DEBATING LIBS/GROYPERS/SEETHING OPS

of a bad night

That shit that I linked.

Stop.

Fucking being lazy, boost.

What is up, everybody?

What is up, Gorillas?

And Cardi, what's goin' on, bro?

Hey yo!

What's going on, everybody?

is bright in here.

It's a little bright in here.

Oh, that's right.

I'm bright.

I'm just shining like the sun.

Because y'all were saying you like it when it's more muted and it's dimmer and darker.

Well, we're turning up the.

It's so, as a matter of fact, it's so bright.

It's so bright.

I'm gonna need to have some protection.

Okay, that's how bright it is.

Nah, I'm kidding.

This ain't protection.

Are you understand?

I'm wearing sunglasses.

'Cause my eyes are not looking at no bitch ass people that I'm talking to today.

My eyes are on the prize.

I'm not looking at these bitch ass people that I can get in my V C, get in my Twitter space and talk that shit.

My is on the prize.

You understand?

These uh frogs?

That's what they called?

They call themselves the frogs.

Is that it?

Fat frogs?

Fat, obese frogs that don't go to the gym, that don't train militantly, that don't shoot guns, they don't do anything.

They're a bunch of fat frog fucks that we rip apart like gorillas on accident.

Gorilla logo.

Let me tell you about gorillas.

Gorillas, there was a gorilla named Coco, Coco the Gorilla.

Coco the Gorilla.

This gorilla kept asking for a pet k kitten, a pet cat.

Meant no harm.

Kept killing the cat on accident.

Just by petting it and it was killing the cat.

I'm against that.

I love cats, by the way.

But God forbid we come into proximity with some fucking frogs.

God forbid some accidents happen.

You understand?

Anyway.

We're too strong, we're too powerful.

We come into proximity with them and they

They fold, okay?

I see these people in my replies.

I have actually been kind of not taught I didn't understand.

I'm getting a better idea of these retarded subcultures.

For one year or for two years, these people are always in my replies.

Every time I post some extremely based

Aura.

They're in my replies, ribbit, ribbit.

And it's just like, you can smell the gynecomastia.

You can smell the low-T, estrogenic, Funko Pop, smelly energy from these disgusting degenerates that talk on my name.

And every single time I've spoken to a groiper in real life, which has happened back in the day, I'd be streaming, and sometimes, I think you caught them on stream.

Every single one had a lisp.

They'd go, Hi, Hath, what do you think of the Kafowic monarchy?

What if we have the Kappowic monarchy and we have a wet brown alliance?

And they've always had a lisp.

And I know why these people don't like me because I am scary to autistic retards.

I'm a hairy Arab yelling man that domineers these people.

Frankly, I mean, they talk shit on X, but in person, I domineer them.

Why?

Because I am a massive person.

I am not the.

I am not the tallest, I will concede on that, but I am quite massive compared to these limp wristed, weak twigs.

Unless they're fat, in which case

They are a bundle of weak mass, and I am strong mass.

And they can see the full force coming at.

Pah, pah, pah!

Not literally, by the way.

Just metaphorically.

Anyway, let's talk about

Let's talk about what do we have to talk about.

I you know what?

Before we talk about anything, let's start the space.

Let's start the space before we talk about anything, because

These and also there's the Trotskyites.

There's the Trotskyites.

You see the Trotskyites and the Groipers have allied apparently.

And also left comms and all these disgusting fascist vermin.

I mean we Stalinists don't see a difference.

We've never seen a difference.

Trotsky was working with the Nazis.

He was a Nazi.

They're all the same thing in our eyes.

Just a bunch of Nazi vermin.

That we crush.

We march over them.

We are gorillas and we don't we sometimes we're walking and we mow these people down.

Osos, let's go By the way guys, we are two hundred away from one thousand.

Full power level

You will see a different version.

I'm just kidding.

Anyway, let's start the uh let's start the

Let's start the space, shall we?

What the hell?

Let's start the space.

Yo, that's what I like to see, Blazer.

What's going on with the 10?

That's what I like to see for the war chest.

Alright.

I have an incredible space title, k?

So we have an incredible space title.

Remember the professionalism thing.

Ah, eh.

Anyway, join the space or or spread that.

I don't know.

Spread the word.

Spread the space.

I don't know.

We're here.

The space is here.

Okay.

Now let me talk about why these people will never join us and why we never want to recruit from the groipers.

I don't know why groipers are in my replies all the time.

You're not the subject.

You're not the subject.

You're not the revolutionary subject.

You are the lumpin.

You are neats.

You have no job.

You have no employment.

You love chicken nuggies and chalky milk.

You are not my sub.

My intended subject are people that wake up and lift and they have discipline and they go to the gym and they're tough and they sacrifice.

They don't just consume.

They produce.

These are not producers.

They are moochers.

They're consumers.

They're parasites, if you will.

Sorry, but you are not the subject.

You are not my audience.

My audience are the people that are willing to inflict a little bit of pain upon themselves.

Sacrifice, if you will, to produce something new and make something of their life.

For example, when you go to the gym and you lift, is that consumption?

It's not.

It's production.

You are creating muscle.

It is pain.

You are inflicting pain on yourself.

You're not consuming Funko Pops or Laboobus or matcha lattes.

You are doing something.

Same that is.

They don't get that.

Those people do not understand that.

They are weaklings.

And that's why one of us is worth thousands of them.

They don't go to the gym.

They don't train.

They don't fight.

They don't do anything.

Circuit, what's up?

They don't shoot guns.

They don't do anything.

They're a bunch of weaklings.

And what they are, they're cattle.

They're cattle chewing grass.

They are obese, fat, and useless.

They chew grass and they consume anime and video games and chalky milk and chicken nuggets.

But they call them chicken nuggies because they're so disgusting.

And I know that I scare autistic people.

I'm not trying.

To deny that, I know that they are afraid and they are uncomfortable.

They're like, I don't like this guy, he's not like my anime Waifu.

I am not here to bring you smiles and joy, I'm here to bring you pain and suffering.

Only when you pass through the fires of my pain and suffering will you come out a better person.

Tank, what's going on?

Only when.

You are willing to be yelled at by your own voice in your head, to light a fire under your ass, stop blackpilling, go to the gym, start lifting, start training, start running, start doing things that cause you pain and discomfort.

And fear

And then you will be eligible to be one of my soldiers.

Until then, you are not my target audience, you are a bitch with bitch tits.

And everyone can detect that from how you type.

They are black pillars, that's what they call them, black pillars.

I absolutely dominate these people in every regard, physically, spiritually, mentally, in every kind of way they are dominated and destroyed by my mere presence.

They feel as though they are a conquered people in my midst.

And it makes them deeply uncomfortable and deeply they start doing the autistic screeching so typical of their pathetic

tribe, if you can even call it that.

I don't call it a tribe, I call it more like a herd of cattle chewing grass, awaiting the real wolves,

To have some fucking dinner.

And you know what?

I'm pretty fucking hungry.

So why don't we bring these people up?

This person who has Arabic

In their name.

Go ahead.

Hello hoss.

One second, pause, uh can you say something?

I can't hear you.

We can hear you.

We're just waiting for you to say something.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Very good.

Very good.

So, Haas, you believe in reindustrialization of the United States.

That is correct?

Yes, I also believe in topics that aren't fucking boring.

Oh, it's well, yes, but you know, let's say uh the twenty years happen.

I'm a I'm a twenty year old, you know, from like ACP dictatorship starts, and then I look like the elephant man.

Like, what what what's gonna happen?

And I can't what do you mean if you're like really fat?

No, you get fat from all the c coal fumes burning and you look like the elephant man, you know?

Then you fucked up.

You didn't do your job right.

Follow the safety manuals.

OSHA will take care of it.

Our new and updated version.

Okay, I'm I'm sure that Osha's uh what if it's from the inhalation and you just live near there and you you die from like inhaling all of it?

We'll fix it through environmental engineering.

Don't worry.

Oh, yeah, okay, okay.

But you know, I'm in the first generation.

You didn't get all the kings covered.

So like, what what else?

I have no video games.

I have no hentai.

I have no porn.

What am I gonna do?

You know?

You're gonna fucking work and you're gonna go to the gym and you're gonna lift.

And then, if you do and then five percent of your time will be spent on recreation, and that five percent of your time you can have cigars, you know, you can uh you can have good food, you can perhaps go on boats.

You can go on boats, you can go hiking, you can go in the woods, you can see nature, you can do you can hunt, you can go to the range and shoot, you can do boxing, there's all sorts of things that are healthy habits for men that don't involve fucking anime and pornography.

Yeah, but what what if any time I take a step I fucking literally collapse 'cause my my my well my legs don't support my own body weight?

What am I gonna do?

If you're f because you're fat?

No, not 'cause I'm well, I'm fat, but I have like fifty tumors from all inhaling all the radioactive coal.

I just told you we're going to do environmental engineering and cure all the time.

Yeah, yeah, but the first generation doesn't work.

You know, you know, it's always a process.

You know, no, you're wrong.

You're wrong.

Well, you know, it's going to be really tough for the first generation.

I think it's more of a mentality issue.

I think you have the wrong mentality.

Okay.

Bye-bye.

I already gave you the solution.

You're just not willing to listen to it.

Well, that was absolutely pathetic.

If that's really all we're dealing with, that's absolutely pathetic.

And they're always in my replies, but they never reveal their voices because they have lisps.

I'm a guiper and you know what?

I'm a guiper.

Haz, I'm a guyper.

What about the Catholic monarchy?

Can we have a Catholic monarchy like Water the Wings?

I watch Water the Wings, it's my favorite movie, Haz.

Water the Wings doesn't have the brown people in it.

Haz, I wanna watch Ward of the Wings.

We put America first.

Where are they?

Where are the lispy frogs?

They are very they're very, um

distinguished and powerful when they type on the keyboard, but when they speak with their voice

Things start to change, don't they?

Someone said, I'll debate you.

Go ahead and get in the either get in the Discord or get in the Xbase.

Whatever, pick your poison.

Okay, there's plenty actually there's a lot of people that committed to debating, inc including the um isn't there like a Trotskyite cuckold who's like passing his girl around to groipers and Nazis?

And he's really upset that we called him out for it.

Where's that guy?

Where's the Trotskyite who's a cuckold?

Where's the cuckold Trotskyite?

Who's uh introducing his fine beloved to all of his fine Groiper allies.

Where is that gentleman?

He seems to be very upset with me on a personal level.

He says he wants to fight me and all these things.

I'd like to hear a fight challenge with his voice.

I wonder

Uh oh, is this Chris Crypto, the Taco Truck Guy?

Here we here's the Taco Truck Guy.

Hello.

How are you?

Good.

Do you have good connection from your taco truck?

Yeah.

Um, I just wanted to let you know your glasses are too small and you look like a retard in 'em.

And he left.

He just disconnected.

Wow.

He just disconnected.

I can't believe he just disconnected.

That's incredible.

Well, look, my glasses may be too small, but I am such a massive and gargantuan man in terms of muscle mass and bone mass that I can't help it.

I can't help having high tea in my blood.

I d these small glasses, they don't they're not meant for men like me.

They're just I just wear them to be somewhat relatable to people like you, to try my best.

But as you can see the glass it doesn't even work.

It's like my my massive skull

It's just too powerful.

And it's impossible that a man of my width and power level could even relate to someone as small and pathetic as you, snapped like a twig.

By the mere wind.

Anyway, where are these people?

He he literally said that and ran away, by the way.

He said that and and by the way, Chris Crypto, a guy who we know, what he we know what he looks like.

That's the thing.

The funny thing about him is we know what he looks like.

He's talking about people looking like a retard.

You don't look like a retard, sir.

You are a retard.

You are physically a retard.

Um in any case.

I just wanna let you know that you're your glasses, don't see you, and hate you like what you got, you hate my life, I hate you!

Anyway

Where are our challengers?

Let's get the challengers.

You ruined my life, Harvard!

You made me go to the Gripers!

You ruined it!

I wanted to be a communist!

And you made me go!

It's like you are mentally violated.

I don't know what to tell you.

You are shattered.

Your soul is shattered.

Your spirit is shattered.

You're a nothing.

You're a piss ant.

Y you literally are nothing, you're literally a nothing.

Like you crashed out.

That's the cred the the pipeline from people that claim to be from our camp that go to the Groipers who are Trotskyites and they're all sorts of seething, bitter people because they're like, Haz, you're an Arab, you don't belong here, you're brown.

Uh but I am here.

But I am here and you you avow yourself a conquered people in my midst.

I am here.

What are you gonna do about it?

I'm waiting to see you do anything about it, bitch.

You step on my shit, you're gonna get slapped into the ground like anybody else.

Welcome to the Wild West, bitch.

Anyway, who wants to come on and speak?

You're brown and you're brown and I'm here.

And I'm here.

And it's literally, you're literally impotent.

You can't do anything about it.

Does anyone want to whine about how I'm brown and I'm apparently uh unwelcome in apparently their land, even though they don't work and they they drink chalky milk and eat chicken nuggies and they have a lisp?

Um hmm.

Really?

No one is here.

No w not a single person is requesting.

That's profound.

I can smell the fear.

I can smell the fear of the ops who I know are listening to this, but they won't join because of the fear.

Because of the fear, how pathetic how pathetic

How pathetic

How pathetic.

Let's see.

I need a co-host.

Maybe I need a co-host.

Maybe I just can't see these people requesting.

Maybe, maybe, maybe they are requesting and I just can't see.

Hmm Who can help co host and pull people up that I can't see?

Um

invited someone.

If you can, it'd be appreciated.

But I don't think anyone's requesting, that's the thing.

It's quite sad.

It's quite sad.

A LARP?

A LARP?

A LARP?

We're LARPing, guys.

We're not engaging in serious politics.

Serious politics is whining about JD Vance and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party for that matter twenty four seven in the hopes that someone's going to hear your impotent whimpering and cries.

It's like

It's so funny because even their own leader is now saying, We need to get organized.

We need to, and it's like we've been doing that for years.

Keep whining and bitching at the Republican Party.

Where's that gonna get you?

The game is over.

You have to be a fucking retard to be stuck in that stage.

It's like, yeah, that's like me, like fucking.

All of us 10 years ago knew that there's no reforming the political system.

That's like 101 of being a basic dissident of any kind who doesn't have their head in their ass, right?

They're like, I, but you disappointed me, Trump.

What?

What?

How are you surprised?

Oh, guys, I'm gonna be s I'm gonna say something heroic.

JD Vance is not a true dissident.

What?

No way.

Really?

J.

D.

Vance isn't a revolutionary who's gonna topple the system and

I had no idea that's such a profound cutting-edge political observation.

Guys, oh my god, guys, the GOP isn't like they're not actually based?

No way.

Oh my god, if only we weren't LARPing and like consulting dead, dead ideologies like Marxism that literally fucking teach you this if you learn it when you're fucking 11 years old.

Like Chinese kids, when they're 11 years old, learn about how the fucking U.S.

political system works.

And these retarded fucking groipers are still acting shocked and surprised that the Republican Party is compromised.

Like you're a fucking retard.

There's nothing else to be said.

Social audio, go ahead.

I'm just wondering what your commie ass is rambling about in here, man.

Sounds pretty interesting.

Uh, I'm rambling about how there's a lot of retarded people that Yeah, I'd agree, I'd agree.

I think I found one.

Where'd you find them?

Is it me?

Is it you?

I'm still trying to figure it out, man.

Well, where are you coming from?

You don't sound like a groiper because you sound like an actual American.

No, no, them guys are pussies, man.

I don't listen to groipers.

And you know how I could tell you weren't a groiper?

I could tell you weren't a groiper because you sound like an American.

Yeah, no, I get that a lot.

There's not a lot of seems, especially in spaces like this, dude.

Yeah.

Where are you from, dude?

Well, I'm a first gen.

I was born here, but my parents were immigrants.

Yeah, no, no, I could assume that, but where are you from?

Michigan.

No, no, no.

Where are your people from, dude?

Oh, Lebanon.

All right.

So, so why do you come over here, you know, preaching this commie bullshit?

I didn't come here.

I was born here.

No, your people came here, and you're preaching commie bullshit.

You're not on land or anything?

Got no businesses or something?

What's going on?

Hey, I was born here.

No, no, no.

I didn't come here to preach communism.

I was born here.

But you're preaching communism.

Are you not benefiting from capitalism at all?

You're not capitalizing on that?

Yeah, I actually am benefiting on a personal level.

You're right.

Okay, so just what you're concerned.

Why push a bunch of bullshit markets?

Well, I actually care about my country, sir.

I care about my people.

I care about...

No, you don't care about it.

Okay, what are you, God?

How do you know?

Are you Jesus?

So, how do you feel about the U.S.

Constitution?

We're trying to save whatever we can of it.

It's being overwhelmed.

You think that's compatible with your worldview?

Absolutely.

Just dive into that for me real quick.

The ones that are overthrowing the Constitution aren't communists.

They're the people that claim to be fighting communism.

They did it after the Cold War.

They created the CIA.

They created the FBI.

They created all these unconstitutional federal agencies.

They started experimenting on American citizens.

They started all these foreign wars and entanglements in the name of containing communism and fighting the communist threat.

They created the military-industrial complex, which even Eisenhower talked about.

And as a consequence, our Constitution has been thrown out the window.

Okay, NGOs created by the CIA to fight communism worldwide, academic institutions, media, you name it, they've all usurped our constitution.

