectively saying that women should not be able to have opinions on women.

I mean, what are you even saying at this point?

The fact that here's a woman named Ms.

Lava Jalili, who is in the Politburo of the ACP, appearing to affirm these views.

She doesn't appear to be bothered by Henkel's views on women, because she seems to largely agree.

So again, these views are entirely accepted within the ACP.

I'll give another example of a

These views have no existence within the ACP.

They're not accepted within the party because they don't exist within the party.

There is no discourse within the within the party that advocates for women to have less rights than men on an institutional or political level.

Red flag.

Everyone needs to follow me line by line and carefully.

I don't want to fucking repeat myself ever again.

To do with Eddie Smith of Midwestern Marks.

Last year, Smith went on the podcast of the far-right online personality, Jake Shields.

Jake Shields is a hard.

Once again, you are blaming us for your failures as a leftist.

Your failure, Hassan Piker's failure.

Someone like Jake Shields is literally not only someone who has a large following of people being converted to the far-right ideology, he himself is a textbook example of a normal person who got converted into this pipeline and this far-right vector of radicalization.

Who is also open-minded to us and is giving us a chance.

To push back on a lot of the things he believes, and present an alternative vector of radicalization.

Now, Jake Shields is not in a fascist organization.

He's not part.

There is no Nazi movement in the U.S.

right now.

He's not part of some kind of fascist phenomena that actually exists tangibly within politics.

But you know what?

You know what that means?

That means, according to Brandon, we are less guilty than the Communist Party of Germany.

Because what the Communist Party of Germany used to do.

Is actually send Communist representatives to Nazi party meetings.

To disseminate communist views among actual Nazis.

And Eddie going on Jake Shields podcast?

Is less of a crime than that because Jake Shields isn't even part of an actual fascist organization.

He's just an MMA fighter who has really far right views.

So should we just sit by and allow the vector of radicalization to go in the far right without us intervening in any kind of way?

And then complaining about how bad and fascist everyone else is?

Or should we make a concentrated effort to actually win people over to our position and provide an alternative vector of radicalization?

Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer, and he's pretty open about this.

But Smith felt it was fine to go on his podcast for a friendly chat.

When criticized for this, Smith- No, it's not just a friendly chat, dude.

Eddie is making a concentrated effort to provide an alternative, and you're not doing that.

And if we don't provide an alternative, you're going to guarantee the success of the far right.

Red Mays, this is the problem with people who do not study history and they don't study the official positions of the Comintern and they don't study the official positions of Communist parties, specifically during the period of the 1930s and 1920s when fascism was an ascendant phenomenon.

The Communist position was absolutely not to ignore

The rise of fascist ideology and have a hands-off view.

It was absolutely to initiate a dialogue, to dissuade people from fascist ideology, to present communism as a rightful alternative.

The writings of Dmitrov, the writings of Ernest Talman, the writings of Antonio Gromsky, they all reflect this consistent theme.

Clara Zetkin herself, remarking upon the rise of fascism in Italy,

They all write about the importance of communists to actually counteract fascist propaganda by winning over the masses that are the target audience of the fascists.

And I will actually

I will actually find the um

The quote from Clara Zedkin.

Okay, so this is w this is something called failure of proletarian leadership.

Communist parties are not without responsibility for the fact that even within the proletariat there are disillusioned people who throw themselves into the arms of fascism.

These parties have been insufficiently vigorous, their initiatives lacking in scope, and their penetration of the masses inadequate.

So this is what she says.

The petty bourgeois and intermediate social forces at first vacillate between the powerful historical camps.

When the proletariat has abandoned the goal of carrying revolution further and it's withdrawing from the battlefield under the influence of reformist leaders like Hassan Piker, who tells us to tale the Democrats, out of fear of revolution and respect for capitalists, at this point the broad fascist masses find their way to the spot where most of their leaders were consciously or unconsciously from the very start on the side of the bourgeoisie.

What is Clara Zatkin saying?

If we don't go and make a concentrated effort to speak to masses of people,

Who would indeed otherwise go uh to fascism, like Jake Shields, some who even have already.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

You know, we there is a really, really dangerous sentiment that exists among self-proclaimed anti-fascists.

And the dangerous sentiment goes as follows.

If the masses are won over to f the far right, this means the fa the masses are bad and we need to declare war on the masses.

This is an extremely dangerous line of reasoning because the masses determine everything.

And if you abandon the fight for this generation and for the masses, you are a fascist collaborator yourself.

And that was actually the common turn position in the thirties, which regarded Trotskyists, who rejected patriotism, who rejected nations, who who espoused all manner of anti-social positions that embarrassed the Communist movement.

They regarded them as fascist collaborators who were throwing the masses into the arms of fascism.

That's what Dmitrov said directly.

And that is what Brandon is doing here in this video.

Complained about cancel culture and said that while he may not agree with all of Jake Shields' views, he still respects Shields on a personal level.

So thus far, we've seen that extremely.

So, what?

How is the personal the same as the political?

The same directly?

That's ridiculous.

You mean to tell me you don't have family members or co-workers or people in your personal life that have extremely contemptible political views?

I'm sorry, but you're just not a normal person.

You're living in a bubble or a cult where everyone around you is within the range of acceptable views.

I'm sorry to tell you, but if you're a working class person in this country, you have co-workers who are flirting with the rehabilitation of Hitler.

Absolutely.

You have crazy conspiracy theorists talking about Jews and the Illuminati.

And that is the norm if you're actually in the working class.

Even if you just work at a Taco Bell, there's a guy at Taco Bell who is sipping lean and smoking pot and is talking about how Hitler was fighting aliens or some shit.

And to claim that you can cancel all of those people fundamentally excises you from the possibility of ever, ever being able to relate to people normally.

No, there's no fraternizing with Nazis because Jake Shields is not actually a Nazi because he's not part of a Nazi organization or party.

He's not an active Nazi.

He is an MMA fighter who has views that can be called Nazi.

He has opinions and he has an outlook contaminated by the disease of Nazism.

Absolutely he does.

But to say that he's a Nazi implies he's an active Nazi.

It implies politically he's a Nazi.

That's not the same thing.

No one is fraternizing with Nazis.

Eddie is trying to relate to him as another MMA fighter to dissuade him from his far-right views, to open a new and alternative vector of radicalization.

You can't do that if you aren't personable.

If you're not relatable on a personal level, why would anyone who got sucked into far right ideology because of ignorance and lack of education ever ever deign to even open the possibility of listening to you?

Preemptively declaring war on everyone who's been misled by far right ideology to be your personal enemy is a recipe for guaranteeing and facilitating the success of far-right ideology, I promise you.

Perhaps not as alarming as having friendly chats with Nazis, but it's still pretty indicative.

There's a fake research collective called RTSG Research.

Which is associated with ACP and run by Rev Lascaris.

During how is it associated with ACP?

Again, it's an extremely reckless thing to say.

Wh when has there ever been an official collaboration between the American Communist Party as an institution and RTSG?

Again, I know that for some people this is too technical, but again, you need to start taking these distinctions seriously.

When they're saying this about our party, they're implying that the collective principle of our party organization has somehow been applied or manifested in a way that it has not.

A Twitter argument, Lascaris tweeted, I own suits worth more than your monthly rent.

Please put the fries in the bag, bro, which is an off statement to come from one of the leaders of an allegedly Communist Party.

Right, but you're missing the context of when he is being called jobless and when he is being accused of being broken jobless by another leftist.

And the pride that Rev is espousing is a working class pride.

Because believe it or not, Rev is a trucker.

And no, he doesn't own his own vehicle either.

He's an employee trucker, wage worker.

Who's being accused of being unemployed to humiliate him and degrade him because of his class position?

So he's lashing out as all working people do when people attempt to humiliate them because of their class status.

So there's nothing odd about his response at all when you actually look at the context, which you very, very conveniently omitted.

Isn't that incredible how you omitted that?

You omitted the person calling him jobless and broke.

For another red flag, we can turn to Haz's Twitter account, where he pinned a thread which begins with why Marxism is not awoke.

Actually, confront the content of my arguments and explain how it proves that there's something fishy going on, rather than everything literally being on the table.

Even in this thread, you have a pretty thorough breakdown.

Of where I'm coming from philosophically.

There's nothing being disguised, there's no suspicious anything.

It's all being laid out out in the open for anyone curious to see why this person is very carefully attempting to craft a narrative according to which we are presenting ourselves as normal communists.

But look at all these fishy things.

Clearly something sus is going on.

One, everything we believe is on the surface.

We're not hiding anything.

Two, you are presuming that you are in a position of authority to know what a normal communist is.

I want to know where that presumption comes from.

Why are you pretending like you would know what communists look like and appear like?

When there has been no communist movement of any significance in the country you live in for at least five decades before you were born.

How would you know what a normal, non-sus, non-red flag communist even looks like?

From what position of authority and experience and knowledge are you coming from?

You're not familiar with the rudiments of Marxist-Leninist classics.

You are not familiar with the rudiments of the actual history of the Communist Party USA, which I'll get into as the video progresses.

You're not familiar with any of these things, and yet you're speaking from a position of pretension and authority as if I know what real communism is.

I know what real communist movements look like.

And compared to that, this is very sus.

Wait a second.

That baseline presumption that you have knowledge and you are familiar with what ordinary communists are like needs to undergo a little bit of scrutiny.

Where is that coming from?

Above a long, opaque manifesto, where Haas explains his interpretation of Marx's theory.

Throughout this thread, Haas cites the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugan.

This is very curious because Dugin, who I'll be talking more about later, is a f- Hold on.

This is literally a logical fallacy.

It's not curious if you're not even

Reading what I say or write about Dugan.

Why am I citing him?

I provide reasoning for that, Brandon.

Why are you not interrogating the meticulous, well-crafted reasoning I employ and instead pulling up his Wikipedia and saying this is really strange, but you're not even deigning to make an effort to understand in what way I cite him?

There's something really illogical and pathological about that.

This is this guy and his name and his face and a bunch of lies Wikipedia says about him.

Therefore, something sus is going on.

I have read Dugan myself though.

I cite Dugan's ideas.

I very specifically talk about in what ways Dugan has relevance in that thread.

You don't interrogate with any of that.

You just pull up his Wikipedia page.

Which again, midwit bystanders coming across this video might find compelling.

But again, it's not a position that is a result of the use of reason.

It's extremely pathological.

Far right philosopher.

Now, I don't think it's wrong to read and engage with a writing phone.

Why are you reading Wikipedia when the subject in contention is my views and my interpretation of Marxism?

Instead of reading me directly, where you're not even clicking any of these things, you're just scrolling past it and dismissing it because why?

I mentioned someone's name, and therefore all of the bad associations you have with that name are justified, and you can apply them to me.

And I can somehow be accused of being a fascist because of your ignorance.

You haven't even read a fucking word of Dugan in your life.

I can almost guarantee that, by the way.

You've never opened one of his books and actually read them.

Where is the presumptuousness?

That you are an authority on Dugan coming from because you've read his Wikipedia.

philosophers, but Haas does more than that.

Haas utterly adores Guggen, and so does Jackson Hinkle, he also adores

Again, you just pulled up a thread where I very painstakingly elaborate upon.

What Dugan's relevance is for Marxism according to me.

And instead of engaging with that in any kind of way,

You accuse me of this nebulous adoration of Dugan.

Resorting to personal terms rather than a principled theoretical uh breakdown or theoretical critique.

Stugan, why are two leaders of the American Communist Party such big fans of

You know why, wow, why?

It's such a big mystery.

If only there wasn't something pinned on Haas's fucking Twitter profile that you just fucking pulled up that would fucking explain it.

What a big fucking history, right?

If only I didn't have countless of fucking hours of lectures plus something you just fucking pulled up fucking explaining it.

What a big fucking mystery.

You fucking idiot!

I want to know how a single person doesn't get triggered like I do watching shit like this.

How is the blatant lack of thought and conscious awareness and the bare minimum effort to use your skills of reasoning?

How is that not so blatantly evident to bystanders?

99% of the people watching this video.

Are you doing so while high on marijuana with no fucking awareness at all of what this guy's even saying?

How is it not so blatantly obvious how fucking stupid it is?

I literally break down theoretically Dugan's significance and why I think he's an important thinker, and this guy's making it seem like it's some secret mystery that could only be explained by this notion that I'm secretly a fascist.

I've written about it on my sub stack, I've gone into various lectures about it, I fucking explained it in the very thread he pulled up, proving that he he was at least familiar with the fact that I made an effort to explain explain it.

Why is he treating it like some secret mystery that I'm hiding from the world?

But my anger comes from the fact that I'm the only one who gets angry about it.

I just wish people were not cattle, retarded, brain-dead, worthless cattle, and they could actually have the skills and the discernment to actually see how stupid this guy's line of argumentation is.

But I'm the only one who sees it for some reason.

And I'm sick of being the only angry guy in the room.

I just want someone to be 1% as angry as I am towards stupidity like this.

And you will see how much that does wonders for my fucking mental health and my ability to take a fucking chill pill.

of a a far-right philosopher.

And I'll give yet another red flag.

Back in December the ACP held an event where the party platform was introduced by Haas.

You'll recall that the ACP launched last July, which means that all the way from July to December, the ACP lacked a formal platform.

This is a bit curious.

A platform is kind of important, and this only further fueled the suspicions of the ACP's ideological character.

Brandon, the inceptual premise of a party and a collective organization isn't actually a platform.

It's actually a commitment.

To collective discipline on the basis of the construction of a party for the working class.

There's nothing suspicious about the fact that we didn't officiate our program until months after the launch of the party.

Given the fact that we were a reconstitution of the CPUSA, that we were a nascent party that had declared and announced its existence.

And the simple and obvious fact that the square one premise of a Communist Party isn't actually having a readily made platform, but having the bare minimum of a commitment to build an organization for the working class.

It's practical commitment that's the foundation of a party, not a platform.

You don't begin with the platform.

Platforms are adopted, programs are adopted very early on, but they are not the foundation of an organization at all, and they never have been in history.

If the ACP were to theoretically come to power in America, what would they actually do?

What are their policies?

What is their program?

Ha has it sought to dispel all the naysayers, presenting a platform which overall seems actually pretty decent, cancel all debts, universal healthcare and education and housing, ending US imperialism.

This is the stuff you would expect.

Right, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is, um

What matters is Lyndon LaRouche, right?

Not what we actually say and how we actually.

I just want to know this.

If ACP is lying about what it is, why are you assuming that in all the cases where you're trying to cancel us that we're telling the truth?

Like, for example,

If you find me a clip praising one of uh that LaRouche was great at making up policies, why aren't I lying there?

How do you know what's the truth and what's not the truth?

Whatever just conveniently fits your narrative?

Think about the line of argumentation here.

Think about the actual claim being made and the premises necessary to prove that claim.

You are saying that we're lying about who we are.

How do you pick and choose who's telling the truth?

Again, the idea that we're fascists in disguise, lying about who we are and adopting a communist disguise doesn't make any sense because it's a really shitty disguise and the circumstances and the context we're living in do not lend themselves to that disguise getting us anywhere.

In a Communist or Socialist Party program?

Well, I guess we were wrong.

It turns out the ACP is a genuine Communist Party.

We were just being hysterical.

No, that's literally the truth.

That is actually the truth.

I y it is going to be incredible to witness the mental gymnastics of this person trying to deny this just self-evident and basic reality.

Wait, let's take a look at the description.

So far everything seems good, but then well, what's this?

Promote American civilization.

Reconstitute the USA into one united republic.

What exactly does this mean?

Here, ha

What does it mean?

I don't if only there was a fucking speech up where you could click the time stamp and learn about what it means.

If only we actually had a program on our website that actually explains what that means.

Again, this guy is like pretending to be like Scooby-Doo.

Like he's he's some kind of like like investigative journalist pretending that things are mysteries that are not mysteries.

I would love to see what interpretation he put.

He's just relying on, which is true.

It's just the sad truth.

Most people are not going to go to acp.us/slash program.

Most people are not going to find this video and click the timestamp for themselves.

They're just going to lazily sit back, smoke pot, eat Dorito chips, and take whatever this guy says at face value because it's just convenient for them.

Because they want to believe whatever he has to say.

Haza makes a curious reference to Canada.

We all love our country, which we know as the United States of America.

Though some of you live in Canada.

A curious reference.

It's just What's the point of getting angry?

What's the point?

Ralphist.

It's also tiresome.

Uh yeah, it is.

It is.

Curious Reference.

Very curious.

Very curious.

Very curious.

It's really curious.

It's like something we're trying to hide.

It's really like a little sus.

It's a clue.

It's like he's a detective and that was just a clue.

And he's uncovering something.

Right, where we say in our Constitution that the territory encompassed by the United States and Canada.

Is one nation

And we are the party, the legitimate Communist Party within that territory, and it's in our Constitution.

And he thinks it's curious, he had to find this remark that everyone i understood because of our overt commitment to building one Communist party that encompasses Canada and the USA.

And he's trying to make it seem like we're concealing some secret LaRouche.

Yeah, like we're all double agents and we're all like we're all going home as La Ru uh we we we take off our ACP hat and we go to the fucking Schiller Institute.

And like, oh, we're I'm giving a wink at all my fellow LaRushites, instead of just espousing an overt, explicit position we publicly committed to even before this convention.

We all love our country, which we know as the United States of America, though some of you live in Canada.

Laughter.

In another event held a month later, where the Constitution of the Wasn a month later, it was the same day, whatever.

ACP was adopted.

Another curious reference to Canada is made.

There's nothing curious about it.

There's nothing curious about it.

If you actually followed up.

With the launch of the ACP and if you were if you did your due diligence to be just a little bit familiar with what we have said constantly publicly, there is nothing curious about this.

Our position is absolutely clear, crystal clear.

And at another event last year, the podium of which Haas gives his speech shows a map of what is presumably supposed to be if this future ACP governed America, and you'll know.

The the event by the Institute for a Free America, which is not the ACP.

This is an ACP logo since when?

The ACP didn't exist during this event.

Again, it's like if you're going to make a hit piece so meticulously researched, apparently you're pretending like that, it's these little details that you get wrong that just discredit everything.

Notice that it includes both the United States and Canada, and over on Twitter, Jackson Hinkle has made statements like: The war to liberate Canada will not be a war on the people of Canada, it will be a war to liberate Canada from the British globalists, and a manifest destiny is not complete until the US liberates Canada.

And why are we spending so much money on Ukraine when we can so easily complete a manifest destiny and liberate Canada?

I'm sure many of you are already familiar.

Okay.

And I'm sure all the JD Pondon memes and all of that is like an official position by an organization when someone fucking and like people will get confused because like what do you mean it's a meme?

Like you're saying he there was nothing serious about it.

No, there obviously is a real kernel of seriousness.

