Heated political debate

With the 10.

Thank you so much, brother.

Phil with the five.

What's going on?

Bubblegum with the 20-month anniversary subscription.

Thank you, brother.

I appreciate you.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Welcome.

A lot of interesting things are going on.

A lot of interesting things are happening.

A lot of realignment going on.

A lot of divisions being made clear.

A lot of lines being drawn in the sand.

A lot of snakes and rats and scum exposing themselves for what they truly and actually are.

I told you at the beginning of this year that this would be a year of class struggle.

I also told you it would be a year of political realignment and a year in which people's true loyalties and position with respect to the development of history would clarify itself like never before.

And that is exactly what's going on and it's happening right before our eyes.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about what we can expect ahead in the coming months, in 2025 in general, as our efforts to unionize the Drayage truckers in the port of Newark and across the country.

Peter!

Thank you so much, brother.

The port of Newark alone

If the workers there go on strike, the whole country can be shut down.

I want you to understand what's at stake here.

I want you to understand that the companies as we speak are scrambling and shitting their pants and already doing everything in their power to shut this down just because of the mere whispers of what's going on.

I want to tell you about how the New York and New Jersey chapters, Boogaboo, thank you so much.

I want to tell you about how the New York and New Jersey chapters are now going to that port on a regular basis.

I want to tell you about how the truckers at that port have expressed a lot of interest in this, and there's a lot of discussion going on among them about it now, and it's really making the company owners really fucking nervous.

I want to tell you about how.

In response to the public hearing more about this.

The fascist collaborators are coming out of the woodwork to demonize Dreage truckers, similar to what they did with the Freedom Convoy shit, to say that they are petty bourgeois because they're classified as owner operators.

I want to explain to you clearly and exactly what's happening.

I spent many, many years fighting these academic gatekeeping piece of shit leftists who ingratiate themselves in institutions in order to gatekeep the possibility of any kind of organizing on a revolutionary basis, on a genuine principled Marxist basis.

And why?

Because they're part of institutions that have power.

Why do these institutions have power?

Because they have money and they have grants.

And where does this money and where do these grants actually and ultimately come from?

They come from the labor of the American working class in particular, assuming these are American universities, of course.

They come from the material labor of the American working class, and these scum, these Pharisees, these fake Marxists, these fascist collaborator left liberal pieces of shit have become far too comfortable, far too comfortable, far too arrogant in the luxury of their institutional power and position which they've taken for granted because they say fuck you, money's on our side.

Well, fuck you, labor's on our side.

Is our message back to them?

They sit in their ivory towers.

They sit in their NGOs, their activist groups.

All of the power is downstream from financial capitalist parasites that pay their fucking way, that pay and make sure that they are ultimately and in the final sense aligned.

You go to their university campuses, you better not be pro-Assad.

You go to their university campuses, you better not be fucking pro-Iran and pro-Russia and pro-Putin, because that's gonna fucking piss off their J Street and their CIA sponsors of corporate America.

You better not fucking get out of line.

You better not disalign yourself from the hegemony and the consensus because the fucking money is always what's at stake.

And these fucking eunuchs and these scum, these pieces of shit in these universities and these institutions and these NGOs and these organizations, they're quiet like mice.

How their corruption, their culture of corruption, it's all supposed to be implicit and you're never fucking supposed to call out and ask the basic fucking question of why every single position we have as ostensible revolutionary and radical leftists aligns in every respect with the interests of corporate America and the imperialist hegemony.

Amila!

Appreciate the ten.

You're never supposed to ask these basic questions.

You're never supposed to ask it's all supposed to be implicit.

This culture of corruption and venality.

And they snicker and they laugh because they sit atop a fucking mountain of cash that they think falls out of the fucking sky.

It doesn't fall out of the fucking sky.

If you have it, a trucker brought it to you.

That didn't fall out of the fucking sky.

All this scam, credit-boosted fucking economy, you know, money, which is king.

The only thing that makes that tangible and real are the actual workers.

Who?

Off the sweat and the blood and the labor, tirelessly working to materially make sure that this country has a lifeline, to make sure that it reaches the store shelves, to make sure that the roads are paved, to make sure that the infrastructure is built and in place, to make sure the fucking oil gets out of the fucking ground.

To make sure the food and the crops are grown, to make sure that the houses, that the stores, that the cities are built and constructed in the first place, to make sure that the cars get built, to make sure that the planes get built, to make sure that everything that makes this country what it is at the essential level.

Is possible.

You want to talk about power.

The real power lies with labor, not those who have money and grants.

So these pieces of shit who for decades have gatekept Marxism to keep it separate from the masses, in conjunction directly, by the way, with the CIA.

If they are not themselves part of the CIA, which often they are.

More on that in a second.

They tremble in fear.

They tremble in holy fear.

Like man trembles before the wrath of God Himself, they tremble before the possibility that these Dreaz truckers, that the real working class of this country is finally going to have the courage to stand up and have the voice to insist and assert its own real power.

And they are shitting fucking bricks right now.

And they're collaborating with the companies and they're collaborating with the feds and they're doing everything in their fucking power to make sure that this doesn't lift off of the ground and gain traction and become the explosion, become the tsunami, the hurricane that this country is long overdue.

We're having.

And that's where we are, ladies and gentlemen, ostensible so-called leftists siding with the capitalists and the companies.

Against a unionization attempt.

We're the Dreyers truckers at the Port of Newark, and that's where we are.

Let the line in the sand be drawn clearly and distinctly.

I have no hatred in my heart, but boy, do I have wrath.

Boy, do I have wrath for any fucking motherfucker who's on the opposite end of that line.

Draw a distinct line in the sand.

You're with the workers, or you're an enemy of the workers.

You're with the proletarian class, or you're the class enemy, and there's nothing in between.

There's no ambiguity and there's no gray area.

It's black and white.

You stand against us on this issue.

You are a class enemy.

You are a fascist collaborator.

And you have marked and you declared yourself

As an enemy of the movement of history itself.

Aztec, appreciate you.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've hit a nerf and you've gotten an idea of, yeah, this is one of those things that they were overlooking for a very long time.

Strelosteni, these Drayage truckers who have been screwed over, they have among the segments of the American working class who, as a consequence of Reagan's neoliberalism, were among those who were screwed over the most.

They used to have unions.

All of the unions were busted.

They were misclassified as independent contractors.

All of their benefits were taken away.

All of their health care was taken away.

They're riddled with debt, forced to buy their own trucks, which obviously very few of them can buy wholesale without taking on debt.

So if they're taking on debt, do they really own it?

No.

It's just another cost of their job.

It's just another expense that's taken out of their fucking wages, is the truth.

They say, oh, you're an owner and you're independent.

What's really going on?

Is that they're fronting costs that are being taken from their wages.

And it's the oldest trick in the book by these capitalist bloodsucker bastards.

These scum who are here, who have entrenched ties, by the way, with organized crime and the Democratic Party.

And it's been a big fucking scam that's been going on for decades and nobody gave a shit until we came along.

And we're all in, as the American Communist Party.

We are all in.

We are all in.

And it's gonna be a tough, tough battle, 'cause you don't know how many fucking enemies we've made.

I'm not even telling you everything.

We've got the black shirt, pan leftist, left liberal black shirts.

They're really fascist collaborators.

These are the least of our enemies.

You got organized crime.

You've got entire fucking companies worth more money than you could imagine, who are themselves embedded financially with

With the financial powers that be, frankly, and then you've got political connections they have to the Democrats and Republicans, the Uniparty.

And we're fucking shitting up their whole scam that they've been doing without a peep.

Nobody's been paying attention.

They've been getting away with it for decades.

And we're here and we're fucking it all up for them.

Why?

Because this is ground zero.

This is ground zero for the movement to revive labor in this country.

This is ground zero.

To bring the fire of working class power to these lands once again.

And you say time progresses, but the struggle of labor,

The struggle of labor is timeless.

What we are doing, generations have done already.

In the fifties and the forties, they were doing this shit.

We're picking off

Something off the ground that was discarded and ignored and left behind for a very long time.

And this is ground zero.

This is just the beginning.