And now we are ruled by a shadow government that is unaccountable at any level.

And this was all created in the name of fighting communism.

So it's the anti-communists who destroyed our Constitution, good sir.

It's not foreign brown communists like myself.

And I agree with that to an extent, but I just don't see how communism is the fix, right?

Well, let me ask you a question: Who does this land belong to in your mind?

This land America, who does it belong to?

When all said and done, I know the few hundred acres I'm sitting on belongs to me.

The rest of it.

What do you do?

Are you a farmer?

I do a little bit of ag, but I'm I'm a developer and I'm in utilities.

What do you mean you're a developer?

You rent out properties to people living?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I I clear and prep land for development.

Okay.

Uh what kind of development, if you don't mind me asking uh anything from single family, multifamily, individual like private estates.

You clear the land like in terms of the trees and or garbage or whatever?

Yeah, most of the time it's, you know, it's wooded land or clear.

It could be bare.

It could be clear aggregate.

So are you renting it out or are you just clearing?

I don't do any renting.

Okay.

I got you.

I don't own property.

I'm not in property management, none of that.

Okay.

So look, I'll tell you what the communist view is.

A communist view is you work the land, you take care of the land, people like you.

So the land belongs to people like you who actually take care of the land and work the land.

It doesn't belong to the people sitting on their ass, speculating and gambling in Wall Street with everyone's livelihoods.

Do I got a deed?

What does that mean?

A deed that says the land is a good thing.

Hey, if you're taking care of the land, if you're taking care of the land, it's yours.

Okay.

The reason we are against private property, quote unquote, is because we don't believe you should be allowed to do anything you want with the land.

You shouldn't be allowed, in our view, for example, to start poisoning the environment, to start doing things like, for example, alienating it, to give it to Wall Street and have them, you know, pawn it off to foreigners, right?

And pawn it off to people that want to use it for destructive.

That's fairly regulated under our system now.

You can't just legally poison land, right?

But isn't that what Monsanto is doing to the right?

I want to go back to the Constitution.

So you're against private property, but isn't that a pretty intricate part of our, like it's pretty heavily tied to our Constitution, isn't it?

It is, but how it's defined can be open to interpretation, A, and also the Constitution can be amended.

And then let me ask you another question though, because I think this is important.

What do you think about Monsanto?

Are you a fan?

No, no, I'm completely against it.

But that's a okay.

Well, let me point something out to you.

It's in the name of the right to private property that Monsanto is given the freedom to destroy the livelihoods of so many American farmers with the patent system and the intellectual property system that they have.

They can defer back to the institution of private property, and that's what gives them the right for their destructive behavior to prevail over what we would otherwise say is the common sense to benefit the American farmer and the American working man.

But they say, no, we're invoking the right of private property.

And it gives them the ability to tear up people's livelihoods and destroy people's lives.

That's not common sense.

So in that sense, companies like Monsanto and like huge agricultural business, they're not necessarily the issue.

The underlying issue is the fact that what percentage of Americans do you think are active in agriculture?

If you had to guess.

I would say not a lot, but why is that?

It's less than 1%.

Right.

But why is that?

Because the ones that are in debt mostly, and they're being driven out by Monsanto and by a big agribusiness.

It's a tough, tough life to live.

And they're doing it.

I think it's more of a cultural issue.

And I see it around me.

You know, families sell their land.

And what usually happens is the older generations did perfectly fine running small family farms.

The kids didn't want to do it, right?

And they sell the land for a quick buck, which is, you know, and you could say that's an issue with capitalism, right?

That's there's that.

You could argue that there's that.

But that's the biggest issue is instant gratification from what about the farmers that are staying on their land and they're getting into debt because they can't even afford to maintain it.

So I think you're overstating that issue, 'cause there's a there's a f a I'd say what's the average farm now in America, a thousand acres?

I think I've seen some studies that show most of the farms in America are in debt and they're not making a lot of profit and they're not really getting ready.

As a business operator, I'm in debt.

Yeah.

And it's not very profitable.

It's not very lucrative.

And it's very tough work and it's hard to get by.

It's extremely tough.

It's not very useful.

Most of it's heavily automated and mechanized now.

Like even with my hay operation, like I don't touch a fucking square bell or a round bell by hand anymore.

Do you have employees?

N not really that works the farm, no.

Yeah, I mean so that's even better honestly.

That's all that's all family.

You're basically our target audience, to be completely honest.

You ain't gonna get me into the comedy shit, dude.

Yeah, well, maybe not in ten minutes, but uh, I'm just telling you, what we're selling, you're the customer.

It's people like you.

It's people like you we want to have more of a voice in politics.

'Cause my people go back to, you know, it they fought in the Revolution, the Civil War.

You don't think you don't know that's where the American the American Communists came from?

That's where they came from.

There's always been a Marxist element, of course.

You don't think that the American could you listen, my best friend who's Jackson Hinkle, his parent, his ancestors fought in the Revolution, and they came from the Mayflower.

Yeah, I don't much care for that guy.

Well, I'm just telling you that.

There was only 120 people on the term.

Can you name which ancestor he had that was on it?

Because they got the manifest.

He could, yeah, 120 passengers.

He probably could.

I couldn't name them for him, but he didn't.

Because there were thousands of ships that came through that period.

I had them on the Guiden Star.

There was a lot of different ships.

I didn't have a single fucking family member on the Mayflower, though.

But most of them came through Jamestown, Suffolk, Virginia.

Where'd you get this idea that communists are against America?

When communism is as American free market capitalism, I don't like this bullshit we got going on now, obviously, but communism isn't the fucking answer to me.

I'll tell you full of shit.

Let me ask you a question.

Is it easier to be a farmer or a fruit stand seller in China or America?

I have no issue doing it.

You have no issues.

I run local farmers' markets, and I run a little stand here at the farm.

And you don't have any issues doing what you do?

No, I got my kids around the shit.

So so you're kids and you don't have any issues doing what you do as a farmer?

No, we love it.

What do you mean?

What issue would we have that you wouldn't have under a communist folks?

Well, you just said you're in debt.

So are you going to get out of the debt?

What's going on with that?

Well, the debt is tied to the business.

I have no personal debt.

My land's paid off.

Got no mortgage, none of that.

But my business operates with debt continuously.

And how's that going to be paid off?

Uh keep on working.

Like, I mean, I pay off equipment all the time.

I'd say annually there's one or two pieces of equipment, a few trucks that get paid off.

It's a revolving door.

So it's permanent, just like the U.S.

national debt, which is about over 40 trillion.

Yeah, it wouldn't it wouldn't make no sense not to stay in debt because I can utilize the depreciation on new equipment.

So if I buy a truck and buy a debt buy an extra.

Serfdom, where you're constantly paying rents?

Well, I don't have to do it.

I do this voluntarily.

I could choose not to go into further debt.

And I'm going to do that at some point, probably in the next five years.

At some point.

That's what they all say, though.

I mean, I'm not quite 40 yet.

I'm coming up on it.

I figure by the time I'm 45, I'll slow it down.

So the system's not failing you.

You're fine.

The healthcare is fine.

The insurance, there are no issues with the agribusiness, no issues with debt at all.

You're basically living the American dream.

Yep.

Well, I'd say, sir, God bless you, but you're in the minority.

You know that, right?

Most people like you who are farmers are not living like you.

Man, I'm surrounded by farmers killing it.

Big tobacco's kick back off.

All my neighbors, man, are running huge tobacco operations.

And most of them are probably used in illegal immigrants, but you know, they're doing pretty good.

Yeah, if they're using immigrants, then they're also in the small minority of American farmers, the small minority.

So you and your neighbors are in the small minority.

Wait, wait, you think that's a small minority?

Yeah.

Of farmers that use illegal immigrants?

Yes.

Most farmers don't even have hired hands.

Most farmers are family farms that have family farms have died, Haz.

I hate to tell you.

I hate to be a Redditor.

I hate to be a Redditor.

I live in North Carolina, Haas, and up until about five years ago, we had the highest rate of agricultural land loss in a decade, Haas.

We lost a million acres of agricultural land, right?

To what?

To development.

Like I was telling you, these are kids inheriting the land, choosing not to farm, and selling the fucking land.

And usually you're not selling it.

You're either selling it.

I hate to be a redditor farm.

I hate to be a Redditor.

But I would say consult the data.

On farm ownership in this country, and you will find that the majority still, although they are going in that direction because they're in debt and they're struggling, so they're increasingly selling off their land at an extremely rapid rate, like you're talking about.

That's what's going on.

Okay.

And most of them are being driven out because it's not sustainable.

It's just not competitive.

How are you going to compete with big agribusiness?

Yeah, but these are issues that like Soviet Russia, the current Russia, deals with.

China deals with the same shit.

China doesn't deal with this issue.

Yeah, you don't own agricultural land in China.

They own it more than they do here.

No, no, it's the people's land.

You don't own it.

And even your lease is every 99 years.

You don't own shit.

Okay, every 99 years you get a lease.

What's the difference?

It's just a semantic issue.

Okay?

It's like the deed that you have to renew in the registry or whatever.

It's the same thing.

Well, they can come take it, which they've got a pretty high propensity to do so.

They'll take the shit.

That's not true.

That's not true.

If you don't take it, sir, have you seen the photos of homes that are in the middle of Chinese cities where they have to build around the homes because the government won't come and just take the property because they allow people to have the right to not sell it to development versus this country, mind you, where we do actually force people to sell for purposes of development.

We have a terminal.

We even have a term.

I got a 50-acre plot I'm trying to sell right now, and the county's actually keeping me from selling it to a developer.

I bought this particular plan.

We have a term in this country.

I can't believe I'm forgetting what the term is called.

Where the government can come and take your land.

Eminent domain.

Yeah, exactly.

Eminent domain.

They don't have that.

I've had it used against me, but I mean, if they need to add a turn lane, expand highway infrastructure, that's going to fucking happen, dude.

And they do do that in China.

They might not call it eminent domain, but I guarantee you, when they want to put in a fucking new high-speed rail or a dam, how many dams have they come through and put in?

They don't build dams over people's house.

That horse shit, man.

They flooded whole villages out.

Where'd you hear that?

Dude, they've built some of the largest damn systems in the world in the past two decades.

You're not telling me villages didn't go with it.

So all I'm getting from you is that you're a defender of the system we have right now.

Am I correct?

You just love this system.

I'm a defender of what this system's supposed to be.

No, no, no.

Let's not.

I agree that it's corrupt.

It doesn't operate as it should.

Why not?

Well, we got a bunch of piece of shit politicians that hadn't gotten checked in a long enough time.

And what are they doing?

You're claiming everything's fine.

Everything's working fine.

So what's the issue?

Personally, for me, but I think the overall picture, I'd agree with it.

I mean, our government is out of fucking control.

It doesn't operate.

You know, it's not the federalist system that we should have.

The federal government is far too powerful.

But you're wanting to centralize authority even more so, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see.

I want to see a decentralization and states' rights like we're supposed to have in a very limited functioning federal government.

What if I told you?

You're proposing the opposite of that.

I am definitely proposing that we are a more unified country and I'm proposing more accountability.

That's the word accountability.

Because the government in the 21st century is not going to be any less centralized.

That doesn't mean centralization and decentralization can't work together.

You can have more decentralization on the local level for self-governance while having a strong central government that is accountable.

We have a strong central government right now that is unaccountable because it's a shadow government and it's not even enumerated in our constitution.

That's inevitable for a large central authority.

It is inevitable.

If it's the problem, it sounds great what you're proposing, but the inevitable nature of all of those systems, all of them, is to pretty much devolve into tyranny.

Let me ask you a question.

And you can't show me a time in history where it didn't.

And even for China, let's say it's all glorious now.

Let's entertain that they're on the right track.

What did they have to do to even get the motion?

Where were they starting?

You can't just erase what Mao did in the Maoist movement.

Let me ask you, what was their starting point?

Their starting point was zero, nothing.

They had nothing.

They were nothing.

That's what they were doing.

They was out with the old and with the new, and they killed off millions of motherfucking people to push through.

That's what the federal government history books teach you, which you trust so much for some reason.

No, that's just a fact.

Where did you get the fact, though?

And you know what?

To push what you want to do, like to really see the end result that you want to see, the same thing.

It would be the largest civil war known in world history.

You don't think that's happening?

You don't think that's happening regardless?

You don't think that's happening regardless?

I think there's a potential for that to happen.

It's not a potential, sir.

It's an absolute guarantee.

Are you an accelerationist?

Because it seems that.

I don't have to accelerate anything.

I'm waking up to reality.

We are headed for a civil war and a destruction.

We're becoming more and more balkanized, but I think it's because of people like you.

I think it's foreigners.

You come here, you don't understand what we should do.

What did I do?

I didn't know that.

You try to change it and sir.

I've never voted.

That's the problem.

I have never.

Let me fill you out.

If we had never passed the Heart Seller Act and let all you motherfucking foreigners in here, I don't think we'd be where we're at right now.

I think this the last 60 fucking years of having non-Americans obviously not assimilating.

Like your family's not assimilated.

There's no way you have been if this is the fucking ideology.

Like that's just what I believe, dude.

And I'm not anti-let me ask you a question.

I'm not xenophobic at all.

You think communism comes from Lebanon?

No, no, I don't.

Alright, so what am I bringing from Lebanon here that doesn't belong here?

That's the European ideology.

So what am I bringing here from Lebanon that don't belong here?

The problem is you didn't bring anything.

And instead of absorbing like the American way of life, you got it from somewhere the fuck else.

Where did I get it from, sir?

It wasn't here.

Are you sure about that?

Are you sure about that, sir?

You might have gone to some commie institution.

Where'd you go?

What university did you go to?

I went to Michigan State.

Yeah, that's probably where you got it.

No, I did not, sir.

I became a communist at a very, very young age.

And let me tell you what, I've never I don't even know any language except English.

Where did you learn it?

I learned it online.

Yeah, it makes sense.

And it wasn't from here.

Yes, it was.

It was.

It was from other Americans.

That's where I learned it from.

So let me let me so, sir, let me let me uh save us the trouble, okay?

You seem to be under the impression that people like me are the reason this country's going to shit.

I've never voted in my life.

I've never campaigned for a single fucking politician in my life.

All I've done as chairman of the American Communist Party is do community service, do charity, and try to organize truck drivers.

So what the hell is so wrong with that, that I'm contributing to the problem?

Go ahead.

We can do all that without being a damn commie.

What's the issue of me being a communist?

In terms of meat and potatoes, what have I done that's so wrong?

It's diametrically opposed to our system, dude.

That's the problem.

Y don't play dumb with me.

But didn't you just tell me that the system is shit?

Yeah, it's being operated like shit, but that doesn't mean like if it if it was functioning as it should, it's better to fucking confirm.

How do we make it function as it should?

Tell me how that realistically is going to happen.

I'd like to see everybody, you know, do the exact same fucking thing I was able to do.

I didn't come from, well, I come right out the fucking trailer park, right?

I don't know.

And I'll build a fucking company out of thin fucking agriculture.

I don't want any country I can go to and do that.

China.

Where I can go from not having to piss in.

No, I can buy ag land in China.

Yes, you can.

You tell me I can get a deed that I can pass.

Yes, yes, you can.

And it's not taxed.

There ain't no damn deeds for fucking ag land in China.

And it's not taxed.

You sound like a dumb redneck, but I ain't.

Now, damn it.

And it's not taxed.

That you cannot own agricultural land in China.

It's the same thing as ownership.

They just call it something different.

You get a 99-year lease and you can also have it be inherited.

So, yeah.

And it's not taxed, by the way, the inheritance.

So, anyway, let me fill you in on something, sir.

Okay, you're getting you're belligerent and you're hostile at me because I'm an Arab and I'm a communist.

But little do you know?

No, no, no, it's okay.

Nobody's not really hostile, hostile.

My feelings aren't hurt, so it's okay.

I'm trying to just be realistic.

But little do you know that the reason our system went to shit is because of the people that were running it before anyone who was ever even related to me by blood ever stepped foot in this land.

You talk about the federal government getting more powerful, but you don't want to ask the question of how it did and at what point did that happen?

It happened during the COVID-19.

Well, I don't need to ask.

I know how.

It's because it went unchecked.

And they've slowly peeled more.

Was it not during the Cold War that all this happened?

Say that again.

Was it not during the Cold War that this shadow government solidified itself when they killed JFK?

It started before then.

I'd say closer to the turn of the century really is when it started.

I actually agree with that.

I agree.

It was around the time of the Spanish-American War, and it was around the time of the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, which was also unconstitutional.

And none of these things is that an American based system or was that derived from somewhere else?

It was derived from Europe.

It wasn't American.

The American based system was to have a national bank, not a private one.

In any case

None of this had anything to do with communism or anyone I was related to, okay, sir?

So put the gun down, please.

Yeah, I'm not saying communism got us to I mean really the system as it stands

I'm not going to say it's the problem, but the people that we voted in, you know, to operate the system has been the problem.

Well, how do you think that happened?

Complacency.

Well, let's be more specific, okay?

Because I'll tell you what I think.

What I think would happen is that a bunch of monopolies formed around the turn of the century, exactly around that time, and they bought and paid for our entire political system and they bought our state and hijacked it with money, not with complacency, not with people that were too power hungry, but people who controlled our railways, our oil.

Our land, our industries, our factories, our steel production, all of these were monopolies.

