MAGA Communism

I'm going to be.

I'm I'm not I'm gonna'am

who's the

I'm I'm a

t' I'm going to

I'm

I'm going to The I thought the almost the last I'm not puttap,

I'mma't got almskharbohmonde,

I'm going to comey,

Gensh-ch-migal-dye,

y'alloy,

but I'm

stithet-dor-lop-ur-mahmone,

I'm-gul'all'an I'm

Tovra o'u'u'estdark I've been I've got to

I've got

I've been never done yet But this is bad at her, my thing and the other, and she's men, and who you let's hear of the law, and I'm going to do it, but then I'm sure to you're

a new way

then yeah

I will not True Oh Thank you. I think you're going to be able to go ahead and she think I, you're doing

a lot, and I'm

that

my

I'm going to

that

I'm

there

I'm going

a lot

and I'm

that back and I can't

cut that

my my big good but I'm gonna'all. My name you're gonna'all.

I'm sure.

I'm gonna love you a day of

I'm gonna.

I'm trying I'm sure and love you love you and

yeah

I know I'm I'm I The I'm From the

I'm from the heart of my

I'm from My name's I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

who I

who'll

I'm I'm I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm I'm I'm

I'm she's I'm Gond Dirk I Gond Gond young men's her name

her name her

love The and the the

I'm

I'm

a I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm I'm I'm I'm a way The Lidgueschmang I'm

I'm

SIDIDA

PIRGullopur Ma'am

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

Hurtt-Dark I'm I

Hach Hohmai Oh, me. I'm gonna'ixtaer maddenian the darre

I think in the darre

I'm sure

and in the rube

and then

yeah do

uh Thank you. Oh, I'm a little Oh,

uh,

uh, I'm going to be able to stay.

I'm going to tell.

I'm thinking you start my thing you're

and she's been

who you're

the other

I'm going to

ask

I'm going to my thing

my thing and

the time

and she's been

and who you

this and get yeah I do you yeah she's mad me to you were thinking yeah you're the one. And I'm gonna' and I think you're gonna'em.

I understand.

I love you and love you and

yeah, I'm the one.

I'm the one.

The The Thank you. I'm I'm

I'm from an hour

I'm d'n't

d'n't d'aray

D'arn ha'r'd thar

ha'r'd thir h'r'r who's who's who'll comey? Humatin'est,

the shal'allel,

but I'm just,

malayn der kins.

The time's her

her I'm I'm I'm not

I'm going to

I'm

a lot I'm off the thought I almost a less I was

I'm going to and uh...

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm I'm I'm not going to be. And so

I'm going to

I'm and the other oh my

and the

I'm I'm I'm

I'm The

No. I'm going to be. I'm going to

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

a lot.

I'm gonna be arily

and

I'm and

I'm I'm

I'm

a

I'm

I'm going

and

I'm

I'm

a

I'm

I'm

a lot of

and

I'm

I'm uh, and I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm and the other people and love

and the other

I'm a lot of Stalin Barrier 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 be very important. I'm going to

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

sciop 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 that it, that is 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.

I'm going to do it again.

I would not...

So the video in question, it's 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, 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,

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, you know, 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 going to be fucking honest.

You need to storm and you need to storm

the Reddits and fight the

battles and 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, all right?

Osos, what's up? And of course, you know that 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.

It's not based in truth. It's not based in 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 Breadtube'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 Coxhot don't call us fascists or Lerushites.

Paul Coxshot 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, you know, 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 fascist 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 fascist 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 orthodoxist 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, you know, 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 socialist

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 these people or 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?

Just one problem.

There's one problem with 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 1920s and 30s 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 i 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 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, 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 communistsists but we're merely fascist

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 U.S. 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

prophylicity. And I have been a Marxist since I was 12, 13 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 12 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 in our movement is acknowledging the fact that we are sincere.

You may disagree with the idea 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

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 going to try and do this with.

And I'm going to do it with MS Paint, and we're actually going to have full-on education,

and that's how I'm going to 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 bad jacket us as fascists in disguise

shrell stennie thank you so much um in a way that's completely baseless and devoid of any grounding in

reality upon minimal scrutiny.

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

why it is 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. This person has an extremely

warped worldview that is fundamentally divorced from reality and I'm just going to go ahead and say that I think their voice probably reflects that fact. 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 every thing 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, 2004, an organization calling itself the American Communist Party pop 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 all-nine personalities,

Eddie Smith, and Noah Kreativik of Midwestern Marx, has Aldin and Jackson Hinkle,

and the party already had a sleek

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 ACP USA,

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 showiness and reactionaries. The ACP in...

All right, so this is the first claim being made about the chapters. We did not claim that every single member of 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 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

the fact has a lot of bad blood with the communist party USA their declaration letter is spent

condemning cp USA and proclaiming it no longer fit to lead American communism.

They expressed 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 a huge or

at least significant mood within the party

wanted them to change course

and change their policy and pursue

independence.

They

crack 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, 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 3 million followers on Twitter. Eddie Smith of Midwestern Marks has 300,000 followers on TikTok,

has 100,000 followers on Twitter.

Rev Lascarus 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 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 a communist party. The leaders

of the CPUSA apparently

disagree. I mean

that's not, well, 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.

It very strongly with their interpretation

of Marxism-Leninism, which begs the question

of what that interpretation is. The ACP claims

that they are the true and authentic

a Communist Party, unlike CPUSA.

But CPUSA members were quick to condemn

the ACP as reactionaries, which is a strong claim.

Is this just a sectarian mudslinging or is there any truth to this charge?

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 Kern in his

politics. If you take a look at Hinkle's Wikipedia

page, it said... 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 AC 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 Hinkle, myself, or others,

is to reject the possibility that there could be 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 this. I 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,

board-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 a collective organization. It is

a fundamental

importance to be a tentative

and aware of those distinctions.

Yes, it matters.

And I'll explain why.

He says 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 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 MAGA movement and Marxism.

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 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 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 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? 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 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 orienting 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's linists have done in every successful

revolution and 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, it doesn't mean endorsing

or tailing the most backwards elements of Maga.

It doesn't mean, for example, endorsing everything promises or abandoned

and so on, but it means going down to the people and learning from and working with them

and trying to advocate oneself as a champion of the people right and when we talk to um 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 did.

That's what they say.

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

I can see that the policies that Washington, D.C., 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, you know, our outsourcing of

American jobs, whether it's the hyper focus on Wall Street and financial capital,

reigning above all else, raining above manufacturing, like good jobs that are 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.

Yes.

With a dash of a patriotism, 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.

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

it seems like a MAGA communists

are still fully committed to the communist cause

they're just taking a different strategy

and trying to appropriate the MAGA label

to win over American workers

who are drawn to MAGA and Donald Trump

this is what the ACP likes to portray

when they're explaining their ideology

to the uninitiated however what the ACP likes to portray when they're explaining their ideology to the uninitiated.

However, but the ACP

doesn't explain MAGA communism

because the ACP is an

official organization.

It's never spoken about MAGA

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. 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.

Is this really what Maga Communism is? When Maga 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 for 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 am 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 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 Hinkle did years before the founding of the party.

Because, A, he did not do so in any 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 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 here, the deeply offensive things that they've said, you know, where he just kind of acquiesces to what Myron Gaines says that she has to vote but under the authority of the

manager 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 jack 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

in this country. I've been to other countries.

Women are more traditional.

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. 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 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 podcast

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 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 Takeya 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 the 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 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

the jackson uh bashing he 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 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 um in the 20th century the thinkers of the woman's question rejected feminism as bourgeois feminism as a phenomena was rejected in the Warsaw Act as 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's struggle with the class struggle

as one in the same thing,

as bounded up as one in 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 by doing this. So let's see. Lenin

This is his interview with 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 um 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 over excitement and exaggeration and 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 and extension and 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 exultation of motherliness.