This is the flame.

This is the spark that's going to light a fire in this country.

I told you this is the year of class struggle and we're going to make it so.

Rantic, appreciate you.

And they're really, really gonna try to stop us this time, guys.

I mean it.

They're really and up until this point, I mean this is what they were afraid of the entire time, by the way.

I want you guys to think about something.

All the shit I went through.

All the stupid shit I went through.

being a streamer, being a content crew, all this shit I did for three, four years

Dedicating myself entirely to this, this is what it was for.

This is what it was for.

All I wanted

All I wanted was for Marxists to start talking to the workers again.

That's it.

That's all.

Everything I've done has been in service to that cause.

And now it's getting fucking real.

I mean really real, you know?

And I am prepared to dedicate my entire life to it.

And there is nothing I am not willing to sacrifice in the service of this cause.

Nothing.

And I want everyone, especially those that are in our party, to take inventory, to take note.

Osos, I appreciate it.

Thank you, brother.

I want you all to take note of just how precious this is.

Just how precious.

Just how precious.

and delicate it is.

Because if we are not strong, and if we are not steadfast, and if we don't have high energy, and if we don't put ourselves in the service of this cause, they will squash it like a fucking bug.

And we absolutely now have to get serious.

We've already been serious, but I mean it, this is gonna be an ugly battle ahead.

This is gonna be an ugly battle we have ahead.

We are surrounded by a lot of different kinds of enemies, but you know what?

What do we say?

What do we say?

What have we always said?

What have our people always said?

Surrounded by enemies, every which way, coming from the left, coming from the right.

From north, south, east and west, every which fucking way under attack.

But what do we say?

What what did our ancestors say?

The ancestors of our cause and our movement.

What did they say?

They said the Red Army is the fucking strongest.

They said Red Army is the strongest.

And we're gonna fucking clean sweep all these motherfuckers every which fucking way and every which direction they come.

We're gonna fucking sweep them off the face of this land, the face of this country.

We'll drive them into the Atlantic, we'll drive them into the fucking Pacific, we'll fucking shoot them up into space.

Because of all this chaos, amidst all this chaos, with so many belligerents, so many forces, it's always the same thing history has proven.

The Red Army is the strongest.

Red Army is the strongest.

It's the red flag that's going to be.

Planted on the highest hill, on the highest mountaintop, over all of them.

You just have to not be a goddamn pussy.

And you have to have the discipline and the strength to be a collective force and to have collective discipline.

And if you have that strength and if you have that courage and if you have that perseverance, we will win, comrades.

I mean it, we will win.

We are destined for victory.

It is written in the fucking scrolls of history itself.

You can hear it in the wind.

If you just shut the fuck up for two seconds, you can start hearing it in the wind.

You clear your mind.

And it'll come to you in your dreams what's destined to happen.

They want to discourage you, they want to do everything to throw kick dirt in your eyes and throw sand in your eyes, they want to do everything to discourage and demoralize you and just make you think it's not even worth it.

That's what they want to do to you.

They want to make you feel like it's all in vain.

But it's not.

It's really, really not.

And you understand how shocked and surprised we were when we went to that port and we saw the overwhelmingly positive responses we did.

Holy shit.

It really has always been that easy.

Nobody's been doing it.

For the very simple reason that these glasses wearing pieces of shit in their ivory towers and universities had too many ifs and they had too many but what about they had too many fucking stupid qualifiers and qualifications that only came from their stupid head that just so happened to conveniently lead them to conclusions that were devoid of risk that allowed them to keep their tenured and salaried positions their revolving door with the CIA itself which all these university establishments actually and ultimately and inevitably amount to

They didn't have the balls to take risks that ostracized them from their Pharisee gatekeeper communities.

What do I have against people with glasses?

Nothing.

But I have something against people who cannot so much as open their eyes to the real world without having an institutional, politically correct filter that is fundamentally based on them lying to themselves about what reality is.

Just because it so happens to conform to some kind of convenient, hegemonic ideology that makes them feel safe and wholesome and cozy and comfortable.

They can't even face reality for what it fucking is.

They have to put on some kind of filter.

To deceive themselves.

So not literal glasses, my friend.

But the glasses of institutions, the glasses of mainstream media.

which is built and which is the foundation of what is an empire of lies, as uh Vladimir Vladimirovitch, our friend, was so keen on emphasizing on that fateful night

Of february twenty second, twenty twenty two.

We're cutting off their supply of money.

We're cutting it off.

We're going to the source of the real power in this country.

People ask what's in it for you.

There's nothing wrong.

There's nothing wrong with acquiescing to real power.

Real power, real mighty power is good and just always actually.

Real power.

So there's nothing wrong with acquiescing to real power.

Real power is like a force of nature and reflects the laws of history itself.

That is what's really powerful and mighty in existence.

And these gatekeeping fake Marxists and fake leftists.

They think they have access to real power because they have access to the hegemony's money, but little do they know that the real power lies with the workers, the actual people for whom these streams of revenue are downstream as a consequence of their labor and their work.

Did the truckers care about race?

They didn't give a fuck about that.

We talked to truckers, white, black, brown.

Nobody gave a fuck about anything racial.

There's no race, anything.

They were one working class doing the same fucking job at the same goddamn port, and there wasn't a goddamn difference, nothing different between them.

Skin color, who gives a shit?

Not them.

Sure, it's a tool that's used to divide them, I'm sure.

What were some of their reactions?

They loved it.

They didn't give a shit about the communist thing.

They were super.

They went on our website, they saw our program.

Our whole party was designed for them, for workers like them, for for actual working class people.

I mean Kyle himself was a trucker.

It's not ending here, by the way.

I wanna also say something, and I'm gonna announce it because I don't fear how the enemy's gonna try to preempt this, 'cause it's already too fucking late.

In addition to organizing the truckers, let me just make this announcement directly to you, because it's long overdue.

We're storming the campuses.

We're storming the universities.

All the way from the Ivy Leagues down to community colleges and trade schools.

It is long time that the so-called brain and elite of the nation.

Is confronted.

With the supremacy of class struggle.

Long that the it's long overdue that class division and distinction and antagonism reaches the citadels of the hegemony itself.

So we are making our push into the universities, and how it's gonna work is that student organizations will be set up across campuses, across the country.

Local chapters will oversee these student organizations and the organizations of the students will be fully subordinated to the state chapters.

And we are going to speak at these campuses and we are going to debate at these campuses and we're going to go to these campuses and exercise our free speech rights and they're not going to do a fucking thing to stop us.

Why?

Because these campuses are a combination of two people.

One, the class enemy that goes on to lord over and oppress and stamp upon the people of this country, and two, students that are in debt and have no future and no promise of any future.

And we are going to give them an alternative.

And these campuses are filled with a silent majority of students, by the way, who are sick of the tyranny of the liberal hegemony.

The liberal hegemony

Which is the CIA itself, by the way.

So we're going to the college campuses, we're going to the universities, and the CIA wants to fuck with us so much on the internet in the information sphere where we're trying to reach workers and they're trying to obstruct our ability to reach workers.

Okay, sure.

We will bring the war to them and go directly to the college campuses.

And that's what we're going to be doing.

Stay posted for more information, but here are very simple orders you should start doing discreetly.

Start.

In whatever state you're in, your state chapter, lay the preliminary groundwork for student organizations.

Do nothing officially yet.

Await your orders, be in contact with the Department of Personnel, and be in contact with the Department of Education.

But lay the groundwork and prepare.

Because we want to roll this out efficiently, and we want you the chapters.

To basically set these organizations up.

Some of you are already on campuses.

If you are, you know what your orders are, they're very simple.

set up these organizations and uh we are going to

Have a two-pronged battle.

The truckers, the campuses.

Because we're sick, we're going into the belly of the beast, because this is where these black shirt foot soldiers of the class enemy thrive and this is where they have created a base of operations to attack us and engage in aggression against us.

And um

We want a seat at the table for the debate, the national debates and discussions happening at the so-called brain brains of the country, right?

The central nervous system, if you will.

We want a seat at the table and we're going to be there just like anyone else can, exercising their First Amendment rights.