And these people who owned all of our wealth, privately, by the way, were able to restructure our entire system or your entire system, if you don't think I belong here.

I'll just do it for the sake of argument.

Your system, they did it willy-nilly.

According to what they've envisioned what they wanted, the people had no say in it.

So the all the people who had ancestors that fought in the American Revolution, who shed blood to build a specific type of republic, all of that was thrown out the window without a single gunshot fired, without a single shot fired, all because they had money.

Now you tell me how communism isn't the solution to something like that.

Communism which says we're going to take our wealth back at that level of scale so that the people can have a say, so there can be popular sovereignty, and so people who happen to control our resources can't refashion the entire system and government as they see fit.

What's so wrong with that?

I mean, if you have a damn monopoly anyway.

Because it destroys individualism.

It's the exact same problem.

Like, you're fixing a fucking issue with an issue.

But, sir, let me ask you a question.

We already have corporations like Ford, GM, and our big auto business, for example.

Where's the individualism there?

There is none.

They're big monopolies and corporations that are faceless.

And we subsidize them, by the way.

We pay our I pay taxes.

I know that doesn't matter because all the money's fake anyway, but I pay taxes.

You pay taxes.

And it gets our money.

That we send to the government is sent to them for free and we get nothing in return.

You tell me how we are we the people are not entitled to taking over those kind of industries and entrusting them for the common interest and the common good.

Why are these industries allowed to gamble with the livelihood of so many American jobs and livelihoods and throw all the money on the casino of Wall Street to be pissed away when we are literally paying for them and subsidizing them?

Tell me how that's fair.

Where's the individualism in that?

Tell me how the state having control over all these industries is going to fix that issue.

Because now you've damn sure got a monopoly.

At least it's an oligopoly that we're dealing with now.

It's not technically a monopoly because there's not just one company controlling the industry.

It's just a select few.

So I'll agree it's a bastardization.

It depends on the type of state.

Do I trust the state that we have now?

No, because I think it's corrupted, bought, and paid for.

It's not even our state.

We have to refound and reconstitute our republic.

I see no way around it.

And the way we do that is we can...

Well, why don't we go back to what it was supposed to be instead of starting all the fuck back over?

Right?

We'll be more efficient.

If you want to dissolve the federal government or at least diminish it, diminish it.

If we want to go back to what your forefathers dreamed of this country being, we have to start it from scratch.

There's no way we can salvage it.

It's beyond the pale of redemption.

That's how corrupt it's become.

And you got to start from below.

So I'll tell you what we believe.

We believe at the local level of small towns, people learning how to govern themselves at the most local levels.

And at the most local levels.

representatives from the local should themselves form a governing body, and then it should scale up and up and up, and that should be the foundation of our republic.

It should have roots and soil all the way below.

And that's what we believe.

What's so wrong with that?

What's so wrong with a government like that controlling the resources stolen by the monopolies and entrusting them for the common good?

What's the issue?

Because I don't trust them to do that.

And you've not given you can't give me one example of where I should.

Well, you don't trust them.

You don't trust yourself.

You don't trust social media.

No, no, I only trust myself.

You don't trust yourself.

You're part of a country.

You're part of a nation.

If you don't trust your people and your nation, if you don't trust.

And I've capitalized on it.

And I'm sure you have too.

You're doing it now.

You're probably getting paid to do what you do now.

Better and operating in the capitalist system.

Honestly, I could be making a whole lot more money if I wasn't doing what I was doing.

Easily.

Easily, I could be probably 10 times.

I'm feeling you're doing pretty good.

I could be 10 times more.

Not really.

I could be 10 times more wealthy than I am right now if I wasn't doing what I was doing.

Well, why don't you just do that?

Because it's called belief and conviction.

That's why.

Bullshit.

You could be making bad.

Let me ask you a question.

Why didn't you land in America?

Why didn't your forefathers just be loyal to the British?

Why risk their life in a war?

What's the point?

That was a central authority, right?

That was the crown.

Could have gotten more wealthy and it could have been easier to just do nothing.

No, I don't think they could have got more wealthy.

'Cause the crown, the central authority was still in, you know, r when it was minimal taxes.

They had already risked their lives to even get here.

Not all of 'em.

Some of 'em are already.

So you're saying the only purpose of life is to make money?

No, no, it's to make babies dude.

What are you talking about?

That's the only real purpose.

Okay, and look at the birth rate right now.

Is that I don't give a damn about that.

I got three of them.

I'll make another one if I got to.

So you so this is my this is the issue, sir.

Are you a patriot or are you just an individual?

You just care about yourself and care about it.

I'm not the modern type of patriot.

You can see me as like the old school.

Like, I don't trust the federal government.

Never will.

None of my people ever did.

We were in states' rights.

But at the end of the day, North Carolina were part of writing the Mecklenburg Declaration, which was a precursor to the Declaration of Independence.

We've never trusted central authority, right?

At the end of the day, you only care about yourself.

Do I have that right?

Well, that's the whole idea.

That's the enlightenment.

It's the individualism, right?

I don't believe in a collective.

I don't trust you, dude.

Why would I want to be part of a collective?

Because you already are.

Really?

You're an individual?

You pay taxes.

You pay taxes, and the government.

Yeah, I know how to minimize that, though.

It doesn't matter.

You are paying taxes to your Lord, the government, and they have you at the barrel of a gun.

And there's nothing you can do.

And at any moment, they can come and take away everything you have and everything that you are.

And they have that power.

And they survive to pay my property.

They surveil you and they watch you.

And even when you're taking a shit, they're watching you.

So don't tell me you're an individual when you're part of this system, just like everyone else is.

I voluntarily give them all that access.

No, that's it.

We can turn off our phones.

It's mighty convenient when you need to.

You don't need any of that.

Let me tell you.

You hear my wind trimes?

I'm in the middle of nowhere.

I could fire a fucking firearm off my front porch.

And they could still get you.

They can listen in.

They don't need a phone to listen in on you.

They can listen in any way they need.

And they can still get it.

You want to damn stair at the crack of my ass with a satellite.

I don't give a shit.

It's mighty convenient 'cause you don't have a choice.

You don't even have a choice.

Even if you wanted to do the opposite, you couldn't.

So it's mighty convenient that you tell yourself it's all voluntary to preserve your dignity and your pride.

But the truth is you don't have a damn choice anyway.

Oh, you t y you're trying to put me in a situation where I have even less choices.

How, how's that?

How's that you tell them it's so China's not surveilling the fuck out of their people?

They are, but I'm not saying we have to become like China in every kind of way.

I'm saying we should have the ability to have the sovereignty as a people to decide these things ourselves.

And you're saying you don't trust your fellow man.

That sounds like individualism, though.

I thought you were a collective.

No, it's not because we all have to come together as a collective to do that.

Yeah, consensually and voluntarily, right?

Well, there's got to be a way to acknowledge that we are one people.

If we can't do that, this country's one people, though.

We ain't one.

If we're one people, if we're one people, if we're one people, then we have one existence and one will.

But we don't.

I don't agree with my neighbor on half this shit.

What makes me think it doesn't make it's not realistic.

On a practical and functional level, it's got to be because you can disagree with your neighbor all you want, but you follow the same laws, you pay the same, not the same monetary amount, but the same thing.

How do you create this hive mind that you're using?

You don't need a hive mind.

It's as simple as this, man.

When your neighbor needs help, the village should come together to help them.

What's so wrong with that?

When there's a state of exception, where there's a flood or there's a hurricane, there should be an ability for us to mobilize our resources to make sure people are taken care of and protected.

In contrast to what's going on right now, where people are being left to rot and left in the mud.

Where I live in the middle of the middle, for example, I don't mean to interrupt you, but this is on topic.

I'm about an hour outside of Hurricane Helene's impact area, you know, where most of the devastation was.

You wouldn't believe the amount of people that mobilized.

I took two skid steers, too many excavators, and three crews up there, all private, not funded by anybody, just all private damn business, dude, up there helping each other by the thousands.

I'm talking about private helicopters and private contractors.

We were up there for six days before the state was with FEMA and before the Fed was.

Yeah, but it wasn't until Tuesday.

The shit hit on a Thursday.

It wasn't until the next Tuesday I seen the first FEMA inspector.

That's your central authority.

And you think that's a good thing that our government doesn't give a shit about our people, that it just leaves them, even though we pay them taxes and they have all this wealth and resources that they used to do.

That's the nature of it.

I don't see how communism is going to be any different.

It's just going to be new benevolence.

Under a communist people.

Every single volunteer.

Is going to be equipped with the resources, with the cutting edge, with the vehicles that they need to help people instead of the resources being used to fund foreign wars and entanglements.

That's what we believe.

What's so wrong with that?

I mean, I don't think anything's wrong with it, but I just don't see why you need communism to do any of them fucking things.

And why you have to give the state, the central authority, so much power.

Because the problem is they have too much power now.

And you're like, you know what?

The answer is we're going to give them more power.

But it's going to be different.

We don't want to give them more power.

We don't want the state that we have right now to have more power.

We want to build a new state that comes from the people to have power.

How many people do we got to remove?

What do you mean?

What are you asking?

Ask yourself.

How many people?

I know the answer.

How many people were in the federal government?

I'm talking elected positions between the judicial, executive, and legislative branch.

Was it a little over 500 people?

Listen, let's just say wouldn't it be easier just to get rid of them motherfuckers than it would be to implement this utopian communist society?

You get rid of the government we have now.

We're going to need a new government.

So, how do we, and there will be a government regardless, by the way.

There is going to be one, no matter what.

You put a bunch of damn rednecks like me in it, man.

I bet we'll be fine.

Hey, and that's what we're fighting for.

So, what's the issue, sir?

We ain't doing it under communism.

Yes, that's exactly what Mao did.

He put all the rednecks in power.

No, yes, he did.

He put the kids in power.

No, he didn't.

Stalin and the youth.

Stalin and the movement.

You ain't tricking my redneck ass.

Don't let the accent fool you.

I want to send you books, sir.

I'm not trying to trick you.

I'm telling you.

I know about the cultural revolution, and it was the fucking young generation that pushed that.

It wasn't the old hillbilly fucking redneck farmers.

Would I be able to send you a book that you can read about how it was the hillbilly?

Shoot me a link.

You can send it.

You have to do it.

Oh, yeah.

Pen and paper?

No, man, it's 2025.

Let me pull myself up.

It's called The Unknown Cultural Revolution.

So, what this book says is that in the beginning, that's right, it was students in the cities and yada yada yada.

But then, as time passed,

It started spreading to the the rednecks in the countryside, and they were the ones that started to get put in charge and they were challenging the party authorities.

And that's what the whole Cultural Revolution was about.

It was an uprising of the rednecks.

And that's who Mao tapped into.

You ain't getting American rednecks to do it, though.

That's a completely different type of people.

That's what we're trying to do.

It ain't going to happen.

Hey, what do you got?

How do you know?

You might get some suburban nights, but you ain't getting us fucking hillbillies, dude.

What if I told you we already got some of y'all?

What if I told you that?

Would you believe me if I told you we already got some of them?

No, I wouldn't.

I mean, you might got one or two.

No, we've got more than one or two.

We've got plenty of rednecks and plenty more animals.

They're probably some damn Yankee carpetbaggers that down here coming.

No, they're not.

They're fucking rednecks.

And they sound just like you.

And you telling me they own land, got property, came up from nothing?

Some of them do, yeah.

Then what the hell would they want to be a commie for?

Because they understand it's the only way we unify our nation and take it back for the people.

I just I don't know.

You can't take America back.

Unless you address the question of who owns the mines, the the resources, the factories, the farm, you can't take the country back if you're just leaving it willy-nilly to Wall Street, because you can have it on paper to have a constitution and a government, but who owns and who's in charge are the people that materially own the wealth.

And I can't believe you who are a redneck who understands common sense disagrees with me on that.

It's simple common sense.

If I if I own all the things that make people be able to survive and live Well we agree on the problem, but not the fix, not the solution.

The solution's an open door, sir.

The step one we're trying to take is to organize.

Have one voice.

Organizing's not an option, why not?

How about you having organized five?

What if we tell you rights and dissolving I mean we can dissolve the federal government together, but you ain't putting in a communist fucking dictatorship.

How about this?

We come to you.

We pull up a chair for you, we have you sit down, and we ask you what do you want to see?

Give us your input.

What do you think makes sense?

Yeah, I want to see some deregulation.

I want to dissolve the federal government.

Just let's go ahead and get rid of the Federal Reserve while we're at it.

Okay.

And then you leave my damn private property alone.

And what about who's going to take care of the sick, the elderly, the people that can't, the orphans, the people that can't fend for themselves?

Well, before they destroyed the nuclear family and the whole family culture in America, I'd say.

How do we bring the family back?

How are we going to do that?

Oh, you're going to do that with communism too?

Absolutely.

It's the only thing you can do.

I mean, I'm doing it.

Well, I never really lost mine.

I see it pretty well.

I don't have that same issue here.

Be realistic.

I can tell you have a lot of pride, and I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I want you to be realistic with me.

You seriously think that most Americans can do what you did?

Is that really what you're trying to say?

Dude, I'm an uneducated redneck.

If I can do it, most Americans can do it.

And that's I don't have an education.

That's the one delusion.

I didn't go to Michigan State University.

I didn't go to shit after high school.

That's the one delusion.

I went straight to work.

That's the one delusion.

And then I started my own business with a pickup truck and a fucking wheelbarrow.

And I don't think I'm much older than you.

How old are you, Haas?

29.

So I'm nine years older than you.

I'm 38.

You can't do it?

I probably could, but I'm doing this because I believe in this.

I could do plenty.

If you could do it, then there's no point in what you're doing because you're not even giving the other option a chance, dude.

You're like, I'm not going to do it.

I'm going to jump.

Well, you said something very interesting.

You said that I've given nothing to this land, that I don't belong here and all these kind of things.

What if I'm trying to give back?

What if I'm trying to give back to the country that fed me and raised me?

I think your tent is admirable, but your direction is wrong.

Well, I disagree.

I think that I could easily do what most immigrants do, actually, which is pursue a professional career that has nothing to do with productive labor and get rich and get wealthy.

I don't want to do that.

I want to give back to the country that I was born in and that fed me.

You can give back.

Do you know how many people my redneck ass employs has and give a good life to you?

I mean, I don't pay less than I'm talking about.

How much you don't have employees?

I told you on my farm, I don't use any employees.

My business has employees.

What's your business?

The clearing?

No, no.

The bulk of my business and most of my revenue comes from directional drilling.

I install fiber optic utilities, large scale.

All right, sir.

With all due respect, I think that's my lowest employee.

There we have it.

$250 a day.

I'm talking just a bare bones label.

With all due respect, with all due respect, that's the issue.

See, I thought you didn't employ anyone.

That's why I was saying you are the subject.

You are our target audience.

If you employ people, we would say you are bourgeois.

And you're not an enemy.

I'm not saying it's.

Man, I got employees.

I got one employee.

I think he brings home more annually than I do.

That's fine.

I'm not.

Listen, don't be saying you're a bad person.

We're not saying you're the bad person.

$500.

We're not saying you're a bad person.

We're not saying you're a bad person.

We're not trying to say you're the enemy.

But it makes sense.

Have you created a job for anybody to feed their family?

But it makes sense you're not receptive to our message.

You understand?

It makes a lot of sense.

I mean, I've been on the other end of it.

I've been an employee.

No, I get it.

I get it.

But when we talk to rednecks who don't employ people, they're very receptive to our message.

They're probably dumber than dirt.

Well, that's kind of how the bourgeois see the working class.

And we disagree.

No, you're just fucking fooling them, man, and you're not being honest.

How am I supposed to mean they operate in logic and reason?

Sir, the fact that most Americans and most of them don't need to be leaders.

The fact that you think they are proletariats and and that's who we're trying to uh have run everything, not the medians.

You see it, I think you're tricking them.

No, I'm giving them jobs, bro.

Okay, you're giving them jobs.

And have you gave them any money?

I don't have money to give them.

I gave Jerry $1,500 at the end of this week, weekly pay, after taxes.

Hey, look, you could be very generous.

Why the hell would Jerry want to go to communism?

You could be a generous employer, sir, but you don't have the perspective to understand what I'm talking about.

If that's what you are, y'all probably kill me when the revolution.

No, no, why are you getting dramatic here?

Okay, there's people in China that employ others.

Okay, it's okay.

But it makes sense you're not, you know, you're not receptive to the message.

It just makes sense because you're doing fine.

If you're doing fine enough to employ other people right now, then what I'm saying doesn't resonate with me.

Hell, I could go bankrupt every three months, Haas.

If one of these asshole utility companies doesn't pay me, I could go bankrupt.

Okay.

I mean, it might be fine, but I'm taking a hell of a damn risk.

I'm carrying all that debt.

I'm the one playing the bank for these motherfucking large utility companies.

And everything's going fine for you.

So I don't understand, you know, if everything accounts receivable of $500,000.

If these motherfuckers don't pay me, I'm fucked.

And then I might have a bunch of Amigos.

But you know what?

Let me tell you something.

Because I can't pay them.

Okay, but let me tell you something.

This is the issue.

You see, Mao, when he was fighting in the Revolutionary Wars, he allied with a lot of people like you.

And he said, let's fight the equivalent of what was then the utility company.

It was the landlord.

He said, we want to liberate you from them.

And he called them the patriotic bourgeoisie.

Now, not all of them are going to be receptive to that message because it's a risk.