So women can take on motherly roles in social context 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 feminist, 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

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

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

So again, these views...

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 Lenin said right here.

No, not here. 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 it'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?

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

She doesn't appear to be bothered by Hinkle'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 ACP. They're not accepted within

the party because they don't exist within the

party. There is no discourse

within the party that

advocates for women to have

less rights than men

on an institutional or political level.

Red flag. This is... on an institutional or political level. 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.

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

Your failure, Hassan Pikes 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 m m m 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 common turn,

and they don't study the official positions of the common turn, 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 disobeyed people from fascist ideology, to present

communism as a rightful alternative. The writings of Demetrov, the writings of Ernest

Talman, the writings of Antonio Gr 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...

I will actually find the...

The quote from Clara Zetkin. Okay. okay so this is this is something called failure of proletarian leadership communist parties are

now 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 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 tail 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 constantly or unconsciously from the very start on the side of the bourgeoisie.

What is Clarizetkin saying if we don't go and make a concentrated effort to speak to masses of people who would indeed otherwise go

to fascism, like Jake Shields,

some who even have already,

we have no one to blame but ourselves.

You know, there's 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 the far

right, this means 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 30s, which regarded Trotskyists who rejected patriotism, who rejected nations, who espoused all manner of antisocial 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 Dimitrov 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's views.

He still respect Shields on a personal level.

So thus far, we've seen that extreme...

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 coworkers 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.

The misogyny and fraternizing with Nazis are totally allowed within the ACP. I'll give another red flag. This one is...

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 disobeyed 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 dang 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 Lascarus during it.

How is it associated with ACP?

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

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 that as far as not. I own Twitter argument Lascarus tweeted.

I own soups worth more than your monthly rent.

Please put the fries in the bag, bro, which is an odd 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 flag we can turn to

has his a Twitter account where he pinned a thread which begins with why Marxism is

not woke about okay read the thread and tell me what the red flag is 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 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 suss 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 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 suss.

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 Marxist theory.

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

This is very curious because Dugan, who I'll be talking more about later, is a...

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 such 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 right

why are you not read 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 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.

But Hise does more than that. Hise utterly adores Dugan, and so does Jackson Hinkle.

He also adores Dugan.

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 Dugin, resorting to personal terms rather than a principled theoretical breakdown or theoretical critique.

Why are two leaders of the American Communist Party such a big fans of...

I don't know why wow

why it's such a big

mystery if only there wasn't

something penned on

Haas's fucking Twitter profile

that you just

fucking pulled up

that would fucking explain it.

What a big fucking mystery,

right?

If only I didn't have

talents of fucking hours

of lectures, plus

something you just

fucking pulled up

fucking explaining it.

What a big fucking mystery.

You're fucking idiot. I want to know.

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

A far-right philosopher, and I'll give yet another red flag back in December of ability to take a fucking chill pill. lack of formal platform this is a bit curious a platform is kind of important and this only further fueled the suspicions of 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. 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?

Has to sought to dispel all the naysayers?

Presenting a platform which overall seems actually pretty decent.

Cancel all debts.

Universal health care and education and housing.

Ending U.S. imperialism.

This is the stuff you would expect. Right, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is

is, um,

what, 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 of 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, 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 premise is 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 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 in the context we're living

in do not lend themselves to that disguise getting us anywhere

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 literally the truth. That is actually the truth.

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?

What does it mean?

If only there was a fucking speech up where you could click the timestamp 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

journalists, pretending that some kind of like, like investigative journalists

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 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.

Haas it 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. What's the point of getting angry?

What's the point? point. It's also tiresome.

It's also tiresome.

Yeah, it is.

It is.

Curious reference.

Very curious.

Very curious.

Very curious.

very curious it's like something we're trying to hide.

It's really like a little suss.

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 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

LaRue uh

we take off our ACP hat and we go to the

fucking Schiller Institute

and like oh we, 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't 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.

Constitution recognizes one communist party within the territory currently occupied by the United States and Canada.

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

And you'll know.

The event by the Institute for Free America 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 Manifest Destiny is not complete until the U.S. liberates Canada.

And why are we spending so much money on Ukraine when we can so easily complete

manifest destiny and liberate Canada.

I'm sure many of you are already familiar.

Okay.

And I'm sure all the J.D. 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 is 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 as a matter of fact Canada is part of the British Commonwealth

and instead of attacking Russia

and attacking China we should look

more inwards I guess

it's a rhetorical

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 manifest destiny but for those who don't know manifest destiny refers to the anti-imperialist position. so it's very strange that a founder of the american communist party is citing manifest destiny as a justification to invade canada

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 carl marks himself not just by frederick angles

not just by lenin not just by the c, 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.

Of spreading American

civilization and completing manifest destiny and award

to liberate. No, 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.

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.

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's what that means

but you're conflating

that with Jackson's tweets

about Canada and Manifest Destiny

completely separate

things

wow fuck 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 because they're too fucking lazy to investigate it takes two 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 U.S. and Canada.

It sounds like they're saying that Canada will be part of... What is the ACP said about any kind of unification between the U.S. and Canada, if only the party has

articulated an official public position on the matter, if only. If only it did right 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 Atlantisist 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 Fenians, if you don't know who Fenians

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 neocolonial control,

which bypassed democratic constitution and sovereign legitimation,

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

We reject any pretext for the U.S. 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's making that we're calling as a party

for some kind of forceful reunification.

Now, if we have expressed rhetoric before the founding of the party, or even if non-party people who are affiliated 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 can 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?

It's to try it 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 all right 1888. This is what Engels said in 1888 in a letter to Sorge.

In 10 years sleepy Canada will be ripe for annexation the farmers will demand it themselves the country's already half annex 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 supposedly unsurious notion right i guess angles was a

larusheite i guess that was a larusciate thing angle i guess larusch 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 m lk

however was recently revived by donald trump in his attempts to return to 19th century-style American imperialism, and the ACP appears to agree. So now we have...

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

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 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's two 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 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, they missed

the fact that every single thing he

just said lacks any substantive

basis. And I very meticulously, very thoroughly,

not just, not just dismantled it, but providing so many different kinds of devil's 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

teen century style american imping the poor cp appears to agree so now we have extreme misogyny

okay extreme misogyny debunked socializing with nazis socializing with. Debunked. Socializing with Nazis.

Socializing with Nazis.

Debunked.

Flanting wealth and mocking the poor.

Wanting wealth and mocking the poor.

Debunked.

Far right philosophers.

Defunct.

And calls for territorial conquest. Calls for territorial conquest. 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. 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, they 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 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.

This is all a 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 it gets even stranger. I want to now turn to this speech by Haas.

This speech is titled,

The Occupied States of America,

and offers a direct explanation of the Maga-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' speech for the Institute of Free America.

Let's not read his actual 12,000 word substack called the rise of Maga communism.

Let's not do that. Let's watch his speech 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

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.

You would think that this speech elucidates the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

Right?

Well, let's take a look.

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 U.S. has been usurped by an oligarchical elite for almost

100 years 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 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 Lenin's theory, is that somehow curious? Is that somehow strange?

Thank you, Sleeper So. You know what I'm getting sick of? I'm getting sick of retards in my fucking chat who are talking about pestle mime.

Instead of paying attention. Because 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 going to 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're fucking ping me

Haas

you got to respond to thisas. You got to respond to this, Haas.

You got to respond.

Haas, 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, fucking idiot and uh eventually in the aftermath of the 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 summarize what i just. He said it was curious.