And that's what we have in store.

We didn't even organize anything for Emery.

We organized nothing.

It was just literally just me, Jackson, there was Grayson, and we caused so much of a fucking stir just by being there.

So much of a stir.

Now we're gonna actually organize this shit.

Good luck to the enemy.

I've always said this, and I will repeat it.

If you want to stop me, there's only one way.

It's very simple.

There's only one way.

And you will stop me.

You will not stop this cause or this movement.

Because you do that, you have a whole fucking generation that's gonna pick up my flag.

and plant it on top of your fucking grave.

The Dreash Trucker Initiative is national.

It's just starting there.

It's going to start there.

Once that precedent is set, it's going nationwide and we're not stopping and we're not relenting and we never will.

You want to get back at the enemy, you want to crush them like the cockroaches and scum that they are?

Then keep moving forward and work, work, work.

And don't relent and don't tire.

If you're energized by this fucking stream, you should message your fellow chapter members right fucking now if there's nothing going on in your chapter and get something going.

Because inactivity is always, always inexcusable.

What do you do in Canada?

We have chapters in Canada.

By the way, we've just gotten started.

We have just gotten started.

And this is why, by the way, we've been dealing with all these scum, we've been utilizing our legal, and a lot of it we've already it's in motion.

Going to be sent to the courts.

We're going to have our legal battle with the scum, and now we're focusing.

and crushing the enemy of the working class.

And now we're focusing

Now we're focusing on what our what they tried to stop us from doing in the very beginning of the year, which was the whole purpose of their attempt at wrecking us, because they're fucking feds.

Just how do you I need to spell it out for you, they're fucking feds.

It's literal feds doing this shit.

Because this is the type of shit they're terrified of.

They will never move from lies and gossip.

They will never confront us in person.

We will conquer the actual real world.

Our legal department will deal with the consequences of their defamation and the harm that it does on us, and we will deal with conquering.

the actual country.

So that's how we're gonna be going forward.

I would like to talk about Nick Land.

Maybe I should do that on the space.

So I'm going to start my space.

Uh Nick Land, he uh made a thoughtful reply and I would also like to um

address well and not like um in an uh accusatory way

or a defensive way even.

But I would like to engage with what he brought up.

Um

He brought something up that I would like to engage and uh because it was thoughtful and he's I think he's engaging with some stuff I have said.

And uh so that is something I would like to talk about and discuss.

Spaces.

There we go.

Alright, we have started the Confront the Chairman space, I will share it on Discord.

We're going to share the space right now.

So we have the space up and going.

Um okay, so let me bring up um Nick Land's kind of

Response.

Again, not like a combative response, but like he's just kind of engaging with the topic.

I want to talk about that and then we're just gonna start bringing people up.

Uh he okay, so Paleo Accelerationist Musings.

I would like to say that I am loving this new discourse and dialogue with Nick Land, and I am very um

how should I say?

I'm very um honored

To be a catalyst for him thinking interesting ideas like this again.

Because, to tell you the truth, my impression of Mr.

Land is that he is.

He is not

Very excited about this.

You know, X commentary, BS.

I think he's always been interested in this, right?

And it's just that, you know, I guess so-called leftists have always been too stupid and annoying.

And also, but the tragedy is even the right are really stupid and annoying, like these EAC people.

And so he's never really had the, I don't think, in a long time, the opportunity to really.

Um, explore the topics that I think he actually finds interesting.

I could be this could be like too speculative on the level of you know, it's kind of too personal because talking about the topics he's interested in.

But what I'm trying to say, he's a very interesting thinker.

It's just that it's not often he is presented with the opportunity to actually like.

discuss the substance of of where he's coming from.

So

I will um translate this to you guys in a way that I think you'll understand.

So in it in my um in my uh stream with the Theory Underground people, I basically talked about how Xi Jinping was the Hegelian revenge against

What Nick Land had kind of um

portrayed China as this like hyper

Uh accelerationist force of deterritorialization and it's gonna culminate in a complete kind of

Um

fracturing of the the the state and the polity and it's gonna lead to this kind of, you know you know, the whole Deleuzian sh thing, body without organs and infinite infinite work of difference and deterritorialization and

So on and so on.

So basically, um

I said, no, actually, Xi Jinping is the revenge of Hegel and Plato, and it's like it's restoring meaningfulness to this process of the, you know, which I interpreted in that video as the destruction of individual subjectivity itself, which Land identifies with the figure of the human in general, the human security system.

Or here he's calling it containment, right?

So Land is saying here in response to me, or, you know, he's musing about it, thinking about it, is that.

First of all, capitalism is not a goal.

It's not an ideology.

It's not something you intentionally strive for.

It's the inadvertent consequence of the failure of any kind of socialism, basically.

It's a very intelligent, very intelligent, dialectical perspective he has.

His way of talking about capitalism has always been profoundly dialectical.

Instead of capitalism being a self-contained system, what capitalism is, is the symptom of the failure of systems.

It's the failure of these self-contained systems.

It's always this inadvertent consequence that was never foreseen, but nonetheless is just spilling out.

So, Land, in his early writings, he will draw a lot of threads between what is called capitalism, incorrectly in my view.

I can talk about that in a second, and the structure of the subject as described by Freud, right?

So, for Freud.

Um, you know, you basically have the conceits of the ego within the conscious mind, and then you have the unconscious kind of spill out in between the cracks.

So you could just say this is like the Freudian unconscious, the drives Freud talks about, the id or whatever, right?

Nobody wants the Freudian unconscious, nobody wants drives, but they are containment failure.

They are, in the Lacan sense, they are symptoms of the failure of the stability of any kind of ego or identity, right?

And

You know, he his understanding of capitalism is very profound.

Um, I don't think it's capitalism, though, and I'll explain.

But this is what he's saying, you know.

This is what Marx wrote about in the Communist Manifesto when he said all that is solid melts into air.

So, but he's saying that he thinks there's something interesting about China because, in contrast to what he believes is the overall trajectory of history, by the way, this is something else I disagree with.

He's kind of saying China's interesting because for almost the entirety of its existence, it's managed to contain this deterritorializing process of infinite difference and dynamic social disintegration and competitive disunity and so on and so on.

And it was very successful at forestalling this and preventing it.

And

It took, you know, uh I think he's referring to the Italian city states.

It took

um something that happened in Europe for modernity to take off, right?

And then he's saying, but but what made China become the kind of accelerationist

He will hate this description.

Accelerationist Utopia that it was after Deng Xiaoping.

I'm only saying utopia in a very loose and kind of um reckless way because I'm not necessarily talking about like

An ideal image of some kind of social harmony.

I'm talking about it in the sense of like China was the vibe.

Like, that was the whole inspiration and aesthetic that was behind, like, you know, I think Land's thinking in the early 90s, just this extremely cha seemingly extremely chaotic, dynamic.

Process of just unleashing the forces of the market in ways that were not beforehand.

directly planned, at least from the vantage point of individual subjectivity.

And he's saying this was because of geopolitical competition, and that's what pressured China into embracing capital.

But he's basically saying that once the West started to collapse, the pressure came off from China and it's just returning to its old kind of ways, its old Confucian harmonious ways.

And now he's anticipating that, well, now MAGA is fixing the problem of the Western decline, so the pressure will be on.

Will China survive that?

He's saying, you know, is China going to be able to survive the interesting kind of chaos that is to come as a consequence of MAGA?

So that is what Land is trying to say here, if you don't understand.

Now, I would like to offer my thoughts.

My thoughts are as follows

I think

that land is not necessarily unjustified for having made the assumption or for having associated socialism with, you know, um a a society that is premised by some kind of contrived subjective um ought.

This is how things ought to be because of some mor morality.

This is

uh why you know things should be this way because it's designed better according to my perspective and so on and so on.

Because he is coming from the nineteen nineties in the University of Warwick in in Britain and the um

Just look at the leftists and the self-proclaimed socialists that he had been surrounded by.

They were definitely.

you know, Fabian socialists in practice at least.

They were subjectivistic.

They had this conception of socialism that was just based on something we want.

It's the utopia we're striving for.