You want to be sympathetic with the communists.

You're taking a risk.

You don't trust us.

You don't, you know, you don't, you think we're full of shit and everything.

And on the other hand, you have these utility companies and all these people you don't like who we don't like either and who we're struggling against.

So it's like pick your poison.

What risk do you want to take?

You know, you want to you want to ally with the communists.

We have a common struggle.

We have a common cause.

We think that these companies are screwing over all Americans.

We think they're screwing over people like you and everyone else.

But you know who's helping them?

Who's that?

The central authority.

That's true.

But let's.

All you want to do is get rid of the corporation.

We're still going to be getting screwed by a central authority.

Because what fucked what fucked my industry, it was amazing.

If you're in a position.

If it was amazing.

If you're in a position.

And then you know what happened?

It was government subsidized.

He passed the fucking, what was it?

Build back better or whatever the fuck it was.

If you dumped a bunch of money in fiber optics, destroyed the industry.

We don't have anything to do with that bullshit.

But if you trust our government more than you trust.

Us, which is what I'm hearing, right?

Then I don't trust either one of you.

Well, look, sir, I don't know what to tell you.

You have a problem with communism because you think we're a bunch of devils.

I don't blame you.

I think you're devil.

I don't think you're devil, and I think you mean well.

But I think what you believe is diametrically opposed to what I believe.

And I think we both agree on the problem, right?

And not necessarily the problem, but we agree that there is a problem, right?

We don't agree on the solution.

The problem is we're going to be able to do that.

Your solution is going to take a lot of death, like it does everywhere it's implemented.

Everywhere.

Sir, I think that a lot of death because you're going to have to kill a lot of me.

And I'm not the only one.

There's millions and millions and millions of me that ain't going to go for it, bro.

I'm glad you can encounter people like me and fantasize about us and say we're going to be the ones killing this and that.

But the truth is.

No, you're not the only ones that probably won't.

No, the truth is we are fighting an uphill battle against literally every political faction that exists.

And we are the ones fighting the system right now.

And it's coming at us with everything it's got.

Okay.

And the truth is, the death and person and craziness that you're talking about, that's coming and we're having nothing to do with it.

We're trying to protect it.

We're accelerating it.

No, we're not.

Absolutely not.

You are furthering the balkanization.

No, we are not.

We're doing the exact.

You are introducing a foreign ideology.

And it's already been here.

You're not introducing it, but you are promoting it further, right?

And that's just true.

And the more these ideologies that are un-American are introduced, the more that balkanizing will spread.

And the more factions you will have.

And that's, I think that's the goal, right?

Our so-called banking on because it's going to take something like that for you to implement the type of system you want to implement.

That's just the truth.

You need to see this state fail to build it back up from nothing.

I'm saying there's an option that we don't have to fucking do that.

So get to work then.

Don't just talk about it, then do it.

I'm being an example.

I'm watching an economic American from nothing.

And I'm watching an entire state collapse and nobody doing a fucking thing about it.

That's what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing a whole society and system collapse.

Nobody's doing a fucking thing about it.

And nobody's organizing communities to defend themselves.

What region do you live in?

You ain't got to give me specific, but it may be a state.

Around Michigan, around Detroit.

Okay.

So nobody's stepping up to organize communities to eventually for them to be able to defend themselves and have, you know, like we're, we're, all hell's going to break loose in this country.

Okay.

And it's people like you who are going to say, all I care about is myself.

And all these communities are going to burn and nobody's stepping up to defend them.

Okay.

Because you don't believe in collectivism.

Well, no, no, no.

I'm active in my community.

Okay.

But you want to increase the size of my community and the burden, right?

That's not time to think about Detroit, bro.

That's your problem.

That's what community means.

What state are you in?

I'm in North Carolina.

Okay, we have a chapter in North Carolina.

I don't have to be there.

You told me I could cuss y'all out in person?

Yes, you can.

Nah, I mean, we'd have this same type of banner.

Maybe, but all I'm trying to say is what we're trying to do is organize communities, okay, to be more self-reliant.

That's it.

Yeah, that but that doesn't equate to communism.

Yes, it does.

My community is self pretty damn self-current right now.

I want to send you more books because you weren't taught this in school.

It's not because you're a stupid redneck.

Nobody was taught this.

I wasn't taught this and no one was taught this.

They don't teach it in college either.

But the truth is, the first people that came to this country across the sea from Europe were communists.

They lived in communist communities and they lived a communist way of life.

Communism was on this land and on this soil before it became a term in Europe.

You're stretching it.

No, I'm not.

There wasn't even a term of conduct.

They didn't have the term.

They didn't have the term, but that's how they lived.

You know, I ever heard of that.

Marxism didn't become a thing until, what, the mid-1800s?

Right.

Karl Marx.

But communism comes before Marxism.

You ever heard of the Shakers?

You ever heard of all the Anabaptists, all the communities that came here?

The Moravians, the Quakers.

I've got Moravians in millenniums, but they weren't communists.

They were communal people.

Same thing, sir.

People coming against them.

This has nothing to do with central authority.

Communism is a political system.

We want to strong authority.

Those people were communal.

The only reason we want a strong central authority is for a few reasons.

One, we want infrastructure.

You need a central authority to build nationwide infrastructure, such as high-speed rail.

The second thing is we want it for government credit to be able to give people loans that can use it.

And unlike the Federal Reserve, how it was intended actually in the beginning was a national bank.

And then third, we want it for defending the country against foreign adversaries.

Not the foreign adversaries we have now, but like, for example, if NATO or Canada or something wanted to come fuck with us, we want a militia.

You want to change our allies completely too, huh?

Who would be our new allies?

Russia and China.

Russia, China, North Korea.

And Iran.

Yeah, I don't mind doing business with Russia, honestly.

I think we need to mend those relationships, but and that might be almost impossible with European nations and the way they're acting right now.

It's absolutely impossible.

They're warmongers.

But I don't agree with either side of that and don't really give a fuck, to be honest.

Well, Russia is not our enemy.

And Europe is trying to drag us into wars, and Russia isn't.

So I don't think we really have an enemy.

I don't think we have an enemy, number one.

Or really a threat.

Russia's not a threat.

They're not a threat, but if we took our country back, even as you wanted it and envisioned it, if you overthrew the federal government, which is what you want, I'll tell you what.

No, Balano, watch how you say that now.

No, I don't mean it.

We're going to vote them all out.

That's what I meant.

That's what I meant.

If you were able to pursue the path you wanted to pursue that you described, even if you did it and we had nothing to do with it, we communists, I'll tell you what will happen.

What will happen is that NATO will come and they're going to say, we have our reserve dollars, we have our treasuries, and we're not being paid our treasury notes, and you owe us all this debt, and we're going to come and secure the country so we get paid back.

Tell them good fucking luck.

Well, that's what they're going to do.

They're going to become enemies of the Americans.

They're going to try.

Well, that's true.

Well, that's where the that's where Mao Zedong's gonna has to come in.

It's gonna be Mao's dead.

I know, but h you're gonna have to start reading him 'cause it's gonna be farmers in the countryside.

They're gonna have to have guerrilla warfare against foreign occupations.

No, we're still gonna have a a US military.

Maybe the military just because we vote out all these cocksuckers doesn't mean we don't have a U.S.

But what if what if what if the military uh divides and what if half of it goes to NATO?

What then I don't see I think that would be a an exaggeration, even if a percentage I think a whole lot of the people that run the military I got two younger brothers, one of them's been in for four years now.

And they and they may be good.

Hey, look, we have soldiers in our party too, but that doesn't matter because the people who run the military are, let's say, they're bought and paid for.

My stepmom's a lieutenant colonel.

Matter of fact, I go to her ceremony next weekend.

But she's not on top of the pyramid.

Lieutenant Colonel is pretty damn high rank.

It's not on the tippy top.

I mean I guess.

So I digress.

There's still basic ass Americans at at pretty high levels of military though.

I don't think there's many I don't think there's any like you.

I I would imagine there's not a single military leader that has your ideology.

Well in order to get that high up, you can't.

You gotta sell out at some point.

Everybody I notice in the military is American as a fuck, bro.

Yeah, but you don't know the people that actually run it behind the scenes in the shadow government.

You know people that run Palance here?

You know, Eric Prince and all them spooky fucking people, they've got nothing to do with people like you.

There ain't no spooky people in the communist country.

You just said you only care about America, right?

So why don't we just talk about America?

Okay, China maybe China's got its own problems.

I need to see a shining example.

China.

China is much doing much better than we are.

Just be honest.

China's doing much better.

Much better.

They're doing much better.

I've been to China.

And the countryside, they're doing better.

I went across the countryside.

I've been at South, I think it's five, six years ago with my brother-in-law.

He's in supply chain management, right?

And we went out and we seen a bunch of fish farms.

And that's about the poorest, dirtiest shit I ever seen.

And I've been in some podunk areas of West Virginia, all through Appalachia.

I ain't never seen nothing that damn poor, bro.

Ever.

You said this was six years ago?

Yeah, it's five, six years ago.

Well, that was probably before the bulk of the poverty alleviation campaigns.

That's good thing.

They do that over there, unlike here, where we just let people wallow in poverty.

There's more starving people in China right now.

All I can tell you is this: all right, I understand communism has been brutal in history.

But it's brutal times that create brutal communism.

And the only thing that can unify a nation in brutal, brutal times are the Communists.

When the Russian Empire collapsed it was the only the Communists that came to the rescue.

When the Chinese were having chaos and warlords and all hell was broken loose, it was only the Communists that could come to the rescue.

Why?

'Cause Communists unify people as one nation and one people.

Is it brutal?

Yes, it's brutal.

But brutal times call for brutal

My question is, why I've been in here right for this amount of time and I've got about 30 new friend requests and they all look Chinese.

Chinese names.

What the hell's going on, man?

Look, I don't know.

Maybe they're d they want to educate you about China.

Maybe you should talk to them.

You got a lot of damn followers, dude.

They bots.

No.

You said followers.

About 114 people in here.

Shouldn't you have a few more people?

I got most people in my kick stream.

You get me hacked there, bud.

I'm not hacking you, sir.

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

I think the CCP's coming after me, dude.

No, the CCP is paying for you.

The CCP doesn't have an issue with you, sir.

They need to quit buying damn land here in America.

That's starting to piss me off.

They own about 40,000 acres here.

Don't you believe in private property?

What's the issue?

I thought you believed in private property.

That's pushing the damn limits.

Oh, yeah.

So now I got another follower's chat.

So now there's limits?

Hey look, China's not gonna give a damn shit unless we have our own options.

Do you know who the largest pork producer is in the United States?

Port?

Pork.

Pork.

The largest pork producer.

Yeah, it's Smithfield.

Who bought 'em?

China.

It was a Hong Kong-based company, but yeah.

Well, hey, if our system allows to do it, why shouldn't they?

I think we should disallow it.

Yeah, so we should become communists.

I agree, just like them.

We should become communists like they are and control our shit.

I think they'd respect us more if we were.

They don't respect us when we're a bunch of free market retards.

It's done me well, ma'am.

It hadn't done the the the the the pork company and the farmland well.

No, it done them assholes well.

They sold it out, sons of bitches.

So what's the damn issue?

I don't know what the issue is.

That's that crony capitalism bullshit.

Yeah, and the communism's the solution.

Man, them motherfuckers are capitalist over there too.

So are they communist or are they capitalist?

It's a little bit of both.

Well, we're trying to become more like them and we're fine with you calling it whatever you want, but we're gonna I don't wanna share shit though.

This is my land, dude.

I ain't shot no shit.

We don't wanna touch it.

I gave it to my family.

We don't wanna touch what I like.

We don't wanna go near your land, sir.

We don't wanna touch unless you invite us for a barbecue.

But we don't wanna come near your land otherwise.

I do like barbecue.

Yeah, but otherwise we don't want to come near your land, all right?

We want a lot we want to leave you in peace.

But we do think that this country has a lot of problems and there's a lot of people that need to be taken care of that aren't.

And there's a lot of problems that need to be fixed that aren't.

And that's what we believe.

Well, I I appreciate your you know what you're trying to do here.

You know, you got I think you might have a good heart or you might be a damn CCP plant.

Who the fuck knows?

But I appreciate you entertaining me tonight, Haas.

All right.

Well, it was a pleasure talking.

And it was a good conversation.

Okay.

Well.

I'm sure you normally deal with groipers and fucking wig nats and a bunch of damn wiggles.

No, no, no, you don't have anything to do with them, but you probably deal with them.

Yeah, we do.

Sure, why not?

Of course.

Those people don't work at all.

You know, so it's a major distinction.

Anyway, good night.

Yep, you have a good one.

You too.

And man, these bots better not hack my damn account now.

I don't know what's going on with any bots, but I'm gonna pop back in one of your spaces and cuss you out.

Okay.

Noted.

Alright, you have a good one.

You too.

So

Wow.

Okay, there's actually a leftist in here finally, the schizo Marxist.

This person won in debate class and they

They're a master debater on a professional level.

And they're gonna destroy me in a debate because they in band class they got an award for rhetoric.

Go ahead, Annie.

Hello has.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Okay.

I have a few questions for you.

Do you have questions or do you have a debate topic?

Uh I just wanted to ask you if you think modern China is socialist or communist.

Uh what do you mean?

Well, I mean, if you sing you're a socialist, then you could tell me what you mean by socialist.

What country are you from?

I'm French.

That explains the accent maybe.

Okay.

So, colloquially, for us, a communist country is a country run by a communist party, the capital C.

In reference to the hypothetical communist mode of production that is a qualitatively new mode of production that has been fundamentally transformed by the historical movement of communism, so much so that many of the qualities and characteristics of our current mode of production, such as, for example, exchange value and commodities and so on and so on, these cease to exist.

So, China obviously has not entered this so-called higher stage of communism, as Marx described it.

We call it communist in the colloquial sense, because a communist country is one that is ruled by a communist party, a proletarian dictatorship, and is being ruled and governed in a way that facilitates the development of communism.

Now, the question is: do we regard China as a socialist country?

And the affirmative, yes, we regard China as a socialist country in terms of the mode of production.

Yeah, that it is like transitioning from its current mode of production towards communism.

That's what you mean, right?

Yes?

Okay, that's okay, that's a fair enough answer.

Um which other questions did I want to ask first?

Yeah, which mode of production is defined by wage labor primarily?

The capitalist mode of production.

Okay, can you tell me

If China has wage labor.

Yep, wages exist in China.

Okay, so then conclusion China is

Nope, because for a mode of production.

You asked the question primarily defined by wage labor, did you not?

Yes, because there are other defining factors to capitalism.

But wage labour is the primary factor that defines capitalism.

Yes, and there are qualities of capitalism that survive into socialism, according to Marx.

So just because there are things just because the main argument.

The main one, yes.

Just because there are certain qualities that are shared with the capitalist mode of production, such as for example wage labor, doesn't mean that the mode of production is capitalist.

It could very well be a mode of production transitioning out of capitalism, or one that has even sublated capitalism and uh uh incorporated some of its characteristics, but in a way that assimilates them toward a higher logic of production, which is what we would argue in the case of China.

Okay, okay.

Well what about like commodity production then?

That's like another thing that China has.

Would you also say that they're not capitalist?

Have you read Stalin's Economic Problems in the USSR?

I've read Bordeaux and Stalin's in his own words?

Yeah, and it's fucking bullshit.

Okay, hold on.

What is Stalin's argument about what makes a commodity a socialist commodity?

Don't talk to me about how you feel about it or whether you think it's bullshit or not.

What is his argument?

There's no such thing as a socialist commodity.

So I'm going to try to be patient.

I'll reiterate.

I'm not asking you how you feel about the concept.

I'm asking you what knowledge do you have of what the argument Stalin made in favor of the concept of a socialist commodity?

What did Stalin say to defend this concept?

I'm not deflecting.

I'm asking a rudimentary question to gauge your level of knowledge of Stalin's writing and economic problems in the USSR.

Why did Stal what arguments did Stalin use to justify and defend the concept of a socialist commodity?

Can you stop deflecting and so you don't have the rudiments?

You claim to be to have read Bordiga and to have this comprehensive knowledge of how Stalin is wrong, but you don't even know the rudiments of what Stalin's arguments were.

So, how do you square that?

Can we get back on the topic instead of you deflecting?

I was asking you questions about how it is that China is socialist is conceptually and found and theoretically from the Marxist perspective already established by Stalin.

Now if you're not familiar with Stalin's argument, you can't hold on.

How can you know whether Stalin is a Marxist or not if you don't even know what he said?

You've never even read his arguments, so how would you know if he's a Marxist or not?

That's like a retarded question.

No, it's not a retarded question.

If Bordega says Stalin is not a Marxist, but you don't even know what Stalin's position is, how can you qualify it as Marxist or non-Marxist?

Dude, I'm a history student.

I know what Stalin did and did not.

I don't care about what he said.

I know what did Stalin do then?

Tell me.

What made the USSR?

What.

Bureaucrat capitalist.

What's that?

Bureaucrat capitalist, that is the correct term.

But Stalin did make an argument in Economic Problems in the USSR, where he did point out specific qualities and characteristics of the Soviet economy and mode of production.

Now you're not familiar with that at all.

So how can you qualify whether Stalin was a Marxist or not?

Because he did capital bureaucratic capitalism.

Let me ask you a funny question.

What would it look like for Stalin to quote unquote 'cause you don't care about the theory apparent apparently theory is immaterial as far as whether you can qualify someone as a Marxist or not.