You would think that if he's giving a speech,

that it would be about Marxist-Lennonist principles.

Summarize my response to that.

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 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 part it was, but if it was entirely devoted to the topic of Palestine, it doesn't make me less of a Marxist-Leninist to talk about something very specifically happening now or in history.

...byes to the rise of centralization of banks and banking systems.

And these banking cartels rather than markets were given total control over the successor failure of industrial and commercial ventures.

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

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. American establishment.

It's on archive.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 bizarre for a Marxist Leninist 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 his 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 notO, is that Marxism?

Scratch that.

Please scratch that. Scratch that. Please scratch that.

Scratch that. Is this Marxism?

Is this Marxism?

Is this Marxism?

Is a concrete analysis?

Marxism?

Or is Marxism just the reproduction of an abstract doctrine, over an abstract mathematical formula that is not actually concretely applied in the analysis of reality what is marxism is Is Marxism concrete?

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

Or does it suffice

to reproduce what Breadtube 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 shoehornning 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 lennon wrote called imperialism the highest stage of capitalism Amila with the 10, thank you. M.F. Poppers with the two, thank you. this is called for the abolition of capitalism which is based upon the exploitation of the 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. Paine. Just let's wait.

The working class by the capitalist class. But Haize doesn't really talk about class struggle. He talks about a quote British financial cabal

ruling a man

KMF with the five

thanks.

We're going to roll that back

just so the editors

have an easier time.

Let's roll it back.

But Hise doesn't really talk about class struggle. He talks about a quote British financial your time. To roll it back. But Haas

doesn't really

talk about class struggle.

He talks about a quote

British financial cabal

ruling a man. 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...

All right, I'm going to get into MSPain. I'm just going to give this more of a chance.

America.

He doesn't talk in terms of the capitalist class, ruling over the wording class.

In fact, he seems to...

No, but that's exactly what I talked about in that speech.

Even though I didn't have to, because it's not always the subject matter of every topic.

That is a matter of fact, exactly what I talk to.

I just talked about it concretely and in concrete terms. 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. He seems to suggest that clash struggle is actually a 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 a 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 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 working class, United, can challenge the ruling

imperialist, monopoly, capitalist

class, the standard position of the

CPUSA for nearly 100 years.

Wow.

This fucking lack of education

is

very sad.

Forgive me for being angry and frustrated.

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 and Leninism.

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

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 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 were Lyndon-Lerush Nazis.

Where's the curiosity to learn?

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

And 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 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.

All I can say is everybody needs to fucking double triple quadruple down on that

very aggressively fucking push the

door and fucking force people to learn

humiliate them for their

ignorance

give them a fuck 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 clash trouble 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.

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 just very briefly in one sentence point that out?

Not seeing it so far.

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

Or only me.

Only I get angry about these things.

Nobody gets it.

That's okay.

That's okay.

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

okay i'll give you a very very um simple hint because hint

because it flew over all of your heads

you see my frustration that like 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?

How do I make him like VIP?

Because 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 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.

It 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 2023z 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 referred 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.

It's worked on by others. vague definition right here. 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.

Ha says that mega communists want to abhor I'm just curious because I've read the Communist Manifesto and none of the 10 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 a private property is a little different, as he says.

Why is it different?

Let's see, 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 fullest culmination and development if we are living in 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 disoading this idea that communism is just aggregating everything into one 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 for marks private property is a fundamentally

anti-social anti-human institution of alienation at its essence that's what it is at its

essence all 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 on a yacht or a luxurious mansion a nice car etc but private property in the

form of capital is not any substantive real wealth but money for money 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 prime that's the essence of capital

in its developed form,

M.M. Prime.

As we can see today with a 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 the banksters are using to implement their

great reset agenda to enslave entire nations

what is what is not true about that you see how they always say that oh the rhetoric sounds like

xyz instead of it instead of actually addressing the content of what i say, whether it's true or not, because this is actually true.

When a private cartel of banks, the Treasury has the power to set interest rates and effectively use money as a political tool, 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 3, if you read it.

Communists do not

oppose wealth.

They oppose the institution of a private property, which subjugates the entire economy to an institution which is completely anti-social,

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, 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 um i don't this is not even where it is but this balma's 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,. I think it's in his

early writings, or I think

it was in his writings against

Prothan, 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 debasement of actual real human wealth, where you're just trying to save at all cause for its own sake.

No, not the one from volume one that I just gave.

Roadhan, yeah, whatever.

Let me find it.

Okay. Let me find it, but it's definitely there it's a very specific example he gives um i can't i'm not

gonna 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 that's true and 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 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 the banks with interest for taking out a mortgage to be...

Yeah, literally. 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, Volcker. Thank you so

fucking much for finding that quote.

Everyone round of applause for Volk Walter.

Because he found it and I was looking for it.

And that's literally the one.

So look. literally the one so look um hold on yeah it was from his 1844

uh manuscripts

so here it is

self renunciation thus scripts. 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 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 life. Literally.

That's exactly.

Isn't it kind of intelligent how I like express this really old, seemingly impenetrable

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 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

which mercilessly destroys families and societies

having no regard for any genuine human needs

and avoid of any human character

private property is the institution you guys we are not going to have the same rate throughout this

video throughout the whole thing so we're gonna like we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna like um

just focus on arguments he makes instead of watching the entire thing.

Because if we watch the entire thing, it's going to be five hours long.

I don't know if you guys even want that.

It is on its basis that all civilization begins to break down.

And even the most sacred relations of familial and communal bonds are destroyed as women and period of prostitution.

And men fall victim to suicide and drug abuse.

Yeah, that's kind of rhetoric

directly transplanted manifesto replicated throughout the

entire

history of

communist

literature which

describes the

decay of

capitalism and

the rise of

bourgeois

degeneracy

but he's

going to say

it's fascist

rhetoric right yeah so how do communists want But he's going to say it's fascist rhetoric, right?

Yeah.

So how do communists want to abolish?

Good, good.

Teach the young people.

Teach the generation.

That Marxism is just fascism.

That way they'll become Nick Fuentes fans and just to still start hail hitlering and doing the Sieg hails.

And you're encouraging them to do that.

Congratulations.

Communist do not advocate taking people's possessions. And in fact, we do not 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 small businesses we don't call for

unilaterally expropriating them

you want to know who else didn't

the communist manifesto didn't

the ten planks of the communist manifesto nowhere do didn't.

The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto,

nowhere do they include simply taking over people's shit,

their entrepreneur, their businesses,

wholesale.

And why can I say that so confidently in 2025? 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 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

and the direction of the development of socialism,

which is something that is happening materially

at the level of civil society.

So according to has,

private property doesn't refer to private ownership of the means of to private property doesn't refer

to private ownership

of the means of production.

It doesn't refer to

capitalists.

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 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 by private property, has means,

the useery, which is destroying. Yes, because the whole point is that capital is radically

super individual.

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 an it's almost like an autonomous principle of a accumulation it's a radically alienated logic of the reproduction of society itself red maze what's up and that is the irony of marx's 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 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 um 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 paraphrased language that was directly from the Communist manifesto.

But let's see him spin it as

fascist. Who are bleeding the productive

economy dry. That's the real enemy. 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. Why not?

The capitalist class is not the actual capitalist class, but the international financial cabal and the... 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 hoss 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. 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... 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 Dimitrov, 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 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 MSPaint and try to educate people about what the popular front was.

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 Brahms of Democracy, where I talk about Mao's contribution to dialectics and 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 then explain it to people 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 nope okay so um...

um... um... I pulled it up.

I needed to pull up some references.