It's gonna solve all of our problems.

And it's going to kind of reflect something that we have contrived as a consequence of some kind of subjective procedure or subjective conclusion we have drawn because of our feelings, because of our desires, because of our ideological views, and so on and so on.

But I would like to defend in contrast to that, and without anyone laughing, the sense in which Marx and Engels insisted upon their comprehension of socialism being scientific socialism.

And I want to clarify why scientific socialism is different from bourgeois or utopian socialism, which I think Land is contrasting capitalism to here.

So bourgeois socialism is in a sense always forward facing.

It's always in front of you.

It's a goal you want to create as a consequence of some kind of ideal, as a consequence of some kind of subjectivity, some kind of morality.

Whether that's democratic or collective is immaterial.

It's something that ought to be, that is not yet the case, okay?

But scientific socialism is actually profoundly conservative, at least from the perspective of a British Fabian socialist, because it is not actually saying that we want something to be that is not yet.

Rather, it is saying that something is already in the process of becoming.

And those are two very different things.

So, Land here is describing this inadvertent process by which we all have this expectation of some kind of social harmony and social planning and a planned, rational society.

But, like Chernobyl, there's a failure that leads to this kind of leaking of capitalism, this inadvertent consequence, which is this runaway decoding processes of marketization and so on, right?

But I think he is overlooking a little too much what socialism actually means in the Marxist tradition.

In the Marxist tradition,

You can actually flip this.

When Engels in Utopian and Scientific describes socialism, he precisely describes it in a similarly dialectical way, where capitalists pursuing their individual self-interests in this seemingly totally irrational and chaotic market, they're all just pursuing their own interests.

They're all just pursuing their own immediate desires for profit.

But

Something interesting happens inadvertently.

Inadvertently, right?

Engels, he even uses language that's similar to land.

It's so interesting.

He says: the invading socialist mode of production from the future.

Actually, in a way, like rationalizes all of these seemingly disparate and unrelated motivations of capitalist self-interest, which inadvertently come together in a way that actually facilitates socialism.

And I think historically that is not necessarily an incorrect conclusion, right?

The tendency of capitalism since the 19th since the time of Engels' writing was toward centralization and socialization.

The increased role of state intervention and planning

Planning at scales, I don't think

That the real symptom is is capitalism.

I think the real symptom is socialism.

Land is very, very correct for identifying the primacy of symptoms rather than kind of, you know, um

Uh proportionate kind of

Uh p how should I say?

Outcomes that reflect pre-established goals or pre-established conceptions.

Comrade Thomas, thank you so much, right?

So, on the one hand, you have symptoms.

In contrast to symptoms, you have just like, I want this, I directly get this, right?

A symptom is kind of like in the process of you trying to get what you want, you actually leak something which shows what you are, your real drive.

Like, this is what kind of what you really want, actually.

It's almost like you know.

Um

Like, do you know what I mean by that?

It's like you could uh okay, so I don't I don't wanna be obscene and like uh because Valentine's Day is has passed.

So but I'm trying to think about how I could

How it's it's just like a Freudian slip.

Like, what you really want is money or something, right?

But you're maybe you're a priest.

Look, I'll do this in a non-obscene way.

Let's say you're a priest and you're preaching, hallelujah, man, but then

It's like through a slip of tongue

And even the priest may not know it, he kind of reveals actually what he wants is just money, right?

This is kind of a a symptom, really crude way of me presenting a Lacanian symptom, versus, you know, a a direct

Kind of correlation between a desire and what one thinks one wants versus what one really wants, right?

So

He is kind of, it's the same structure, but at the as applied to the scale of like economic systems here, right?

Capitalism is not an economic system for land.

It is more like an ontological force that emerges as the symptom of the failure of economic systems to be even possible, right?

A system is by definition kind of like self-contained, and capitalism for land across history just proves the impossibility of that.

But I don't agree.

I think that it's flipped.

It's the opposite.

So I want to be like Nick Land's evil twin, which Dugan is supposed to be, by the way.

But here, I propose the exact opposite of what he's saying.

It's really socialism that is the inadvertent thing, that is the Chernobyl, if you will.

The Federal Reserve was Chernobyl.

You know, the emergence of imperialism, as Lenin described it, was Chernobyl.

The emergence of joint stock companies was Chernobyl.

The emergence of Amazon planning at scale is Chernobyl.

The emergence of, you know,

And it's such a profound dialectic because it's almost like a parallax view where you can look at it in both ways and they're both kind of correct in a way, right?

But that's because there's a dialectical tension we're dealing with here.

In the same way that China is a socialist country, which over the scale of decades, there's a lot of planning going on.

From the perspective of any plan that is comprehensible purely at the level of individual subjectivity, it appears as if the opposite is the case, that nothing is going according to plan and everything is just chaos.

It's like a thing that is emerging at the expense of what we subjectively are anticipating.

But my challenge to land here is more or less this.

Capital has a history and a form.

And if capital has history and form, what he describes as capital, it is not capital any longer.

It is the object that Marx and Engels identified as socialism, the object of scientific socialism.

Once capital begins to have form and has history that we can consistently identify, this thing has patterns.

It's not just this force of infinite detail.

It has a pattern.

It's a scale.

It's a civilizational pattern of reproduction.

And it's a mistake to say that is just capital.

That's too abstract.

So my criticism of Land is that he's too communist.

He's too communist in a way.

The reason he's too communist is because he is proposing a kind of notion of abstract communism, crude communism.

Capital here is a stand-in for abstract communism, whereas concrete communism is like socialism in one country, China, the USSR.

And it's what Land calls capital.

It's the same thing, but it has history, it has form, it has the consistency of a pattern.

And that is what makes it human.

It is what Dugan calls a logos.

So, um

So that is my provocative um response, I guess.

If you think about it, Land's capital is the ultimate utopian socialist, utopian communist sublime, because it is a pure difference without any kind of distinctions.

In and of itself, like it is a pure difference between in and out, and that is.

In a way, something that

Could also be presented as a utopian socialist community, right?

And and it on the one hand, it's exclusive because it belongs to the human, it belongs to a community of some kind.

But on the other hand, it it's this basic distinction between um

Uh

between something like um that exists in common

Insofar as it is self-same versus an outside.

So it's like for land, capital is for it's the same thing as what.

The shakers and the utopian socialist settlers who came to America were creating.

Like, here's our community, it's a pure difference where we're pure within the community, everyone's the same.

But then there's an outside, there's a wilderness with a bunch of savages, as they would see it, and you know, other things, and heathens, and infidels, whatever.

And for Len, that just that is capital, you know, in a way.

But that is the structure at the heart of capital.

And he says as much in Kant's Capital and the Prohibition of Incest, actually.

So, that's my response to that.

But I don't want anyone to dismiss what he's saying because it is profoundly dialectical.

I mean, Chernobyl is exactly what happened after the October Revolution.

Socialism in one country was Chernobyl.

I mean, the whole history of Marxism is recording Chernobyl's, it's recording inadvertent outcomes.

That did in fact John appreciate inadvertent outcomes.

That did, in fact, vindicate the revolutionary goal just in a way no one anticipated or could have possibly anticipated.

And actually,

appeared at first as a failure, but it but in fact was in the entire time the real goal, the whole time.

By the way, that is a logic baked into Marxism from the beginning.

And what everyone ne know who um was working on this.

I don't know, I didn't read uh his work on it, unfortunately.

But I think Ray Brassier was onto the same thing, that we have to return to the specific distinction.

Between Hegel and Marx, what did Marx do that set him apart from Hegel, right?

And that step is precisely that Marx regarded the real Chernobyl was humanity itself.

From the perspective of Hegel's total and rational system, real humanity and the proletariat in particular was Chernobyl.

It was the containment failure of Hegel's rational and total system.

And Marx recognized the proletariat or the human as the ultimate subject of history and even existence and humanity, you know, first humanity and then in particular the proletariat.

And that is precisely what Marx meant by the material human, the real human, in distinction to Hegel's spirit.

It was this total kind of embarrassment and inadvertent thing that wasn't supposed to be there.

And that was the containment failure, you know?

Um.