So all that matters is what someone does.

Right?

All that matters is what someone does.

What the fuck did Bordega do except sit in a chair?

Okay, no, no, no.

Practice the same thing.

No, no, no, no, no.

You're saying Stalin as a theoretician is immaterial to the question of whether he was a Marxist or not.

And all that matters is what he did.

So by that same fucking logic, let's not judge Bordega by his theory, but by what he fucking did, which was nothing.

So he's even less than not a Marxist.

He's a fucking nothing who did nothing.

Am I wrong?

Bro, you're crashing out over nothing.

Seriously, I'm not even a Bordeaux.

Well, I don't know why you're deferring to Bordega then, who's clearly not a Marxist, because he did nothing.

Yeah, he clearly d did nothing, yes.

Okay, but anyways, let's move on since we both seem to not be able to agree.

No, no, I'm willing to explore this even further, if you want.

Because let's talk about how the USSR was a bureaucratic.

Let's talk about the rudiments, which was Stalin's economic problems in the USSR and the concept of a socialist commodity.

Okay, explain to me since you know it so well.

Okay, so are you willing to now admit that you're not familiar with it and you would like me to explain it to you?

No, I just want to know what you're saying.

Are you familiar with it or not?

That's all I've been trying to ask this whole time.

Are you familiar with it or not?

Hey, look, this thing is.

I read Marx.

I've read a few texts of him.

Are you familiar with what he wrote about what a socialist commodity is, yes or no?

Yeah.

You're not, are you?

Just to say you're not.

Just admit you're not.

Yeah, you're right, Stone is actually better than the m trying to gauge here.

Or or say that you are familiar with it and explain it to me.

Okay, I'll bite a hook then.

I'm not very familiar with the mm-hmm.

Okay, so after so long by the way, you're doing great, by the way.

The debate team would be proud.

But anyway.

I'll explain the details.

I can describe for you what Stalin's argument was.

So Stalin's argument is actually quite brilliant from a dialectical perspective, in my opinion.

And I'll explain why.

So for Marx, commodity production, capitalism isn't just defined by commodity production, but something called general commodity production.

Now, what is the general quality for commodity production for Marx?

It's the fact that commodities are measured by the same abstract, unyieldingly formalistic standard of exchange value, right?

So, you know, he uses the arguments in capital of the, you know, the 20 yards of linen and the code and yada yada, but like everything falls under a common standard.

And it's just a question of quantity for everything to be an equivalent, right?

So this for Marx is why you have general commodity production rather than just commodity production.

In a typical case of pre-modern commodity production, you have norms, for example, of how commodities are exchanged for other commodities, conventions, you know, established.

And in capitalism, all that is solid melts into air.

So you have general commodity production.

Generalized commodity production is indiscriminate with respect to the substance and qualitative determination of commodities.

They are all subjected to a common universal standard.

Now the question is, how do you go from general commodity production to a socialist mode of production?

What does that transition look like?

Or how does one lead to the other?

How does one develop into the other?

Right now, I think left communists are basically anarchists who have the idea that we're just going to abolish commodity production.

And basically, um, okay, well, let me finish.

We're just going to abolish it, and it's no different from anarchism.

It means nothing, it's devoid of any substance, and it is just a kind of we're going to abolish the concept of commodities in our head.

And if we're faithful enough to that conceptual abolition that in our own mind, then we're going to be living in the society, uh, socialist society, and we're going to be emancipated.

They use many vague words like emancipation and whatever, but it ultimately means nothing concretely.

And there's never been an example of anything like that in history, right?

Or anything close to it.

But in any case, in the USSR, Stalin justifies the notion of the socialist commodity in the following way: because of the fact that in the USSR, there was in fact distinctions as far as what common property was.

So, you had common property in the form of state ownership, but then you also had common property in the form of the kolkosas, right?

And for Stalin, the socialist commodity was born not of a universal exchange value that can be potentially indiscriminately exchanged with anything, and it has an unlimited and infinite range of liquidity, so to speak.

You had a very specific relationship and let's call it a determination of exchange between the state and the kolkhosas, where the state would buy or get grain, procure grain from the kolkosas in return for farm tractors for mechanized for the mechanization of agriculture.

And that had to be measured, that had to be accounted for, and it was, in fact, an economic exchange that was going on between two distinct forms of ownership.

And this is what defined the parameters of the commodity form: not something that's universal, not something that's abstract, not something that represents a limitless liquidity of commodity exchange, but a determinate social relationship that is born of a very specific plan, a plan to industrialize the country to serve a specific purpose, right?

So, Stalin justifies the notion of a socialist commodity on this basis.

He says, Yes, do we have commodities in the USSR?

We do, but the form of the commodity, its parameters and its form, are defined in a determinate, social, socially meaningful way, right?

One that fulfills our five-year plan, our plan, right, for the construction of our society.

So, this is how you go from generalized commodity production to a socialist mode of production.

You narrow in and find the actual determinations, we call them supply chains, of how things are actually produced, how things are interdependent upon each other, in order to actually pursue tangible outcomes in a planned way rather than leave it willy-nilly to the market and just have this kind of sanctity of the commodity form, which has no substantive determination on a socially meaningful level, right?

So, it's in this specific sense.

That you can say

Socialism can be born out of a capitalist mode of production.

Or how do you discover socialism from capitalism?

How do you develop socialism out of capitalism?

Well, you do it, first of all, by scientifically comprehending

The determinations of the exchange of commodities at the economic level, right?

And on paper, formally within capitalism, for example, you have a universal standard of the commodity form, but in reality, we all know that there's supply chains, we all know that there's different interdependencies between different sectors of the economy, we all know that industrialization does, in fact, whether it's in England, whether it's anywhere else, come at the expense and there's a trade-off economically with agriculture in some kind of way.

So, to scientifically comprehend how that is and control for it and distill that, that is how you develop socialism out of capitalism, especially when you're coming from an agrarian country.

So, that's how Stalin justifies a socialist commodity.

Okay, okay.

Uh I'm just gonna need to be fast 'cause I need to go to the gym soon.

Uh I just wanted to pull up a quote from Engels, which says that the transformation either into joint stock companies and trusts or into state ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.

What do you think of that?

Yeah, he's saying that just because we're witnessing the rise of monopolies and joint stock companies, that doesn't mean we have transitioned out of the capitalist mode of production.

But can you finish the quote?

Can you finish the quote?

That's the whole code.

No it's not so I'll read it to you.

Um, the transformation into joint stock companies and trusts do not do away with capitalist nature of productive forces.

This is obvious.

The organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions against the encroachments as well as against the workers as of individual capitalists, the modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine.

The state of the capitalist, the ideal personification of the total national capital.

The more it proceeds to take over the productive forces, the more it becomes the national capitalist.

The more citizens does it exploit.

The workers remain wage workers, proletarians.

The capitalist relation is not done away with.

It is rather brought to a head.

But brought to a head, it topples over.

State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of the solution.

Now, even better, what does Engels say right before this?

Because that's even more illuminating as far as how he comprehends.

The uh development

Of uh of uh socialist society.

He refers to the socialist mode of production as an invasion from the future.

In trust, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite, into monopoly.

And the production without any definite plan of capitalist society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society.

Now, here's the thing: this is illuminating as far as how Marx and Engels understand the transition from capitalism into socialism.

Socialism, rather than a black and white red line that just kind of pops out of nowhere and determines everything of what the mode of production is, like an Anglo box, socialism is a tendency that capitalism is already developing into.

So the question of whether you are developing a socialist mode of production is a question of what your active relationship to that tendency is, not whether you have ticked a bunch of boxes that decide whether you conform to a certain ideal of what society should be or what it shouldn't be for that matter.

So this is the dialectical versus mechanistic comprehension of how modes of production change.

William Jennings, thank you so much, man.

Appreciate you.

Except in the concept in the context of the USSR, the state is a national capitalist.

No, the concept, no, it's the USSR, the czarist state, you could say, had qualities of the so-called national capitalism that Engels was talking about.

But in the USSR, what actually makes it a socialist society isn't even state ownership, it's the fact that there's also another form of cooperative or common ownership, which is the Kolkosas, which are not actually owned by the state.

Have you read Marx?

Yes, I have.

Then you're a fucking retort.

Why?

How can you say that the USSR was not a national capitalist?

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Because the USSR did not have total state ownership.

The Kolkosas were not owned by the state.

Oh my god.

Oh my god.

Then it's just a partial national capitalist.

It's just partial.

It's not a national capitalist just because the relationship the state has to the Kolkosas is one.

That forms the parameters and the and the uh the the tendency of a socialist mode of production, a mode of production.

So how society is developing and what direction it's actually going in is in its determination socialistic.

Um it's the the the USSR is not just a giant company that's owned by the state that is uh you know constantly seeking profits.

It owns some of the means of production, therefore it's a national capitalist mode of production.

That's how it works.

Have you read the critique of the Gotha program?

I have.

That's literally where this comes from.

Okay.

Wait, so does Marx does Marx does Marx identify state ownership with socialism and critique of the Gotha program to at least a certain extent?

Within the cooperative society based on common ownership as a means of production, the producers do not exchange their products.

Just as little does the labor employed in the products appear here as the value of these products.

This is literally from Critique of the Gaza program.

Oh my god.

The scale, the centralizing scale that they identify with capitalism, railroads and owning things at such a level of scale that it has to be central, they identify that with progress itself.

What if not a state could own something like that?

How can a local cooperative own a railroad at the scale of a nation?

Can you explain that to me?

Good.

Do you think what do you think Marx and Engels believed the proletarian dictatorship should do with the monopolies, the railroads and the monopolies and the joint stock companies that formed?

Do you know do you know what councils are?

You think Marx and Engels advocated for for local councils to run trains?

Are you retarded?

How would that be?

A federation?

How do you run shit at scale with a fucking federation?

You need centralized control because it's a centralized perspective.

You think a fucking f you think a federation of councils can scale up and just run shit?

No.

There first has to be a central perspective that can even address the object at scale, that is a national rail system.

How do you go from a local rail a piece of railroad at the local level to a national rail system if you don't already have a fucking plan that's central in scale to build the railroad?

Okay.

I know you're frustrated, and the frustration you're feeling is stupidity.

Your debate class didn't do anything to teach you about the rudiments of Marxism, and that's the issue.

The fucking councils make the plan, dog.

How do they do it at a s in a set in a way that's centralized?

How does that work?

By delegating, councils delegate, that's how they work, or you fucking retort.

Okay, so you're basically saying that what is the unit of the railway?

What what does that look like?

Like at the lowest level?

What is the smallest council for the the federation that controls the railways?

Can you explain that?

How many holes do women have?

So you concede.

Is that a tactic from debate class to talk about women's genitals?

When I'm asking you about how your councils would run a national railway system, you're talking about women's genitals.

There's a national council.

There isn't a fucking Congress of Councils.

Okay, listen, you're talking about a form of cooperative ownership of an industry, in this case the railways, right?

But that has to have a smallest unit, a low scale, right?

So the smallest council, how big would that be?

That's not up to us to decide.

Okay, okay.

Do you think that a national rail system can be like divided into discrete parts and the it doesn't need to be planned in a centralized way where they have a fucking map of the entire country and say this is where it's gonna go?

They can just say let's just have a bunch of like small let's have a bunch of small like councils that own small pieces of the the the railroad maybe come to an agreement about how they should all fit together in a puzzle.

You know how fucking retarded that sounds?

The lowest council would be at the municipality state like the level of like a city.

Okay.

How do you build that from scratch?

Oh my fucking god, are you seriously asking this?

Yeah, how do h what is the productive unit at the municipal level that's gonna form the council?

See, this is your issue.

Okay, Marx and Engels talked extensively about production at scale being centralized.

And how that's progressive.

The centralizing tendencies of capital itself, in their view, were progressive.

But where did Marx and Engels talk about a Congress of Unions versus an administration, centralized administration at scale over society, which they talked about at length?

Yeah, sure, you're just a gay pedophilian.

What?

He left.

He said that and left.

Okay, so I'm surprised.

This guy said that in debate class, he said he could destroy me in a debate, and that his proof was that he did really well in debate class.

That's how he ends it off, okay?

And yeah, I have people in France, by the way.

Um Infrared has people in France and uh yeah.

That was the most pathetic display.

I have never seen someone fuck up in a debate more in my life.

I actually thought this guy would put up a good fight because he was talking shit, saying he's uh oh, I was the top of my class in debate class.

It's like debate class doesn't teach you how to fucking read books, Retard.

He says Stalin's not a Marxist.

He's never read Stalin in his life.

Fucking pathetic.

I need to bring someone up to co-host because I can't see everyone.

In case they're the Trotskyite retards or whoever want to show up, let's bring up this guy.

Hold on.

I'd like to bring up a groiper.

Um we'll bring up this guy named Rare.

Go ahead, Rare.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, speak.

Unmute yourself.

Hello?

Hello?

Yeah, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm a Goyper.

Oh, you are?

Okay, great.

I love Hitler and I'm obsessed with Jews.

Okay, how old are you?

Um I'm just looking.

I'm not a I'm not a I'm not a graper.

I'm actually a liberal from Iran.

I just wanna know l I have a question though.

You live in Iran?

No, I don't live in Iran.

I was born in Iran.

Okay.

And I'm a liberal.

Okay, so what's your like what's your take about uh on like Iranian politics?

Do you support us that want to like overthrow the Iranian government and install a like a democratic government?

No, I don't support that.

Why not?

Hakon.

Because uh liberal democracy is for retards and cattle.

Can you expand on that?

Why do you say that?

Let me expand on it, please.

What you're advocating for is the rape of Iran by the West.

And I'm a girl.

I mean, I care about improving the average Iranians lives and why th Iran had a lot of decades under Western colonial rule and people's lives were not being improved, far from it.

There's no incentive by the Wester America to give a shit about improving the life of the Iranian people.

There's none.

They want to take Iran's resources, take its oil, take its industries, take the capital that they lost decades and decades ago and get quick rich off of it.

Without having any regard for the long-term prosperity of the Amer uh Iranian people.

If you're angry at the Iranian government, be angry at them for not pursuing closer economic ties with China, because that could easily solve a lot of the economic problems in Iran.

The problem is that there's pro-Western people over there who have cold feet when it comes to China because they're hoping that they're gonna get their money from the European banks back.

Okay, but you you so you you think that if Iran, um, let's say they install a or like elect a pro Western government, that's not gonna be that's what Pazeshkian is.

They already did elect the pro-Western leader.

I mean, uh, is he like he's a moderate, right?

He's not he's still uh loyal to the regime.

You tell me, I don't know.

Yeah, I'm telling you.

I don't know about that.

I really don't know about that, sir.

He is loyal to the regime.

I'm talking about like overthrowing the whole regime, like even the hump the supreme leader and just remove the whole theocracy system and let split the Iranian people.

What you're talking about is Balkanization and the destruction of the Iranian people.

You're talking about something that would be a bigger cat catastrophe than anything in the history of Persia.

Even worse than Alexander and worse than the Mongols.

You're talking about the Kurds, the Azeris, the Ahwaz, and everybody seceding and Iran breaking and splintering into a million pieces.

Well, they're not gonna do that because they do want to be part of it.

Absolutely will.

Because when shit hits the fan, just like in Syria and Libya and every other fucking country this happens in, all bets are off, all chaos breaks out, and everything gets fucked.

And that's what happens.

Iran, love it or hate it, love or hate the Khamenei and love or hate the central government, they're holding it together.

Okay?

It's one centralized state infrastructure.

That should be built off of, not destroyed and and and wrecked and devastated for what?

They built they ru they they took over so many companies, they built up so much, they accomplished what what they have accomplished in 1979 should not be reversed, it should be expanded upon, taken to even new heights.

But you're trying to take them back to the stone ages, I'm against that.

Well, isn't that what you're trying to do here?

Like, by installing communism?

No, I mean, I would prefer if if you if I'm talking about my personal preferences, I'd prefer if it was possible that, you know, America could just, I guess, I don't know, have a have a moral obligation, obviously, to dismantle the entire system of imperialism, but simultaneously just kind of keep relative normal prosperity without any radical revolutionary overhaul.

And everyone can have KFC and McDonald's and okay.

But I'm telling you, it's not realistic.

I can tell you that, objectively speaking, the systemic contradictions are coming to a head in this country.

And the revolutionary position is the only realistic one.

Okay, that's that's fine, but uh let's go back to Iran.

Um I was gonna ask you a question, I kind of forgot.

Um

So uh

But you s you support the regime and you said that trying to like

San Yee.

I'm going to bring up someone named San Yee.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Somebody named Red Armchair.

I'll bring him on too.

I need a co-host to be able to see every single person who's requesting, by the way.

Because I can't.

Um

Hello has

Yo, what's up?

Yeah, I am from India.

What's our thoughts on CPAM?

I am a member of CPAM.

Do you think it's a Liberal Party or Social Democrat?

Is that the party Vijay Prashad is part of?

No, he is not member of any Indian Communist Party.

Well, I have a very poor impression of Vijay Prashad.

That's all I can really say.

Um I don't have anything against CPIM as far as I know.

I am against E.

J.

Prashad, that's all I can say with certainty.

Okay.

What's your opinion Thai Continental Institute?

That's V J Prashad's thing, right?

Yeah, yeah.

But he is speaking anti Impalism.

He can speak a lot, but he's a dishonorable character and I don't like him.