I pulled up Mao Zon 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 superstructure right so typically people sorry position these correctly and then you know classical marxism

comprehends that these are interrelated yada yada dialectically right even though the base has a primary

significance um 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 Social Democrat Orthodox Marx is very uncomfortable. So, 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

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 an 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 inseptial, alternative possible superstructures.

So this is why Lenin is like, you know, he's the theorist of

imperialism, because within

classical Marxism, an imperial

principle is not really

recognized, in general.

Only the bourgeois

republic in general only the bourgeois republican a 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 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, let's just call it democratic populism. It's a kind of sophianic principle that was a vestige of the influence of the Neroid Nerodonnik movement in Russia,

which Lenin and all the revolutionaries

at the time kind of took for granted in many ways.

But for them,

the dimension

of the people's popular revolution

was something that also 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 where Mao and the popular front of China was, and this is like Japan.

And so in this schema, you know, as applied to the popular front, Demetrov 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,

open dictatorship, right? That is threatening even the constitutional integrity of a 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, to have a principle that can fight the hegemony, imperial hegemony.

Okay?

Now, this is so crazy and schizophrenic.

So we're just going to go back to the simple Marxist, classical Marxist thing of the superstructure and the base.

Okay. of the superstructure and the base so that no one loses their mind and gets a headache.

But okay, let's understand clearly that in the base, you have a class contradiction, right?

Let's just call, let's 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 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's 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 um uh you know class distinction

and then below

you had here

uh 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 kind of things

here so for example instead of autocracy

you can have Japanese imperialism or Zionism or whatever, right?

Here you can have, you know, some kind of, you know, sovereignty, 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 y, yada, yada, yada, right?

So, this schema is like, like, instead of just the base superstructure one that come from 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 do this.

Okay. Uh, let's um do this okay uh so Imperial principle consolidates superstructure.

Locks it in.

Good.

Let's make this shorter

you know

it's one It consolidates the superstructure and it locks it in, okay?

The superstructure is, this is open terrain.

Open terrain.

Democratic site of battle okay now here here um let's just call this popular principle popular principle permanent state of chaos that permanently that threatens every established superstructure.

Okay, for example.

So this is that.

Thank you so much for that.

Highly volatile.

Okay. okay here we are

all right

so

so what uh 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, it's a fundamental class distinction. But the victory of the bourgeoisie leads to

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.

Here.

Down below, it's constantly being reproduced, right?

And I will kind of cite something from Lenin to help

to help that's

from left-wing communism

an 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 has 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 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 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.

So let me go back to here.

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 axes under which you can understand the traditional base of capitalist production, right?

One is the imperial principle that consolidates and locks

in the

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 vacillating mass that has proletarian tendencies. It has bourgeois tendencies.

Just as Lenin was describing the peasantry in the development of capitalism in Russia, right?

It's one of his earliest works.

There is an ambiguity at this level.

And why is that?

Because institutionally,

there is a kind of volatility and openness

which constantly disturbs every imperial principle.

Just like in Gaza, Hamas, you know, it's disturbing the Zionist occupation and therefore disturbing the establishment of a very specific 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.

Whereas here, in Marxism

forces that retard history

exist here

so look

look how interesting in this is

this is just Marxism Lennonism 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 or 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.

It's 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.

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 that's why, you know, the accelerationist position of like unleashing capitalism and freeing it up from imperialist to Germany, 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 super strong, the imperial hegemony is retarding the development of history by locking in a specific, you know, specific uh 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, because it makes a lot of sense to me.

This scheme is applicable on a lot of different levels.

So look, it's really simple.

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 framing. So... right in framing 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 um imperialism zionism um autocracy fascism you name it right right here so sometimes this becomes a secondary contradiction right this is the whole people right and this becomes let me just i don't know 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 in the superstructure but sometimes the base um unifies is in a way

because each base is national and form against a superstructure uh an established and consolidated superstructure.

So what is the example that Mao gives of this?

Is Mao a fascist?

You know, we need to know from Brandon.

But what does Mao say?

So right here, he says, um... Thank you. So, um...

So...

Um... So, um, Thank you. You know, 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? 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. 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 Mal 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 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... okay so um so let me explain something also i don't know if i'm going to do this with ms paint all 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 class or 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 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 going to 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, 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 class, 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

and still is endendering class relationships daily hourly spontaneously and on 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. 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 its 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 cannot be changed overnight it doesn't mean that

marxas 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, which is locking in a specific superstructure and a specific,

um, a specific, you know, order of things in place.

And that, that is the concrete form of the development of the class struggle.

So even members of the Petty 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 just do this quickly.

And then we're going to kind of speed run the rest of the video.

Now, the interesting thing is that...

Let me just begin with a world, right?

The interesting thing is that, you know...

Whenever you have a Comprador bourgeoisie, right?

Let's just say like the proletariat is uh red 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 comparador bourgeoisie right they become a

compradour class that becomes part of the system of global imperialism.

But here's the interesting things.

If you lag behind, if you are 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 to the status of this.

This. Never.

They had a head start. This never happens.

Why?

Because...

They had a head start and... 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 compradour class. And 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 a few times they failed, you know,

uh, World War II, 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,'s stupid to attribute it's stupid to claim that our views on the

british empire are larushite when you consider that the British Empire, when you consider that the British Empire was the global capitalist hegemon

only until 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 lerushite 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 and leading our nation to socialism.

The fact that in order to do this, it is absolutely true that in the process of this, a lot of aspects of America's revolutionary identity were lost. That's not LaRushite 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 was 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 former and in 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 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 the 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

LaRushite conspiracyism 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.

It 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-Lennon-Is 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. Does Brandon investigate what the Nazis did?

Because the Nazis in no way fought against institutions of finance capital.

They expanded their 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

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 Hitler was attacking them as well but Hitler wasn't actually

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

financial cabala is defined in ethnic terms,

it's still fascistic ideology and rhetoric.

America is... You know, Fascist rhetoric.

According to Brandon.

It's occupied by a parasitic financial lead, 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.

You're kind of just like skewing my words in a very specific way to make them rhetorically sound like far-right stuff.

You're not quoting me ad verbatim, are you?

And engage in territorial conquest. That's a fascist.

Territorial. Oh, I forgot. He lost. conquest. That's a fascist.

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.

It's not a Marxism. It's not hyperbole to say that. That's not socialism. That's national socialism. You'll notice to the... 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 by uniting against monopoly capital.

And I can point to you countless examples of Marxist Lenin is 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.U. been H.G. Wells. Hold on.

Might have been H.G. Wells. Well, let me find it. All right, well, Foundations of Leninism all right 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 people,

but by the Rothschilds, the Stinnis,

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...

That's a great word, signifier.

What they reflect is widespread popular disillusionment

of the direction

the global elite

are taking humanity

is this right wing boogeyman of the last few years

in their interview on Chinese media

Jackson Hinkle 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 paid reset in George Soros and the World Economic Forum

and Klaus Lov. And this is all rhetoric.

Customary to... You know, don't you dare talk about George Soros.

You know, the guy that publicly brags about helping overthrow communist states in the late 1980s in Eastern Europe who actually

facilitated anti-communist

color revolutions as a billionaire.

Don't you dare. Don't you dare

rhetorically invoke

his name?

Because sacred

George Soros is a POC oppressed transgender who's untouchable

and you're a bigot if you fucking dare 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 Marx's theory

about parallels and 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 marx is left far right and a fascist ideology

far right far right far right it's the far right 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 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 far right is. I know what the left expertise. I know what the left is.

I know what the right is.

I know what the left wing.

But based on what?

Like, 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'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 does that mean

in Marxist terms concretely? You have nothing.

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 value instead of class struggle you're talking about class distinctions in concrete terms

as as they actually, 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 communist.