So it's not stumbling upon W's, it's more like stick it's more like tragically stumbling upon failures which are which are in fact W's, but just in ways no one expected, right?

Um now I wanna say a final thing.

I think land

is wrong in a way that China is an interesting case.

China is not interesting because what happ uh China was a containment containment failure in the same way that all of the Asiatic land empires were containment failures.

All civilizations sorry, not failures, they were all containment operations.

All civilizations were.

The interesting case was a few moments.

Uh Greece, the Greek moment,

And then what he describes here, which is the uh

Italian Renaissance and Europe.

That is the special thing, that is the exception.

Um

That's the exception.

That's what needs to be investigated really, because it's a real aberration to the norm of human history, which is the Asiatic mode of production.

Um but I want land maybe

If he would lower himself to such a level, I don't know.

Maybe I would, I don't know if he's interested in the idea of why is the chat gone?

Okay, I don't know if he's interested in the idea of the Mongol modernity.

That the zero-ruptured fragmentation zone was a reflection.

of the world civilization that was created by the Mongols and the gunpowder empire, that not necessarily even the Mongols, the Timurid uh Renaissance, which is itself a kind of alternative lost modernity.

And there was some kind of strange delay between.

The Mongol modernity and the um immediate

appearance of modernity, which happened in a dislocated literally dislocated and uh disjointed and delayed way in Europe.

And the connection was severed, at least in as far as the content of this modernity, self-consciously speaking, like it was lost.

The connection was lost.

It was forgotten.

But nonetheless, it was really the material foundation for it.

In the same way that Cyrus the Great was the foundation of the Greek moment, which was a similar, you know, fragmentation zone, the foundation of the 15th century fragmentation zone of the Italian city-states was Hingis Khan and Tamerling.

And the alienation between the two is what's really interesting.

And that that is the

That should be the most interesting historical object for Communists to think about.

And if you ask Marx and Engels, it's about Communism, because H Hingis Khan and Tamerlan, that was not consciously Communism.

That was not some kind of abstractly identified essence of sociality itself.

But the groundwork for um that was inadvertently created.

Now, in general, we have states and continuous um land empires and a notion of man that is abstract and general, which the Italian city states um

Drew out consciously and which you see shadows and traces of in the Timurid Renaissance, but it never quite got to the l level of of Logos, right?

Okay, I'm babbling now.

Um but basically finally, the third thing I want to talk about.

Uh Maga

I don't know.

I I don't think so.

I don't think we're headed for

Another K wave, because that's what it would take, another K wave.

I think we are still firmly in the prior.

K-wave of the rise of the information economy.

The only thing that's going to unlock another K-wave, so to speak.

Is the fusion energy?

I think the fusion energy um

Developments that are going on in China.

But I think what MAGA is doing when it's like ripping through all this stuff.

Is it a um, how should I say, um, ad hoc attempt at reform right before the collapse, similar to the Shaw's White Revolution, the reforms that preceded the French Revolution.

So I think it's going to be civil war.

I think it's going to be war in general.

I don't think it's going to be like a golden age of economic, interesting economic explosions, like Trump said.

I could be wrong, though.

I'm just sharing my perspective.

Anyway, that's my and I me and Land should talk sometime.

I think I heard that he's open to it.

Um

But I'm not exactly sure.

Um but anyway, uh that is but uh it's always very um

It's always an honor, you know, if he is thinking about.

Some of the things I said in uh

And uh you know intellectual

I am very tired right now.

I don't I don't I don't speak well.

He is taking seriously some of my ideas and I am very uh honored by it.

So that's it.

Anyway, guys, um

But we should have a discussion and I I won't be aggressive.

I have a tendency to be aggressive, even when I'm being nice, you know, cut people off and stuff.

But I will not be that.

But maybe I am the evil twin of.

By the way, you want to know something about Nick Land, I think.

Very good guy.

Like, really, really good guy.

He's like really bad and scary because he is recognizing those things.

But he is not like an asshole.

I think.

But maybe I'm an asshole, but I'm a good guy in in terms of what I recognize.

So it's like the evil twin thing.

Anyway, guys, enough of the comedy.

Let's bring people on for Confront the Chairman.

Uh the basic idea is that socialism is um inadvertent

Collective reality, which arises at the expense of individual subjectivity, not as a consequence of it.

So, anyway, where are we here for Confront the Chairman?

Nobody wants to confront the Chairman, no one, not a single person.

I mean, people don't confront the chairman.

I just shut the stream off early and I go my merry way.

Okay, Mercury, let's

Go ahead.

Alright I'll bring you.

I don't really have a concrete prompt.

Well, it's when I argued with Logo all the time, it always came down to Stalin.

So, you know, I've always tell you every time I come up here, I'd love to have a long-form conversation with you sometime because I don't like the gotcha game, but you're.

All right.

Sorry.

It's just.

You gotta like have something in mind, all right.

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

Uh

L whatever your name is, Lebon, what's going on?

Hey, what's up?

How you doing?

Good.

How are you?

I'm good, thanks.

So I uh I've I've always held the belief that when it comes to Marxism-Letternism and Sharia as a Muslim, uh I think uh well I mean two things I'd like to bring up regarding uh some of the practices of the ACP and I mean I'm not too aware of everything but just some things that I'd like to bring up and like recommend I guess.

I'm of the opinion that in a globalized industrial financial system that we have today that didn't exist a long time ago when this time was first revealed, you can very uh very in a real way make the case that Marxism-Letternism is the most practical way to apply Sharia in the modern day.

And that's just like one thing I like like to bring up and that kind of connects to my second point of I think there's a lot of power that can be held in working class communities and religious institutions.

Like as someone who I wouldn't usually like put this out online, but I'll just say like oh from the the Metro Detroit era you could probably assume where I'm from as a Muslim.

I recognize like the power that a lot of religious communities hold or l uh a lot of religious circles hold in these communities.

So I guess like what is the ACP doing to kind of ground itself in a lot of that.

For example, I think if uh

Sorry, this is all kind of like poorly formulated.

But I think if the ACP was doing more to kind of engage itself in religious communities and mosques and churches, things like that, I think there could be a lot of productivity there.

And I guess what is does the ACP have any planned initiatives to kind of undertake that or kind of merge itself with the religious understanding, religious essence, things like that?

Sorry if that was like poorly formulated.

No, it was really good.

You know, no objections from me about Sharia.

I agree, but I think that in America, because it's a majority Christian country, it's it I don't think communism has to be tied to Islam exclusively.

I think that I don't think so either.

Just like one example.

Right, right, of course.

Regarding the other things, we have chapters that already work with.

I mean, I agree with everything you've said.

They already work with churches, including, in one case, I think, an Orthodox church.

But why we have not worked with mosques and Muslim communities like Dearborn is just because the Michigan chapter is not, it doesn't have a very big presence in Metro Detroit yet.

So a lot of work needs to be done into building that up, but as of now, it just doesn't.

I do think, though, a lot of those connections can be made through religious communities.

No, no, no, I mean, or at least that's a great entry point.

You're right.

You know, there's like the UAW and all this kind of things like that.

Those are.

You're right, but I'm saying, like, right now, it's like just a matter of like in the Michigan chapter in Metro Detroit, there isn't like, there really isn't enough people right now to even go to the mosques and recruit or, you know, okay.

I understand.

But it, you know, it is growing, and that will probably change in the coming months.

But that's kind of why it would be really cool to have a Dearborn chapter of the party, you know, in particular.

Like, not, it wouldn't be separate from the Michigan chapter, but like one that is mainly rooted in Dearborn and the Muslim community.

That'd be really cool.

Um.

But we just don't have the people yet, to be honest.

Yeah, no, I get that.

And I think, yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

And I don't mean to take up too much of your time, but one last point.

I think one thing, I think the biggest pushback you're going to face, because again, I'm a Muslim person.

I have a lot of Shia friends, a lot of Sunni friends.

And one of the biggest pushbacks I get is this thing about communism being anti-religion, quote unquote.

Which I've, I mean, I know you, I'm aware of your positions on all this kind of stuff.

So I know like you wouldn't agree, but I feel like a really similar background to you.