But the idea that Jackson is officially

Trying to give expression to a literal call for war instead of expressing the sentiment that, you know, as a matter of fact, Canada's part of the British Commonwealth, and instead of attacking Russia and attacking China, we should look more inwards, I guess.

It's a rhetorical.

Um expression that is meant

To serve the purpose of

Rejecting the vestiges of colonialism fundamentally and to rhetorically give more strength to the anti-imperialist position.

Familiar with the concept of a manifest destiny?

But for those who don't know, manifest destiny refers to the ideology of American expansion across the Americas, a process which included a genocide against the indigenous peoples.

And in any case, it's a nationalistic American idea.

So it's very strange that a founder of the American Communist Party is citing Manifest Destiny as a justification to invade Canada.

Is this talk of Hold on again?

I just want us to be crystal clear about the record of history.

Okay?

I don't care what your views on Manifest Destiny are.

Make them whatever you want them to be.

But don't say it's curious for a founding member of the American Communist Party to cite it approvingly.

When it was the standard Marxist position, always that it was historically progressive.

Not just by Karl Marx himself, not just by Frederick Engels, not just by Lenin, not just by the CPUSA from day one.

But it was a standard Communist position.

You are free to critique that position.

I'm not limiting your freedom to deviate from that standard position.

I am limiting your freedom, Brandon, to somehow say it is bizarre or out of the ordinary for a Marxist or a Communist.

To have that viewpoint or express that viewpoint.

And moreover, to apply that rhetoric toward Canada, which is not an Indigenous nation, is not strange at all.

It's a skillful employment of American patriotic rhetoric to promote division within the imperialist camp, you fucking idiot.

No, you you're you're mixing up a lot of different things.

Okay.

Let's read what the thing about American civilization is.

Let's just get into it, okay?

So look, this is what we say about American civilization.

It has nothing to do with Jackson's tweets that he made a year before the party was launched about manifest destiny on Canada.

Okay, what it says is we want to discover and cultivate a national continental American culture on the basis of its unique history, geography, and ethnic makeup.

We want to promote language, autonomy, and economic development for the American tribes.

And we want to unify the nation across all racial antagonisms.

We want one unified American identity, and we want to overcome racial division.

So that's what that means.

But you're conflating that with Jackson's tweets about Canada and Manifest Destiny.

Completely separate things.

Wow.

Fuck.

Fuck, am I unreasonable?

Am I unreasonable, guys?

Or is this fucking crazy that I have to do this?

And it's not self evident to people 'cause they're too fucking lazy to investigate it.

fucking seconds and I gotta fucking do this.

Canada makes it sound like the ACP isn't necessarily talking about a peaceful, consensual unification of the US and Canada.

It sounds like they're saying that Canada will be part of

What has the ACP said about any kind of unification between the US and Canada?

If only the party has articulated an official public position on the matter, if only.

If only it did.

If only it did, right?

If only it did.

Here is what we actually have communicated on the question of Panama.

So statement on Trump and Panama December 25th, 2024, when it was released.

And here is what we released on our X account on the question of Canada.

With respect to Trump's comments on Canada and Greenland, the party would like to take special attention to the complexity surrounding the issue.

Canada, a member of the British Commonwealth, has long been a bulwark of Atlanticist reaction and has exerted a reactionary influence upon the development of the United States.

Standard Marxist position for Frederick Engels, who regarded Canada as a reactionary bulwark.

Standard position for American communists like William Z.

Foster, who was the son of Fennians.

If you don't know who Fennians were, they were Irish people who went up and fought the British in Canada and wanted to have Canada and the USA be one united republic, which was a standard American position actually for a long time before the turn of the sorry, before the mid-century of the 20th century.

It has long been the aspiration of the American revolutionary tradition, as well as the view of Marx and Engels themselves, for Canada to be included in the United States.

That is very true.

However, it is necessary to consider carefully the conditions under which such an annexation would take place.

Any violation of the sovereignty of any people anywhere is simultaneously a violation of the sovereignty of the American people themselves.

The same apparatuses of imperial and neo-colonial control, which bypass democratic constitution and sovereign legitimation, will and have.

will and have inevitably been applied to the American people themselves.

We reject any pretext for the US regime to expand its powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution.

If it deepens the rift between his administration and NATO, we remain open to the possibility that such developments might have progressive significance because we support the aim of exiting from NATO.

So that's what we communicated.

So that is a far cry from the claim this guy is making that we're calling as a party for some kind of forceful reunification.

Um

Now if we have expressed rhetoric before the founding of the party, or even if non-party people who are affiliated i or sympathetic to our party, I should rather say, have expressed that.

What we have always imagined or foreseen is that if a revolutionary situation breaks out in the USA.

Then Canada will be a launching pad for NATO and the British Commonwealth and the forces of the international capitalist class to regain the USA, lost by a victorious proletarian revolution.

And under those circumstances, an American revolution would become a revolutionary war of context, where, yes, Canada would be forcefully annexed and conquered because it has lost any right of sovereignty because it engaged in aggression against the USA.

But never do we just simply say that we want to just invade Canada and forcefully take it, unless it's like a meme.

Nobody seriously in any official kind of serious way endorses that view.

How the fuck am I at two thousand views?

Of the U.S., whether or not the Canadians want it.

The idea of annexing Canada is an old American imperial goal.

The Continental Army attempted and failed to conquer Canada in the Revolutionary War, and the U.S.

Oh, so you're saying it didn't start with LaRouche?

Yes, it tried again and failed during the war of 1812, and since then there have been no serious attempts to annex Canada and not that much talk about it.

The idea that is not true.

The fact the idea that there was no talk Okay, look what he just said.

There was no serious talk about it.

Alright.

1888.

This is what Engels said in 1888 in a letter to Sorge.

In ten years, sleepy Canada will be ripe for annexation.

The farmers will demand it themselves.

The country's already half annexed socially.

It will abolish this ridiculous boundary line.

And when time comes, John Bull will say amen to this matter.

The first Google result for a supposedly unserious notion, right?

I guess Engels was a LaRoucheite.

I guess that was a LaRoucheite thing Engels.

I guess LaRouche took a fucking time machine and made Engels have that sentiment.

Or why don't you just put two and two together?

If you're a Marxist committed to the American revolutionary tradition and you are trying to deepen that tradition, you're probably going to have to come to terms with the fact that our northern neighbor is still a member of the British Commonwealth, which is symbolically, at the very least symbolically, a signification that the revolution was unfinished.

And the notion that the American Revolution was unfinished has always been championed and promoted by progressive and revolutionary forces in this country, including MLK.

That however, was recently revived by Donald Trump in his attempts to return to nineteenth-century style American imperialism, and the ACP appears to agree.

So now we have a

It's not our fault that Trump started saying this.

You know, we had to clarify our position in the midst of Trump's rhetoric because we said it first.

We talked about Canada years and years ago.

The party's position of a one nation, Canada and the USA,

Um predated, as far as we know, Trump's rhetoric on this matter.

It wasn't until later in the year that we started hearing Trump say this.

And I want to finally say there's nothing like Chauvinistic about what we're saying, A, because Canada is not a victim of anything, okay?

Just shut the fuck up for one second and stop treating fucking Canada as a third world country victim of predation.

But even if it was, that's not even our position.

So it's it's inapplicable, even if it was.

For the very, very simple reason, and it's very, very simple.

That we call for the reconstitution of the USA, which means one united republic encompassing Canada and the USA that reflects the popular sovereignty of the peoples of both of those countries.

So it is not an extension of the USA onto Canada.

It is actually a reconstitution of the USA in order to bring in Canada effectively.

which means it it's it's two uh people separated by what Engels called a ridiculous boundary coming together to renegotiate democratically the circumstances under which we would be a united country.

That is not the same thing as annexing Canada as the USA because we don't believe the USA will survive for very long.

It's in our Constitution that we anticipate the USA will face certain reconstitution and dissolution and reconstitution.

It's in our declaration that we believe that.

Extreme misogyny, socializing with the Nazis, flaunting wealth and mocking the poor, citing far-right philosophers, and calls for territorial conquest.

So after what I said, every point by point, every single accusation he makes there, this is why the narrative he's spinning has been so compelling for people, apparently.

Because they missed the fact that every single thing he just said lacks any substantive basis.

And I very meticulously, very thoroughly, not just dismantled it, but...

Providing so many different kinds of devils advocates generously and charitably in his favor, from every which fucking way, I completely dismantled.

The premises

That serve as the basis for the claim he just accused us of, point by point.

So, again, if you miss it.

So, now we have extreme misogyny.

Okay, extreme misogyny.

Debunked.

Socializing with Nazis.

Socializing with Nazis.

Debunked.

Flaunting wealth and mocking the poor.

Flaunting wealth and mocking the poor.

Debunked.

Far-right philosophers.

Far-right philosophers.

Debunked.

And calls for territorial conquest.

Calls for territorial conquest.

Debunked.

None of these five things characterize anything to do with our party.

None of these five things he just accused us of have anything to do with our party.

These are all accepted within the American Communist Party quote unquote.

Again, all five of what he just said, I took two hours to dismantle.

And every single person who watched this video, this is the scary thing, because you know they say 99% of people aren't even consciously aware and have no inner monologue.

I don't know if that's true, but it's like 99% of the people who watch this video missed that.

They were zoning out for 17 minutes up to the point he listed those five things, and it flew over their head how every single one of these accusations is not rooted in reality.

It's not rooted in fact.

It's fundamentally illogical and inconsistent with any kind of good faith representation of our views.

And that flew over people's head and and and they wouldn't have caught it if I didn't point it out.

That's what I find really fucking scary.

That's what I find really fucking insane.

Like, if I didn't point it out as meticulously and painstakingly and as thoroughly as I fucking did, it would have flew over people's fucking head.

That's really fucking scary.

It's like really scary how fucking stupid people are.

Unquote.

This is all very strange, and it gets even stranger.

I want to now turn into this speech by Haas.

This speech is titled The Occupied States of America, and offers a direct explanation of the mega communist worldview.

Since the ACP proclaimed itself to not only be Marxist-Leninist, but the one in true authentic

Direct Explanation for the MAGA Communist Worldview

To do that, let's look at Haas's speech for the Institute of Free America.

Let's not read his actual

12,000 word substack called The Rise of Ma MAGA Communism.

Let's not do that.

Let's watch his speech.

Uh delivered

The Occupied States of America.

Let's watch that.

To get to the real meat and potatoes of the theory and philosophy underlying this worldview.

Okay.

I'm the unreasonable crazy Arab for yelling and losing my cool and losing my temper.

But you want to know what?

Anyone who watches this and doesn't get pissed, you are a cuckold for not having the discernment or sensitivity

To realize how fucking stupid and retarded what this guy says is.

You're a fucking cuck for not seeing it, for letting it fly under your radar.

You are a you are a cuck of the intellect.

That you just allow this to be said without the discernment to see how profoundly fucking dishonest and stupid it is.

Okay, hold on.

Wait wait a second.

Wait a second.

I gave a speech called The Occupied States of America to talk about how America has lost its sovereignty, to talk about how we don't have any popular sovereignty and how the US has been usurped by an oligarchical elite for almost one hundred years.

That has that is actually occupying our country.

you'd think you would talk about the principles of Marxism Leninism.

If I gave a speech about Palestine and I talked about the new the details of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

Is it curious that I'm not devoting the entirety of my speech to introducing people to Marxism-Leninism?

You will find in my speech a consistent reflection of Marxist-Leninist principles, but that is not the subject matter of my speech.

So if the subject matter of my speech is not directly about introducing people to Marxist-Leninist theory, is that somehow curious?

Is that somehow strange?

Thank you, Sleeper Cell.

You know what I'm getting sick of?

I'm getting sick of retards in my fucking chat who are talking about pestomime.

Instead of paying attention.

Cause you know what it's telling me?

It's telling me that I'm talking and speaking in vain.

Why am I fucking doing this if you're not gonna pay attention?

I don't want to keep repeating myself because I spend hours going into fucking meticulous detail, giving you the tools to disarm these fucking retards who attack us, and instead of listening and paying attention.

You sit back and smoke pot and eat Doritos.

And then three months from now, some new retard will release a fucking video recycling shit I fucking responded to.

Dozens and dozens of times and you'll put it in my show request and ping me you'll fucking ping me Haas You gotta respond to this Haas You gotta respond Haz look what they're saying.

That's what you did for this fucking retarded video Because you don't fucking pay attention You don't pay attention to what I say if you pay attention You know what I'm saying here I've said dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of fucking times over hundreds and hundreds of fucking hours

Fucking idiot.

And uh eventually in the afternoon civil war, almost every aspect of economic life became dependent actually on banking cartels.

The law of monopoly, of the aggregation of various interests, industries, and forms of property gave rise to the summarize what I just said.

He said it was curious you would think that uh if he's giving a speech that it would be about uh Marxist-Leninist principles.

Summarize my response to that, just so I know that you're listening.

Okay, one person got it.

Congratulations.

One person got it.

It's not the subject matter of the speech.

You can be a Marxist-Leninist and talk about specific subject matters.

And that's not curious, that's not strange, that's not bizarre.

You're talking about something very concrete and specific.

Not every fucking speech you give is an introductory course on Marxism-Leninism.

If my speech was about Palestine, which in it in part it was, but if it was entirely devoted to the topic of Palestine, it would make me less of a Marxist-Leninist to talk about something very specifically happening now or in history.

To the rise of centralization of banks and banking systems, and these banking cartels, rather than markets, were given total control over the success or failure of industrial and commercial ventures.

See, a group of the wealthiest private bankers led by J.D.

Morgan all decided that they were going to seize control of the reins of the economy.

They were seizing control of the manufacturing, the transportation, the mining, the telecommunications.

Okay, but that is an actual matter of historical fact.

If you want to challenge the veracity of what I'm saying on a historical level, feel free to do so.

But let's see what Brandon does in response to what I say.

The financial markets.

I should also add some added context here.

This cartel of bankers, this cartel of monopolists, these weren't just wealthy Americans.

These were people who had extensive relationships, blood ties, and even marriages with the British oligarchy, with the which is true.

Okay.

Carol Quigley wrote a book called The Anglo-American Establishment.

Sunarchive.org.

It's right here.

Carol Quigley The Anglo-American Establishment, it's right here.

And they go into detail about this.

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Now you can say oh is it is it bizarre for a Marxist-Leninist to to talk about facts?

Is it bizarre for a Marxist-Leninist to talk about facts?

What did Lenin say about facts?

What did Mao say about facts?

Is it bizarre to just talk about facts?

Instead of just abstract doctrine and talk about specific facts about the world?

Is that bizarre?

Is that strange for a Marxist-Leninist?

Or is that fucking standard?

You fucking idiot.

Powers of old Europe.

But according to him, it was a goal of this elite.

He even formed a secret society toward that aim of recovering the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.

Now they haven't done that formally speaking, but in terms of the complete co-option of our institutions in everything but name, seems like it was pretty successful.

Now if you understand anything about the ideas of the Marxism, it's plainly clear that this is not a Marxism.

Marx III.

If I say water is H2O, is that Marxism?

Scratch that.

Please scratch that.

Scratch that.

Is this Marxism?

Is this Mark Susan?

Is a concrete analysis Marxism?

Or is Marxism just the reproduction of an abstract

doctrine of an abstract mathematical formula that is not actually concretely applied in the analysis of reality.

What is Marxism?

Is Marxism concrete?

For Marxism to have meaning, does it need to be concretely applied?

Or does it suffice to reproduce what Bread Tube told you?

Some abstract thing about the relationships of production where the capitalists own it and the wage earners?

Yeah, sure, but concretely apply that in the investigation of reality to see what that actually means in reality.

Does it just mean taking empirical phenomena and shoehorning them in your pre-given definitions and conceptual framework?

Or does it mean concretely tracing the development of the capitalist class?

Just as Lenin did in a little fascist book, a fascist Nazi book Lenin wrote, called Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Amilo with the ten, thank you.

MF Poppers with the two, thank you.

His call for the abolition of capitalism, which is based upon the exploitation of the w

That's true abstractly, but what does it translate into concretely?

It's almost like there's an entire history of this.

I'm real close to MS Payne.

Just let's wait.

The working class by the capitalist class.

But Haas doesn't really talk about class struggle.

He talks about a quote-unquote British financial cabal ruling American.

KMF with the five thanks.

We're gonna roll that back, just so the editors have an easier time.

Let's roll it back.

But Haise doesn't really talk about class struggle.

He talks about a quote-unquote British financial cabal ruling American.

Haas doesn't talk about class struggle.

He just talks about the concrete form of a class that rules the country at the expense of other classes.

like the working class.

That's not he's not talking about class struggle.

He's just talking about a capitalist financial elite that's totally not related to class struggle.

Okay, the capitalist class is irrelevant to class struggle.

Class struggle.

Is about

Slogans that reproduce abstract slogans.

That's class struggle.

Not talking about the actual historically constituted capitalist class, the actual one.

No.

which Carol Quigley called the Anglo American Establishment, which was overwhelmingly

Alright, I'm gonna get into MS Payne.

I'm just gonna give this more of a chance.

I talked about the specific development of monopoly capital in the USA.

A very specific and concrete analysis, sure, but it's a concrete understanding of class struggle and its evolution, not an abstract one.

It's a very, very simple distinction I'm making.

Central to anyone who's familiar with the rudiments of Marxism.

Miss class struggle in an offhand manner, declaring that this cabal oppresses Americans across class, and he seems to suggest that class struggle is actually a distraction ofty percent of your personal income tax.

Class, ruling over the working class, and the fact that he seems to dismiss class struggle in an offhand manner, declaring that this cabal oppresses Americans across class, and he seems to

I wish someone in real life would look me in the eyes and say this.

It will never happen.

No one will ever have the audacity.

To embarrass themselves with the shame of saying such stupid, mindless things in front of me.

They will nervous, they will get scared.

Not of me physically, that I'm going to do something.

They will get scared.

To utter such a stupid thing to an actual person in person.

How do you have?

Such a lack of shame To say such a stupid thing

That I reject class struggle because

I am trying to explain

And specify the concrete development of the capitalist ruling class?

Which does indeed suppress all other classes below it.

That doesn't that doesn't make class struggle irrelevant.

Because only the proletarian class can defeat that class, which I make pretty clear consistently.

all the time.

We even launched a party, Can You Believe It?

Which

Which officiates that that view, that only the working class, united, can challenge the ruling imperialist monopoly capitalist class, the standard position of the C P U S A for nearly a hundred years, while this fucking lack of education

It is um very sad.

Forgive me for being angry and frustrated.

I'm so irr I'm so irrational.

That's really the problem.

I'm just irrational.

Hitlerite ideology is on the rise.