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 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?

I'm in a sect.

The communism appears to be intentionally deceptive branding.

To lure in a young naive leftist is satisfied with the 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.

By capitalism, we mean

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, by the way, we're trying to deceive

the very lucrative

and growing 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 up and coming and on the rise.

It's totally not the complete fucking opposite

but the thing about

mega-communism is that it's a distinct and novel far-right ideology

it isn't neo-Nazism which is the most prevalent of fascist ideology

on the American far-right this is something distinct

and I think by exploring the history but how are 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 because of the one thing Jackson

said on fresh and fit taken out of context?

And origins of a maga communism? 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 of valuable insights about the nature of reactionary ideology. A major clue as the origins of a mega communism is in haza speech i showed before when haza discusses this international financial cabal which is occupying america he describes it as british for some reason with this no i didn't i didn't say it's 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.

It's hard saying that the U.S. is controlled by Britain

to this very day.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the global capitalist class, first of all, is not comprised of people who fulfilled the American dream and made it up from scratch from nothing. I'm saying 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 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. America is literally oppressed and occupied by a British elite. What does this mean exactly?

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.

Fascist rhetoric is often esoteric

and not meant to be taken literally, so it's easy

to guess that Haas doesn't

What are you fucking talking about?

I really think of that a British elite rules America, but why

do you?

No, I don't think a British elite

rules America because I plainly never

even 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 high as a use of the word British to describe this international financial about?

I actually said Anglo-American.

I said Atlantisist.

You read the Wikipedia article on LaRouche.

I'll tell you why he's constantly doing this straw man because 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 that way like the british are doing this or that.

I don't. I talk about the Atlantisist 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, at

no point, 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 of the origins of a mega-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 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 from investigation.

But there's no investigation.

There's a process in which you're cherry-picking evidence and shoe

warning it into this false procedure of of reasoning and argumentation to

um to uh lend credibility to this extremely baseless conclusion you already drew as inserted as the premise it takes us back to an obscure figure in american history that That figure is Lyndon LaRouche.

Fuck, like this is crazy.

Yeah, he has a whole 20 minutes.

I think part of this will include me, but let me just see.

Yeah. part of this will include me, but let me just see. I think even for those

that may disagree with LaRouc's philosophy, right?

They must at least concede that 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,

reflected something very specific.

Okay.

We at that time, through Caleb Maupin, our best friend, right?

Greatest guy ever.

Caleb very generously introduced us to the Schiller Institute.

And the Schiller Institute, we came to know them in the following ways right

they in true 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 guy who faces leftward to recruit leftists, right?

So, you know, he was roped in with caleb moppin or whatever right and like what happened

is that they presented themselves to us in the following way like one they're pro 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 are super enthusiastic about that.

And, like, that's more the energy we want, like, China, right?

That's like 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 so 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, you know, make communism applicable and relevant in the American national context. So we kind of, we're like,

oh, this can be like a Sun Yotsen 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 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 uh coming from acceleration as circles a little bit right i'm, 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 these 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 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

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 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 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, and I promoted class struggle.

I talked about the proletarian class.

I touched upon all of the key things that distinguished myself from them.

And why did I do that?

Because I was starting to detect even at that time I was

getting pretty shocked at 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 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 you know 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

because it's like a cult basically and they they tell you to like you can't listen to music or like pop music. It's demonic. And like they try to fucking... kind of super... I liked common ground on

the basis of like policy ideas

and foreign policy

views and things. But I

always, like there was always a presumed

distance where like no motherfucker

we're not going to 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 join.

Even though I told them 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. It's 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, because they're not.

In fundamental ways, they're not.

You know?

Anyway, 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 la roos and it's

like he's this it's this whole thing this whole cult

has this whole history

which is so interesting and whatever

from the 1980s

and it's like

wow uh you know

I 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 LaRushite conspiracy

by this obscure 1980s cult apparently.

Like all of these things about LaRouche. Like, 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 LaRue

shit. No-brainer.

I first learned about LaRouz through the parapolitics

community, who always used to ironically, and as like a mark 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 endorse LaRouche but be like, you know, this reveals some shit like LaRue. 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 when we did that event at Schiller where we spoke,

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. 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 to this day people like associate us with LaRouche and these really over-exaggerated way because of a very, very meaningless

friendship we had with

Daniel Burke specifically.

And I mentioned him because there really was no one else.

I mean, Pesto Mine was like a fucking troll, you know.

Talked about Lysenko's weed.

But Pestomime was not like this influential Lerushite agent.

Also, he got kicked out.

But beyond P pestomime,

Daniel Burke was really the only one that we, like, knew in any real way,

and, like, in the sense that he was, like, friendly with us.

Um,

but the, we start, yeah, LaRouche jacking, that's a good word. Like, they started LaRouche jacking 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 Burke to us,

and it's like 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 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 was also after the conference, because 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 RTSU was right.

Because one guy who had ended up attending one of their like

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 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 gangis con 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 how Daniel Burke used to come on stream.

Ah, no more, you know, that kind of thing.

Fast forward of our years of ignoring Schiller to the founding of the ACP. By this time, we didn't give a fuck about Schiller or Daniel Burke. They were irrelevant to us, completely irrelevant, okay?

Um, um, betrayal on January 17, 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 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 has 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, he would make so many leaps

yeah he'd be like homaini 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 it's the platonic principle of you know I'm just it's deductive logic you know the it's like, well, it's the platonic principle of, you know, I'm just, it's deductive logic.

You know, 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 douxed, you're getting slandered as an arms trafficker.

That doesn't fucking matter because we disagree with you about Heidegger and your views.

So 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 going to

fucking say that that doesn't matter.

That doesn't matter. The shapes

matter. That's just an empirical

bullshit, muddy, demyergic filth.

All that matters is that you disagree with me on Leibniz.

It's precisely, I mean, I don't even want to say this because 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, 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 had never voiced my actual views on what I think about them.

And what did I gain from that?

I gained being called a LaRushite constantly because 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 going to 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.

I feel like that summarizes, like, 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. That's the contemporary economist that influences us. Michael Hudson, and LaRouce 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,

us election atlis.org,

and browse historical American election results

because that's what I said Dennis King,

who spent a long time covering the Roach and his movement.

So Lyndon LaRooch was born on September 8th,

in America.

A whole fucking biography for this guy.

And around the world. And the Roach,

now in his 40s and living in New York City,

whereas fully believed that they were capable of this,

and even forced to listen to...

Yeah, I just want to, like, 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 LaRouche as leader

and mobilized the country for a campaign of a 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 real militant socialism.

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 guy when he created a movement of people that just slander everyone?

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 William Clark, when the latter was President Reagan's National Security Advisor,

met with LaRood several times, and with LaRouche AIDS on new... Alexander Cowboy, what's up?

Because again, you know, they don't believe truth matters.

They think that all that matters is Leibnizian circles.

So that's why there's such an optical fucking disaster.

They don't even defend themselves.

I literally asked Daniel Burke, I'd be like, bro, is it true that, you know, like, you guys

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. I was like, 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, it's really the bigger

Leibnizian. 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 first

principles and that you have the key to the universe you don't actually just intuit everything 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 La Roos

I'm sure there is 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 LaRushites. Yeah, I went there.

There's a lot more to say about Lerich.

He cultivated connections among the mobsters in the Teamsters Union.

He went to prison for five years.

Is that Nico Bellick from GTA4?

The fuck.

Because he instructed his followers to commit a massive financial fraud

and scam a ton of people out of their money.

And LaRooge had turned his attention to electoral politics

and he and his followers, Biggler.

So that begs the question of why Hinkle and Haas

seem to really like LaRouche.