And so trust me when I say that I know about that whole experience of being a Muslim, becoming interested in communism and Marxism and being told what you were being told.

Like trust me when I say that that is my whole adolescence.

I do think if you want to make those connections though, the most important thing to emphasize in these communities is the private property myth that you can't have your own individual productive domain so long as it's not anti-social.

You can have your own private domain as a home.

Emphasizing that stuff.

To be clear, Muslim civilizations.

All of the land was owned by the state.

There was no such thing as private property and land that could be alienated.

They didn't practice usury.

And, you know, the forces of exchange and trade were not.

They are not what dominated everything to the point where, if you were not good on the market, you still had land you could live off of, and you could still have a way of life, and you could have a community, and like, so I mean, um.

You know, capitalism destroyed Islamic civilization.

Absolutely.

It's still trying to destroy it.

But I would say that there is a lot of philosophy that goes into reconciling Marxism with Islam.

I also think Muslims should not be discouraged by feeling like Marxism is too alien.

Because Marxism never really did a lot to engage with Islam.

And philosophically, it is now just starting to really, in an in-depth way, have a deeper understanding of religion itself.

Back then, religion meant something very specific.

So religion was not a mass.

Well, it was a mass phenomena, but it was not being engaged with as a mass phenomena.

It was being engaged with as a philosophical phenomenon.

As a philosophical phenomenon, Marxists rejected religion because the philosophers of religion tended to be apologists for the status quo and the powers that be.

And you can also point to like the Eurocentric, you know, something like Islam, for example, is something he was not as familiar with.

But like, I'm of the argument that there is no real familiarity with Islam with Marxists.

I'm of the belief that ultimately, when you want to get into his economics and the socio-political aspect of everything, even if Marx doesn't know it himself, a lot of that stuff logically concludes and stuff that's like fully aligned with Islam.

I always like to say Ishtihad is dialectical materialism.

They're essentially the same thing.

Yeah, I mean, um.

I guess I would say that, um

You know

I think that, you know, it's just the specific background.

I think we probably share it.

You know, Shia from South Lebanon.

You know, we're looking at a very specific moment of the clash of.

A very hyper-modern, you know, um, globalization and so on and so on, with a very traditional culture.

And I think in Lebanon itself,

It's more harmonious actually.

Um there's more of a reconciliation and it makes more sense.

But being in America, it's there's a big culture shock for sure.

I think that's why Dearborn is so isolated in the way that it is.

It's just 'cause it's like it's contained that culture shock in a way that is like rational and harmonious and it makes sense and it's comfortable and it's familiar.

But it has not yet really fully drawn out the consequences of that specific kind of encounter.

Yeah.

I do think as long as communists are open about like we're not anti religion, we embrace religious communities, this is a mind I think there's a lot of productivity that can come out of that.

Like a lot.

We work with churches, we would love to work with mosques.

Um

So, I mean, yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say, but yeah.

Yeah, that's it.

Thank you for your time.

For sure.

All right, see you later, man.

Okay.

Uh all right, let's bring on Sebastian.

Go ahead, Amit.

All right, Sebastian's mic is.

We're going to bring on Versage.

Versage, go ahead.

Speak.

Speak.

I can't hear a fucking thing.

Is this for Sebastian or Versage?

Sorry.

Okay, I just got on.

Hey, man, I just wanted to ask you, the last caller had a good conversation, and like you and the last caller, I'm also a Muslim, but I converted when I was a, you know, Versage?

Okay.

I'm Versage.

Okay.

Yeah.

So yeah, I converted when I was a late teenager and always been into that kind of spirituality and Islam?

Yeah.

Yes, sir.

So anyways, I've always had this preconceived notion about communism for a long time and that it was anti-religious.

And that's the propaganda that I understood here.

Somebody living in the West and who's also into religion.

And I've learned lately that that's all been, you know, a lot of propaganda lies for whatever reason.

And the type of Marxism that's promoted here in the West, which reading your analysis, especially your Marx is not woke, made me realize a little bit that a lot of propaganda has been used in the West that, you know, and other places, other societies of the world that have histories such as China and Russia, where they actually did work with these places.

So I think it's interesting to hear your approach, and it's really refreshing.

I think, as the last caller said, if you reached out to churches, mosque, communities, religious, to show them that we're not against religion.

We're actually for religion and we're for civilization.

As you said before, in your previous video.

I would like to, you know, maybe quickly, and then this is the last thing I want to talk about when it comes to religion.

But because you know, I'm not a priest or something, but basically, like in the beginning, Marxism was very, very hostile to religion when it came to religious subjectivism.

Okay, it was very hostile to that because.

It was a kind of philosophical idealism that said, you know, let's just.

You know, I guess stick our thumb in our ass and think about the clouds instead of real life.

And there was a hostility to kind of metaphysics and just gibbering over stupid things that were just not relevant to an immediate kind of struggle where people are dying and it's like people are on the street and it's like a very immediate.

So there was that hostility that was toward this kind of idealistic subjectivism of religious philosophers who kind of stuck their nose in the air.

And it was just.

So there was an immediate dismissal of religion in favor of real life, right?

But

Over the experience of communist governance, and under Stalin in particular.

There was a wisdom gained where, look, okay, first of all, there's this religion thing, it's like very much ingrained in the masses.

It's part of what they are, it's part of who they are, and it goes a lot deeper than this just like subjectivistic gibber.

Like, it goes way deeper than that.

And it's very, it's like on, it's a fundamental ontological experience.

For example, the great patriotic war, people are on the verge of death.

They really kind of tap into, like, okay, so this is what it was about, right?

Kind of thing.

And that made religion something no longer individualistic, no longer this kind of individualistic, luxurious province of jibber-jabbering.

But something definitely spooky and real, you know, something to take.

The sacred kind of re-emerges in a way.

And then Stalin comprehends that very clearly.

So, you know, Stalin starts to begin to regard religion as a legitimate historical phenomenon.

You know, he's telling Enver Hoxha, he said, because Hoxha is kind of cracking down on Islam.

And Stalin says, listen, Islam has been part of what these people are for hundreds and hundreds of years.

So who are you to reverse that?

He says, you shouldn't offend their religious feelings.

It's part of their legitimate historically constituted existence.

So then there's that kind of perspective of like it's part of the objectivity of history.

And just like we're scientific socialists, we have to acquiesce to the laws of history and to the real socialism, not a socialism that exists in our head, the real one.

Like this is part of that.

But then there's still a kind of distance, you know.

But

Religion the status of religion is is elevated.

And I think that Stalinist wisdom can be taken further, you know, which is that religion doesn't need to be comprehended in the way that.

It was

It manifested in the kind of enlightenment, post-Enlightenment era of Western philosophy.

You know, there's more to it than that.

And, um,

There can be a materialist religiosity, which is non-individualistic, non-subjectivistic, and

And it has to be united with a kind of ontological outlook.

And that is something I think is really interesting.

And we're on a cusp of a new renaissance of religious materialism, I think, because there are so many thinkers.

The first ones were coming from the Catholic side of things.

Like Louis Altuser and others.

And still, it's very fashionable, the Catholic.

There's the Protestant side of things.

Now we kind of see Orthodox Orthodoxy.

I know that there are traditionalist thinkers in Russia who draw heavily from Ilyenkov and kind of unite that with a traditionalistic Orthodox outlook.

And of course, it can happen with Islam as well.

So we're on the cusp of a renaissance of religious materialism, I think.

And it will.

It will not contradict the atheism of the Marxists, of the you know, Marx and Lenin, which I think was legitimate, but it will just enrich that by saying actually, under our noses the whole time, the religion of the masses was always materialistic.

You know?

Um.

And you know, the religious rejection of materialism as a philosophical principle.

That's really the issue.

That doesn't come from religion.

That comes from philosophers of religion.

And philosophers of religion really are pagans.

They're not actually coming from the religious soul, the heart of religion.

They're coming from the Greek kind of pagan idolatry of ideas and thoughts.

So.

That is my especially here in the West where idealism is kind of running rampant, and it still is today, and there's this division.