There is an immense gap in education as far as the layman and the history and the theory of Marxism, Leninism.

And this guy is reinforcing that ignorance and stupidity and spreading it on a mass scale and aiding and collaborating with fascism and

I'm here in my fucking studio yelling.

In vain, that's the truth, in vain.

How can we close the gap?

How do we educate people about Marxism and Leninism?

How do we do that if if they're shouting and screaming at us?

On the one hand, the right is screaming that we're Jews, and on the other hand, these people are screaming at us that we're Linden LaRouche Nazis.

Where's the curiosity to learn?

Nobody wants to learn anything and that's the problem.

And it's it that's what makes me depressed, to be honest.

Nobody actually wants to learn.

They just want their existing wrong worldview to be reinforced somehow and confirmed.

And there's no room for learning something new.

Very few people can stomach their pride and accept the fact that there there are things they need to learn.

That puts us in a really fucked-up position, because our position hinges upon and depends upon the willingness of people to be educated.

That's really fucking fucked up, you know?

All I can say is everybody needs to fucking double, triple, quadruple down on that, very aggressively, fucking push the door in and fucking force people to learn.

Humiliate them for their ignorance.

Give them a fucking incentive to need to fucking learn.

Because if we don't fucking do that, we'll be crushed by the right.

And we are being crushed by them.

It's the simple truth.

To suggest that class struggle is actually a distraction?

40% of your personal income taxes.

I didn't know this until a few years ago.

It actually shocked me.

It doesn't go to welfare queens.

It doesn't even go to corporations not paying their fair share, whatever Bernie Sanders says.

40% of your personal income tax goes to paying interest on the national debt.

They have us fighting each other about, oh, well, if you're a little more rich, you should be paying more.

Oh, it's these welfare queens who are responsible for our high taxes.

How is nobody talking about the fact that nearly half of every dollar that we pay?

So the premise, the claim he makes, is that I say that class differences don't matter because of what I just said here.

I just want to take a pulse and test my audience's level of literacy on Marxism.

Does anyone see the problem with that, the line of argumentation he makes there?

Does anyone see the problem?

And can you can you just very briefly in one sentence point that out?

Not seeing it so far?

Does anyone see what what what's wrong with what he just said?

Or only me?

Only I get angry about these things.

Mhm.

Nobody gets it.

That's okay.

That's okay.

I gotta fucking hold everyone's hand for all eternity 'cause no one wants to fucking educate themselves or listen or think.

Okay, mm.

I'll give you a very, very um simple

Hint

Because it flew over all of your heads.

You see my frustration that I'm the only fucking person who gets angry about this shit and has the discernment?

Yes, one person fucking got it.

Wow.

Holy fuck.

Holy fuck.

One guy got it.

Red Polaris.

How do I reward this fucking guy?

Uh h how do I make him like VIP?

'Cause I'm losing my mind here.

Like, I'm losing my mind.

Like, I'm straight up losing my fucking mind about to crash out.

Yes.

According to Marxism, class is not defined by relative differences in wealth.

That is not how class is defined.

That is Bernie Sanders' or Democrats or Liberals definition of class.

Even among the working class, there are relative differences in income and wealth.

Just because someone is wealthy and rich doesn't make them qualitatively part of a different class.

Class is not defined by wealth.

Class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

The problem is, in our society of extreme concentration of capital and monopoly capital in particular, even people who are entrepreneurs don't really own their means of production.

Financial capital owns almost everything in actual practice.

And people who are rich and make more money

just tend to be the people that are higher on the corporate ladder or the ladder of salaries and professions, or they're even given benefits all of all kinds.

But the actual ownership of the means of production, as I outline in this video, is concentrated in very, very, very, very small hands.

So class struggle is not about relative differences in wealth among people who are outside of the

Financial elite.

So to say that what I just said means I'm saying class differences don't matter is absurd, because the definition of class within Marxism isn't wealth.

is going to literally nothing, right?

It's going to the humiliation of us as a country and as a people.

And Haas repeats this theme over and over.

In a Twitter thread from twenty twenty three, Haas says that mega communists oppose private property, which you would expect for communists.

Communists have always opposed private property, though that term can be confusing and misleading.

Historically, private property refers specifically to a social relationship where a private owner takes possession of property which is

Why don't we read what Mark said about private property, you know?

Because the early Marx writes a lot about what private property actually is, and the alienation that is a prerequisite for the institution of private property.

This is an extremely nebulous and vague definition right here.

is worked on by others.

It doesn't refer to your toothbrush or television, which are personal property, but rather productive assets like machinery and tools or land from which rent can be extracted.

Essentially it refers to the private ownership of capital and land, something which communists want to abolish in favor of public ownership.

Haas says that a mega communists want to

I'm just curious, because I've read the Communist Manifesto and none of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto directly say we're just going to abolish private property right away.

Because the idea of the dissolution of private property as an institution is regarded as a long term consequence of the proletarian dictatorship, not a policy, not a voluntary thing that's done to just abolish it.

Private property is regarded as a

factor of civil society, whose conditions and premises are being undermined by the development of capitalism itself.

And that's why Socialism and its victory is being anticipated as an inevitability of history.

Abolish a private property, but his definition of the private property is a little different, as he says.

Wh why is it different?

Let's see, why is it different?

Because I actually give a definition that gets to the core essence of what private property is, the essence of private property.

An essence which has reaches its fullest culmination and development if we are living in c late capitalism which is on the cusp of the disillusion of that mode of production.

Everyone dreams of getting rich, but it is because you want to use that wealth for a specific reason.

Yeah, I'm speaking in relatable language here, by the way, which is very effective and which is very useful.

It does a lot to actually dispel the fears and the fear-mongering surrounding what communists mean by abolishing private property.

Because, as you can recall, if you're actually familiar with Marx's works, Marx talks about this in Private Property and Communism in 1844, where he's disawating this idea that communism is just aggregating everything into one thing owned by everyone.

And he's saying, no, this is missing the point.

So the relationship between.

Personal ownership and personal dreams, even that have any kind of human significance at all, really, have to be carefully distinguished from the essence of what private property is as an institution.

Because for Marx, private property is a fundamentally antisocial, anti-human institution of alienation at its essence.

That's what it is.

At its essence.

All relationships of production are contaminated by the institution of private property under capitalism.

But what the essence of private property itself is is not exactly clear to people.

And the notion that private property refers to the thin line and distinction between your life activity as an individual and other people is really misleading.

Because, you know, the problem in America is that most people associate private property with what?

Signs on people's lawns that say private property.

That's the thin line that gives you privacy.

Private property is associated with individual privacy, or the privacy of goals and aspirations and so on and so on of individuals.

So abolishing private property just means for most people it's a free-for-all where everyone has immediate access to everything.

And Marx in Private Property and Communism calls this crude communism and he rejects that notion.

And I actually get to the essence of what private property is.

But private property in the form of capital is not any substantive real wealth, but a money for money's all.

That is absolutely true.

If you read Marx's capital, that's literally what it is.

M C M prime literally just leads to M M'.

That's the essence of capital.

In its developed form, MM Prime.

own sake.

As we can see today with the fiat currency and the outrageous speculations of the financial class, money has ceased to represent any real wealth at all, but it takes the form of power, power that banksters are using to implement their great reset agenda to enslave entire nations.

Mm.

What is what is not true about that?

You see how they always say that, oh, the rhetoric sounds like XYZ instead of a instead of actually addressing the content of what I say, whether it's true or not, because this is actually true.

When when a private cartel of banks, the Treasury, has the power to set interest rates and effectively use money as a political tool.

Um

This is uh this represents how capital

has been so far divorced from its actual earthly premises, which is a process Marx actually describes and anticipates in the writing of Capital Volume three, if you read it.

Communists do not oppose wealth.

They oppose the institution of the private property, which subjugates the entire economy to an institution which is completely antisocial, anti-human, anti-civilizational, and in fact anti-wealth.

It's like this is like literally the most concise summary of what Marx says about private property.

That private property even l you know who writes about this is Marx directly.

When he writes about the irony of the miser.

And let me try to find it actually.

Let's actually.

This is not even where it is, but this boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase, is common to the capitalist and the miser.

While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser.

But Marx actually gets into a very intelligent argument.

I think it's in his early writings, or I think it was in his writings against Prodhan, or whatever how you say it, where he basically talks about how, ironically, the institution of private property and its alienation.

Corresponds also with a kind of uh debasement of actual real human wealth, where you're just trying to save at all costs for its own sake.

Um no, not the one from volume one that I just gave.

Um

Rhodehan, yeah, whatever.

Um let me find it.

Uh

Can't find it, but it's uh it's definitely there.

It's a very specific example he gives.

Um, I can't I'm not going to be able to find it right now.

Um

Private property is not your personal possessions.

It is not your car and it is not your home.

It is not even your small business.

Private property is not.

That's true.

And I can I again, there's nothing that sounds crazy to someone who just learned about Marxism yesterday.

But when you actually think about it and apply Marxism consistently, you will find that entrepreneurship is not essentially and inherently a private property.

It is an activity very much um defined.

Under capitalism by the institution of private property, but that's not the essence of what it is, in essence.

Property is the debt you pay to banks with interest before taking out a mortgage to be.

Yeah, literally.

Um

The institution of private property in the form of capital, according to Karl Marx himself, culminates in MM Prime.

That's what private property in its essence is revealed to be at its most bare and essential level.

Thank you so much, Volk Vulture.

Thank you so fucking much for finding that quote.

Everyone, round of applause for Volk Vulture.

Um because he found it and I was looking for it and that's literally the one.

So look, um

Hold on.

Yeah, it was from his eighteen forty four, uh

Manuscripts

So here it is.

Self-renunciation, thus political economy, is true moral science.

Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life, all human needs.

The less you eat, less you go to theater, the less you drink, the more you save, the greater becomes your treasure, which neither moths nor rust will devour, your capital.

The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life.

Literally, that's exactly.

Isn't it kind of intelligent how I like express this really old, seemingly impenetrable, um?

Arguments by Marx in ways that are relatable to people in the 21st century, like talking about yachts and cars and about how at least that that still has the human quality of your dreams, somehow, right?

It's not even an endorsement of yachts, it's like at least that is something still kind of human.

But capital and private property, at its essence, is not that.

That is not what it is at its essence.

At its essence, it is usury, it is money for money's own sake, which is absolutely true.

Private property is the institution.

From the Communist Manifesto.

Replicated throughout the entire history of communist literature which describes the decay of capitalism and the rise of bourgeois degeneracy.

But he's gonna say it's fascist rhetoric, right?

Yeah.

So how do communism want to abolish good teach the young people, teach the generation?

That Marxism is just fascism.

That way they'll become Nick Fuentes fans and just they'll start hail Hitlering and doing the Sieg hails.

And you're encouraging them to do that.

Congratulations.

Communists do not advocate taking people's possessions.

And in fact, we do not even advocate taking people's businesses.

Right, we don't.

Because China doesn't.

And China is ruled by the largest Communist Party on earth.

Fancy that.

Fancy that.

People's small businesses, they're s we we don't call for unilaterally expropriating them.

You wanna know who else didn't?

The Communist Manifesto didn't.

the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Nowhere do they include

simply taking over people's shit, their their entrepreneur, their businesses, wholesale.

And why why can I say that so confidently in twenty twenty five?

Why can I say that so confidently for us?

Because the only businesses that still exist that have a semblance of personality or

That are not already socialized by a really abstract form of capital.

Those are not the fundamental means of production that a Communist state would be nationalizing right away.

Small scale businesses like a diner or a restaurant, that would not be sto taken.

by a Communist State.

Because they are not big enough at scale to be of any relevance.

to the property question for Communists at a fundamental level of facilitating the development of society in the direction of the development of socialism, which is something that is happening materially at the level of civil society.

So according to Haz, a private property doesn't refer to private ownership of the means of production.

It doesn't refer to capitalist No, it does refer to that.

It does.

But what does private mean?

Private does not mean individual.

Private ownership of the means of production

Means the dominance of capital over the means of production.

It means means of production in the form of capital.

That is what gives it the quality of being private property, not the exclusive management by a certain individual or the exclusive ownership even by a given individual.

Businesses rather buy private property has a means of usury which is destroying Yes, because the whole point is that capital is radically

Super individual.

It is the the notion that private property is exclusive individual ownership is a myth of the bourgeoisie.

Marx himself in the writing of Capital very clearly reveals that private property in its developed form is radically impersonal.

It takes the form of capital.

Which is a principle that is a it's almost like an autonomous principle of uh accumulation.

It's a radically alienated logic of the reproduction of society itself.

Red Mays, what's up?

And that is the irony of Marxist capital.

It is good for communists to remove the human face from private property, it's good to remove the human face.

Your neighbor doesn't have private property, the people you know don't have private property.

Private property is an institution that has taken the form of cartels and, yes, a real elite.

Not necessarily defined by people in hoods at a table, but an exclusive elite.

That has the reins of control and power over the fundamental institutions of capital.

Sacred relations of familial and communal bonds, owning a business and getting rich, that's not a problem.

The problem is the cabal of bankers

I paraphrase language that was directly from the Communist Manifesto, but let's see him spin it as fascist.

In this thread, Haas uses the terms a capitalist class and a working class, but he's not using these terms in a Marxist sense.

The cap Why not?

Capitalist class is not the actual capitalist class, but the international financial cabal and the

Yeah.

Do you see the twisted idealism at play here?

Do you see the twisted, twisted logic at play here?

Do I have to yell for you guys to understand how fucking retarded it is?

The actual capitalist class is this abstract definition, whereas Haas is talking about something concrete.

He makes it appear as if the actual capitalist class is some abstract theoretical definition rather than a concrete social formation.

If there is an actual capitalist class that exists, Brandon, if one actually exists, like in actuality, it takes a concrete social form.

So.

What is that?

Who is that capitalist class?

Well, it is a global transnational class.

That should probably be abundantly clear, because the financial institutions that represent the highest forms of capital accumulation are indeed transnational.

And yes, it's a cartel, it's a cabal, it's a form of monopoly capital.

These two things are correct empirically as far as the description of the actual capitalist class.

The problem with you is that you're trying to personalize capitalist class relationships so they are familiar to people on an individual level of scale, so that you can categorize your neighbors and your coworkers and you can apply the logic of Marxist class distinction at an individual level of scale, which just profoundly underestimates the extent to which capital has become or at least the means of production have become radically socialized at a scale that is not really comprehensible or relatable, I should rather say, at the individual level.

It's the dimension of relatability that obstructs people's ability to comprehend Marxist theory.

They're trying to make it too relatable such that they can say I can see myself as a capitalist, I you can't, capital has become such a radically impersonal institution of scale, you cannot relate to it at an individual level today.

The working class is the American people who have to unite across class to defeat the international financial

This most definitely isn't a Marxism, but it does sound like another ideology.

The struggle against international finance capital and

It's not Marxism, right?

The Popular Front isn't Marxism.

The Popular Front against Monopoly Capital isn't Marxism.

Okay.

If you want to say that the common turn

That Dmitrov, that the CPUSA since the 1930s was not Marxist, make that argument.

But to make the leap and equivocate their standard position.

Which is reflected on the flag of China today, that that's fascist class collaboration.

Is unjustified.

If you if you reject the view that that's Marxism, go ahead and say that you're a Trotskyite.

Equating that with fascism is dangerous and irresponsible, because you're effectively saying all of the history of communism was just fascist.

Now I will now open MS Paint.

And try to educate people about what the Popular Front i was.

Um

And hopefully, you know hopefully I can

Teach you something new.

Okay.

Before we address the accusation of fascist class collaboration, Marxism-Leninism, I explained this already.

I wrote about it.

It's in a substack article called The Brahmins of Democracy, where I talk about Mao's contribution to dialectics in on contradiction, which really elaborates the principles of Leninism and that contribution to Marxism made specifically and the logic underlying it of dialectics.

But people don't remember the substack nor care about it, and it may as well never have been written because clearly nobody actually took any lasting significance from it.

They just.

kind of glossed over it and then ignored it and forgot about it forever.

So I have to sit here on stream and and then explain it to people in a in a much more simple way.

Okay?

So let's begin by trying to comprehend the Marxist-Leninist understanding of class distinctions.

Okay.

Now give me one moment.

Most definitely.

Okay.

So

Um, okay, I pulled it up.

I needed I needed to pull up some references.

I pulled up Maus on Contradiction so that nobody can accuse me of making this up and claiming this is outside of Marxism.

So, as we know, within Marxism,

There is this kind of vague idea of the base and the superstructure.

Right.

Here is the superstructure and here is the base, right?

So typically people sorry.

Position these correctly.

And then, you know, classical Marxism comprehends that these are interrelated, yada, yada, yada, dialectically, right?

Even though the base has a primary significance, the superstructure also helps in determining the form of the base, right?

So this is the very simplistic understanding that comes from classical Marxism.

Now I will explain that in Leninism

a new contribution to Marxism is made.

That doesn't contradict classical Marxism, but rather elaborates upon it in ways that made classical Marxist dogmatists and the Social Democrat cl Orthodox Marxists very uncomfortable.

So

Um

Lenin

actually uh started to comprehend that there is an antagonism between the superstructure and base as well.

That at the level of this contradiction right here, there was actually a contradiction.

Such that, you know, it's not just this.

It's almost like at the level of the base.

there are other inceptual possibilities of other superstructures, right, constantly being endangered.

Uh sorry, in terms of, you know, their their potentiality, right?

you know and that the superstructure um

instead of just being a superstructure, if it's an apparatus of class control, has to kind of evolve into being this hegemony, which is a notion that was elaborated by Antonio Gromsky, right?

And a hegemony

You know, it's kind of like

above, in a way, the superstructure itself.

And a hegemony suppresses all of these inceptual, uh alternative possible superstructures.

So this is why Lenin is like, you know, um

He's the theorist of im imperialism, because within classical Marxism an imperial principle is not really recognized in general.

Only the bourgeois

Republican principle.

That's the typical superstructure that just directly reflects, you know, the capitalist base, right?

And so so so in classical Marxism you just have a kind of one dimension of contradiction, which is right here, right?

But Lenin, he kind of introduces something on top of this scheme, which is hegemony.

Now if there's hegemony, there is also correspondingly a kind of um

Let's just say um

Let's just call it democratic populism.

It's a kind of Sofianic principle that was a vestige of the influence of the Narodnik movement in Russia, which Lenin and all the revolutionaries at the time kind of took for granted in many ways.

But for them, the kind of the the dimension of the people's popular revolution

was something that also, um

Was a principle that superseded this classical Marxist distinction, but from the opposite direction.

So this is the base of guerrilla warfare that fights the imperial hegemony.

So this is, you know, Hamas, and basically this is where Hamas is, and this is where Mao and the Popular Fronted China was, and this is like Japan.