Now it begs the question.

It's not like we actually, like, we're very superficial 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, as 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 we had minimal common ground we'd be like great but the things that were

uniquely lorush nothing that's the thing the things that were the uniquely laruscious philosophy

we had nothing in common with literally nothing nothing. Only the things that he stole

from other traditions interested us.

Nowadays, a mega-communist that usually don't talk directly about La Rooch and Eddie Smith

from Midwestern. 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, long-key, the subtext of everything they say and do, right?

Fucking crazy.

Marx just outright denies that a Maca Communists are connected to

Larutism in any way, but Haas 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 a macacomunus are connected to Larutism in any way.

They're not. Really, they're not.

Haas and Hinkle are very much fans of La Root. La Root 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 Bill 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... Because you learn the truth by what I omit here. Not, not philosophy, not politics, not organization, not strategy, not analysis even just policy

think about that for it

think about how vague and nebulous

that is can fucking mean anything

of a policy 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

founded

dude

dude

Schiller

you're not

you're making it

seem like

you're like an

anti-Semites

logic you know

when anti-Semites are. 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 learn this.

But you know That guy called Marx

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.

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 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?

Which continues to promote Laruchite ideology.

And even though...

Oh, really? Wow.

It's almost like we just randomly woke up and even though... Oh, really? Wow. It's almost like we just

randomly woke up and started

being diplomatic to

Daniel Burke for no reason about LaRouche.

Engle may now avoid directly mentioning LaRouche.

Yeah, we avoid mentioning LaRouche

because we're hiding. We're not mentioning him, but he's definitely has this enduring significance for us. Clear enduring and lasting relevance for us. You know, we're not, 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 just the secret patriarch behind our whole movement.

Hey, Brandon. LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, LaRus, Lourouz, Lerus, Lourous, Linden, LaRus, Lundon, LaRouce, LaRouche, Lourouz, Linden, LaRouche, Lyndon, LaRouche, Lyndon, LaRouche.

The fucking scared of mentioning anything, you fucking idiot.

We don't mention him because he's not fucking relevant.

Fuck LaRouche.

Fuck Lerous.

Fuck Linden LaRouche.

And fuck Schiller too Yeah Which's 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 what did I read what I actually said you fucking idiot

I Zan Henkel have espoused a British financial cabal occupies America we have to liberate Canada from the British

Oh my God what what a coincidence.

Like, America was founded in a war of independence.

That's our only revolutionary...

It's just the, 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 going to play up America's founding revolutionary identity

and 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 British globalists and British financial couples? What's all this business? I don't know. Did you watch my fucking speech? Because I pretty, I 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 um conclusion right well it comes straight from the rich british

no it doesn't it comes from okay just do a 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

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 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... 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 Z Foster's parents were

Fenians like are you stupid

there's nothing

this doesn't come from LaRouce, 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.

LaRouce 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.

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

effused anti-Sem. Remember what LaRouche was like,

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 going to mention him because

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

like LaRouche. He'd like have a LaRouche and shit, you know. That dude used to, like, make memes.

Like, LaRouche.

He'd, like, have a LaRouce speech calling the British filthy and, like...

Oh my God.

I miss, like, 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

joke to us literally

always a joke

Semitism with anti-Britic 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.

This high finance and depicting the British Empire as the engine of Jewish rule. And this theme

has persisted among

neo-Nazis to this day. This is pretty clearly where

LaRouche got the idea of British finance ruling the world.

He just excised the explicit anti-Semitism.

He's like he's wearing sung-wise. It's 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 elaborate conspiracy theory to suit his particular brand of a fascist of politics.

One must begin with LaRouche's conspiracy theory of history, which highlights the role

of deception and concealment in the transmission of ideology to the centuries.

In the secrets known only to the inner elites, LaRouche claims that he and his followers

represent a 3,000-year-old faction of neoplatonic humanists, locked in mortal struggle

with an equally ancient oligarchy. To avoid repression by the faction of neoplatonic humanists locked in mortal struggle with an equally

ancient oligarchy. To avoid repression by the dominant

oligarchy, the humanists through the centuries have

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.

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.

Leroux cites the example of St. Augustine,

who supposedly adopted Christianity as his cover for organizing a united fund against the oligarchy.

No, I'm on 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 past societies. They captured... Yeah, ACP, um, ACP as in, uh, Assassin's Creed Pangea

because we're going 3,000 years into the past

we may as well go fucking

trillate of tens, hundreds of millions of years ago

when the fucking Pangia existed.

From Atlantis

through Roma,

3,000 years ago,

their headquarters

were in Babylon.

After they engineered his fall,

they shipped to their command post

lessward to Rome,

then Venice,

and finally,

What is this?

Why?

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 was pick up trash it's like what did we do

all we did

that's all we did

what is this

to london unable to stop

humanist networks led by benjamin franklin

and fiderichiller from launching the industrial revolution

the oligarch struggled 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 a humanist conspiracy

represented by the NCLC. According to LaRouche,

human history is Assassin's Creed.

I've seen people in the comments be like, great video.

This is like really good.

What?

A level in cabal has been oppressing humanity for eons and struggling with heroic neoplatonic humanists.

And he claimed that this cabal today manifests as as a British financial cartel 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-platonic 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

a neo-humanist

fuck man, what is this?

Like fuck, what?

No one thinks

with awareness, you know?

Speaking of 3,000 years, it's like

the Anunaki,

I must be descendant of the Anunaki.

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

LaRouce 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 cabals 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 fascism,

because fascism literally just said the Jews.

Um,

and sapping nations of their

productivity and vitality but this specific form

originates with Lyndon LaRouch and it's obvious

yeah again

you know it was

Marxists who

opposed the productivity

of the

material you know base with the 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 Mark said in volume 3.

He said that in volume three all right

why are you why are you calling this a fascist notion i don't know so that this is where has and hinkle

again this is a he's taking advantage because people watching this aren't educated about

marxism let alone marism, Leninism.

So when we espouse things that you need Marxist education and Marxist Leninist education to understand the context of, 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 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 root.

A fascist cult leader who tried...

Yeah, 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, that was the goal of that whole conference,

was to give coded subliminal messages to Charmhole

about Lyndon LaRouche

building laser death beams

to destroy the USSR

Lasz

Wow, that's another thing.

So that's Lyndon LaRch, but there is yet another major intellectual influence on

macro-communism, one which a megacomunist acknowledge.

You know, to be fair, 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, the party is not.

I am one of the only people in the party who has read Dugan.

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

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 Dugan.

So let's talk about him.

Alexander Dugan 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. Doogan began his

political activity in the 1980s first joining a secret

group of Moscow intellectuals who dabbled in

a cold neo-Nazizama, which is a great start.

One of Bugan's contributions to the group.

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 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.

was translating the work of Italian fascist philosopher Julius Ovella, who famously called himself a...

Um...

It would not be too unfair to say if Ola was a fascist

but

the tradition of

he's coming from was traditionalism

which comes from Reneguenon

and Dugin absolutely engaged

with this tradition but he always actually rejected...

Fascism is a concrete historical phenomenon.

Like, he rejected Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy always.

Super fascist. Later in the 1980s, Dugin moved away from neo-Nazism and toward Russian

ultra-nationalism. He joined the anti-Semitic ultra-nationalist organization, Pemyat, and sat on its

central council. As the Soviet Union approached collapse, Dukin visited the West and made contact

with leading figures in the European new right, and the experience appears to have freely influenced the development of Dugin's political philosophy.

I want to show you an interesting article Dugan wrote about his 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 so this is um he wrote this in 2004 but uh duyin um here sorry what the hell is my mike it's called lenin avatar of rage red avatar rage you know i said i used to hate Leninus, yada, yada, yada, yada.