I mean, look, if you ask me, the Bible is a materialistic text.

The but the Bible is materialist, it is absolutely talking about real, the real world.

It is not, you know, what about all the supernatural stuff?

And it's like, well, that they're not trying to say that.

They're trying to give expression to something very real, you know?

Which we have sense in maybe somewhere where the Lord's Prayer was something was that Michael Hudson.

Yeah.

Right, yeah.

I mean, look, when we convey meaning, you want to know, okay, I'm going to debunk the idea that the Bible, the Quran, it's all like they contain supernatural claims, right?

For me to communicate ideas to you, I'm not always using language that reflects empiricism.

So, for example, when I, if I tell you the cat's out of the bag, like am I actually talking about a fucking cat in a bag?

No, I'm trying to tell you like, you know, like the truth is out, you know?

Or when I, you know, when I use an expression, when I'm writing in a book and I say, you know, even there's even words whose etymology we don't even remember anymore, but which actually mean things empirically that totally contradict the meaning in which they're being used to describe.

So for example, I could be like writing a book, let's say, and I could say, um,

I could say uh you know, he he embarked upon a journey to convince as many people as possible and he casted a very wide net over the masses.

I'm actually fucking saying he's using a literal net

You know?

To like actually

Like a literal, no, I'm not.

I'm using a figure of speech.

So you see that a lot of that is in the Bible, you know?

It's not just metaphors, it's like ways of talking about things and communicating meaningful things about reality that made sense to the people who lived during that time, but which don't necessarily make sense to us today.

You know?

So, yeah, like capital, if I talk about capital, I have a lot of capital.

And then 500 years from now, they're like, oh, capital meant cattle because we trace the etymology of cat.

It's like, well, I didn't mean a fucking cow.

It's just like the etymology of the word.

So religion is actually materialist.

These are materialistic texts.

And um they were obscured and distorted by charlatans to trick people.

Anyway, Versage, thank you so much for coming on, but that's the last t thing about religion I'm gonna be talking about.

Uh cat person

Go ahead.

I don't know.

What was I gonna say?

Uh what are the uh

What is it called?

I writ wrote this down, but where are the uh

Gosh darn it.

Can't find it.

What are the

And right.

Uh where is the ACP's the ACP's plan for Arkansas, if they have any?

Um, good question.

I think uh we our chapters are pretty decentralized.

So right now we have no central plans for Arkansas, but um

We have a guy in the Politburo who's from Arkansas, you know.

So we have a presence in flyover states, you know.

We're by no means an exclusively coastal phenomenon.

So plans are coming, I guess, I would say.

Okay.

In s section A of section one A of the thing, the

I don't know.

Uh what's the different roles of the executive yeah, what's the different like executive board roles?

What do they do exactly?

So we have the Department of Personnel, we have the Department of Education, we've got the Media Department, and um we've got the uh Treasury Department, we have the International Department.

Uh where could I read more about the different departments and what they do?

We I don't think we've published that in a really super accessible way yet, but I think we're we're planning on that for reasons you're you're asking, you know, 'cause people are interested.

Okay.

I think that was all I was gonna ask.

Thanks for answering.

Thank you.

Ay Sebastian.

Last chance.

And then this is the last guy, guys.

Go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Alright, so I just want to for a moment just contribute to the Marxist materialism conversation by saying that materialism for me has always been a world str like a world a worlding.

So embedding like social critique, political action into our way of understanding a material reality.

So ideological critique is part of materialism, and that's what one of the things I think people should really study Althus there a little bit more.

I don't really agree, but I'm not too interested in I mean this is confront the chairman, so let's skip about ACP.

All right, so my issue that I want to bring up, I brought up last week, which I didn't have any evidence for, but this time I'm more prepared.

I wanted to start off the debate, if that's what the I was going to have a discussion at first, but then I'll go back to the debate.

The debate was last time I asked you about the situ the Chinese offshore bank accounts, and I asked you to give me the benefit of the doubt regarding the evidence in that situation, and you did not.

Can you ex can you and I think that's kind of important to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we don't have the evidence on hand.

We we are all working under the fog of war.

I just removed him 'cause like I I'm sorry, but this is about the ACP.

I don't I don't wanna fucking have a conversation about the metaphysics of the benefit of the doubt.

I would like you to bring up some concrete questions or accusations or something about the party.

Oh fuck.

It's like yeah, this is like fing why feds are the ones that exclusively target us because no actual like human being like really gives a fuck to attack our party.

It's literally just like people pay to do it and they get their botted shit.

Like nobody f will actually fucking confront me.

Um

you know, see something.

Alright.

I think we're done here.

Shown?

Go ahead.

What's up?

Alright, so a few years ago, this is ACP-related, I would think, because it reflects your views, but maybe these are just your views.

You said that you can't reduce love down to uh an equation or m uh metrics in general.

Is that right?

Something like that.

I don't I'm not being paid to talk about this kind of shit.

Like, what is what is this?

What is this?

I'm too busy for this shit.

I straight up am.

I'm too busy.

I'm just too busy.

Like what the fuck?

How is that related to the party at all?

Confront the chairman with what the hell?

Yeah.

People are always saying so much bullshit about us, and I just wish one person would actually like confront us about it.

Go ahead, got last guy.

Hi, um, are you did you call on me?

Yes, I did.

Yeah, I did.

I did.

Can can you get the uh phone out of the toilet?

I do have a question for you.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

What is this?

What is your question?

All right, f can you guys hear me?

Thumbs up if you can hear me, or if I'm muted in the space.

Alright, you guys can hear me, alright.

So, this is a troll?

What's the point?

Well, I have a question, and I'm just not gonna say shit.

Fifteen seconds.

Fifteen.

Fourteen.

Thirteen.

Twelve.

Eleven.

Ten.

Nine.

Eight.

Seven.

Six, five, four, three, two, one.

They're gone, right?

I have two requests that I cannot see.

Oh boy.

I deal with so much stupid ass shit, man.

Right.

Alright, let me see.

Alright, they're back.

Go ahead.

Hey, I'm sorry.

I think something happened.

I had to leave and come back.

Um, I do have a question about ACP though.

All right, go ahead.

Um just wondering what ACP's plan is for gaining political power.

Because I do see that the party is gaining momentum, but do you have a specific strategy or a time line

Oh, laid out.

Okay, yeah, that's not a bad question.

So, um, we uh, our strategy is basically based on the idea of dual power.

So, we don't think we have a chance of overthrowing the government, but we think that there are contradictions propelling the USA to constitutional crisis and dissolution, and in some form or another, civil war.

Just a level of disruption and chaos that will probably disrupt life such that it will be difficult for people to get on with their normal routine of things without a lot of chaos and uncertainty, and so on, and so on.

So, we'd like to build.

A footing locally in communities and establish ourselves as legitimate leaders that can actually organize people.

And I mean, how do we think we can do that?

Well, I think that

Putting oneself selflessly in the service of a collective principle.

is the stuff out of which, you know,

um the leadership of a state comes from, you know.

If you can have an organization dedicated to leading people, um, selflessly, by the way, and um, organizing them,

I think

That will go a long way if it's competent enough, if it's consistent enough, if it's done on a scientific basis.

So when you learn from the experience of the October Revolution and the Maus Revolution, you know, it's always been dual power that was the key.

Um to actually seizing power.

Not necessarily some adventuristic like overthrowing of the state.

Now, the person who did do that was uh Castro and Che.

They actually did just straight up like you know, they got off on a boat and they just straight up overthrew the government.

But that was also a form of dual power in a way that a lot of people don't often appreciate because Che's focus theory.

Was very much based in building a presence in the countryside to encircle the cities and.

Build power in rural places, m armed power basically.

You know, I'm not advocating that's illegal, but I'm just saying that was a form of dual power as well when you think about it.

Um the coercive power of the state was something that was in a way like a dual power was made relative to that 'cause it was a military dictatorship of Batista.

In that case.

So, um

Dual power is basically the short answer.

I mean, uh, you can look at some of the things we do, community service.

We're building good standing within communities.

We want to get involved in local politics.

We're getting involved in labor organizing.