And so this in this schema, you know, as applied to the popular front, Dmitrov and the theorists.

Of the Popular Front in the 1930s basically said that to apply Leninist principles correctly, fascism was associated with this extra-republican, extra-constitutional, dictatorial open dictatorship, right?

That is threatening even the integr constitutional integrity of bourgeois democratic republics, right?

That the only way to resist it is to go down lower into the masses and have this kind of democratic popular front.

That does indeed cut across class distinctions that exist within the base.

Um

To have a principle that can fight the hegemony, imperial hegemony, okay?

Now this is so crazy and schizophrenic, so we're just gonna go back to the simple Marxist classical Marxist thing of the superstructure and the base.

Um

So that no one loses their mind and gets a headache.

But I I but okay, let's let's um understand clearly that in the base you have a class contradiction, right?

Let's just call let's just um say the proletariat is a circle and the bourgeoisie is a square, right?

I don't know.

I don't know if this seems like it it reflects conflict, but there's like this contradiction.

In the base itself, right?

And it was Lenin who pointed out that there are also, by the same logic, there's also a contradiction at the level of superstructure.

And that is why, above the bourgeois republican superstructure, you have this imperial tendency, right?

He describes that in the development of capitalism itself, culminating in imperialism.

But imperialism was not just about the development of an economic system, it also referred to a tendency that was observed by Lenin during World War I, which is why he called World War I a reactionary war, where bourgeois democracy was being suspended with emergency powers, and there is this new imperial political tendency, which had already existed in Russia at the time.

Because, you know, you understand.

Let me explain something.

In Russia, the schema was this: this was the Duma, right?

This was the autocracy, right?

And then here you had.

Uh you know.

Class distinction, and then below you had here the Russian peasantry.

So, I want you to understand this schema to simplify Marxism-Leninism.

Because you can actually be an Anglo-Box guy and fit this in.

You can put many different kinds of things here.

So, for example, instead of autocracy, you can have Japanese imperialism or Zionism or whatever, right?

Here, you can have some kind of sovereignty.

Uh, traditional bourgeois sense of sovereignty, you have your typical class distinctions, and then you can have Hamas, uh, the Chinese uh popular front, uh, you know, anti-fascist popular front, yada, yada, yada, right?

So, um, this schema is like, uh, like, uh, instead of just the base superstructure one that comes from uh classical Marxism, you have this one in Marxism-Leninism.

Okay.

Now

Again, both of these are things that transcend the superstructure.

The autocracy and the Russian peasantry from opposite directions.

The autocracy consolidates the superstructure.

Everyone please follow me, okay?

So let's um do this.

Okay.

Uh so

Imperial principle

Consolidates superstructure.

Locks it in.

Let's let's make this shorter, you know.

Twenty.

It consolidates the superstructure and it locks it in, okay?

The superstructure is uh this is open terrain.

Open terrain

Democratic site of battle.

Okay.

Now here

Um

Let's just call this uh popular principle.

Popular principle, um permanent state of chaos.

That um

Permanently, that threatens every established superstructure.

Okay, for example.

So this is uh that.

Very thank you so much for that.

Um

Highly volatile.

Okay, here we are.

All right.

So

So what ha uh th this is not sufficiently clear, I understand that, but

As you can see, both of these in a way transcend this distinction and give expression to its form.

So this is a battle at the level of form, right?

And this is the content, this base here, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

It's a fundamental class distinction.

But the victory of the bourgeoisie leads to

um a specific kind of superstructure which in response to proletarian class antagonism, you know, culminates in an imperial principle, right?

This locks in the superstructure in favor of the bourgeoisie, right?

So what Lenin does and what Mao does is the base is constantly being reproduced.

Constant reproduction.

The base is constantly being reproduced.

Um

Here at down below, it's constantly being reproduced, right?

And I will kind of cite something from Lenin to help that's from left-wing communism and infantile disorder that will help actually understand this.

So, Lenin.

Writes, for example, that the dictatorship of the proletariat means a war against the new class, against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow, whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections.

So, that Lenin, right there, you see where he's talking about that?

That is a reference to the system of hegemonic imperialism, which is right here.

This is the imperial principle.

That is what he's talking about there.

He talks about how, in addition to that, also the force of habit, the strength of small-scale production.

And that he says small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continually, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.

And that this is what makes the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary and that it uh i i and uh victory is not possible over the bourgeoisie without a long stubborn desperate struggle which calls for tenacity discipline and single and inflexible will so he's talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and its necessity here

Um

So let me go back to here, right?

So what he just described, force of habit and small-scale production, and it's happening from below and it's engendering newly and afresh, reproducing these relationships of production hourly, daily, and so on and so on.

That is coming from the popular principle right here, the highly volatile dimension of material existence, of like an organic, material, national, or social body, right?

And this is the dimension of civil society and culture.

So there are two axis under which you can understand the traditional base of capitalist production, right?

One is the imperial principle that consolidates and locks in the specific and unique establishment of a bourgeoisie.

It's a specific cartel, it's a specific monopoly, whatever, right?

But then also...

The base is constantly being reproduced at the level of relations within civil society, okay?

And that is the popular principle.

You know, that is the dimension of the people, where there is no clear class distinctions, where there is a vacuating mass that has proletarian tendencies, it has bourgeois tendencies.

Just as Lenin was describing the peasantry in the development of capitalism in Russia, right?

His one of his earliest works, there is an ambiguity at this level.

And why is that?

Because institutionally,

Um, there is a kind of volunteer volatility and openness which constantly disturbs every imperial principle, just like in Gaza, uh, Hamas, you know, it's disturbing the Zionist occupation and therefore disturbing the establishment of a very specific uh capitalist superstructure, right?

Because from the people themselves, there's this resistance that's constantly being endangered, but it's not only resistance, as Lenin said, you could also say, in a way, this is where the reproduction of society at a material level is actually happening.

Now, the thing is that in Marxism, in Marxism, real historical changes.

Happen here.

This is the interesting thing.

Within Marxism

The real changes in history are happening here, okay?

Whereas here

In Marxism, forces that retard history exist here.

So look, look how interesting this is.

This is just Marxism-Leninism for you.

All of the active and vital transformations that are subtly happening, the way in which, from the logic of capitalism itself, new relations of production, of socialism are emerging, whatever that Marx describes.

This is only happening at the organic material level of civil society, material relations of production that are a consequence of the force of habit.

Just as Lenin said, the bourgeoisie is being reproduced hourly and daily and so on and so on, that reproduction here accelerates transformation, its movement, its development.

Reproduction is development.

Something that reproduces according to dialectics also develops in a direction of change.

But the imperial principle actually retards and halts and tries to freeze that reproduction.

Right?

It tries to freeze that reproduction to lock it in.

To lock it in, to maintain the hegemony of a single monopoly, a single establishment, and so on and so on.

A single hegemony, right?

So, um

That's why uh you know the accelerationist position of like unleashing capitalism and freeing it up from imperialist hegemony, like Deng Xiaoping in a way.

The reason Marxists have this optimism that that will lead to socialism is because of this idea that the imperial superstruct the imperial hegemony is retarding the development of history by locking in a specific um

you know, a specific

Uh

You know, a specific institution of class dictatorship that is retarding the forces of production.

Okay, ones if this makes sense, 'cause it makes a lot of sense to me.

Um

This scheme is applicable on a lot of different levels.

So, look, it's really simple.

Um

There's also other ways I can explain this.

Don't worry.

If you're overwhelmed by that and it's really hard, you can also think of things in terms of let's just have a neutral shape.

I don't know.

An oval.

In framing, right?

In frame it.

So, yeah, I'll just put it this way.

So, here you have class contradictions, right?

Here you have class contradiction, right?

Um

That's happening right here, right?

But sometimes the superstructure takes the form of, for example, imperialism, Zionism.

um autocracy, fascism, you name it, right?

Right here.

So sometimes this becomes a secondary contradiction, right?

Sometimes this becomes a secondary contradiction, right?

This is the whole people, right?

And this becomes.

Let me just, I don't know, use green.

I don't know.

or red to emphasize antagonism.

This let me see.

This becomes the primary contradiction.

So, this is another way to simplify it if the other way was too complicated for you.

So, there's a base and the superstructure, but sometimes the base.

Um unifies is in a way because each base is national in form against a superstructure.

Uh an established and consolidated superstructure.

So, what is the example that Mao gives uh of uh

Of this.

Uh is Mao a fascist, you know?

Um we need to know from Brandon.

But what does Mao say?

So, right here, he says, um.

So

Um

Give me one second.

Sorry.

Okay, so here it is.

So in a semi colonial country, the relationship between principle and contradiction and non principle presents a complicated picture.

When imperialism launches war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, contemporarily unite in a national war against imperialism.

You see that?

It's Mao talking about supposed class collaboration, right?

Um

At such a time the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction.

Well all the contradictions among the various different classes are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.

Okay, so this is what Mao says, right?

Now, look at this diagram I made for you for free, by the way.

All right, right here.

So, again.

This becomes the primary contradiction, and these become these contradictions within the people become secondary contradictions under these circumstances, right?

That Mao describes, for example.

But the interesting thing is that the logic doesn't confine itself to the context of a semi-colonial country, because this same logic is applied.

This same logic is applied to anti-imperialism.

And the Anti Fascist Popular Front.

You know, it's the same logic, it gets applied in different ways.

And this is the essential distinguishing factor of Marxism, Leninism, versus classical Marxism.

Okay, so

Um

So let me explain something also.

I don't know if I'm gonna do this with MS Paint.

Alright guys, is that does that did that help you understand things a little better?

I hope it did.

Now let me explain the distinction between that and

And um fascist class collaboration.

So fascist class collaboration.

Rejects

Class struggle.

It rejects distinctions between cla er, sorry, it attempts to unite classes in a corporatist sense where the principle of sorry, where different classes like the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, are given institutional principles, elevated to an institutionalized political principle, a corporate or whatever, right?

But in the Marxist Leninist conception of the Popular Front,

Only the proletariat.

Is elevated to a principle, an institutional principle of class politics.

Everyone else is given the benefit of the doubt of just being among the people.

So their class status is not politically recognized, and therefore their class position and their class relationships are not officiated on an institutional level.

So fascism attempts to officiate and institutionalize class relationships, right?

Besides the the proletariat.

And sharing power between proletariat and bourgeoisie and so on, this is the kind of corporatist idea.

But in the Marxist-Leninist notion of the popular front, none of these other classes are even recognized politically.

They're just given the benefit of the doubt.

That yes, you may come from the bourgeoisie, you may come from the petty bourgeoisie, but we're gonna kind of give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just the people, you are among the people, only the proletariat's class status is recognized and officiated at a political level, right?

Under its leadership, moreover, under its leadership, that's also very important.

These other classes are given the benefit of.

They're being given a way out, basically.

Like.

Like, okay, you may be part of the bourgeoisie, you may be part of the petty bourgeoisie, but you're part of this popular front that represents civil society genuinely.

And therefore, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, we could unite with you and collaborate with you on a democratic level, right?

But not at the level of a corporatist class collaboration, where we're making your class status explicit at an institutional political level, right?

So that is the difference from fascist class collaboration.

It's a fundamental difference.

Again, it takes a lot of intelligence to comprehend that.

In Marxism, there is a dimension where class differences are not made primary.

That's the democratic dimension.

The whole people, everyone, right?

It's a universalist principle of politics.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, you still have a dimension of democratic existence.

And why is that?

Because Marxists recognize that even upon the seizure of power, what happens?

What happens?

Even when there's a seizure of power, what happens, right?

what happens because of the force of habit within civil society the strength of small-scale production uh and still is engendering class relationships daily hourly spontaneously and on a mass scale this is what makes a proletarian dictatorship necessary even when you overthrow the imperialist state machine it's still necessary to have a proletarian dictatorship why because at the level of civil society you cannot eliminate class relationships and all the vestiges of capitalist civilization overnight.

It's still going to exist.

So for example, China is a great example of that.

Um, that's not class collaboration, though.

Just because you're acknowledging that you have not abolished all classes overnight.

And that it is necessary to have a popular front and to unite against the formative imperial principle of the superstructure, the imperialist hegemony, across yes, across class distinctions.

On a democratic basis, that does not mean it's class collaboration in the fascist sense.

Because those are distinctions proper to the constitution of civil society at a material level, not the imperialist hegemony, not purely as a consequence of political will, not because of a certain ideology or a certain politics.

That's just the nature of your nation.

That's just the nature of how your people exist right now.

It cannot be changed overnight.

It doesn't mean that Marxists abandon the notion of popular sovereignty and national sovereignty entirely.

It just means.

That they understand that class distinctions, first of all, take the form of a primary contradiction between an imperial hegemony.

Uh which is locking in a specific superstructure and a specific um

A specific, you know, order of things in place.

And that is the concrete form of the development of the class struggle.

So even.

Members of the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie that have been locked out of that establishment, the imperial hegemony, they can be allies of the proletariat.

In Palestine, members of the Palestinian bourgeoisie can be allies of the Palestinian proletariat and they can unite together against Zionism.

But what complicates that, and I was going to get into this lecture today as well.

I don't know if we have time.

What complicates that is the fact that.

Capital has always been a global and profoundly geopolitical system.

Capitalist relationships of production are not abstract.

They are not an abstract system that has national forms applied everywhere.

It's a very specific world system that has its roots in colonialism.

And

The interesting thing, I just want to do this quickly, all right?

Give me a chance.

I'm gonna just do this quickly, and then we're gonna kind of speed run the rest of the video.

Now the interesting thing is that let me just begin with a world, right?

Um the interesting thing is that, you know.

Whenever you have a comprador bourgeoisie, right?

Uh let's just say, you know.

Let's just say like the proletariat is uh red, the bourgeoisie is blue, right?

Let's just represent it that way.

Oftentimes the only way that this

Contradiction ever plays out, and the only way for the bourgeoisie to establish itself is to become a comprador bourgeoisie.

Right.

They become a comprover class that becomes part of the system of global imperialism.

But here's the interesting things.

If you lag behind, if you are um late to capitalism, let's say, right?

If you lag behind and you are late to capitalism, this is the interesting thing.

This class will never rise

Um to the status of

this.

Never.

They had a head start.

This never happens.

Why?

Because

They had a head start.

So, this is why I entertain the conspiracy theory of Anglo oligarchy and these old bloodlines and so on.

Because when you think about it logically, if you had a head start.

And in the colonial plunder of the world, the first forms of capital accumulation, and you've consolidated that and institutionalized it.

You will always be on top, no matter what.

And to whatever extent capitalism develops in other countries, the most the capitalist class of those countries can develop within the system of global imperialism is a comprador class.

And this comprador class will never ever be able to replace the existing capitalist ruling class.

Some of them may rise to the ranks and be recruited, that's entirely possible, but they will never ever replace this.

So the capitalist system is never ever primarily national in form.

It's always a global system of imperialism.

Always.

It is always global and profoundly geopolitical.

Every attempt by an inceptual bourgeoisie to overthrow the Anglo-Empire failed.

In France, it failed.

The bourgeois revolution in France did not topple the hegemony of the British Empire.

The Germans, their elites, were heavily intermixed and intermarried with the British, but they also failed, you know.

At least uh a few times they failed.

You know, uh World War two, I won't even say that was an attempt to to topple them because it wasn't, if you know the real history.

But uh they will never they they failed, right?

So the reason you can't call it's stupid to attribute

It's stupid to claim that our views on the British Empire are Larousite when you consider that the British Empire.

When you consider that the

British Empire was the global capitalist hegemon.

Un only until um

America took its place.

Now, this has a lot of significance because how did it take its place?

Study the details and history of how this happened.

You'll find a lot of continuity, literally, between the respective ruling classes.

In blood and in um

So, this is all we're saying.

You don't need to be a Larousite to point out this obvious fact.

And it is especially important if we're operating in the American national context and we're trying to comprehend the evolution of capitalism and imperialism to point out to give communists both a rhetorical edge and an edge, or and just a position of legitimacy in leading our nation to socialism.

The fact that.

In order to do this, it is abs it is absolutely true that in the process of this

A lot of aspects of America's revolutionary identity were lost.

That's not LaRoucheite or crazy to point out.

It's just true.

If you understood in the late 19th century or mid-19th century, even how profoundly unique the American identity was in the painstaking lengths it went to to contrast itself with the British Empire.

If you understood how controversial the U.S.'s acquisition of Cuba from the Spanish-American War and the Philippines, how controversial it was.

I mean, there were some real like American national identity that did pride itself on rejecting colonialism and associating that with the British past.

And they saw it as a complete repudiation of the very foundations of what America was.

I don't care if you criticize America's founding fathers, do that.

But it is a matter of historical fact that there was a meaningful distinction between the United States of America as a revolutionary identity of nation building versus the British Empire.

It was very important to American thinkers and for American public life until suspiciously.

The rise of the American monopoly capitalist class led to a lot of mergers in marriage and in the form of institutions of capital, which created this Anglo-American establishment as described by Carol Quigley.

That actually did happen.

Now, you don't have to say there's this big conspiracy of the British Empire or whatever to acknowledge the nuances of this, and there's no need to even invoke LaRouche's name.

To accept the facts of history and have a sober and clear analysis of how this transition right here happened and its lasting significance and effects.

Yes, it's absolutely true.

The British supported the Confederacy.

So there is a meaningful dichotomy between the founding of America as the first democratic republic in the world and the British Empire.

I know it's crazy to say that, but trust me when I say that the American War of Independence was fought against the British Empire.

So there's kind of a significance there.

You know, I don't know.

There's no outlandish LaRoucheite conspiracism that's necessary whatsoever to consult or even.

Or even care, you don't even have to think about that, you know, it's not relevant at all.

Isn't a Marxism, but it does sound like another ideology, the struggle against international finance capital.

Okay, so I very clearly explained how the standard Marxist-Leninist view has nothing to do with fascism.

But I also want to point out something I find ironic that, and we're going to be able to skip a lot of this.

Something Brandon does, which is really interesting.

He takes the rhetoric of fascists, attempting to hijack the rhetoric of socialist and communist movements dishonestly.

and say, well, because of the rhetorical similarity between this fascist movement that was rhetorically trying to hijack socialist rhetoric, because that sounds vaguely similar to what Haas, an actual Communist, is saying, Haas is a fascist.

But let's ask the question

Uh does Brandon investigate what the Nazis did?

Because the Nazis in no way

Fought against institutions of finance capital.

They ex they expanded their pro powers to an extraordinary and unprecedented degree in actual practice, which means this rhetoric was not sincere.

But Brandon is attempting to depict their rhetoric as sincere.

That's the problem.

It's not sincere rhetoric.

If it was sincere, they would not have been fascist to begin with.

So to say this rhetoric is essentially fascist assumes that when fascists employed their rhetoric like this, they were being sincere.