And I also think he's not speaking anti-imperialism effectively because he's not linking up anti-imperialism with the cause of the proletariat.

He's linking it up with the cause of academic gibberers.

And sir, academia is not the revolutionary subject.

It's all I can really say.

Jeff, go ahead.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Alright, I was just requesting to see if you needed a co-host, but I'm just listening.

Alright, alright.

Sure.

Uh to the co-host, if there's any like

Trotskyites or leftists here, then please bring 'em up.

Bew is called the left gun.

Let's bring up this guy, Bew.

And then nobody and then Walter in that order.

Go ahead.

Okay, Bew is gone, I guess.

So we'll bring up nobody.

Nobody, go ahead.

Or, Bue is here.

Go ahead, Bue.

Speak.

Go ahead and speak.

Yo, hello, Kierie?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Why why do you think uh grippers are more popular than, you know, the A C B and what not?

I think it's because groipers are basically just consumers.

They don't actually do anything actively.

They don't produce anything and they are unwilling to sacrifice anything.

And they just like to consume in a way that has no discontinuities.

And they associate that discontinuity with something extremely they like autistically screech.

Like you're taking away their anime and video games.

And they can't do that.

It's like you're telling them, I'm a hairy, yelling Arab guy.

And like I represent the most masculine, powerful father figure.

And they like hate it because they're screeching and they just want to be left alone with their talky milk.

And unfortunately, just like with drugs, there's more drug users than ACP members.

It's a lot easier to be a groiper because you can just kick your feet up, be a fat, lazy slob, and fat, lazy fuck, and it's much easier.

And you're just consuming and consuming and consuming.

And at no point do you acquire self-awareness.

That's why they don't go to the gym.

They don't do anything like that.

I mean, how can I reach these people?

They don't even go to the gym.

Oh, but can't you say that like the ACP was in the same spot maybe like a year ago?

Or no, we've never had that type of people in us.

Are you sure?

Aren't you guys from like the same community, right?

No.

You're the same like streamer community.

This like I don't know how to call it.

I don't follow you guys.

This alt politics where you're all online and whatnot.

Can't you say that?

Well Groipers, I'll tell you I'll tell you my experience.

Groipers are more like Destiny's people.

Same people.

They're the same demographic.

They're not my audience.

The same audience of destiny as the Groipers.

Same people.

Can't you say there's some people in the ACP who are aligned or have some sort of sympathy with Groipers or with the far right or with people?

There were people in infrared like that, like this drug-addicted Italian degenerate, and they were our weakest links.

And we purged them and cut them off.

They're drug addicts, they're freaks, they're degenerates, and they prove to be very weak people.

And they're totally gone.

There was an Italian guy in Florida.

He's like a drug addict and he's a degenerate.

And he used to beg our community like a bum and beg for drug money all the time.

And he would be in everyone's DMs, please, can you?

And he was like, he's this despicable freak.

I think he's got some rap sheets and shit as well.

But those, yeah, those people and Trotskyites and the, these are like degenerate, like complete freaks.

We purge them because they're not, they just, they're not fit to be part of us.

But why were they attracted towards you in the first place?

How is that possible?

Because a lot of leftists kept saying that I'm a fascist and I'm a this and I'm a that.

So some of these people were like, oh, this is my community.

And they like, they, they would come to me and they have lisps and they would think that like, oh, House is what House agrees with my retardation.

And then they realize we're actually communists and they would crash out and get super disappointed because they just realized all they did was unironically take like retarded leftist slander seriously.

And yeah, they crashed out because of it.

I don't know man.

I think that there's a lot of like with the growing press.

I feel like the thing is the growpers are able to mobilize so many people.

It's because your guys' propaganda is not the most optional.

No offense.

We don't have even though I'm not a Hitlerite, one thing Hitler was right on was on propaganda.

You guys are not you, they're still you complain about like the academics and whatnot and all the language.

But actually, if you look at all, like look at your own Twitter posts, for instance, there's just academic mumbo jumbo.

It's incomprehensible to the average person.

You're trying to.

Our party is not trying to recruit the average person.

We're trying to recruit the best of the best, the smartest of the smartest.

Are you sure about that?

I'm sure we're trying the people we're trying to recruit are are good people, very exceptional people.

We don't want these retards who are autistic with lisps.

The thing is, uh your party, there wasn't like that much of I don't know about now, but I actually was in the party for a bit.

Um there there wasn't that much of a I don't know, vetting process, you could say.

Of course there was.

What chapter were you in?

I'm not going to leak myself, but I was in the west of the United States and there wasn't a very deep vetting process.

It was quite easy to get in to become a reserve member, yes.

There's a lot, no, before we had the reserve system, every single person had to go through a personal interview.

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

Yes, yes.

And I went through that personal interview by Kyle Pettis once.

Right.

Okay.

So you know there is a vetting process.

Yeah, but the thing is, like, even though I support you guys, like, I'm not, like,

We've been around since twenty twenty one.

Okay, the party is one year old, but I've been around since twenty twenty one.

This guy, Nick Fuentes, he's been here since when?

Twenty seventeen, twenty sixteen?

Think about it.

I don't know.

He got popular around the same time.

No, that's not true at all.

He was on Twitch.

He was there before, right?

He was on Twitch.

He got big on Twitch.

I was not even given a year to be on Twitch.

I got banned in March or April 22.

Okay.

I was growing on Twitch pretty rapidly.

They banned me.

The censorship wave.

See, Fuentes was able to grow enough.

To the point when he totally got deplatformed and censored, which is only after January sixth he had enough pull, okay.

Me, I got deplatformed and censored

Uh, much earlier than meeting that threshold, right?

I'm not saying we're not gonna eventually surpass them, but why right now are we not bigger?

Well, because we started a lot later, and plus, we were not allowed to thrive for as long as he was, and they were, and that community was.

Uh, we were they snuffed us out much quicker, okay?

Talk about Jackson, Jackson had the biggest pull in this country on YouTube.

And they totally wiped his YouTube channel out.

Okay.

My YouTube, I haven't uploaded it since January because I could see the writing on the wall that if it even ever gets big, they're just going to wipe it out.

So our community is not even allowed to grow out in the open in the same way.

So that's why.

Okay.

I mean, are you all on the same platforms now?

X.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah, so you're like on a level playing field.

You're able to.

No.

It's not level at all.

Because it's not level at all.

Because I've been blacklisted in addition to the persecution that made it from Twitch.

Okay.

Every major right-wing influencer is fucking terrified of me and blacklists me.

Okay.

I've been blacklisted by all the major influencers, both rightists and leftists.

Even Fuentes, even after January 6th, there were still rightist influencers that would debate him.

And there were leftists who would still debate him.

Every single one of these people blacklisted me very early on.

They said, we don't go near Haas.

Even he won't debate me.

You understand?

But Hassan Piker won't even mention me.

He's just fucking terrified of mentioning me.

He refers to me.

He doesn't mention me by name.

Vosh, I debated once.

Okay.

One time only.

He would never allow me to debate him again.

I debated socialism.

I went through a huge run running through these people, debating them.

Destiny, you name it.

And then they said, no, it's too dangerous.

We're not going to allow the Nick Fuentes thing to repeat.

We're not going to allow a new community of tankies to form.

They said we would prefer the Nazis over these guys.

The Nazis, they're more.

You know, they're preferable.

We're Stalinists.

The Stalinists are much more dangerous and much more hardcore, and they don't want to even give us the opportunity.

But we're marching on, we're going through, and it'll be fine in the end.

It'll be fine in the end because we are real life and they're not.

At the end of the day, you see, the Groipers don't have an independent organization, and the minute they have to commit to one, the minute they have to commit to organization.

They will scatter to the wind and they're going to collapse and infight into a million different tribes.

And I guarantee you that will happen.

I guarantee you.

There's a personality cult forming around Nicuenta's.

So I don't know about that.

There's a person, sure, there's a personality cult, and that goes far as far as being a successful influencer and commentator.

But let me actually talk about this.

Nick Fuentes' generational run right now hinges upon distinguishing himself from boomers, you know, like Candace Owens and these other people, and the network that surrounds J.D.

Vance and Peter Thiel, and the agenda that prevails within the Republican Party.

But what happens when people finally decide to get it and say, fine, we're done with the Republican Party.

And we're done with the Democratic Party for that matter, let's say.

Just this is the most charitable interpretation that they're also against the Democrats, which I don't fully believe.

What happens after that?

They say, okay, maybe we have to make our own party.

At that moment, when they decide to make that fateful step, the online cult of personality is not going to matter.

You're going to have to have something in real life with real discipline, with real formal organization.

And I don't think they're going to be able to pull it off.

So that's what I'm betting.

I don't think they're going to be able to pull off, forming their own authority and sovereignty.

Okay, so what separates you from like every other Marxist-Leninist in the United States over the like past hundred years who's failed miserably at creating any sort of alternative political, I don't know, dialogue, you could say?

Because everyone in the US has failed miserably.

They've not succeeded at any time.

I think my communism is hyper-American and hyper-adapted to this land in ways that they were not.

Are you saying like the Communist Party USA in like the 50s or 40s or whatnot, you're saying they weren't hyper-American, that they were they tried, Foster was trying, but he had gatekeepers that were preventing that, and yes, they were not adapted enough to America.

The thing is, like, I don't understand why you guys don't just like, I don't know, you could say modernize in a sense.

Like, think about what you're saying.

How have we not modernized?

Uh, yeah, like, let me let me let me speak.

Uh, like the other socialists in, I don't know, Latin America or Africa or the global south, where they've basically.

there's like a pop sort of popular front socialism or socialism of the twenty first century.

I'm pretty sure Eddie calls Venezuela socialist or what not.

I mean, you guys you people call it socialist, so why don't you guys just go that route instead of like using the communist label?

Because you're clearly gonna be you're you're gonna be uh put in the same camp with all the leftists and what not who are, you know, putting a bad name to communism.

Well, the same thing is going on with socialism, okay?

So, but furthermore, I'd say communism with a capital C, because we're Americans, we're not going to pussyfoot around it and be like, you know, Europeans or something.

No offense to Europeans, but like, let's be honest.

We are loud and proud Americans who like to shoot guns into the sky and ride horses.

And we are not going to fucking conceal that we're communists.

We're going to say that we're communists with a capital C.

And we're not going to be like, oh, we're socialists.

No, we're in the fucking wild west, okay?

There's no bullshit here.

We're not here to be bullshitters.

But like Maduro calls himself a Marxist, and he has like very deep Marxist influence.

Because in Venezuela, they have a tradition called the Bolivarian tradition.

So they are creating continuity with Bolivarian revolution and Bolivarianism.

Okay.

They don't have to create a revolutionary tradition from scratch like we do.

But America does have a revolutionary tradition, right?

We don't have a boulevard.

Our George Wash nope George Washington was not a centralizing, modernizing figure in the way Bolivar you could maybe say Lincoln, but Lincoln's revolution was totally reversed.

That was Reconstruction.

Now, had if Reconstruction succeeded and was prolonged, maybe we could just kind of do what Venezuela does and whatever.

But no, we did.

We couldn't.

So.

America has a power vacuum in terms of its like state tradition that only communism can fulfill in our view.

But you don't necessarily need some historical myth to fulfill these political goals.

You could do this without it.

Can you not?

Look, brother, for the same reason

That communism

It's like you have a problem with it.

It's the same reason why we roll with it.

Because it's like we're here for an alternate timeline.

We are here for a bizarro, topsy-turvy world.

The whole world turned upside down.

We believe in something so comprehensively revolutionary that it shakes the fucking fundamentals of reality itself.

of what people think and experience as reality, we think is a false illusion.

We think that the American empire is an empire of illusions and lies, and that Communism is this ultimate red pill,

which situates us in a completely alternate time line and an alternate reality.

That is the real reality that we've been living in the entire time.

You can take the red pill.

You can take the blue pill.

You take the blue pill, you vote for Zohron Mamdani, you become a Groiper DSA member, and you continue whining about Jews and JD Vance and hope that it's eventually going to lead to something meaningful and you can do drugs and you can have labooboos and matcha.

Take the blue pill, you consume more anime and video games.

Or you could take the red pill.

Communism with a capital C.

You can completely change your perspective on everything you have ever been taught about the nature and history of the modern world itself, dating from the very first days of the French Revolution itself all the way up to now.

Even going back all the way to the times of Jesus Christ, where the Lord's Prayer originally said, Forgive us of our debts, not our sins, our debts.

And the whole point was wiping out debt at the expense of the Roman landowner class.

Even the times of ancient Babylonia, where the kings of Babylon, the kings of Mesopotamia and Persia, they would rise to power on the basis of wiping out the debt.

And the entire civilized tradition of centralized state authorities was born of communism, wiping the debt and liberating people from the land from slavery.

Stalin and Mao, Lenin, Marx, they're all part of this one universal historical tradition.

Struggle of communism, the riddle of history solved.

You put down the laboo boos, you put down the matcha for one fucking second.

And you embrace a forgotten and erased, lost history and also a lost future.

You get to work.

You start improving yourself, you go to the gym, you start running, you start training.

You push yourselves to your human limits, 'cause they told you you couldn't do it.

Yes, you fucking can, dude.

The horizon is open.

You don't have to just consume.

You can make yourself into something that no one has ever thought possible.

Become a soldier for our Red Communist cause.

Break through the fabric of a false history itself.

And in doing so, open the horizon of a new future.

That is the red pill, sir.

That red pill is a red pill with a capital C.

I leave you to your thoughts.

Nobody, go ahead.

Hey, what's up, Pamera?

Good evening.

Um, I'm a uh unaffiliated leftist, I suppose you can say.

I've been disappointed by uh all organizations.

I'm uh

All right, you're you're cutting out a lot.

Okay, is that a little bit better?

Yeah.

Okay, well I would just say in overall I agree with your strategy and think that your tactics are modern and well adapted to the U.S., etc.

I wanted to ask a little bit about coalition building.

Basically people like me, other risks, etc.

I mean do you believe that you can browbeat, say, or debate people into your side?

And to be clear, I understand the vanguard you want to raise has to be ideologically disciplined and consistent.

But in terms of the coalitions that you're reaching out to, I just wanted to ask about your thoughts on your tactics there.

Look, on a personal level, when you talk to people personally, it's different.

But online, it's a jungle.

It's a dog-eat-dog world.

Just look at my replies in any of my posts.

These people, they only speak the language of force.

You know, you can't just be friendly to these people.

They, you know, they it's a dog-eat-dog world.

It's a Schmidt friend-enemy distinction.

There's no in-between.

And you absolutely need to dominate these people.

Put them in line, so to speak.

And sorry to say, but they only respect ruthlessness.

Because the lion has to charge in and eat or it dies.

Can't think about it.

You can't hesitate.

Can't be like cattle, like the groipers.

They're frogs.

They're prey animals.

Okay?

They're not even our preferred prey, they're more like a snack.

Frankly.

and they don't show themselves

But I digress.

I agree with that.

However, there are people who you know, for example, yes, respect meet ACP members and talk to them and have personal conversations with them in private, but I am a warlord, sir.

And I'm on the internet.

I'm not in person talking to you.

If I can be in person and meet people and know that there's a minimum of respect established, then I don't have to browbeat anyone into anything.

And usually in person nobody ever acts in the way they do online when it comes to this disrespect shit.

It's never happened.

Because I'm too wide.

When they see me, they say this guy's like wide Putin and they get scared.

Too much muscle mass.

Let's bring on San Yi.

Go ahead, San Yi.

Hello?

Yeah.

Oh my god.

I'm speaking to the chairman himself.

Um greetings from Serbia.

Okay.

I'm a Serbian left communist, if you could imagine.

Yes, yes.

And you had a beautiful, so I just have to say, a beautiful debate with the French person.

So I have to congratulate you on the win, which I think was very bad.

I think the whole debate was bad.

It was kind of disingenuous, but whatever, you know.

On the whole, I think your party is kind of a LARP.

Honestly, you're kind of a LARPer.

I just think that you're a big old LARPer.

What does it mean to not LARP?

To be real, so to speak.

What does that look like?

No, I don't actually mind a LARP.

I think it makes sense.

No, no, I mean, I'm not saying you mind it.

I'm not saying you mind it.

I'm saying what does it mean to be real?

To do real politics?

Because you're a leftcom.

So what does it look like for there to be real politics rather than LARP?

Well, I would say that even try to make myself look smarter than you because you are more red than me.

You're quite a smart man.

But I am kind of interested why, for example, you associate with our dear comrade Dugin, Alexander Dugin, and his other retards.

Well, I'm glad you called me smart, but you said you think all we're doing is LARPing.

So I'm just asking.

Yes, yes, it's kind of a LARP.

Of course, but I want to know what does it look like for a party to not LARP in 2021?

I would say that you don't try to make kind of a historical epic out of the world.

What do you do, though?

What do you do positively?

I don't do anything.

I don't even try to hide it.

I'm not actually doing anything.

And that's the ding, ding, ding, ding.

Yeah, but you know, you have that, you know, liberal aspect.

You're kind of a closeted liberal, if I am honest.

Can I ask you something?

Forget about you.

Forget about you.

What has a left communist ever done in the history of mankind?

Please, go ahead.

Well, I would actually really like this question because, for example, you said that our comrade Bordiga didn't do anything but sit on his armchair.

I beg to disagree because he was one of the founding fathers of the Italian Communist Party and was active in the most radical times of the party.