Having a good standing with America's truckers and you know

Workers, it's per it's very important to any strategy for something like that.

That's my short answer, I guess.

Okay, so

We're gonna say going once, going twice, going once, going twice.

Sean, you can come back for one second.

Go ahead.

If you talk about anything cringe, you're banned.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

All right, I'm back up.

Uh do you want me to just cut to the chase instead?

Um okay uh I think that uh you're going about treating these uh we'll call them incels.

You're treating these incels as if they're some

If what you're saying is true and I debated you like three years ago.

And you're still talking about the incel crisis as if it's like a serious thing or whatever?

If that's where you're coming from, it's like

It's been three fucking years.

Okay?

You waited to get into this space.

It's such a big problem for you.

It's like, fuck.

What do you want from me?

Do you know how stupid that shit sounds?

Can you think about if imagine a hundred years ago?

Over a hundred years ago.

Let's say a hundred and five, a hundred and ten years ago.

You meet Lennon.

And he gives you the time of day, and you're sitting in a cafe or something.

You know, he's expecting you to have some important information, you have something interesting, important to say.

You sit down in person, you get up a chair, you sit down, you go.

We need to talk about the mathematics of incels.

And he's going to say, What's an incel?

He says, Well, it's dudes that can't get pussy.

He would stare at you for thirty five seconds, in silence,

Then you're you would have your ass beat, and you'd be tossed out of the cafe into a garbage dump.

And discarded as a crazy person.

Okay.

So all I did was remove you from the space.

That's all I'm saying.

All right.

But it's like a lot of stupid shit I deal with all the time is my problem.

You know, like I deal with a lot of dumbass shit 'cause I'm on the internet where anyone can say anything.

Um

Psycho not.

Go ahead.

Yo!

Unmute!

Fuck this.

Fuck this shit.

Fuck this.

We're done, we're done with the whole space.

Done with the whole space.

Um, maybe I'll go live Sunday.

Um

The space is done.

Space is over, all right.

It's it's it's over.

Um, there we go.

You know, guys, these confronted chairman spaces, they're getting a little old, okay?

They're getting a little fucking old because it's like.

Nobody actually confronts the chairman, right?

Nobody actually confronts the chairman.

What do you mean I need an assistant?

What are you talking about?

That shit is so true though.

I do need a fucking assistant.

That is not wrong.

But you know what you need for an assistant?

You need money.

Okay.

Um

We're not quite at that level.

Maybe one day I can hire a secretary.

Yeah, deal with a lot of dumbass shit.

Um

Uh being my assistant would be a fucking nightmare.

Being my secretary would be a fucking nightmare.

Straight up.

It would be a nightmare for anyone.

It would literally be like hell.

No uh you couldn't survive nobody could survive that.

I'm not even kidding.

Um yeah, that's not a good idea.

Um

Yeah.

Yeah.

That guy came on, he's like years ago you said love can't be a mathematical formula.

What?

And then he comes back on.

He's like, look, I'll cut to the chase.

I was thinking he's going to like this profound, he's going to somehow, like.

say something about the party and like, you know, the the the the metaphysics of

Party structure.

I don't know.

He's like.

When you're saying that all these incels, it's like what?

What the fuck it

I'm you know what I'm interested in?

How does that relate to the mathematics, the mathematical formula of love?

I want to know like what he's cooking.

But I actually don't.

But I just it's so bizarre.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, p lota boring people came up though, talking about nothing.

Such a shame.

Such a shame.

You have a free assistant for me from the USSR.

Zoya, thank you so much, but I do not think.

Anyone could survive being an assistant for me.

It would not.

It's so loady!

Have you talked about the shakers?

No, I just know of the shakers off the top of my head as one of the examples of like utopian socialist communities in America.

Um

One of the things an assistant would have to do is like write emails, but I could never trust anyone to write an email for me.

'Cause it's just not me, it doesn't sound like me.

So I'm just gonna wait for AI.

Hyperabundant solar energy, I don't.

It's gonna be fusion, okay?

It's not a K wave.

K wave is like fusion energy type of shit.

Wow.

Fusion energy is the future.

Definitely.

We are stuck in a paradigm of energy that is very like outdated and stupid.

And that is holding a lot back.

I want you guys to just think about fucking gaming PCs.

Sometimes I check in on the world of gaming PCs, not 'cause I'll ever get one, but because uh I remember when I used to shop for them.

Um I have the one that I have now when I first started streaming because I was anticipating that I'd be playing some games on Twitch.

I really never did.

Um but sometimes I like check it out to see what's going on and I like I notice how like how inefficient they are with power.

It's like fucking crazy.

It's like they're super big and loud and they take up so much power.

And I'm like, you know, we are really stuck.

With old energy paradigms right now.

And I think that's going to be the next big thing.

I mean, by the way, that's always the thing with K waves, is that they start with energy revolutions.

Steam engine, and then you know, from the steam engine, you get, I don't know, the fucking.

Trains, you know.

And then you you started to have uh combustion engines combined with uh oil.

Versus coal and electricity and that, you know, automobiles came from that.

And then, you know, we um

We started to get going with nuclear power.

And then from electricity, you know, we had digital.

Um

Uh technologies.

And then uh we have the information age.

And it's like we're due for an a revolution in energy, you know.

I think solar is retarded and it's not gonna be that big, but I could be wrong.

I know China's investing a lot in it.

I from what I know about the power grids that solar depends upon or whatever, it's like not super efficient.

AI is not is the least impressive thing because AI was uh you know uh AI is like old.

Way older than you think.

It's all about algorithms.

And all the AI, the whole AI paradigm is from the cybernetics, the cybernetic paradigm that began in the 50s.

Okay.

So that the AI is just a logical consequence of something that was very old.

It's not a K-wave, a new K-wave.

It's just, we're just drawing out something that was always there.

A real K-wave is like something you didn't expect, you know, something that wasn't predestined necessarily, but it's going to change up the whole paradigm.

That's a real K-wave.

You know, AI is just kind of like, yeah, you're taking it to.

I mean, put it this way: in 1970, they knew that we were going to have the AI we have now, you know.

You know, it's not super impressive to me.

I mean, I remember AI, we all knew AI was coming in the way that it has.

Yeah, they're talking about neural networks in the eighties.

It's really nothing that new.

It's just that's a quantitative thing, you know, like everyone knew it's just the chips have to get smaller and they have to get better and, you know, they have the processors have to get more um

More uh what what would be the worst?

More transistors?

I don't know.

They have to get smarter, I hate saying smarter, but whatever.

Efficient more computing power.

Yeah, they have to be able to compute more.

So, you know, that we knew that we fucking knew that.

You know, nothing is new.

Fusion energy will unleash a lot of new things that we do not currently anticipate.

If we have fusion energy, put it this way: fusion energy is going to change up the game so much because how small can these fusion reactors get?

We don't fucking know.

We don't know.

Like, what's the limit?

Um

And there's going to be so many new small inventions with respect to transportation, personal consumption and use, that we can't even imagine or envisage or anticipate right now because

We're not operating within a paradigm of energy use that

Just makes that a logical natural consequence.

Anyway guys, uh we're gonna wrap it up right now and I'm gonna end the stream.

So

We're gonna wrap it up.

We're gonna wrap it up.

Gonna wrap wrap it up.

Your orders two things

Ramp it up with the party.

I've got to tell you that explicitly.

Ramp it up.

Now is not the time to relax.

But two, still the InfoWar.

Still.

Always, we're never ever going to abandon the fight against the online class enemy, so to speak.

We're never going to abandon that fight.

You're always going to have to be vigilant combating lies and bullshit about us.

But now it's possible to also focus on.

Um

you know, the positive stuff.

We have completely destroyed the ringleaders.

Um

To they've taken a severe blow, like big time.

I mean, they are just totally fucking wrecked.

But

Until we finish it legally, you know, we're gonna still have to be dealing with it to some extent.

More like side quests, you know.

But anyway, guys, I will see you soon.

Bye-bye.

See you later.

Bye-bye.

Am I forgetting something?

No.

I have a surprise coming.

And you'll hear more about it tomorrow.

Bye-bye.