But the facts of history show us that they weren't because they did nothing

They did nothing at all to curb the the speculators and the financial capitalists at all.

They did nothing to clamp down on the financial exchange circles, nothing at all.

So they were not sincere when they were employing this kind of rhetoric.

Now you can claim we're not sincere either, but that would defeat the purpose, because you're claiming that we are unduly attacking the financial elite.

And that's not the real enemy.

And and Hitler was attacking them as well.

But Hitler wasn't actually int attacking them.

He was employing insincere rhetoric that sounded like he was opposed to them, but he wasn't in actual practice.

So you see how Brandon's a retard?

Regardless of whether this international financial kabbala is defined in ethnic terms, it's still a fascistic ideology and rhetoric, America.

Fascist rhetoric.

According to uh Brandon.

is occupied by a parasitic financial elite which Americans need to overthrow to restore traditional values, rejuvenate the country.

I didn't really say that, though.

I didn't really say that.

Uh you're kind of just like skewing my words in a very specific way to make them rhetorically sound like far-right stuff.

Um you're not quoting me adverbatum, are you?

And engage in territorial conquest, that's a fascist.

T ter t territorial Oh, I forgot, he lied about our stance on Canada.

He pulled together a bunch of disparate unrelated things, and

He like took a speech I gave about the concrete development of the capitalist class in the USA.

Then he tied that to a Jackson tweet about liberating Canada.

And he tied that to the Communist Manifesto talking about how capitalism liquidates any semblance of human civilization, you know.

And so he combines all of this together to spin this narrative that this is fascism, right?

That I'm a fascist.

Not a Marxisma.

It's not hyperbole to say that.

That's not socialism.

That's National Socialism.

You'll notice too the

Marxism standard Marxism Leninism is National Socialism, because I can cite to you very easily writings of the Communist Party USA talking about the need to save civilization by uniting against monopoly capital.

And I can point to you countless examples of Marxist Leninists talking about the cultural decay that capitalism brings and bourgeois decadence and capitalist decadence.

And that the only way to stop this is to unite against monopoly capital and imperialist capital.

I could point to you countless examples of Soviet propaganda, which does name the capitalist class, you know.

Stalin's interview, I think it was with H.

G.

Wells, was it?

No, it wasn't HG Wells.

Might have been H G Wells.

Well let me find it.

Alright, well

Foundations of Leninism

Under capitalism the exploited masses don't participate in governing, even under the most democratic regime.

Governments are not set up by the people, but by the Rothschilds, the Stinnises, the Rockefellers and Morgans.

Huh?

Oh my god.

Oh my god, it's fascism that he actually names concrete examples of the capitalist class.

Occupying governments, you know?

Wow.

This is essentially fascist rhetoric.

The fuck?

The presence of signifiers, like the Great Reset, which is

The presence of signifiers that

Thir that's a great word signifier.

What they reflect is widespread popular disillusionment of the direction the global elite are taking humanity.

Is this a right-wing boogeyman of the last few years?

In their interview on Chinese media, John Tinkel and Grayson Walker.

It's a fucking term that was literally used by the world elite at Davos.

By fucking Klaus Schwab and literally the representatives of the global fucking capitalist class that they used.

But now it's a right-wing term, you fucking retard.

Talk about such things as the Great Reset and George Soros and the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schlab, and this is all rhetoric customary to

Don't you dare talk about George Soros.

You know, the guy that publicly brags about helping overthrow communist states in the late nineteen eighties in Eastern Europe?

who actually facilitated anti-communist color revolutions as a billionaire?

Don't you dare don't you dare rhetorically inv invoke his name.

Because sacred George Soros is a POC oppressed transgender who's untouchable, and you're a bigot if you fucking dare t talk badly about him.

You gotta wonder like why everyone's running toward the right wing.

When you have self-proclaimed Marxists like Brandon Torres running cover for George Soros Hey Brandon, will you apply the same logic to people who talk bad about Elon Musk or even Donald Trump in their capacity as capitalists?

A lot of people talk badly about Elon Musk.

Why can you talk bad about Elon Musk but not George Soros?

Can anyone answer me that question?

And please don't mention these vague insinuations and perceptions that have no substance from the standpoint of Marxist theory about parallels in rhetoric.

It means fucking nothing because you have to judge us by the content of what we mean and what we say.

Not how similar it sounds.

If Nazis employ rhetoric that says the sky is blue, you know, that doesn't mean anyone who says the sky is blue is a fucking Nazi in essence, you retard.

To the far right, not to the Marxist left.

Far right antifascist ideology.

Hey Brandon, what fucking position of authority do you come from to label anything right or left?

What left movement do you come from that actually fucking exists?

Why are you making it seem like these are clear, clearly defined things in America right now when they're not?

Because there is no left movement at all.

Everything's up in the fucking air, you idiot.

Like he's coming from this position of expertise.

I know what the left is, I know what the fire right is, I know what the left wing.

But but based on what?

Like what what is left wing right now that actually exists in America?

Please tell me, name one thing.

How can you label anything far right if you don't even know what the left is?

By what standard?

What what's the standard for the political spectrum we're using here?

Like, okay, this is far right.

Okay, based on relative to what?

Based on what?

What what does that mean in Marxist terms concretely?

You have nothing.

Also presents itself as resistance.

There is no established left-wing movement in this country, okay?

The powers that be.

But instead of class struggle, it's conspiracy theories about international cabals trying to destroy the nation and traditional powers.

Instead of class struggle, you're talking about class distinctions in concrete terms, as they actually exist, not as they only exist abstractly in theory, but how they actually do in reality.

And this means you're a conspiracy theorist.

Got it.

And that's exactly what characterizes the ACP's ideology.

The ACP should not be treated as a communist party or a con but it's like the cherry on top is that he can't fucking cite one thing our party has actually said.

We've issued a lot of different statements and stuff and we our party has actually spoken as a party.

And like, he hasn't cited even one thing.

I mean, like, I've debunked every example he's tried to use.

But, like, even if they were valid, like, where's the actual views of the ACP here?

Right?

Communist act.

The communism appears to be intentionally deceptive branding to lure in a young naive leftist, dissatisfied with the mainstream left, and tell them that, hey, this is the new Communist Party of America.

Join us.

We hate capitalism, and by capitalism, we mean international finance, quote-unquote.

Uh by capitalism we mean the the concrete capitalist system, not one that only exists abstractly.

So I want to explore this more deeply.

Where exactly did a mega communism come from?

What's interesting And we're trying to d by the way, we're trying to deceive the very lucrative and growing and and powerful, on the rise, radical left audiences.

who are so powerful and so widespread in their popularity that one could even say the whole zeitgeist of the current generation is the far left, young, naive far leftists.

They're such a lucrative demographic for us to deceive and trick.

They are so powerful and on up up and coming and on the rise.

Um it's totally not the the complete fucking opposite.

The best thing about mega-communism is that it's a distinct and novel far-right ideology.

It isn't a neo-Nazism, which is the most prevalent a fascist ideology on the American far-right.

This is something distinct, and I think by exploring the history

But how are we far right again?

I don't remember.

Is it just 'cause of the one thing Jackson said on Fresh Infit taken out of context?

What else is there besides that that you can use to call us far right?

Even then, it's a fucking nebulous, stupid, retarded fucking thing to say.

But, like, even if we were to concede that's a far-right thing, Jackson said, like, what else?

Some valuable insights about the nature of a reactionary ideology.

A major clue as to the origins of a mega-communism is in Haas's speech I showed before.

When Haas discusses this international financial cabal which is occupying America, he describes it as a British for some reason.

No, I didn't.

I didn't say it's uh British.

I said the Anglo American elite, which was referencing an author called Carol Quigley,

And I cited a real quote by Cecil Rhodes, and then I talked about how they had extensive relationships and marriages with the British oligarchy.

Mind you, the reason that's important to point out is because before World War II, the global capitalist hegemon that was the center of global capital was the British Empire.

And that's a fact.

So it makes sense that the ascendant one, which became America, there would be a degree of continuity there.

And I pointed out that continuity.

But now he's going to have a whole 20 to 30 minute segment talking about LaRouche.

And thank God for us guys.

You want to know what's beautiful?

I'm going to skip most of this because most of this isn't even relevant to us.

But I will take the opportunity to talk plainly and candidly about LaRouche.

Thanks to Daniel Burke, such a good friend, by the way, revealing and exposing his hand.

He's given me the green light to very diplomatically communicate what I really fucking think about who LaRouche is and who he was.

This seems to make no sense.

Is I saying that the US is controlled by Britain to this very day?

That I'm No, I'm not.

I'm saying that the global capitalist class, first of all, is not.

Uh comprised of uh people who fulfilled the American dream and made it up from scratch from nothing.

I'm saying there is it actually is like an aristocracy in practice that has a long continuity with the previous ruling classes of the previous world hegemonon.

I talked about marriages and mixture and connections, which is much more nuanced than this straw man argument you're attributing to me that that the British are this like nebulous lizard-like elite that just control us.

I didn't say that.

I talked about the continuity.

Of actual ruling, I'm not saying comprador who are lower on the pecking order, the ruling, preeminent capitalist hegemon, hegemonic capitalist cartels.

There was mixture between the ascendant ones coming from the USA and the existing ones that were in Britain.

That's a fact.

Carol Quigley talks about it in his book, The Anglo-American Elite.

And that has relevance for Americans who want to succeed the American revolutionary tradition.

No, it's a capitalist elite.

That's the thing you missed from this whole speech apparently.

It's not important that they're British.

It's important that they are a capitalist elite who have occupied this country in contradistinction to its own founding revolutionary ideals.

It's a much more powerful message than the straw man you're trying to set up.

No, I don't think a British elite rules America because I plainly never even im implied or said that at all.

What I said is much more nuanced and complicated than that, you fucking idiot with zero IQ reading comprehension.

As Hazy used the word British to describe this international financial capital.

Um, I actually said Anglo-American.

Um, I said Atlanticist.

You are you read the Wikipedia article on LaRouche.

I'll tell you why he's c constantly doing this straw man, because he read the he read the Wikipedia article on LaRouche, where they're like, Oh, LaRouche talks about the British, but he really just means the Jews.

And he's trying to attribute that to me somehow, right?

He's making the grand leap.

As if I talk about the British in in that way, like the British are doing this or that.

Um, I don't.

Uh, I talk about the Atlanticist elite, I talk about the Anglo-American elite.

I did that in this speech, and I said a huge portion of today's ruling class is made up of that, sure.

The City of London and Wall Street.

But I n I at at no point do I

Do I talk about this nebulous, you know, conspiratorial cabal called quote-unquote the British?

That's the Wikipedia article of LaRouche you're pinning on me, you fucking dishonest worm.

I think this is a clue to figuring out the origins of a mecha communism.

Yeah, this guy's a detective, guys.

It's like a clue because he already came up with the conclusion and he's asserting it into the premise while pretending like he's this disinterested detective uncovering something.

You didn't uncover anything.

You asserted something about us baselessly.

Um, from Johnny Socialism and them.

That's where you got it from.

That's the truth.

And now you're pretending like you're a detective uncovering the truth fr from investigation.

But there's no investigation.

There is a process in which you're cherry-picking evidence and shoe-warning it into this false procedure of of of reasoning and argumentation.

To um

to uh lend credibility to this extremely baseless uh conclusion you already drew as and inserted as the premise.

It takes us back to an obscure figure in American history.

That figure is Lyndon LaRouche.

Fuck, like, this is crazy.

Yeah, here's a whole 20 minutes.

I think part of this will include me, but let me just see.

I think, even for those that may disagree with Laurusha's philosophy, right?

They must at least concede that when it's he is probably one of the most, if not the most, profound theorist and thinker of policy in the modern age.

What do you think about that?

When I was in middle school, all right.

So, everything he just showed from Jackson, from me, um, reflected something very specific.

Okay, we at that time, through Caleb Maupin, our best friend, right, uh, greatest guy ever, Caleb very uh generously introduced us to the Schiller Institute, and the Schiller Institute.

We came to know them in the following ways, right?

They intr Daniel Burke, I'm gonna explain who Daniel Burke is.

Daniel Burke is like the left PR department for the Schiller.

So Schiller is trying to always recruit people, and Daniel Burke is like the the the guy who faces leftward to recruit leftists, right?

So

You know, he he was roped in with Caleb Maupin.

Or whatever, right?

And like, what happened is that they presented themselves to us in the following way.

Like, one, they're pro-China and pro-Russia.

That's so cool, right?

They're like, you know, the Belt and Road Initiative that China's doing?

We have this idea for that where it's like, you know, we want that.

But we want like

We we are super enthusiastic about that and like that's more of the energy we want, like China, right?

That's like our our our view on policy.

And, you know, they also would talk about they had very good foreign policy views.

CGTN would platform them.

They were welcomed in Russia.

And then they would also, then the second thing is that they also, you know, were not big fans of the British Empire, but understand we had that position independently of them.

It's just that this was another thing that they seemed to have that's was similar to us, right?

And we like this idea of like an American identity versus the British Empire and the imperialist tendency that America has become because we think that is an effective way to make communism applicable and relevant in the American national context.

So we kind of were like, oh, this can be like a Sun Yat-sen type of thing, I guess, you know, where he's not a communist, but it's like this.

you know, we were very open minded and then um

The third thing

That, what was it?

We liked the thing about unleashing the productive forces, you know, in contrast to the degrowth stuff.

And that's always been a feature of Marxist Marxism, which is accelerating the productive forces.

Now, where did that accent come from from my end?

I liked the idea of technological acceleration because I am also, well, I have independent reasoning here, okay?

But I am kind of coming from accelerationist circles a little bit, right?

I'm not, I don't have the same views as them, but you know, there used to be Cave Twitter with Ed Berg and the unconditional accelerationists and all the other kind of Landians.

And there was a strong sentiment of like, unleash the productive forces, unleash technology, you know, instead of this technological pessimism and degrowth stuff, restore back to Marxism this kind of technological dimension of optimism.

Like LaRouche would talk about like, at least as they would present it to us, he would be like, oh yeah, we're going to have like five billion or five trillion people and, you know, fully unleash the, we thought that was cool, right?

We liked that.

Uh, we thought a lot of the green politics was a Malthusian, which is true.

That's actually real.

Uh, Malthusianism is a real tendency among the capitalist class.

Marx talked about it.

He talked about how Thomas Malthus was the premier ideologist of the capitalist class at that time.

That didn't change.

You that you study the development of eugenics, look at what they're saying at Davos with depopulation and stuff, it's all real, right?

So there were like some similarities that allowed us to find common ground with uh Schiller.

And who is very much aggressively promoting LaRouche and LaRouche's ideas.

But understand something very carefully.

Both myself and Jackson had a pre-established position that predated this contact with Daniel Burke that we ended up having, right?

Which culminated in a conference we did at the Schiller Institute, where I gave a speech defending South Africa's EFF, which Schiller hates, and Hegel, which Schiller hates, and Alexander Kojev, which Schiller hates.

Now,

Uh, and I promoted class struggle.

I talked about the proletarian class, I touched upon all of the key things that distinguished myself from them.

Um

Because and why did I do that?

Because I I was starting to detect even at that time, I was be getting pretty shocked at uh something that disturbed me.

Which was that they were trying to recruit from infrared, right?

There were some infrared gorillas that were telling, oh, yeah, they were.

I was like, hold on, give me a fucking second here.

You know, it's like, I didn't understand how it worked online.

We're like, if I'm friendly with Daniel Burke and we're trying to find common ground.

Like, that means I endorse them and I want you guys to fucking join their retarded cringe cult where they sit around and fucking do this, like, cringe choir shit and you know.

They they're like they do all this weird shit, this cringe stuff, 'cause it's like a cult, basically.

And they tell you to like you can't listen to music or like pop music, it's demonic, and like they try to fucking

Like I wasn't having all of that.

I just kind of soup I I I liked common ground on the basis of like policy ideas and foreign policy views and things but I owe I kn I like there was always a presumed distance where like no motherfucker we're not gonna actually like

allow this to affect our fucking lives.

But there were some guerrillas that were like drinking the fucking LaRouche Kool-Aid because they needed a real life organization to to join.

Even though I told him to join the CPUSA,

And I was getting bothered by that.

So I wanted to very clearly distinguish myself from Schiller and the LaRouche people as a message to my community that hey, you know, if you don't fucking take my willingness to try to, you know, collaborate with people who I think are sincere anti-imperialists to mean that I endorse them or they're getting my seal of approval, 'cause they're not.

In fundamental ways, they're not.

You know?

Anyway, um, I am so stupid, and this was the biggest fucking mistake of my life, literally, is ever, ever, ever affiliating with these people because for some reason.

Uh, millennials, who I think are their target demographic anyway, are super fascinated by LaRouche and it's like he's this it's this whole thing, this whole cult has this whole history, which is so pr interesting and whatever from the nineteen eighties

And it's like, wow.

You know, I am literally so naive in the sense that, like, Daniel Burke would literally just tell me his views on shit and we would see what they think about things and be like, okay, sure.

And like, little did I fucking know that just from like associating with this guy, you know, we would be pinned for life as a LaRoucheite conspiracy by this obscure 1980s cult, apparently.

Like, all of these things about LaRouche, like, oh my God, he's the CIA and he's fucking in South Africa and he's whatever.

I don't fucking know, man.

I don't fucking know.

Like, I, what, you think I fucking know about all these details about Lyndon LaRouche?

you know and

I took them at face value.

It was a big mistake, and not because of them, even because I could deal with them, obviously.

They're no threat to me.

But it's a mistake because these crazy parapolitics and this is why Johnny Socialism latched onto LaRouche shit.

No-brainer.

I first learned about LaRouche through the parapolitics community, who always used to ironically and as like a marker of hipster taste, they'd be like, you know, LaRouche, that crazy guy?

He actually was saying some shit that was uncovering stuff.

So it was like kind of vogue to like not seriously.

Uh endorse LaRouche, but be like, you know.

Um

This reveals some shit.

Like, La Rouge, there's more to LaRouche than it seems.

That's why I kind of started taking LaRouche a little seriously from a distanced way.

Like, not in the sense that, oh, he's a great theorist or he's a great thinker in the sense that, like, you know, I agree with him philosophically, but more in the sense of, like, oh, there's more to this than it lets on.

But when we started talking to Daniel Burke and and when we did that event at Schiller where we spoke.

Um a new narrative started to get craft where

The whole movement and whole phenomena of infrared specifically was being spun as like this is just a LaRouche thing, this is like LaRouche rehash, this is LaRouche all over again.

And we didn't know how powerful, you know, that narrative would be.

We didn't because we didn't see the Schiller Institute as, like, extremely powerful or significant at all.