So I think that, you know, for the sake of his life.

How long is that period?

What?

How long was the period of his engagement with that the post-comintern Italian Communist Party that he was one of the founders of?

How long was he actually there doing anything?

Well, with the Communist Party of Italy, not too long, because of course it was a Stalinist shithole.

So he did basically nothing, and then for the rest of his life, he did nothing.

But this is the same thing.

Well, you could say that.

However, you know, that is what my biggest problem with ACP.

That you are basically not, you know, a lot of people call you fascists.

I don't agree.

I think you are just red liberals.

You know, you hate Hassan and everything.

But deep down, you kind of share the same ideological roots with all of these social democrats.

You're liberals.

You know, being liberal means living and being outside and doing things rather than doing nothing.

Well, no, I would say that I don't say that you don't have to do anything.

But, you know, you have that fetish of doing everything.

Then you do nothing.

You don't do actually anything.

Then you, I mean, I think the whole internet presence of this infrared and ACP is kind of banal.

Was Lenin a LARPer?

No, of course not.

Of course he did a lot he made a lot of mistakes.

Let's be clear on that.

But he was no LARP.

Okay, sir.

Was Lenin a LARPer in 1900?

No, no, no.

He was I would say that I would I would uh consider him an authentic revolutionary.

Okay.

So, have you are you familiar with something Lenin wrote called First Steps?

No, no, no, no, please in uh please in write to me.

You are you familiar with what is to be done?

Yes, of course.

Okay.

Are you aware of what Lenin considered the first step to be for organization?

Which one?

What is the first step?

The first one, the square one for Lenin.

What his argument was.

Yes.

Which one, please?

He believed in a centralized newspaper.

Ah, yes, of course.

However, at the same time, I would say that, of course, Lenin was a very good revolutionary.

However, he was a revolutionary.

I don't consider your copy revolutionary.

Before Lenin was a revolutionary, before 1905, before anything, the square one of creating a collective framework of organization.

How did Lenin?

Conceive that?

How did he argue that would be possible?

Because they didn't actually have that always.

Okay, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was born out of something, and after it was born, it wasn't really all that much.

So, how do you go from that to something?

Because you call us LARPers.

And you're not applying this criterion to Lenin in the crucial years that they were doing nothing effectively at any significant scale.

Now is ACP at scale doing quote unquote something?

Like compared to US politics, no, we're very insignificant, okay?

But we consider ourselves to be in those crucial steps and we're following Lenin's footsteps.

How are we not?

Well, uh I would say that uh you are not following Lenin's footsteps.

In fact, I would call you uh closer to LaSalle, Ferdinand LaSalle.

I would say that you are uh following the traditional uh social democratic steps and I think you're doing it very well.

I think that you have a very great future in ahead of you, uh but in a matter of future of course.

LaSalle helped lay certain norms and conventions for the second international and social democracy, no no doubt about that.

But Lenin was a social democrat yes, because of course social democracy meant something different than what we use it today.

Hold on, hold on.

I'm aware.

But the social democratic tradition that came from LaSalle was the same one Lenin was part of.

Yes, of course.

I would not say that.

However, I would say that he did a lot of.

I mean, when I say.

Let me ask you a better question.

How is it that I am returning to LaSalle in a way that comes at the expense of Lenin's legacy?

Well, it's very simple.

I would say that because you are not a revolutionary organization and you have no roots to Lenin in a nutshell, because of course.

Be more subjective, why not?

Of course, you don't want to change the world.

I would say that you don't want to really abolish the current state of things.

I would say that you are very much happy with working with capitalist countries.

That's, of course, China, but I would say also Iran.

Would you say the world is not changing right now as we speak?

I mean, I would say that it is changing, but not in a way to but not changing towards a communist society.

But Lenin disagreed with you on numerous accounts.

First of all, Lenin perceived Russia to be entering a revolutionary situation, first of all.

And he perceived that as inevitable.

The second thing is that Lenin perceived the rise of imperialism to herald a new mode of production, socialism.

He perceived World War I to have a revolutionary significance to open up the opportunity for a revolutionary circumstance.

Because he thought World War One

was basically the whole capitalist mode of production coming to a head at a crucial moment.

So for Lenin, he didn't need to talk about changing the world because for him the world was already changing.

He just believed in responding to those changes in a principled manner.

So how is that just?

Yes, but I'm trying to say that you do not have a principled manner of revolutionary.

You have a principled manner, of course, but you're not revolutionary.

The principled manner of responding to revolutionary change is the entire content of what it means to be a revolutionary and nothing else.

Yes, of course I agree.

But you are now using word games.

Of course, you agree with what you're saying because, of course, you say that China has socialist commodity production.

I know it's a very dialectical process, of course, but you know, it is you cannot say that socialist commodity production exists, for example.

I cannot agree with that.

And I would say that before I convince you about socialist commodity production, or we talk about that, I first of all would argue and make the argument.

That the emergence of multipolarity is objectively revolutionary in the strict sense.

That there is a mode of production that is concrete, not just abstract, doesn't have an abstract checklist and criterion that's not dialectical.

It's a concrete system based in US hegemony and dollar hegemony and what Michael Hudson described as super imperialism, or what Von Vero Fakis calls the global Minotaur, the global system of recycling profits back into the U.S.

That hegemony is entering into contradiction with different polls, with Russia, with China, with Iran.

And that is signifying a revolutionary change going on.

I would beg to disagree with you, because I would say that yes, in some way you are you're you are uh correct in saying that uh this is happening.

However, I would say that this is more uh uh preparation for uh new imperialist war between the East America and the East, China and West America in splitting up the world even more.

I would say that you would have to contradict what you are saying, of course.

No, there is a level there isn't.

I would say yes, because if you you're saying multipolarity, however, at the same time, you are not exactly going to uh defend the African workers on strike against the Chinese uh factories which they are working now.

Uh, maybe I would, maybe I would, why wouldn't I?

Well, because then you would have to uh I mean, yeah, you would have to uh agree that there is an export of capital on the side of China into uh Africa.

China you're you're you're mistakening how these different systems are interacting.

China is a sovereign country.

Yes, of course.

China has its own laws and they do business in their own way.

Now, if another country if China is in a capitalist way, of course.

No, I agree.

No, no, you're cutting me off.

You're cutting me off because you're afraid of what I'm going to say, because I'm going to educate.

So let's say China is economically disadvantaging an entire country and they're getting the majority of the benefits and this country is not.

That's not China's problem because China's socialism is confined to the extent of China's sovereignty.

China's not responsible for the sovereignty of another country.

Ah, yes.

Okay, okay.

If it's another country, for example.

It's not internationalist, it is, let's say, nationalists.

It has nothing...

Internationalism, even in the time of Marx and Engels, was a relationship between nations, not people within nations, but between nations.

So the individualist comprehension of internationalism says that internationalism means that individuals in different countries transcend borders, and this comes at the expense of their own nations.

But internationalism for Marx and Engels meant a relationship of solidarity between nations at the scale of the nation, at the collective, not the individual.

Yes, of course.

However, you're still thinking about the...

So in order to be internationalist, you have to have your own sovereignty and your own national form consolidated.

You have to have the victory of the proletariat consolidated in a national context, whether that's in the form of a party, whether that's in the form of a dictatorship, whether that's in the form of an entire country that you've taken over.

The only way you can be internationalist is if you represent your nation and your nation's sovereignty, first of all, and you get your own house in your country.

That is an interesting thing because, of course, there is some backing to your claim.

However, I really liked the explanation of, I mean, for example, Lenin and let's, I mean, God forbid, Bordiga, where they say that there is a moment in time, in every moment, in revolutionary moments, where the nation has to go against itself for the revolutionary cause.

And I think that revolutionary defeatism is not a case of a nation going against itself.

No, I would say even it's a case of a nation going against its hegemony.

No, I would okay.

I would then use my own country, the Serbian social democrats, for example, during the First World War.

They understood that on its own, I mean, in a vacuum, defending Serbia against Austrian imperialism is a good thing.

However, in a greater aspect, looking at the broad picture, they also saw the need for revolutionary defeatism so that the world revolution could get a foothold.

And that is what I mean going at the expense of your nation.

Yeah, but that was completely mistaken because practice has shown no, it was not mistaken because the social democrats in Serbia were right to go for a national defeat.

Yeah, but the only case where communists rose to power in Serbia was when they were defending their homeland.

Yes, but I mean, please, that is a different context.

Concretely, I would say the reason Lenin's revolutionary scale, the nation is not the most important thing.

It's not about importance.

It's about the form of class struggle.

So why is revolutionary defeatism revolutionary in Russia, for example?

Why was that effective?

And why did it succeed?

It succeeded because the national aspirations of the Russian people concretely did not consist in propping up the Germanized, largely Germanized aristocracy and landowning class, but empowering the national majority, which was not a subject of politics at all, but totally excluded, which was the Russian peasantry.

The Russian peasantry who were devoid of land, who were indebted, who were impoverished.

They were the subject of Lenin's politics.

And Lenin's revolutionary defeatism was targeted against a state machine that was at war with its own nation, with the national majority.

And Lenin's revolutionary defeatism actually fulfilled the national aspirations of the Russian people.

Yes, of course, but you're speaking about national self-determination, which cannot in this current uh context be progressive.

In this current twenty-first century, we're talking about it can neither be progressive nor reactionary.

It's a question objectively of course.

How revolutions and class struggle acquire determination is through the national form, and they always have.

It's unavoidable fact of what they are.

A revolution is not abstract, doesn't happen in a vacuum.

It is a thing that happens to nations by nations.

Nations make revolutions.

Yes, but then, of course, you're not talking about.

This is a disgusting disfigurement of the Marxism, I would say.

But this is my opinion.

However, I would say that Marx and English originally wrongly predicted that there would be a more or less simultaneous revolution that first breaks out in the imperial core in England of the most advanced developed capitalist countries, and that once this happens in the center, it's just going to like lightning spread to everywhere else, including the colonized world.

And in this way, from the top down,

Communism would triumph on a planetary scale.

Now, empirically speaking, this notion.

was disproved within Marx and Engels's lifetime.

Within their lifetime they abandoned this notion.

When they wrote the Communist Manifesto they had this wrong notion.

And within their own lifetime they realized it was not correct.

And that, for example, Lenin was abs uh sorry Marx

Recognize that the Russian peasantry had more revolutionary potential in the late nineteenth century than the English proletariat did.

Yes, of course.

And and and on the question of Polish on the on the Polish national question,

They were very clear and explicit.

that the polls need to

constitute themselves as a nation and become nationalists this is the words that they used

And they were the I mean, I would say that uh P Paul's in the s f uh during the First World War shouldn't I mean I disagree with Lenin on uh on the Polish question.

Uh but uh this is a very interesting point you just made about uh but you're trying to say that I agree with LaSalle rather than Lenin and I'm just trying to say what I'm in l what I have my position is fully Leninist, it's fully in line with Lenin.

Yes, of course, because of course it is a dogmatic point.

But uh I would say that uh this is not such an interesting question as I would uh would like you to ask I would like to ask now, which is of course you said a lot about uh the revolutions happening in the imperial court and everything, but of course as we know that that doesn't didn't happen and as we know uh l as Engels, Marx and Lenin anticipated, uh Russia couldn't uh develop a socialist mode of production wasn't uh Lenin was to create a socialist life Lenin was clear that it could be possible to construct socialism in one country.

Then I don't agree with Lenin, I don't agree with Lenin on that point.

Okay, but I'm just trying to tell you you claim that I I I'm more like LaSalle and I'm saying no, I'm a Leninist.

Yes, of course.

Yes, he had some uh I mean I I'm not I'm not using uh uh I'm not uh seeing uh Lenin as a god.

But okay, uh l let's disregard that.

Yes, I mean this is a very simple yes or no question.

Uh is exchange on the market necessarily meditated by value?

By this I mean the social necessary labor time contained in commodities.

Is all exchange on markets necessarily mediated by value?

Yes.

By this I mean socially necessary labor time contained in commodities.

Um yes, but not abstract labor value.

Ah, okay.

So if value exists, does that not mean money, prices and wage labor are presupposed in some form?

No, because value predates the capitalist mode of production.

Yes.

However, in in Marx says where labor uh in the critique of the Gothe programme it says where labor has been directly social, it does not take the form of the value of things.

The v fact that it takes this form proves that it is not social, but private labor.

Your question was whether or not the existence of value means there's capitalism.

It doesn't, because it predates the capitalist mode of production.

Now, the question of at what point can it be said that private property has been fully and comprehensively overcome within civilization?

That's a separate question of whether or not a society can legitimately be called

A socialist mode of production that is developing in that direction.

Yes, of course.

However, this capitalist mode of production necessarily means that wages and value exist.

And of course, if those exist, then classes must exist.

Your perspective is undialectical, and I'll make that concrete.

How so?

I would like to.

Because wages and value and prices and all these other concepts, I would say you're treating them as idols.

They only exist to the extent that they are suspended in a process by which they are overcome by their own by the very contradictions that underlie them.

They don't exist in a way that's institutionally established like some kind of Greek pillars holding up heaven.

They don't exist outside the context.

of overcoming themselves, of being overcome by their own contradictions.

They don't have there's no steady state existence where these things are like enshrined and cemented as definite and

um self subs sustaining.

You see, for Marx, capitalism cannot actually reproduce itself.

To the extent that capitalism has any feedback loops, those feedback loops develop it in the direction of a new mode of production.

So in this sense, Marx was kind of like an accelerationist in a way, if you want to put it this way.

For Marx, to the extent that capitalism has feedback, systemic feedback loops, systemic is the word I'm using, to the extent that capitalism can consolidate itself as a system and that system can reinforce its existence in any kind of way, it is actually suspended in a process of transitioning into a different mode of production.

Yes, okay, but Chairman says, I feel this is devolving into sophistry.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Of course it is.

Because the question is not whether a given society has these different kinds of qualities and categories or whatever, because those cannot be voluntarily overcome.

All you can have is a state whose policies scientifically respond, in principle, to the tendencies that are already in motion.

So revolution is not about changing the mode of production.

Revolution is about throwing the what you just said.

Yes, I am, because you have to listen.

No, you're not.

This is the international.

You need to stop.

You feel yourself, of course, a communist.

You need to stop interrupting me.

For fuck's sake, are you so dogmatic and religiously devoted to your specific interpretation that you're terrified to fucking hear what I have to say?

You are right.

I'm sorry.

I should just listen to you.

I'm studying.

Modes of production are not determined by politics.

They're determined by their own logic of economic development and economic production.

What Marx and Engels believed is that the superstructure imposes a fetter on the development of the mode of production.

And this fetter doesn't necessarily prevent the contradictions from coming to a head, but it prevents the ability for society to respond to them scientifically and rationally.

So that's why they would say later, Luxembourg would say, socialism or barbarism, because the contradictions will come to a head, but if they're not able to be responded to rationally and scientifically, then it's going to cause confusion, decay, degeneracy, and barbarism, basically.

It's going to be chaos.

So.

For Marx and Engels, for the Marxist tradition, the content of being revolutionary, it's a political category, it's about overthrowing the state or toppling the state, or comprehensively asserting the dominance of a completely new principle of governance.

But

When it comes to the mode of production, all effective revolutionary governments and dictatorship revolutionary dictatorship can do is unleash the fetters

On production that are already revolutionary, that are already developing in the direction of socialism.

So you cannot change the mode of production voluntarily.

Revolutionary.

The revolution in production that happens from socialism to capitalism is not subjective, it's objective.

The subjective element, so to speak, is a question of politics and affecting the proletarian dictatorship at the expense of, for example, political reformism.

So a political reformist will say, I want to just elect Zoran or whatever, and then if I defer to the existing.

Even me, if I was running for election, sure.

And you just want to electronize.

You will.

But okay, I would say that I'm far away from my original I would like to ask you how uh reproducing the commun the the uh this mode of production is uh going uh to somehow magically uh like just capitalism cannot reproduce itself to whatever extent of production as capitalism does in a let's say socialist communist uh country like China, how is it going to magically let's say uh one day just uh become commodi uh destroyed commodity production the premises of a new mode of production are already here

Yes, but then less uh then the question is uh why uh is it it's been happening for a long time, it happened in 29, it was deepened in 71.

It's constantly we are entering a new mode of production whether we want to or not.

Now the question of whether that's going to be compatible with civilization is a question of whether we can effectively respond via the superstructure to these changes.

If we dismorization, civilization, these words don't mean anything.

Socialism and barbarism.

Socialism is barbaric.

You're not impressing me, okay?

I'm the king of barbarians.

I'm the barbarian.

Yes, of course I'm offering you new LARP.

And this is new LARP to you.

You should be writing new LARPs.

But the thing is, barbarism is the foundation of civilization.

And of course this is then you're saying that community that capitalism, if I so please tell me if I'm understanding correctly, already has the uh is heading towards a new mode of production as of now, yes?

Is this true?

I'm sorry.

Let me nuke you.

I'm not saying that.

That's what Lenin said in Imperialism.

Not me.

Yes, but this is just pure reformism, then.

This is pure reformism.

No, it's not.

It's not reformismism.

Yes, of course it is.

Listen, I don't know why you guys always fuck this up.

Every one of you ultras fuck this up.

I see it all the time on Twitter.

Reformism is not about gradualism when it comes to economics or the mode of production.

Reformism is about politics.

Do you believe in reform?

But you're just politicking.