But something changed, you know.

All the people that were the worst scum started denouncing Lenin, you know?

But here he says something I like, uh, where I found, or I found it interesting, he said.

Uh, Lenin declared he was a

magic Eurasian dwarf

who raised jihad on

the world of exploiters

smash the brain of the Philistine

Motivized the nation for a total

up people

let me find

the thing

that

that I

wanted to

point out

though

here

some

some some okay look in europe i met many guanonians and evolians some of them were sloppy

schizophrenics others obedient and politically correct

Philistines. They work in banks

marketing. They're a bunch

of misfits and capable 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 and theF. is a hundred times more attractive than the majority

of these European traditionalists. So it's interesting, you know, because it's not a one-sided

picture. This guy's trying to paint a one-sided picture. It's just, if you know a Houdugan is, 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, uh, access 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.

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,

Limonov was this provocateur who

was trying to mock

the

red-brown

accusations that were coming from the new Yeltsin elites.

So he did this to troll them, basically, is what I was told.

Maybe 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 KPRF are much more moderately left wing compared to these guys.

These guys were radical anarchists in a way, you know.

So it's very much misunderstood thing in the West because of their name and their flag.

In 1993, he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party, National Socialism, National

Bolshevism, mega-communism, same shit.

Dugin.

Oh man. Really no. Really no. Really no. In the case of the National Bolsheviks, it's so stupid. Why would you show the ACPs?

93. He co-founded the National Bolshevik Party,

National Socialism, National Bolshevism,

Maga-Communism.

But this is the ACP

logo. This is not a Maga-Communist logo.

What are you talking about?

Also, the National Bolshevik

thing was deliberate at trolling uh so okay fine but why acp what did we do

oh because i i am philosophically influenced by duin i got it. Yeah.

I guess that makes everything Nazi, you know.

That's really brilliant reasoning there, you know. No one...

Don't even read what I said about Dugan.

Just do this thing of this logical fallacy

of guilt by association.

And that's all you need to do, you know.

Ugin'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.

And he goes, it's so funny, like national socialism is the same as national.

No, it's not.

It's a fundamentally distinct phenomenon.

Because the national Bolsheviks were 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 in the name. But materially speaking, according to the analysis of the common turn in the 1930s, no, fascism is a specific phenomenon.

Perry 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 U.S. back to the Western hemisphere.

God forbid NATO gets abolished.

Western sources are sometimes prone to exaggerating Dugan's influence in Russia,

and making it sound as though Dugin is writing Russian foreign policy, which he isn't,ating Dugan's influence in Russia and making it sound as though

Dugan is writing Russian foreign policy, which he isn't,

but Dugan is... Oh yeah, Dugan 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 of our right in Russia.

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 dougan 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 intellectual sphere about the legacy of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution, with the new

far right being like O'Canonist. That all comes from the guys from the telegrams, Sons of the

Monarchy, led by a guy named Antonovsky.

And on the left side is Zahar Prylepin.

Comrade Zachar

Prelepin. He

is the bulwark of defending

the integrity and history of Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet era and communist ideas in general in the literary, and intellectual, philosophical scene, I would say.

And Dugan is not in the middle, but he is closer to Kamrad Zakhar. He is closer. He is closer to comrade Zachar.

He is closer.

He is closer.

Not all the way there,

but he's more sympathetic.

That is why

Dugan likes

me and Jackson.

He doesn't buy

into the

far right

at least

not fully.

So there is a far right

in Russia. Dugan 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 Dugan at all. The second thing is, this is the most important thing I would argue because it has more material significance. This kind of Russia as a whitean identity versus eurasianism and dougan is much more the latter

he's fully the latter dougan rejects the notion of a right russian ethno state 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 are so many nuances here, but

Dugan is not the leader of the far right in Russia. That's a ridiculous claim.

Which makes it very strange that

a mega-communist display such admiration for

Dugan, Hinkle and Haas, like Dugin.

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 Duggen, Jackson Hinkle Paul.

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 engaged with it.

You just, again, are playing up this guilt by association shit instead of addressing the content of my argument.

Paul's him, one of the greatest man alive today and has and Hinkle have conducted

crushing interviews with Bugin himself a number of times.

Dugan is great.

He is a great

thinker and a great human being.

Infinity for Dugin goes a long way

to explain the multi-polarity fixation

of a magacomunists.

Magacomunists are obsessed

with multi...

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, it's all because of Dugan. Right, that's so true.

But why did I take interest in Dugan to begin with, though?

Have you explored that or no, it doesn't matter, I guess.

All right.

Sure, whatever you say.

You're the expert on me.

You know more than me.

I've been a fucking Marxist since 2010.

But you know more about who I am and why I'm influenced by who I'm influenced by

it's all it's all because of LaRouche and the Babylonian of a neoplatinus

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 to

woke and they find ideological kinship with right-wing

anti-liberal forces outside the West. Their anti-liberalism

is a fascist rather than Marxist.

How?

So their adulation of Dugin, who most definitely is not...

Okay, hold on. Their anti-liberalism is not Marxist, it's fascist.

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 thinker, and they mix it with this idea of the British financial cabal ruling the West, and hence that their...

I think it's true that the

that the 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 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.

Their support for Russia and China to fight this international cabal and Jackson Hinkle

lives in Moscow now.

We support Russia and China to fight the

concrete imperial hegemony that rules the world today, the American global empire.

Not the British, the American global empire, you know, because the British Empire was absorbed or at least fused with the global American Empire, you know, so...

There's no need to talk about the British Empire here.

Now, apparently...

Very plainly, it's a unipolar hegemon led by the U.S., which we, of course, support Russia and China against.

Now, make the connection to fascism, please.

Permanently, take from that what you will, however...

Okay. What, is Russia now, LaRouche? what you will.

Okay.

What?

Is Russia now LaRouche?

Haaz and Henkel are also invested in presenting a communist disguise.

They claim to be Marxist, a Leninist.

Dude, I was a Marxist, Leneninist probably before you even fucking knew how to spell the name of Karl Marx.

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. 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 in followers if we did that. Why

would we need to... Why?

What's the point of this theory

that we're disguising ourselves?

...championing a far-right ultra-nationalist

philosopher kind of complicates...

But all the nuances are lost on you, you fucking retard. It's like Dugin 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 application of Marxism to the 21st century

efforts to pose as communists so they just deny that you get in it why would we pose as

communists what's the point of that?

You fucking retard?

What's the fucking point to steal

Hassan Pikes, 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

at least have some familiarity with

the actual argument.

But you're not even citing the argument.

You're just simplifying it.

And woke leftist. Dogan is just misunderstood

and unfairly maligned. That's true. And I explain

how that is and why that is.

Will you engage with that?

Hold on. You're not even going to engage with the argument.

You're just going to use it as an indictment on me that say that I'm disguising myself.

Dugin, a fascist. Hinkle characterizes Dugin 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 Dugin 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 a metaphysical basis

of liberalism, individualism, modernity,

idea of progress, linear time,

and I am not, I reject as well

enlightenment in general, and modernity, western

modernity, as hegemonic process.

In the same time, I refuse communism and fascism.

And I have written my book, Forced Political Theory, that clearly stated my position.

So according to Dugin, he isn't a fascist, he just rejects a modernity, the idea of progress

and the alignment in an...

So did Ayatollah Khomeini and hassan

Nasrallah 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 going to say now?

What's your argument?

What's your counter argument, Brandon?

Zeruny with the 25. Wow, man. Thank you.

To Dugan's politics, and I think

Dugan is definitely a fascist, but setting

that aside. 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 Dugin is a fascist,

he is undeniably far right and ultra nationalist.