So um to this day people like associate us with LaRouche in in these really over ex in a really over-exaggerated way.

because of a very, very meaningless uh friendship we had with

Daniel Burke specifically.

And I mentioned him because there really was no one else for I mean, Pesto Mein was like a fucking troll, you know.

Talked about Lysenko's weed, but Pesto Mein was not like this influential LaRushite agent.

Also, he got kicked out.

But beyond pestomime, like Daniel Burke was really the only one that we like knew uh in any real way, and like in the sense that he was like friendly with us.

Um

But the we start yeah, LaRouchejacking, that's a good word.

Like they started LaRouchejacking us because these crazy mind fucked millennial parapolitics schizoids

Like, you know, it was perfect for them.

We were this mysterious new thing and they were like, Oh, I've connected the connections The line from Daniel Brooke to us And it's like every our connection was like totally superficial.

You could just see it on a stream.

There's nothing secret, there's nothing no planning, no strategizing, no nothing, just fucking literally that stream he was like, shit like that, you know?

He went on Jackson's show.

Um it's like whatever.

Once I started seeing these crazy I was like, okay, you know what?

I'm gonna keep a friendly distance from these people.

No, no, it it was also after the conference, 'cause I started learning.

I had people who joined and then got disillusioned and they were like, you know Haas on the inside, Schiller does nothing but shit talk you.

This was in actually 22, late 22.

They're like these LaRouche guys at Schiller, they do nothing but shit talk you.

RTSG was already waging war against them, which I didn't like, but they did it anyway.

Looking back, it was great they did that.

But I was like, why are we just going to war with everyone?

Burning all bridges, right?

Actually, it turns out RTSG was right.

Because one guy who had ended up attending one of their, like, um.

Events or meetings, their choir, they wanted him to fucking sing, you know.

He was like, Why am I fucking singing?

You know, he was like, and then he was like, All right, fuck this.

Then he came and reported to me what was going on in there.

He was like, Listen, they talk mad shit about you.

Like, they don't like you.

They want to take your community and they think that you're a nut job.

They don't like your philosophy.

They don't like your outlook.

They think infrared is filthy and disgusting and evil.

And that you're like guerrilla stuff.

It's like primitivism.

And that you're like a barbarian and the Genghis Khan stuff.

Like, they really didn't fuck with me at all.

But they believed.

in this strategy of taking my followers and recruiting them into their cult, okay?

I still didn't say a fucking thing because they didn't say anything in public.

I kept my mouth shut and I just started ignoring them.

That's why we didn't do a second event.

I I just started not wanting to collaborate with them at all.

Like like how Daniel Burke used to come on stream.

Ah, no more.

You know, that kind of thing.

Um well fast forward uh of our years of ignoring Schiller.

Uh to the founding of the ACP.

Um by this time we didn't give a fuck about Schiller or Daniel Burke.

They were irrelevant to us.

Completely irrelevant, okay?

Um

But during Danny Shaw's betrayal on january seventeenth, something really interesting happened.

I was doxed and accused of running guns to Haiti.

And Daniel Burke comes out of the woodwork and he goes

Who would have guessed that an organization that's learning from Heidegger?

Would have such an ugly, rotten thing.

And that's the epitome of who Lyndon LaRouche was.

Lyndon LaRouche was a guy who would have a slight philosophical disagreement with someone and then very viscerally and maliciously attack them on a personal level, circumventing all personal decency because of some stupid small intellectual disagreement.

Meaning, LaRouche didn't believe there was this unspoken texture of dense social conventions and honor and anything that was beyond intellectual disagreements.

For LaRouche, the direct philosophical opinions and views you have directly determine every aspect of your existence, is what he believed.

That is why every LaRouche organization is a cult.

Because literally from the m music you listen to, everything has to reflect exactly your specific intellectual opinion and view.

And there's no room for humanity.

There's no room for charity.

And there's no room for any degree of ambiguity or mercy upon the other.

Every fucking aspect has to be directly pure formally, right?

And I used to think LaRouche got done dirty with how much shit is talked about him and made up about him.

But honestly it is karma.

You know what?

I'll say it.

It's fucking karma.

I tend not to want to speak ill of the dead, but that's what he did to everyone else.

He slandered the shit out of everyone else and made up so much bullshit about Mao and the Soviet experience.

And he would just make shit up and pull it out of his fucking ass, much like the millennial parapolitics people that are doing that to him.

That's karma because that's all he ever fucking did.

He would make so many leaps.

Yeah, he'd be like, Khomeini is a British drug dealer or something.

Like, he would, and you'd be like, LaRouche, where are you getting this from?

He's like, well, it's the platonic principle of, you know, I'm just, it's deductive logic.

You know, the pr it's like, it's like, he almost, he felt like he could get away with telling empirical lies.

As if the empirical didn't matter, and all that mattered was his philosophical antagonism with others.

So the empirical details don't matter.

They're like, you know, you have to see the circle instead of the squares, whatever they would fucking say.

The details don't matter, only the platonic circles matter.

Whatever fucking triangle bullshit they believe, I don't fucking know.

They have this autistic shape bullshit.

Leibniz.

So they're like, literally, you know, you're getting doxxed, you're getting slandered as an arms trafficker.

That doesn't fucking matter.

Uh, because we disagree with you about Heidegger and your views.

So no, no human decency matters.

We can just fucking crucify you and kill you, literally, shoot you in the fucking head, and you deserve it because you fucking read a different philosopher than me.

You know, it's disgusting.

They are freaks.

They're like, you could literally.

Be shot in the head and we're gonna fucking say that that that doesn't matter.

That's in that that that doesn't matter.

The shapes matter.

You know?

That's just an empirical bullshit, muddy, demiurgic filth.

All that matters is that you disagree with me with me on Leibniz.

It's precisely I mean, I don't even want to say this 'cause it's so bad, but it's like you could be a victim of the worst crime.

You could be a fucking victim, you know?

And you'll go to LaRouche and be like, We need to report this crime.

And he's like, Well, it's when you think about it, it's your fault because of your fucking views on Leibniz.

It's because of your views on Leibniz that this happened to you.

So you deserve it.

You should reflect on your views on Leibniz.

Like, that's the type of shit they're on, you know?

Like if I was thrown in prison, Daniel Burke would come out in public and be like, Well, that's what happens when you don't agree with us on, you know, the critique of Hegel.

That's what happens when you're a Hegelian.

Like, I could literally be sh like assassinated and Daniel Burke would come to my funeral and try to give a speech to people about like

Why Jacques Lacan leads to death.

I find that so disgusting and contemptible about them.

And for diplomatic reasons relating to the minimal decency I thought Daniel Burke had extended toward us, I have never voiced my actual views on what I think about them.

And what did I gain from that?

I gained being called a LaRoucheite constantly 'cause I never fucking wanted to throw what I thought was a friend of our you know, of Jackson and I under the bus.

But after what he fucking did, when he thought our party was at its dire hour and we were gonna get dismantled, you know, when he thought we were like done for, he came out of the woodwork and was like pissing on our grave that he thought we were dead.

He showed his true colors, really.

Um

I feel like that summarizes my view on LaRouche.

Really, that's it.

I mean.

The things that we agree with LaRouche on, it's just Michael Hudson.

That's the secret.

It's Michael Hudson.

Michael Hudson, Michael Hudson, Michael Hudson.

That's the contemporary economist that influences us.

Michael Hudson.

Who and LaRouche stole everything worthwhile when it comes to economics from Michael Hudson?

Michael Hudson's the real genius, you know.

I would go on this website at uselectionapolis.org and browse historical American election results because that's what I said to Dennis King, who spent a long time covering LaRouche and his movement.

So, Lyndon LaRouche was born on September 8th, night in America.

Yeah, I just want to get to the part where it's like relevant to us or me.

Organizations, their goal became to install a fascist regime in America with Lyndon La Rouch as leader and mobilize the country for a campaign of global conquest.

LaRouche studied how Hitler and Mussolini came to power and concluded that he had to forge a coalition of American political, economic, and military elites willing to sponsor the overthrow of the American Republic and its militant association.

You know what's sad?

It's like I don't even think this is true.

But why should I be a cuck and defend this this guy when he created a movement of people that just slander everyone?

Uh and they're getting slandered and what a cuck I would be if I would defend them from slander, you know?

One of the best of private intelligence services in the world, Richard Morris, executive assistant to Judge Williams Carr, when the latter was President Reagan's National Security Advisor, met with LaRoot several times and with LaRooch's aides on Nim.

Alexander Cowboy, what's up?

Because again, you know that they don't believe truth matters.

They think that all that matters is Leibnizian circles.

So that's why they're such an optical fucking disaster.

They don't even defend themselves.

I'd literally ask Daniel Burke, I'd be like, Bro, is it true that, you know, like uh you guys like worked with the CIA?

And he was like, Well, no And he would like explain in detail what it was.

I was like, oh, so you weren't trying to attack the Soviet Union?

And he was like, no.

I was like, why why don't you fucking say that in public?

Why are you letting these lies and he'd be like, well, it's not important.

The empirical stuff that it it's really the bigger Leibnizian p like they would just say shit like that.

I'd be like, why would I want to associate with people who don't even fucking like care about facts, you know?

They think that you can just intuit everything from from first principles and that you have the key to the universe.

You don't actually have to like actually investigate reality in any way.

But to be fair, like, yeah, I'm sure there's fucked up things about LaRouche.

I'm sure there is.

I'm sure there is.

You know, they hated the Black Panthers.

And already there's a fundamental schism.

Like, of course, Black Panthers every day, all day over the fucking cringe.

Glasses wearing Larusites

Yeah, I went there.

Space weaponry using nuclear fusion?

There's a lot more to say about Levitic.

He cultivated connections among the mobsters in the Teamsters Union.

He went to prison for five years.

Is that Nico Bellic from GTA Four?

The fuck?

Because he instructed his followers to commit a massive financial fraud and scam a ton of people out of their money, and LaRouche had turned his attention to electoral politics and he and his followers the killer.

So that begs the question of why Hinkle and Haas seem to really like LaRouche.

Now it yeah, it begs the question.

It's not like.

It's not like we actually like we're very superficial i about it in the sense like we're pretty clear about what about LaRouche we liked turns out to be things that have nothing to do with LaRouche uniquely.

but happened to be things LaRouche believed that also were in line with what Marxists believed, you know?

That's the whole mystery of our affiliation with LaRouche, is we would just tell Daniel Burke, we're like, oh, you know,

Y'all like China?

That's great.

We like China.

Wow.

Very profound.

Like we would literally just all the things that we had minimal common ground we'd be like great.

But the things that were uniquely LaRouche, nothing.

That's the thing.

The things that were uniquely LaRouche's philosophy, we had nothing in common with.

Literally nothing.

Only the things that he stole from other traditions interested us.

Oh, yeah, because we're hiding it, Brandon.

That's what he's trying to insinuate here.

Like, we're hiding the truth.

We're hiding it.

We're not talking about this glaring thing.

Like, we're hiding.

We're not talking about him, but it's like, low-key, the subtext of everything they say and do, right?

Fucking crazy.

Marx just outright denies that Amaca communists are connected to LaRouche in any way, but Hans and Hinkle are very much.

They're not.

They're really not.

Because the connection in question

Was the Schiller Institute conference?

That's it.

Midwestern Marx just outright denies that America communists are connected to La Rouchazama in any way.

They're not.

Really, they're not.

Haz and Hinkle are very much fans of LaRouche.

LaRouche is one of the most profound theorists and thinkers.

How do I explain diplomatically to how do I give Daniel Burke a bone and be like, okay, it's literally a fucking participation trophy?

I'm literally saying, you know, LaRouche may be a retard when it comes to philosophy, but I really like the idea of building trillions of nuclear fusion reactors and building a fucking land bridge from Alaska to Siberia.

That sounds really good.

I was like, he's quite a profound, one of the most profound thinkers of policy.

I gave him policy, like a policy idea.

Big ideas going on.

Notice what I omitted, though.

That's one of the things.

He doesn't have this guy, Brandon, has no discernment or intelligence.

Because you learn the truth by what I omit here.

Not philosophy.

Not politics, not organization, not strategy, not analysis even.

Just policy.

Think about that for a th think about how vague and nebulous that is.

Could fucking mean anything.

Who's against nuclear fusion?

Who's against building up the productive forces?

Who's against it?

Who's against the land bridge?

It's all great.

Wonderful.

If only there was a way to get to that without like the choir singing and the triangles and the, you know, the fucking like.

Dumb, stupid cult shit that they do that's literally fucking meaningless.

According to Haas and Hinkle has been associated in the past with the Schiller Institute, an organization that founded.

Dude.

Schiller, you're not you're making it seem like you're it's like an anti-Semites logic.

You know when anti-Semites are like you know, it just so happens to be a coincidence You know, when you think about it

I learned this.

But you know

That guy called Marks?

It's just a coincidence, but it's like he's Jewish!

Just so happens, it's like something that follows.

You know, I looked up Marx's parents, they were Jewish too.

What it's like, no, that follows logically from Marx being Jewish, of course his parents would be Jewish, right?

It's like then this guy's like, you know first they're just in isolation talking about LaRouche.

Uh oh, what a coincidence they went to a Schiller Institute event.

No, you're you're mixing up the causes here.

The cause of our

Interaction with LaRouche is Daniel Burke from the Schiller Institute.

So there's no coincidence here.

It's a very specific chain of events.

No coincidences.

It's a very clear chain of events.

Oh, really?

Wow.

It's almost like we just randomly woke up and started being diplomatic to Daniel Burke for no reason about LaRouche.

La Rouch.

Yeah.

We avoid mentioning LaRouche because we're hiding.

We're not mentioning him, but he definitely has this enduring significance for us.

Clear, enduring, and lasting relevance for us.

You know, we're just not mentioning him, though.

But he still has this clear, enduring relevance and significance for us that we're just hiding, right?

Okay.

I'm so scared to mention LaRouche.

He's this secret patriarch behind our whole movement.

Hey, Brandon.

La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouche, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouche, La Rouch, La Rouch, La Rouche, La Rouch, Linden, La Rouch, Linden, La Rouch, Linden, La Rouch, Linden, La Rouch, Linden, La Rouche.

The fucking scared of mentioning anything, you fucking idiot.

We don't mention him 'cause he's not fucking relevant.

F LaRouche, fuck Lyndon LaRouche, and fuck Schiller too.

Which is influence is plain in their ideology and rhetoric.

Recall earlier all this talk about the British quote unquote ruling America, which both

Yeah, I didn't say that though.

What did what did I read?

What I actually said, you fucking idiot.

Oz and Hinkle have espoused a British financial cabal occupies America.

We have to liberate Canada from the British.

Oh my god, what a coincidence.

Like, America was founded in a war of independence.

That's our only revolutionary tradition.

Uh, it's just that, like, you know, oh my god, I just looked at the textbook and it's like, oh my god, it was a war against the British Empire.

Holy fuck, maybe, like, if we're trying to remain faithful to the American revolutionary tradition, we're gonna play up America's founding revolutionary identity in contradistinction to the fucking British Empire, which we also just happen to inherit with the ascendancy of the American Empire in the post-war period.

Wow, dude, you're such a genius.

British globalist, what's all this business about a British globalist and British financial capitals?

What's all this business?

I don't know.

Did you watch my fucking speech?

Because I pretty much explained it pretty.

Again, again, it's the false posturing that this guy's like this curious detective who just so happens to stumble upon these conclusions because he's such a good detective when in reality he has shoehorned the conclusion already into the premise so as to lead him to this false you know false conclusion right

Well, it comes straight from the root.

British No, it doesn't.

It comes from Okay, just do a and Devil's Advocate thought experiment in your head.

If we

Are trying to affirm some kind of American national identity that is based in our revolutionary tradition.

Meaning we don't want to reject socialist patriotism.

And how h what would follow as far as like who America's historical enemies are?

Its founding and the circumstances surrounding America becoming a global imperialist power.

Wouldn't it be a compelling narrative at the very least for us to say that this was a result of the betrayal of our revolutionary founding, and that in the process of that betrayal, we actually joined up with the British Empire, betraying our like the fundamental foundations of our nation?

It's like, dude, it's literally such a compelling narrative.

And it's in fucking Red Dawn.

The Soviets in Red Dawn when they're rounding up people into camps.

literally have it played on loudspeakers.

That Imperialist America has betrayed its revolutionary foundations.

Just put two and two together, you fucking idiot.

It's a logical narrative.

Any

But it's like, you know, it's William C.

Foster's parents were Fennians.

Like, are you stupid?

There's nothing this doesn't come from LaRouche, you idiot.

Where do you fucking think LaRouche got it, you fucking moron?

LaRouche got it from reading American Thinkers at the turn of the century.

LaRouche got it from reading history and he took it.

He didn't invent it, you idiot.

It's always been part of America's revolutionary national identity.

Where did you think LaRouche got it?

Like, he didn't invent this shit, you idiot.

Ish is a word La Rouche used all the time to reflect.

It's like people who think LaRouche invented the idea of unleashing the productive forces.

No, he didn't.

Sinister, shadowy elements which he and his followers were supposedly fighting.

He would refer to the British oligarchy and claim that Britain is the number one enemy of the United States, and this usage of British has an even older history.

During World War II, the Nazis diffused the anti-Semitic.

Remember when LaRouche was like a you know, I remember LaRouche was a meme on like Rice Tube?

Like yeah, I remember that shit.

That one based gentleman, I'm not even gonna mention him 'cause like

Only if you know you know, right?

The dude who was we were all on the same page about glasses and shit, you know?

That dude used to like make memes of like LaRouche.

He'd like have a LaRouche speech calling the British filthy and like oh my god.

I miss like it that people don't understand that was the context.

Like you don't get it.

You're fucking retard, right?

He was always a joke.

Like, he was always a joke.

LaRouche was always a fucking joke to us.

Literally, always a joke.

With anti-British sentiment condemning English.

This retard is taking his.

Like, I wish that.

Does that guy know what heights the meme has been brought to?

Like, look at this.

This video probably has 50,000 views by now.

Like, we.

It started out as a meme and now it's here.

That's fucking crazy.

It's like he's wearing sunglasses.

Just funny.

I don't know.

And developed his own elaborate conspiracy theory to suit his particular brand of a fascist politics.

One must begin with LaRouche's conspiracy theory of history, which highlights the role of deception and concealment in the transmission of ideology through the centuries.

In the secrets known only to the inner elites, La Rouch claims that he and his followers represent a 3,000-year-old faction of neo-Platonic humanists locked in mortal struggle with an equally ancient oligarchy.

To avoid repression by the dominant oligarchy, the humanists through the centuries have con this video is called The Nonsense of MAGA Communism, by the way, and now we're talking about a 3,000-year-old Assassin's Creed thing.

W we're we're to blame for this.

This is our fault.

Sealed their ideas in much the way that an espionage agent conceals his identity.

Indeed, the humanist is a combination of spy and underground organizer.

La Rouge cites the example of Saint Augustine, who supposedly adopted Christianity as his cover for organizing a united fund against the oligarchy.

No, I'm on um 2x speed, by the way, and he's reading this.

He's taking a lot of time to read this.

It's really important for understanding ACP, apparently.

Assures us that they destroyed all caste societies, they captured yeah, ACP, um ACP as in uh

Assassin's Creed Pangea.

As we're going three thousand years into the past, we may as well go fucking trillio tens hundreds of millions of years ago when the fucking Pangea existed.

From Atlantis through Roma.

Three thousand years ago, their headquarters were in Babylon.

After they engineered its fall, they shifted their command post westward to Roma, then Venice, and finally.

What is this?

Why what is what is what did we all we did was pick up trash?

It's like, what did we do?

All we did.

That's all we did.

What is this?

Unable to stop a humanist networks led by Benjamin Franklin and Frederick Schiller from launching the Industrial Revolution, the oligarchs struggle to slow it down through their control of speculative capital, which allegedly feeds like a vampire on productive capital.

But the oligarchs today are extremely worried because productive capital has begun to link up with the powerful streamlined humanist conspiracy represented by the NCLC.

According to Larucci, human history is a Assassin's Creed.

Bro, I've seen people in the comments be like, great video, this is like really good.

What?

A leveling Kabbalah has been oppressing humanity for eons and struggling with heroic Neoplatonic humanists, and he claimed that this Kabbalah today manifests as a British financial cartella which controls America.

Oh, okay, so all of that!

And then you finally got to the thing that vaguely sounds familiar to what I said, which was the Anglo-American elite slide in my speech.

Okay, so apparently you have to believe in a 3,000-year-old battle of a platonic neo neoplatonic humanists in Babylon.

Apparently, you need to believe that shit to accept the very simple fact that there was a profound degree of admixture, both in blood and in finance, between the ascendant American capitalist monopoly class and the established British financial oligarchy.

Apparently, in order, in order to even entertain the conclusion that there was some continuity between the

British Empire, world capitalist hegemon, and the one that literally came right after you must believe in the Babylonian 3,000-year-old neo-humanist fuck man.

What is this?

And bleeds the productive economy driving.

Like, fuck, what?

No one thinks with awareness, you know?

Speaking of 3,000 years, it's like the Anunnaki, I must be a descendant of the Anunnaki.

I'm one of the only ones with my third eye fucking open, because apparently that's what it takes to have the bare minimum of conscious awareness to understand how retarded and illogical the line of argument we're being presented here is.

Like, you have to believe all that crazy shit LaRouche thought to accept the simple fact that there was an Anglo-American establishment, even though that idea didn't originate with LaRouche at all and is actually true from a factual historical level.

This is just a variation on the traditional fascist idea about a secret financial capabilities ruling the world.

Um

I don't think it's fascist.

I don't.

I think it's just a fucking another crazy cult in America.

I really think so.

I don't think you need I don't think there needs to be a comparison to to fascism, because fascism literally just said the Jews.

Um and sapping nations of their productivity and vitality.

But this specific forum originates with Linden Lerooch, and it's obvious yeah again, you know, it was Marxists who opposed the productivity of the

Material base with the capitalist elite who were clearly retarding the forces of production and stagnating them and sapping them, which is what Marx said actually.

In Capital Volume 3, he said, the rentier, the financial capitalists, they are parasites upon the productive capitalists.

That's what Marx said in Volume 3.

He said that in Volume 3, right?

Why are you calling this a fascist notion?

I don't know.

Again, he's taking advantage because people watching this aren't educated about Marxism, let alone Marxism-Leninism.

So when we espouse things that you need Marxist education and Marxist-Leninist education to understand the context of.

You know, instead of him introducing them to that, he's like, Well, actually, this is what's behind it.

It's this Babylonian thing from thousands of years ago.

Are you getting this idea?

I don't know to what extent do they believe this literally.

I think British is more of a signifier.

It's esoteric of fascist rhetoric, which allows them to signal their affinity for the roots.

A fascist cult leader who tried

Yeah, we're that's what I you know what?

You're so right.

At the Free America Conference with Jackson.

We needed to signify our affiliation with LaRouche.

Look at him, he's doing the Hitler salute.

Look at that.

But we needed to s um that was the goal of that whole conference, was to s give coded subliminal messages to Charm Hole.

About Lyndon LaRouche.

Into building laser death teams to destroy the USSR?

Lazy Wow, that's another thing.

So that's Linden Lerich, but there is yet another major intellectual influence on Maca Communism, one which mecha communists acknowledge.

You know, to be fair, um

I would say that infrared and myself are definitely influenced by the philosopher Alexander Dugan.

Like, that would be fair to say.

But the party is not.

Um in any way, the party is not.

I am one of the only people in the party who has read Dugan.

Um

I'm I think I'm the only one in leadership who's actually read Dugan.

Maybe Jackson has, I don't know.

But

I mean, granted, I'm chairman, but Dugan's ideas are not on our reading list, they're not mandatory, but I have a very specific uh dialogue with Dugan's philosophy.

Which is out in the open.

It's not a secret, and you can read it yourself.

Much more openly, and that's Alexander Dugin.

So let's talk about him.

Alexander Dugin was born on January 7th, 1962.

His father was a colonel in Soviet intelligence, and the details of his earlier life are unclear and contradictory.

For whatever reason, Dugin began his political activity in the 1980s, first joining a secret group of Moscow intellectuals who dabbled in a cult neo-Nazism, which is a great start.

One of Dugin's contributions to the group?

Um.

The Russian underground dissident scene was super edgy and

It was edginess, you know.

When you understand neo-Nazism in Russia,

You have to understand it as a concrete thing.

You can't just say this like group of edgy LARPers.

Um, trying to be shocking and provocative.

Um, that's the essence of neo-Nazism.

You have to actually analyze, importantly.

Violence

And rhetoric against Russia's minorities.

That was what made neo-Nazism decisively a real phenomenon, right?

It was about the sentiment against Russia's national minorities, ethnic minorities, which Dugan never participated in.

Group was translating the work of Italian fascist philosopher, Julius Obella, who famously called himself a um.

It would not be too unfair to say Evola was a fascist.

But uh the tradition of um he's coming from was traditionalism, which comes from René Guanon.

And Dugan absolutely engaged with this tradition, but uh he always actually rejected um

Fascism as a concrete historical phenomenon.

Like he rejected Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy always.

Superfascist.

Later in the 1980s, Dugin moved away from neo-Nazism and toward Russian ultra-nationalism.

He joined the anti-Semitic ultra-nationalist organization Kenyat and sat on its Central Council.

As the Soviet Union approached collapse, Dugin visited the West and made contact with leading figures in the European New Right, and the experience appears to have greatly influenced the development of Dugin's political philosophy and I want to show you uh an interesting article Dugan wrote about his uh views on the European right.

Ah, what the hell?

Where the hell is it?

So off Google, I think I have to look on fucking Yandex.

Ah here it is.

Okay.

So this is the website.

Uh whatever.

So he wrote this in 2004, but uh Doo Yan um here Sorry, what the hell is my mic?

It's called Lennon Avatar of Rage, Red Avatar of Rage, you know.

I said I used to hate Leninists.

Yada yada yada.

Um, but something changed, you know.

All the people that were the worst scum started denouncing Lennon, you know.

But here he says something I like uh where I fa where I found it interesting, he said.

Uh Lennon declared he was a Eurasian dwar a magic Eurasian dwarf who raised uh jihad on uh the world of exploiters.

Smash the brain of the Philistine, mobilize the nation for total upheaval.

Let me find the thing.

That that I uh wanted to point out though.

Oh, here.

Some okay look.

In Europe I met many Gwenanians and Evolians.

Some of them were sloppy schizophrenics, others obedient and politically correct Philistines.

They work in banks and marketing.

They're a bunch of misfits, incapable of original thinking, deeds.

I don't endorse this, but whatever.

Or any effective historical action of the slightest importance.

The only thing they do is whine and squabble over trivia and grumble around at the world around which they don't understand and are pathologically afraid of.

So it kind of sounds like a lot of this contact he makes with the European new right

Does not reflect his expectations.

The actual new right.

I mean, he doesn't really.

He starts saying that the Red Brigades in the RAF is a hundred times more attractive than the majority of these European traditionalists.

So it's interesting, you know.

Um, because it's not a one-sided uh picture.

This guy's trying to paint a one-sided picture.

It's just if you know who Dugan is, it's not, it's not true that uh

That he is a far right.

It's not true.

He is a uniquely Russian thinker, and the Western political axis of political difference doesn't make full sense in the Russian context.

For example, the National Bolshevik Party, I was not always confident in saying this, but I am now.

National Bolshevik Party in Russia was most definitely a radical left-wing party, and it still has that association to this day.

No one in Russia associates it with Nazism.

No one.

Um, I asked about the flag, by the way.

I literally asked.

I said, Look, why is that flag looking like that?

And why is it called National Bolshevik?

It sounds like National Socialist.

They told me.

Limanov was this p uh provocateur

Who was trying to mock?

The um red-brown accusations that were coming from the new uh Yeltsin elites.

So he did this to troll them, basically, is what I was told.

Maybe I would they were wrong, but that's what I was told.

But I know for a fact that they were a left-wing phenomenon in Russia.

Absolutely, they were.

If you travel to go to Russia, travel there and talk to people, you will learn the truth.

They are associated with the radical left.

I always were.

Even ultra left actually.

You see, we sympathize more with the KPRF.

But um KPRF are much more moderately left-wing compared to these guys.

These guys were radical anarchists in a in a way, you know.

So it's very much misunderstood thing in the West because of their um name and their flag.

In 1993, he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party, National Socialism, National Bolshevism, Mega Communism, same shit.

Oh man, really no, really no, really no.

Uh in the case of the national Bolsheviks, uh

It's so stupid.

Like why would you show uh the ACP's 93?

He co-founded the National Bolshevik Party, National Socialism and National Bolshevism, MAGA Communism.

But this is the ACP um logo.

This is not a MAGA communist logo.

What are you talking about?

Also, uh the the national Bolshevik thing was deliberate at trolling.

Uh so okay, fine, but why ACP?

What did we do?

Oh, because I I I am philosophically influenced by Dugan.

I got it.

Yeah.

I guess that makes everything Nazi, you know.

Um that's really brilliant reasoning there, you know.

No one don't even read what I said about Dugan.

Just just do this thing of this logical fallacy of guilt by association.

And that's all you need to do, you know?

Dugin's career as an intellectual took off in the 1990s, particularly with his publication of the foundation of geopolitics in 1997, which quickly became influential among Russian nationalists and elite in military.

So he goes, so funny, like national socialism is the same as national no it's not it's a fundamentally distinct phenomenon.

Because the National Bolsheviks

We're uh not

Engaging in violent pogroms against minorities, and they also sociologically and materially had nothing in common with Nazism.

Only aesthetically, there seemed to be something with the flag and the name.

But materially speaking, according to the analysis of the Comintern in the 1930s, no.

Fascism is a specific phenomenon.

Harry Circles, and his ideology is basically just Russian imperialist nationalism, calling for a vast Russian empire which absorbs all of the former Soviet Union, dominates Europe, and drives the US back to the Western Hemisphere.

God forbid NATO gets abolished.

Western sources are sometimes prone to exaggerating Dugin's influence in Russia and making it sound as though Dugin is erading Russian foreign policy, which he isn't.

But Dugin is oh yeah, Dugin has no influence.

Sure, believe what you want.

Sorry, anyway.

Still a prominent intellectual with a good deal of influence in the Russian political and military establishments.

He is a leading intellectual of the ultra-nationalist afar-right in Russia, which No, he's not.

No, he's not.

No, he's not.

That would be Antonovsky.

Again, dude, it's not true.

It's not fucking true.

Like.

I try to not be a bullshitter and I'm just going to tell you the truth about what's going on in Russia's political scene.

If Dugan was ever affiliated with the far right,

That was an older generation.

There's a new red-white war going on in Russia's cultural and intellectual sphere about the legacy of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution, with the new far right being like Ocanonists.

That all comes from the guys from the Telegram Sons of the Monarchy, led by a guy named Antonovsky.

And on the left side is Zachar Prilepin, comrade Zachar Prilepin.

He.

Is the bulwark of defending uh the integrity and history of um

Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet era and Communist ideas in general.

In the literary, cultural, and intellectual philosophical scene, I would say.

And um, Dugan is not in the middle, but he is closer to Comrade Zachar.

He is closer.

He is closer.

Um not all the way there, but he's more sympathetic.

That is why Dugan likes me and Jackson.

He doesn't f buy into the, um,

The far right, um at least not fully.

So there is a far right in Russia.

Dugin is not the leader of the far right in Russia.

Because also there's a few things the far right in Russia is characterized by.

One is the historical revisionism, anti-Sovietism, anti-communism.

That doesn't characterize Dugin at all.

The second thing is this is the most important thing, I would argue, because it has more material significance.

Uh this kind of Russia as a white European identity versus Eurasianism.

And Dugin is much more the latter.

It he's fully the latter.

Dugin rejects the notion of a right Russian ethnostate, nation state.

He wants to embrace all of Russia's ethnic and national minorities into one Eurasian identity that includes all of them.

And that makes him distinct from the far right, because the far right is playing up.

On a lot of anti immigrant and anti-minority sentiments and um

Ethnic hatred and ethnic exclusion about Muslims and about all these minorities and so on.

And Dugan is left wing with respect to that.

He's Eurasian.

He's a Eurasianist.

There there are so many nuances here, but Dugin is not the leader of the far right in Russia.

That's a ridiculous claim.

Which makes it very strange that a mega communists display such admiration for Dugan.

Hinkle and Haas like Dugan.

No, because we actually understand Russia and you don't know a fucking thing except Wikipedia, you fucking moron.

Really, really like Dugan?

According to Haas, Marxist theory in the West is meaningless.

Without the insights of Dugin, Jackson Hinkle.

You know what?

I'll fucking die on that hill.

Every fucking philosopher who is able to advance human thinking forward under the nose of retarded Western Marxists needs to be given tribute for inadvertently contributing to the advance of Marxist Leninist thinking.

And I actually will die on the hill

That Dugan has contributed to that indirectly.

And I argue elaborately why.

I have an argument and you haven't en engaged with it.

You just again are playing up this guilt by association shit instead of addressing the content of my argument.

Calls him one of the greatest men alive today, and has Enkel have conducted crushing interviews with Dugan himself a number of times.

This a f Dugan is great.

He is a great thinker and a great human being.

Affinity for Dugan goes a long way to explain the multi-polarity fixation of a mega communist.

Mega communists are obsessed with multi-

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, it's all 'cause of Dugan.

High polarity and in their dreams.

That's that's so true.

But wha why did wha why did I uh take interest in Dugan to begin with though?

Have you explored that or n no, it doesn't matter, I guess.

All right.

Sure, whatever you say.

Um, you're the expert on me.

You know more than me.

I've been a fucking Marxist since twenty ten.

But you know more about who I am and why I'm influenced by who I'm influenced by.

Oh, it's it's all it's all because of LaRouche and I uh the Babylonian of a Neoplatonist.

Real political stance.

They are very radically anti-Western.

They present their anti-Westernism as a Marxist anti-imperialism, but in fact it clearly stems from their far-right ideology.

They see the liberal West as too woke, and they find ideological kinship with right-wing anti-liberal forces outside the West.

Their anti-liberalism is a fascist rather than Marxist.

Hand how?

Hence

Their friendliness with Dugan.

But we have to establish Dugan as a fascist first, in order for that chain of reasoning to be correct.

An anti-imperialist anger, and they mix it with this idea of the British financial cabal ruling the West, and hence that there's

Um I think it's true that the that the um capitalist class concretely does take the form of a developed imperial hegemony that originates with the British Empire, but has evolved since then, obviously.

But it's not like you know it's it's become this diverse, all-inclusive, global in the sense of like representing all cultures.

No, because the Turkish capitalist class is a comprador class.

The capitalist class in all nations are comprador classes in the chain of the system of imperialism, and only the people that were there from the beginning have maintained their hegemony.

We support Russia and China to fight the

Concrete imperial hegemony that rules the world today, the the American global empire?

Not the British, the American global empire, you know, because the British Empire was absorbed or at least fused with

A global American empire, you know, so.

There's no need to talk about the British Empire here.

Very plainly, it's a unipolar hegemon led by the US, which which we of of course support Russia and China against.

Now make the connection to fascism, please.

Okay.

What is Russia now, Larouche?

Hans and Hinkle are also invested in presenting a communist disguise.

They claim to be Marxist and Leninist.

Dude, I was a Marxist-Leninist probably before you even fucking

Knew how to spell the name of Karl Marx.

Okay, you probably spelled it as M R M A R C K S before.

You know.

And they're invested in keeping up this pretense and proclaiming themselves the only true communist organization in America open.

The disguise thing is so retarded, it makes no sense.

Why do we need a disguise when everyone is just openly being a fucking Hitler right now?

We would get way more money and followers if we did that.

Why would we need to why?

What's the point of this theory that we're disguising ourselves?

Openly championing a far-right ultra-nationalist philosopher kind of complicates all the nuances are lost on you.

You fucking retard.

It's like Dugan is not a neo-Nazi, he's not a fascist.

He's just not a Marxist.

No one said he's a Marxist.

He's a non-Marxist thinker that I find to be very valuable in the synthesis of a new Marxism or a new uh uh uh application of Marxism to the twenty-first century.

Efforts to pose as communists.

So they just deny that Dugan.

Why would we pose as communists?

What's the point of that, you fucking retard?

But what's the fucking point to steal Hassan Piker's viewers who are not even communists?

According to Haas, the idea that Dugan is a fascist is a myth invented by liberals.

Thank God you fucking uh at least have some familiarity with with the actual argument, but you you're not even citing the argument, you're just simplifying it.

That's true, and I explain how that is and why that is.

Will you engage with that?

According to Haas, Henkel also takes a deep offense at anyone who calls.

Hold on, you're not even gonna engage with the argument, you're just gonna use it as a indictment on me that say that I'm disguising myself.

Dugan a fascist?

Henkel characterizes Dugan as the foremost philosopher of a multi-polarity.

He's not a fascist, he's a great anti-imperialist thinker.

This is helped by the fact

That Dugan himself denies that he's a fascist.

And what would be your response to them?

That the notion that you are somehow a fascist or adjacent to fascism or something like that?

I reject, radically, the metaphysical basis of liberalism, individualism, modernity, idea of progress, linear time, and I am not.

I reject as well enlightenment in general and modernity of Western modernity as a hegemonic process.