No, but how is he far right?

And ultra-nash...

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 1% anything about Russian politics. If you knew 1% anything about Russian politics, A, 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 Dugent. He's not far right.

Okay. Second, the thing about ultranationalism, that can have two potential meanings. is ethnic nationalism that is indeed affiliated with

the global right but that's not dougan 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 because

it's not one nation according to him.

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

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 U.S. legacy of U.S. 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 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 18D chess 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 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 18D 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

intelligent enough to comprehend

apparently

the specific

philosophical position I articulate.

As in Hinkle 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 reactionation here. Ultra nationalist. Before I wrap up

the video, I want to talk about the nature of

reactionary... Okay.

Wow. He really summed it

up right there. He devoted

roughly 10 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.

Expoise on the ACP.

Politics and how macro-communism helps us to understand it.

Reactionaries have something in common with leftists.

They are discontented with the present estate 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 going to return to like the United American Republic,

a United Republic of America, where, you know, we have this unity of the

USA in Canada, and it's, you know, unleashing technology to an unprecedented degree and accelerating

AI.

And 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.

As their worldview is devoid of scientific

rationality, they think for storing and radically strengthening

patriarchal norms, attacking these favorite groups, whether on the basis of ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality,

eliminating rabble-rousers who divide the culture and nation with ideas like class struggle.

They think all of this will rejuvenate society and restore lost glory.

Fascism is different from socialism or Marxism, in that it isn't really a single ideology

as much as a class or collection of

chedessend 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? I mean, he doesn't even make an argument.

Fascist ruler of America and that universe is horrifying.

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 in 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 an American form of nationalism.

Not Nick Flintes

and the actual Patriot front

people

not the actual like rising

like neo-nazic oh my god

this is it

oh my god

every single

point I made in this video

was systematically dismantled

in a five-hour fucking stream

because that's how stupid it was.

I'd have to literally go to painstaking lengths

to explain how fucking stupid it was.

But wow!

This is ultimately what it is.

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.

Used with the ideas of a far-right ultra-nationalist a Russian philosopher, to make a communist, America is a country besieged by moral and cultural subversion.

When have we said subversion?

Notice that.

When did we say that? The version orchestrated by a shadowy international financial papal.

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 Mark's described

Capital, in Capital

Volume 1.

Americans need to unite across class lines

to defeat this cabala.

What do you mean? Our party says the future belongs to the working class. All it talks us about is a united working class. When does ACP talk? Oh, you're talking about the Institute for 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 these guys

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,

um,

class,

uh,

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 represented by specific institutions, and the unity is institutionalized the class unity is institutionalized okay

the popular front doesn't do that because it doesn't recognize 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, and engage in vigorous territorial expansion.

At the same time, Madocon.

Yeah, yeah, vigorous territorial expansion.

You pulled it out of your ass.

Cherry picked a Jackson tweet from 20, 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

23, which is

120 characters

or something, is more authoritative.

Communist at Tritadadon,

a communist aesthetic to fool people, which also isn't

unprecedented.

Hey, you fucking retard.

Again, I'm going to begin,

I'm going to end this with what I began with.

Let me change this.

In the history of a fascist movements,

all fascist movements.

Okay, the problem with the comparison

that you're 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? Hakim's YouTube videos? Like, 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 herself as communists if we were fascist.

It makes no fucking sense, okay?

No sense at all.

It's literally the dumbest theory I've ever heard in my life.

Have harkened back to an idealized 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 fascist, 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...

What?

All right. The Nazis

wanted to return

to the Middle Ages.

Mussolini wanted to return to the Roman

Empire.

And Mussolini wanted to return to the Roman Empire and ACP wants to return to the 50s There are multiple

I thought we were just going to wrap it up

This is going to take like five minutes

But you know the issue is, is that when communists refer to fascism as reactionary,

we don't literally think that Mussolini was, like, really returning the Roman Empire.

Because the idea of restoring lost past glory

is not exclusively fascist.

You know, 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 musilini 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 conservative but no

in a in a revolutionary

era when you are

trying to sabotage and thwart revolutionary change,

you are definitionally a reactionary.

Reactionaries are not necessarily people who want to return to a

specific point in time.

There are 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?

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.

This is truth.

They were reactionaries because they represented classical laissez-faire capitalism against the trend of more socialization and socialism.

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 capitalism had a classic form

instead of the one assumed after the New Deal,

in the U.S., for example,

or in Britain under the labor government.

Or in Germany Germany that was

being overseen by the social democrats

so they were reactionary

with respect to that

um

yeah the so-called heroic stage

of capitalism you know it's a very specific thing it wasn't the literal mythology was not materially relevant sir they weren't literally turning into the middle ages in 1970s this golden age of prosperity and national harmony, when America was

an industrial powerhouse and conservative cultural values

reign supreme with the strong industrial working

man who had the authority over his wife, this

vision of the past, ways... Dude, what is

like, what are you fucking...

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

evoking imagery 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 whatever, just please keep it in your pants,

dude. Nobody wants to hear about your fucking psychosexual analysis. We are interested 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 a macro-communist.

Now, I do think that the post-war era was better than contemporary America in numerous ways.

It really was an era of a broad 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... 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' adjut prop, maybe it reminds you of the 50s because that was a time when

labor had more political sovereignty it had more political power um that doesn't mean we're literally

trying to return to that.

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...

This way.

Like, if you're a Soviet communist, I mean, obviously, the USSR was a socialist

country. It's like, if you're in China, 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 they're

evoking imagery from a tradition

where labor or the proletariat

had more power, you know?

It doesn't mean they're literally

trying to return to that.

It was genuinely...

Nebulous analysis of aesthetics

as all these fucking people do.

Golden age in many ways.

But that's not what metacomunists 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 Dutch...

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.

Please shut the

fuck up and stop assuming that just because anyone has a sense of traditional culture it means it's the 50s

the reason the 50s 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.

For better and for worse, too, by the way, you know, but it's just the truth.

A Soviet Union today in Russia is seen as more actually more traditional. Women may have had more...

That'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

um 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 50s, the status of women was great, and that we should return to that.

But 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 50s. That's not true.

The image of the heterosexual, industrial, working man patriarch, as opposed to the gay female or effeminate risa,

his paradise lost.

But you know 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 jumpsuits

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... made for women to enslave them basically and you're trying it's like i'm the feminist now and you're upholding this patriarchal system you know where where what we're just going to endorse

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 to the nation's productivity.

That's true.

No, we've explained the breakdown of culture in pretty clear Marxist terms, all right?

It's pretty clear that capitalism is for-profit, and things that are for-profit are not going to reflect the needs of a civilization.

Okay, so it's going to lead to a lot of problems and decay and confusion.

It's going to devastate, family life is going to be devastated if families can't make a fucking bottom line.

They can't fucking survive materially, you know, it's pretty simple.

Really what a megacommunism is?

Wow, very profound.

All right.

All right.

That was a lot.

Five hours. all right 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 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 25,000, 22,000.

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 and he removed it

because it was getting too many likes Yeah, he removed it.

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 there we go.

Pretty thorough.

I'm hungry and tired.

I didn't eat dinner.

What's going on? All right, 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.

I took five hours doing that.

Five hours, you know?

This needs to get uploaded.

It's all I could say.

Hope you guys heard that too.

All right, guys.

We're going to wrap it up we're gonna wrap it up.

Don't say I don't give you content.

Did you guys want,

do you guys like the MS paint thing?

Because I feel like I did that before, actually.

I feel like I've done it before,

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, 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

I hope it's helpful

to you guys. I hope it will helpful to you guys.

I hope it will help you in your worldview, 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.