So, at the same time, I refuse colonism and fascism.

And I have written my book, Force Political Theory, that clearly stated my position.

So, according to Dugan, he isn't a fascist, he just rejects modernity, the idea of progress and the enlightenment in and so did Ayatollah Khomeini and Hassan Asrallah, by the way.

Entirely non-fascistic way.

Okay.

Okay, just like Khomeini.

Are you gonna say Iran is fascist?

But whether you want to apply the label of a fascist he just said okay, so what do you fucking what are you gonna say now?

What's your argument?

What's your counter argument, Brandon?

Zoni with the 25, wow, man, thank you.

Dugan's politics, and I think Dugan is definitely a fascist, but setting that as a Why Are you setting that aside?

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that he's a fascist in order to prove that we're wearing a communist disguise to promote fascism.

Don't fucking run away from it now.

Wow, William Jennings with the 21.

Wow, man, thank you.

Aside, even if you dispute that Dugan is a fascist, he is undeniably far-right and ultra-nationalist, and

No, but how is he far right and ultra-national?

Dude, you don't know what you're fucking talking about.

It's so frustrating.

You've never been to Russia, you don't know anything about Russian politics.

If you knew one percent anything about Russian politics, hey, he's not far right.

The far right people want to reverse and dismantle the whole legacy of communism and they hate the non-white minorities.

That's not Dugan.

He's not far right.

Okay?

Second.

The thing about ultra-nationalism

That can have two potential meanings.

One is ethnic nationalism.

That is indeed affiliated with uh the global right, but that's not Dugan.

He's a Eurasianist.

It's an inclusive kind of it's not he rejects nationalism.

Uh he rejects nationalism.

He said nationalism is a European principle of the nation state.

He says we support civilization states, which that's what he calls Russia is, 'cause it's not one nation according to him.

Um

So calling him an ultra-nationalist is wrong.

Now if you want to talk about he has great power projections for Russia, you know.

Sure, but um you know that's kind of the only bare minimum of an anti-imperialist position you can have in Russia, because that's the position that is inversely proportional to the hegemony of the basically the US legacy of US occupation and the restoration of Soviet power, basically.

He doesn't say that is restoration of Soviet power, but the Russians who are patriotic, who want to expand Russia

uh and and in some way restore its territorial integrity.

Those are the consistent opponents of American unipolar hegemony.

And they do not affirm any kind of racism.

Because it means mixing with more minorities and restoring Soviet-era diversity.

And this doesn't look like an ingenious AKD chat of synthesis of Dugan's philosophy with Marxism.

But how would you know?

Because you don't even know.

You didn't even like.

Well, I don't know if you it would matter if you made an effort.

I don't know if you have the cognitive capacity to even.

How would you know?

You don't even have the cognitive capacity to like actually.

Follow through any kind of reading of what I've written on the matter.

You don't know.

Yes, it could very well be a really brilliant AT chess synthesis or application of Dugan's ideas or interpretation of Dugan under the lens of Marxism.

You wouldn't know because you're not even you're not even intelligent enough to comprehend, apparently.

The specific philosophical position I articulate.

As an Engel want to portray, it just looks like two American far-right ultra-nationalists taking inspiration from a Russian far-right.

It looks like this.

I haven't done any reading.

I don't know anything about who Dugan is.

I haven't read him.

I haven't read what Haas has said about him.

I didn't watch Haas's lectures about him.

But it definitely looks this way.

What a credible, what a profound, brilliant line of argumentation here.

Ultra-nationalist.

Before I wrap up the video, I want to talk about the nature of reactionary population.

Wow.

He really summed it up right there.

He devoted, um

Roughly ten minutes to Dugan.

He wrapped it up by saying, You know, it really looks like these are just two far-right guys who like this far-right philosopher.

Mind you, I haven't actually like engaged with anything they've said in any detail about him, and I don't know anything about him either, about where he stands within Russian politics today, or his specific philosophical outlook, or Haas's.

Engagement with that philosophy.

But it definitely does look this way if you're uninformed and ignorant about the actual details.

It definitely looks this way if you're uninformed.

That's Brandon, you're so smart.

You know, to an uninformed, uneducated person, it definitely looks this way.

Wow, man.

Brilliant.

Expose on the ACP.

Politics and how macappomism helps us to understand it.

Reactionaries have something in common with leftists.

They are discontent with the present state of things.

They are disenchanted with the status quo.

They feel aggrieved and frustrated.

They believe that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong about society.

They feel anxious and upset about modern life.

They have a sense of disempowerment and subjugation.

But they believe that the answer is to return to older social forms.

They think restoring some imagined vision of the past is going to solve their problems.

Yeah, we're totally gonna return to like the uh the um

The United American Republic.

A United Republic of America where, you know, we have this

Unity of the USA and Canada, and it's no unleashing technology to an unprecedented degree and accelerating AI.

You look at our ACP party program, and it's just a total return to the past.

That's what you that's what our party evokes.

And the problems of their society, they think the problem is a moral and spiritual degeneration, which they define as the subversion and corruption of the dominant culture, and they inevitably develop elaborate conspiracy theories and esoteric mythologies to explain their worldview.

Yeah, that's totally our program.

That's totally what it is.

Jettisoned the white ethno-nationalism characteristic of neo-Nazism and suited his form of fascism to the American context.

But LaRouche's ideology was still very much fascist.

There is some universe out there where conditions were different and LaRouche became the why, why, why?

I mean, he doesn't even make an argument.

Fascist ruler of America, and that universe is horrifying.

And because LaRouche wanted unlimited power or something, right?

What a fucking idiot.

This is so stupid.

This is ultimately what the mega communism is.

It's an Americanized form of fascism with roots in the ideology of Lyndon LaRouche and a few.

I mean like who watches this video and sees this conclusion is like wow Oh my god Oh my god, it all makes sense now

This is uh American form of fascism.

Not not Nick Fuentes and the actual Patriot Front bayball.

Not the actual like rising like neo Nazi.

Oh my god, this is it.

Oh my god!

Every single point I made in this video was sist systematically uh dismantled in a five hour fucking stream because that's how stupid it was.

Hobbes had to literally go to painstaking lengths to explain how fucking stupid it was.

But wow This is ultimately what it is.

Oh, it's like he's I have totally built a coherent line of argumentation that totally succeeds in culminating in this conclusion.

It's not like I began with this conclusion and just inserted it into the premise from the very beginning.

It's not like I began with this conclusion and just allowed it to fucking bias every single fucking engagement with everything they've ever said and just assumed it was true without proving it.

I have successfully been a detective and just uncovered this conclusion in a totally unbiased way.

I totally didn't begin with it from the start.

Mm no.

We said that there is a decay corresponding to the decay of capitalism and that the ruling capitalist class is profiteering off of that.

That's what we said.

While we decay, they are sucking us dry.

Like a vampire, just like Marx described Capital in Vol in Capital Volume One.

Americans need to unite across class lines to defeat this Kabbalah.

What do you mean?

Our party says the future belongs to the working class.

All it talks about is a united working class.

When does ACP talk?

Oh, you're talking about the Institute for a Free America with the Popular Front thing.

Well, that's not quite fascist class unity now, is it?

It's just the same thing.

But it's not even ACP.

Like, this guy's so fundamentally confused, all right?

First of all, the popular front against monopoly capital is not class collaboration.

It is the class leadership exclusively of the proletariat, of the whole people, which and without recognition of their class.

Class distinctions.

Only class that's recognized under the principle of the Popular Front is still just the proletariat.

By contrast, fascist class unity gives explicit recognition to discrete different classes that are rec represented by specific institutions.

And the unity is institutionalized, uh the class unity is institutionalized, okay?

The Popular Front doesn't do that because it doesn't recognize uh at the level of political principle any class except the proletariat.

Now finally, the ACP only ever talks about the working class and the unity of the working class.

Restore traditional values, rejuvenate the country, and engage in a vigorous territorial expansion.

At the same time, matter con Yeah.

Yeah.

Vigorous territorial expansion.

Uh, you pulled it out of your ass.

Uh you you you cherry picked a Jackson tweet from twenty released actual statements officially condemning.

Any encroachment upon sovereignty and self-determination, any forceful annexation, we rejected it.

But, you know, apparently Jackson's tweet from 2023, which is 120 characters or something, is more authoritative.

Communists had tried to don a communist ascetic to fool people, which also isn't unprecedented.

Hey, you fucking retard.

Again, I'm gonna begin I'm gonna end this with what I began with.

The uh let me let me uh change that.

In the history of a fascist movement, all fascist movements is trying to make is that Nazism

Adopted a socialist disguise.

Because there was actually a big socialist movement to hijack.

Just like with Italian fascism.

What have we hijacked that exists in America right now or any Western country?

What are we stealing?

What are we hijacking?

Hakeem's YouTube videos?

Like what are we stealing?

What are we hijacking?

In order to make the comparison meaningful, the circumstances have to be comparatively meaningful.

Like there was this revolutionary sentiment

Because of the October Revolution that created this overall atmosphere of revolutionary change, and fascists hijacked a lot of that to fulfill the dictatorial goals of monopoly capital, right?

That's what happened.

Where is our Bolshevik revolution right now in 2025?

Where is it?

Where's the comparable zeitgeist?

Where's the specter of communism that's just looming over us that we are hijacking and disguising ourselves under?

It makes no sense that we would disguise ourselves as communists if we were fascists.

It makes no fucking sense, okay?

No sense at all.

It's literally the dumbest theory I've ever heard in my life.

Have hearkened back to an idealistic glory age, which needs to be revived.

For the Nazis, it was the image of the medieval German peasant, the idea of a blood and soil.

For the Italian fascists, it was the Roman Empire, whose glory and prestige they wanted to restore.

For a mega communist, I think their nostalgia is really directed toward this idealized conception of the post-war United States from the 1940s to the

Ha ha ha ha.

What?

Alright.

The Nazis wanted to return to the Middle Ages.

Mussolini wanted to return to the Roman Empire.

Um and and and ACP wants to return to the fifties.

Uh there there are multiple I thought we were just gonna wrap it up.

This is gonna take like five minutes, but um you know, the issue is is that when Communists refer to fascism as reactionary, we don't literally think that Mussolini was tr like really returning the Roman Empire.

Um because the idea of restoring lost past glory is not exclusively fascist.

You know, under in the Stalin era, many references were made to the czardom of Muscovy and the greatness of the first kind of Russian empire.

It's not an exclusively fascist thing.

China's doing it today when it comes to their great civilization.

Um

Mussolini was not reactionary because he talked about the Roman Empire, he was a reactionary because within the concrete historical circumstances of Italy at the time.

He was actually trying to maintain a condemned status quo.

And you think, well, that just means you're a conservative.

But no, in a revolutionary era, when you are trying

To sabotage and thwart revolutionary change, you are definitionally a reactionary.

Um reactionaries are not necessarily people who want to return to a specific um point in time.

They're also people who are trying to preserve a status quo amidst revolutionary change.

by violent means.

That's the key word.

The difference between a reactionary and a conservative is that conservatives might be skeptical of revolution,

But only when they actively become counter-revolutionaries do they become reactionaries.

Um and that's what Mussolini and Hitler were.

They were reactionaries, first of all, with respect to changes going on in the nature of capitalism.

Both Mussolini and Hitler were champions, i this is truth, they were reactionaries because they represented classical laissez-faire capitalism against the trend of more socialization and socialism.

Um the Nazis pioneered privatization, for example, right?

So it wasn't medieval Germany that they were reactionaries longing for.

They were longing for an era where the working class had no seat at the table in politics.

They were longing for an era where reforms didn't need to be made.

They were longing for an era where cla capitalism had a classic form.

uh instead of the one i assumed after the New Deal in the US for example, or uh in Britain under the Labour government, or in Germany that was being overseen by the uh social democrats.

So they were reactionary with respect to that.

Um

Yeah, the so-called heroic stage of capitalism.

You know, it it was a very specific thing.

It wasn't the the literal mythology was not materially relevant.

They weren't literally turning into the Middle Ages.

This golden age of prosperity and national harmony, when America was an industrial powerhouse and conservative cultural values reigned suprema, with the strong industrial working man who had the authority over his wife, this vision of the past weighs heavy.

Who had the authority over his wife?

It's such a specific, strange thing to say.

When Labor was in a strategically much stronger position.

There's nothing wrong with

with evoking imagery that potenti that that corresponds to a period when organized labor had much more power and leverage than it does now, okay?

This specific weird stuff you're talking about about husbands and wives or whatever, just please keep it in your pants, dude.

Nobody wants to hear about your fucking psychosexual analysis.

We are interested in in the

Twists and turns of class politics and the strategy for labor.

I don't know what you're fucking talking about.

Heavily on the minds of Amaca communists.

Now, I do think that the post-war era was better than contemporary America in numerous ways.

It really was an era of abroad prosperity and progress relative to now.

America was a much more equal society back then.

Unions were at their peak, and the balance of power between labor and capital was much more totally different.

We're not literally trying to return.

If we were trying to return to that time, we wouldn't be communists.

But it makes sense that maybe in some of our members' agit prop, maybe it reminds you of the 50s because that was a time when there was labor had more political sovereignty, it had more political power.

Um.

That doesn't mean we're literally trying to return to that.

We we aspire toward a future, we're not trying to go to the past.

Toward labor, the gains of economic growth and productivity were shared much more broadly.

Housing was a lot more.

If you're a Soviet communist, I mean, obviously the USSR was a socialist con it's like.

If you're in China, they they evoke imagery from the Cultural Revolution, they evoke imagery in Russia today from Soviet times.

It's not just because those were more radically left wing periods, it's also because that's they're they're evoking imagery from a tradition where labor or the proletariat had more power, you know.

Um it doesn't mean they're literally trying to return to that.

But that's not what meta communists are focusing on.

It's not the social democracy they care about.

It's this vision of a culturally conservative and traditional America and in Russia.

Dude, you realize I'm literally a fucking Arab?

Like, I don't know what this is.

You're showing me something that is fundamentally foreign to me.

My tribal Arab traditional values are definitely not anchored or definitely don't hinge upon whatever this you're showing me is.

Okay?

Um.

Please shut the fuck up and stop assuming that just because anyone has a sense of traditional culture, it means it's the fifties.

The reason the fifties was so quote unquote traditional was just because the working class had much more power and leverage than it does now.

Therefore, society was built around its values.

For the most part.

Um

For better and for worse, too, by the way, you know, but it's just the truth.

The Soviet Union today in Russia is seen as more actually more um traditional.

Women may have had more uh

It's not true, you know?

That's why I don't understand where people are coming from.

They're like, oh, Russia regressed.

For women's rights.

I agree because the rise of the sex industry and capitalism devastated opportunity, but women in Russia today are still very career-oriented.

They're very much that did not reverse, you know.

They're very much empowered at workplaces or whatever.

Like Soviet times, though, people were dressed more modestly and there was more traditional family values than now, and there was more, you know, it's just the truth.

Capitalism does promote a type of fundamental disturbance of social harmony.

It's just true.

I'm not saying that the fifties the status of women was great.

Um and that we should return to that.

Um

But I'm I'm just attacking this idea that if you believe in traditional cultural values of some kind, that means you're trying to return to the fifties.

That's not true.

The image of the heterosexual industrial working man patriarch as opposed to the gay female or effeminate Risa?

Is paradise lost?

And But you know what what nuance you will never and this is a good way to like kind of wrap this up.

You know the nuance you'll never accept in this dichotomy you're creating?

What about the blue collar female?

What about her?

What about the blue collar working class woman?

Why does she not exist to you?

Why does it have to be the barista or the man?

Why can't you also recognize that women wear jump suits too?

And there are women truckers as well, and there are women in the blue collar working class as well.

Because we recognize that.

And it's not lost on us, but why is it lost on you?

You'll be like, well, because the service sector is more coded female.

And then, you know what?

Why are you trying to like reinforce that though?

Why are you defending that?

It's a bad thing that we have this service sector that's made for women to enslave them, basically.

And

You're trying it's like y I'm the feminist now and you're upholding this patriarchical system.

You know, where we're what?

We're just gonna endorse f like quote unquote women's work now and institutionalize that?

What do you mean?

and destroyed by sinister powers that be who have corrupted the culture and sapped the nation's uh productivity.

That's

No, we've explained the breakdown of culture in pretty clear Marxist terms, alright?

It's pretty clear that.

Capitalism is for profit and things that are poor for profit are not going to reflect the needs of a civilization, okay, so it's gonna lead to a lot of problems and decay and confusion.

It's gonna devastate family life is gonna be devastated if families

Can't make a fucking bottom line.

If they can't fucking

survive materially, you know, it's pretty simple.

Really what mega communism is?

Wow, very profound.

Alright.

Alright, um that was a lot.

Five hours and seven God help the editors

God help the editors is all I can say.

God help the editors.

But um

You guys, you know, I don't want to repeat myself ever again.

I don't ever want to repeat myself ever again.

All right, like, that's the takeaway.

On July 21st.

Uh yeah.

Wow, it's already at twenty five thousand, twenty two thousand.

I don't ever want to repeat myself again.

That's all I could say.

And he also removed my comment.

That's great.

I actually commented on it and he removed it because it was getting too many likes.

Yeah, he removed it.

Um

That's okay because we're doing a full assault on this video response.

And this video from the stream will be edited and uploaded.

And.

Eddie is also working on one.

So here we go.

Um pretty thorough.

I am hungry and tired.

I didn't eat dinner.

What's going on?

Mm-hmm.

Alright, I mean that was a pretty thorough destruction.

Um

Guys.

A baby could destroy that slop, so why did I have to do it?

That's what I want to know.

I took five hours doing this.

Um

I took five hours doing that.

Five hours, you know.

This needs to get uploaded.

That's all I could say.

Hope you guys heard that too.

Alright guys.

We're gonna wrap it up.

We're gonna wrap it up.

Don't say I don't give you content.

Uh, did you guys want do you guys like the MS Paint thing?

'Cause I feel like I did that before actually.

I feel like I've done it before.

Like that specific diagram.

How did you guys like it?

Did it actually like simplify things a lot for you?

I feel like it was like the way I visualized it was like, that's always in my head.

And I always take it for granted.

But like, I wonder if that was like helpful to you, the way I like visualized it, you know?

Because it's like most people just see the base and superstructure, but it's like that's classic Marxism in a way.

Like Marxism-Leninism has a more dynamic and complex comprehension of that, you know?

And, um,

I hope it's helpful to you guys.

I hope it will help you uh in your world view, you know?

Maybe what we'll do is like we'll clip that.

And have that be a separate thing, and then the rest of it will be like the takedown, you know?

Yeah.

All right, guys, see you later.

Bye-bye.

I'll see you Tuesday, I think.

Bye-bye.