This is not reformism as politics.

Oh my god, what are you fucking with?

Reformism is about whether you believe in voting for Zoran Mamdani or what the fuck says Zomram Mamdani with all due respect and do I have to mute you?

Do I have to mute you?

You're like an animal.

Okay.

Well, okay, sorry.

The barbaric part of me.

You know, the American warrior of the farm.

Reformism has absolutely nothing to do with how quickly you think capitalism can transition into a different mode of production.

Reformism is about your attitude and stance and relationship to the state, to the political state.

So if you believe you can shill and you can push the system left enough to get to create socialism from democracy or something, you're a reformist.

If you're a Leninist, you believe in creating a new principle and foundation of state power.

That is incompatible with the one that rules us.

Okay.

So Lenin was decisively revolutionary, not because he overthrew the capitalist mode of production.

He didn't, by the way, and he admitted as much.

He said the habits of capitalism haven't been eliminated.

He presided over the NEP, so he didn't abolish capitalism.

But he was revolutionary because he toppled, he not only toppled the state machine, which, to be honest, was already toppling by itself, he asserted a completely new principle of state power and constructed a completely new principle of state power and dictatorship.

And that is what made him revolutionary.

I understand that.

However, even in the real socialist movements, like in Russia, I do not see how you can make sense of the theory of socialism in one country.

If, of course, dictatorship, the proletarian means the rule of the working class as a class.

Because here's why.

Because although every country is interconnected, every country is also, according to the theory of Lenin at the time, ripe for the emergence of a new mode of production.

Objectively speaking, this was an international thing, Lenin said, that the conditions for socialism have been established with imperialism.

Imperialism is the final stage, according to Lenin.

That's what he believed.

So the question is how this is contradicting anything I said.

I agree with that.

So now the question of decisively being able to construct socialism or not is a question of the superstructure.

It's a question of the political apparatus.

Well, the state superstructure and political apparatus is delimited according to sovereignty, according to the form of a nation.

So you can build socialism within one country because you can lay hold of sovereignty.

You can rule over and preside over a country and respond effectively to the tendency of the invading socialist mode of production and make that the principle of governance.

So that is absolutely possible.

Every single country.

Has this tendency.

It's just that the superstructure is not responding to it scientifically.

And so, as a consequence, you see absurd degrees of the socialization of capital and the centralizing tendencies of capital to the point that render private property almost superfluous completely.

I mean, money itself ends after 71, according to Marx's definition of money, which was an exchange, a commodity that was imbued with abstract labor time.

That was gold for Marx.

Well, fiat money, the production cost of fiat money, it's like a penny, okay?

It doesn't justify its exchange value, which is one dollar.

The production cost of one dollar is not one dollar of value, okay?

Equivalence of value.

So what you left comms have ignored is the element of objectivity in the question of how socialism emerges.

And you misunderstand the relationship between the so-called subjective element, the political element, so to speak, and the economic one.

You collapse the distinction, just like Hitler tried.

Wow, okay.

That is an interesting thing you just said.

But I will, okay, no harm done, no hard feelings.

I would say that, I mean, the goal of the communist movement is to abolish classes.

And I mean, with that, the whole capitalist.

Your claim is devoid of concreteness.

What does that mean concretely?

Nothing.

It's a concept.

But if you don't stand that way, Sony, what you're talking about is a conceptual abolition.

You're saying what the goal of a communist movement should be is to affect an abolition of something inside my head, and that for as long as reality doesn't conform to that abstraction, it is.

Then you're just saying that Marx was an idealist.

No, he doesn't.

You're literally saying that Marx was an idealist when he was saying that the abolition of value and the classes is something that can be achieved.

You are basically saying that he was not saying anything concrete.

You're just saying that.

Yes, I am.

Because Marx was very clear.

Very clear that there was no voluntary ability.

Yeah, it was very clear what he was meaning.

And he didn't critically support Russia in its war against Leviticus.

He did not at any point.

Why are you babbling?

Marx did not at any point.

You're also babbling.

I think we can all babbling.

I have to mute you because you're an animal.

You just can't help yourself.

At no point did Marx refer to a voluntary abolition of anything.

He referred to a process of sublation.

The process by which money and classes and all these things.

Come to no longer become the gover the guiding principles of civilization and society is not because people come together and voluntarily decide to exterminate or eradicate them, but because, according to the very contradictions of class society, as they have reached their culminative point under capitalism, according to Marx, the fertile conditions for their very overcoming have been established and have been made inevitable according to the laws of history.

Marx believed that communism was the riddle of history solved.

That the abolition of private property that you're talking about is not some something affected by fiat according to the voluntary will of a collective or group or individual or something, but that that's actually a tendency of history itself that it's tending toward in the very development of history.

And for Marx, that's an objective process.

And the question of will and the subjective factor is about effectively and scientifically responding to that and acknowledging it.

It's not about enforcing it on reality, to shape it according to some unyielding standard of this needs to be abolished, that needs to be abolished.

That is not Marxism.

That is some ridiculous form of voluntaristic anarchism, if you can even call it that.

Now I'll unmute you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry for my barbarity.

I mean, the spirit of the movement moved me.

But what I wanted to say is that Marxism will be mainly negative in the aspect of destroying current capitalist relations.

What does that look like?

That will mean the complete destruction of the current concrete.

Well, with all due respect, you were not really concrete in your...

You were also speaking abstractly, rather abstractly.

No, I'm not, because I'm defending the concrete experience of communist history fully.

Yes, and we have to agree that the communist history was not able to destroy capitalist relations.

And this is a fact.

That was not the extent of its ambitions was not to comprehensively destroy capitalist relationships, but a factor of the...

Then, comrade, what was the relationship?

The goal was to respond to history, and they did do that within their country.

Yes, respond to changes already happening in history.

Yes.

And respond to those rationally and effectively.

And they did.

Comrade, but as you said, Lenin also agreed that the world is ripe for a revolutionary change.

And that means that the world is ready for a communist.

A revolutionary political change.

So the question is, why did Western Marxists abolish?

The question is, why did Western Marxists fail to respond to the zeitgeist of the moment effectively?

Because they have to...

Well, I mean, I would also blame a little bit of the coming term on that question, particularly, especially people who have your mentality.

Blame people who have your mentality that we can just abolish everything without caring about how these things acquire concreteness and determination.

Revolution.

Capitalism is a concrete thing, and the relations of a capitalist country are very.

I don't think you have a concrete comprehension of capitalism.

I think your understanding of capitalism is entirely according to an abstract formal standard.

I don't think you left comms in general have ever actually studied the system concretely of our mode of production.

Its supply chain, the credit system, how it's funded.

You don't care about any of these things.

All you care about is either the presence or the absence of abstract categories, and you don't care whatsoever about how these so-called categories actually manifest or concretely exist.

And that is not Marxist.

I understand that.

However, I would also say that as you said, and every Marxist agrees, that in the 21st century, the world is, I mean, in the question of being able to carry itself to a communist mode of existence.

I gotta mute you because this has gone on for like an hour.

And I have to narrow the topic to just very basically say, I think you have a loaded understanding of what revolutions are.

I think you think revolutions are people going out on the street naked and abolishing everything.

I think revolutions are a concrete thing.

I think they're a detail of military history.

I think revolutions happen within nations according to a national form.

And I think that they are objective phenomena and they have nothing to do with people running around abolishing things.

Just because they have become comfortable with the notion of abolishing it within their own head.

So that's all I can really say.

You're saying that the world is ripe for revolution.

You don't have to take long saying that, okay?

The problem is I think you have a wrong idea of what revolution even is.

Revolution has a concrete subject.

The concrete subject of revolution is not the fulfilment of any abstract criterion of change.

The concrete subject of revolution is the real existing change

That is all right.

Then let's say that this will be my statement for the whole debate.

I agree with you that the rev the concrete the task of a revolution is change.

However, if that change does not mean that from the start of the revolution let's I'm not even saying I'm don't under I'm a I'm a communist, I believe in the dictatorship, the proletariat and everything between that.

And of course, I don't I as you said, you said that Lefcoms want to abolish commodity production immediately.

I'm not saying that.

However, I am saying that the revolutionary moment has to, at the start of a revolution, to immediately start the process of changing the world, changing the mode of society.

I hear you.

I hear you.

I'm just going to continue to reiterate.

Your understanding is subjectivistic.

No, I'm not saying.

I'm saying that the objective force is a very important thing.

I hate saying this.

I got to mute you again.

But it's like Nick Land has a better understanding of Marxism than you people.

Because I don't fully agree with him.

But it's like a necessary overcorrection that you should go read him.

To get this idea out of your head.

That the revolution is like a subjective thing, it's not.

The revolution's already happening, okay?

The question is are we going to be revolutionary in response to the one that's already happening objectively?

A revolutionary process is not going to affect immediately and at the outset a change in the mode of production.

Revolutions occur in response to changes in the mode of production.

They are not themselves the cause.

And to the extent that they are, then the revolution isn't political, it's economic, and the political one is in response.

So this is a basic base superstructure distinction that is important within Marxism.

The base and superstructure do not transform simultaneously.

The base is primary, okay?

The superstructure responds to the base.

This is the rough relationship that Marxism outlines.

Okay?

Unfortunately, we're going to have to cut it short there.

Maybe another time, but it's been just too long, like an hour, okay?

Walter, go ahead.

Go ahead.

The last speaker of the night.

You know, I love waiting hours listening to all the leftists infighting.

It's very impressive.

But I I had a point to make.

Is my mic working properly, by the way?

Yeah, it is.

So you believe that you're an American, correct?

And that this is an American-based movement, right?

Yeah.

Despite the fact that I'm a brown Arab, I believe I'm an American.

Do you know about the Naturalization Act of um let me make sure I'm correct on this the first Congress 1790 don't give a damn about ancient documents that have no binding status.

On my mind.

According to whoever you are.

According to the First Congress.

Okay, the First Congress was three hundred years ago, so where are we living now?

So we just ignore all the pillars of America and just disregard what you're saying.

Where are the pillars?

I don't see any pillars.

I'm living in reality.

All right.

Well, the pillars are gone, right?

And that's why this country is, you know, kind of fucked because we don't know what an American is.

Okay, so what you're basically saying is what you consider to be the pillars of America have to totally be created from scratch.

And am I on board with this?

No.

If we're already in a position of creating shit from scratch, then I think that something that's more realistic would be something that is actually adapted to the reality of what this nation is and has become, which is not an all-white nation.

Okay.

That is the concept.

I think nations are living things.

They're not dead principles.

They're living things.

Whether you like it or not, America as a nation today is not a exclusively white nation.

And that is the fact living before us right now of the people of this nation and this land.

Well, the issue is with America is that it has an identity crisis, right?

Like if we don't know what an American is, right?

Then how are we going to progress as a country?

Every person in their country, a nation, a nation is a race of people with a common set of cultures and traditions.

If you don't know what that is, then what is America then?

If it's just an economic zone or like any crown like an American.

I have my own definition of that, if you want to hear it.

My definition of an American is anyone who is willing to commit to this land and this land only and struggle and fight for it when shit hits the fan.

So when shit hits the fan, whoever flees this land, regardless of their ancestry, has given up on this land.

Whoever stays in fights and is part of the process of the creation of what this nation is, is part of this nation.

So it's a commitment issue for me.

That's how I see it.

Well, then that's the same argument that Drew Pavlov made, like all the liberals make, that America isn't like a place or a nation or a race of people, that it's more so just magic soil and that any person can just identify with the nation.

And I disagree with that.

I think if you want to go to the same point.

I didn't say identify.

I say give their labor, struggle, and blood.

That's not an identity.

That's an act.

Well what what is the blood and soil of America if not an ethnic American?

What is an ethnic American at that point?

Ethnicities are born of revolutionary struggle.

So an ethnicity is born when people band together and fight for something and die for something.

And once they draw the line,

That defines what that community is based on warfare, right?

All the descendants of that community become part of that ethnicity, okay?

Um

Yeah, I fundamentally reject the notion that you know any person in this country because you know the people that bled for this country since its founding were white men of good moral character.

That's what the future is.

The founding of the the revolutionary founding of the country um

Like even the arguments with like the balloon, the revolutionary founding of the country.

Was never completed.

That's the problem.

The war did happen, yes, that's correct.

The Revolutionary War, people shed blood.

And that is, I would argue, what actually cemented.

Well, you might have to interrupt you because that's not an argument that's made a lot about the blacks being freed.

Yes, we intended to free them and then we wanted to reimigrate them back to Africa.

Both Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson mentioned this: that once you did free them from slavery, they would be sent back to Africa.

I would say that a nation is defined more.

By its living reality, rather than the intentions of ideologists who might have possessed a decisive importance in the history of that nation, sure.

But Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln did not create any nation.

They were trying to respond to their national realities in varying degrees of different ways.

I think that there's a lot that they didn't really know as far as what America as a nation would actually end up being.

I think it was a pretty unprecedented thing they were doing, seceding from the British Empire and constructing a completely new and unprecedented principle of community and state.

And did they have presumptions?

Of course they did, but did they have certainty?

I don't think they did.

I think the Founding Fathers had a concrete view of what America was, which is what we had for several years pre their recent migration acts.

I don't think they had a clear electron.

I don't think they had a problem.

But we predominantly had this country having primarily northern Western European migration for most of its history.

That might have been what they had.

That might have been what they had, but they were not certain that's all it would ever be.

They couldn't be.

All they could do is just respond to the times they were living in.

But could they say this is all this completely unprecedented new principle of state and this new land that's completely, in their view, uncharted and unexplored, could ever end up being?

They had no fucking idea what would happen.

Were they did they have an idea that was an America that reflected what America was at that time?

Yeah, they did.

But could they preempt the possibility that the nation would develop in the way that it has objectively since then?

No, they couldn't.

How could they?

They didn't have magic powers.

Nobody can predict the future, right?

But the basis of their ideology and what an American historically is, is a white man of good moral character, predominantly European for most of our history.

They certainly could have had that expectation, but that expectation was wrong.

On what grounds was it wrong?

It was wrong objectively, because on this continent, the realities of what this nation objectively is and ended up being was far from an exclusively European or white nation.

It was a one people that at the level of civil society interacted with and and you know what this was even true, I would argue, even before the revolution.

The emergence of different mixed peoples and all sorts of different novel ethnic developments.

Tho those are the people behind the um

The Boston Massacre, right?

They provoked it, so to speak.

When the British

Was it the Boston Massacre?

Am I getting the history wrong?

Was it called something else?

You might be getting it.

I believe so.

I think it was Bloody Monday.

I forgot the specific name.

Sorry.

It's blanking on me, too.

Yeah, yeah, that's that specific.

But concretely, right?

Would you not agree that a nation on itself, right, is a race of people with common ancestry and a shared language, right?

Like a shared universal thing.

If the founding fathers were here, that they would approve of what it is.

Like they would look at a lot of people that call themselves American and be like, who the fuck are you?

Where are you on the continent that we intended for white people?

They would probably be baffled by a lot of things, but it has nothing to do with the question of what a nation objectively is.

I don't think nations on etymology.com.

Like everyone knows a nation is a race of people, a large group of people of common ancestry and language, right?

Yeah, but for example, by common.

There is a stock of American.

Yeah, I just that's not true, okay?

Because for example, the Europeans, for example, do not all share a common ancestry to the same degree.

You know, there there might be a Hungarian out there, right, who shares more of a common ancestry.

I actually do genetic studies.

Most northern Western Europeans have a common ancestry going back to Scandinavia of the Yemeni.

All people at a specific scale in time share a common ancestry, okay, according to the Y-DNA analysis.

The Y-DNA DNA analysis is totally arbitrary.

You just pinpoint a mutation at a specific time.

You can go back to the beginning of time, okay?

So I have a question for you then.

If I put you or a Negro, and I don't mean to say this sort of on your stream, right?

I'll try to tone it down, right?

If I put them next to any European and compared myself to them, would you not say that a European would have more in common with an Hungarian than you would, for example?

It would be fair to say that a European has more in common with a Hungarian, but I was going to talk about the Huns and like the various nomadic peoples that invaded Hungary.

Does a Hungarian have more common with them potentially than someone in Britain?

I don't know.

But look.

I mean, like, I can send a genetic chart, by the way.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, look, in any case, I would say that the thing about America is that race is a question of proximity, geographic proximity.

So the process by which peoples acquire proximity and they intermingle and stuff, obviously that's geographic for all of most of history, right?

So that's why, you know, the phenotypes of a given people, there is a geographic logic and continuity to it, right?

People that are clustered in a specific region usually look alike to the extent that they are closer together in land and where they're living.

And that's because people mainly live where they have for a prolonged period of time.

And to the extent that they do migrate, that usually used to take a long time, right?

Yeah, I'm just saying.

So in America, where people separated, continentally separated for thousands of years potentially, are suddenly coming into contact and suddenly coming into proximity, you are seeing pronounced phenotypical differences between people that are extreme and that are atypical when it comes to how nations typically form.

Nations typically don't form from people that are separated for thousands of years continentally.

Nations typically form by people who are already in a degree of geographic proximity with each other or they're brought into proximity, right?

For example, the Greeks coming into proximity with the peoples of Mesopotamia, that's not a huge leap across the pond, so to speak.

It's not comparable to, for example, the Greeks immediately entering into proximity with the Japanese.

So this is the logic of how races and ethnicities and nations form for all of history until, let's say, the discovery of the Americas and the rise of the global capitalist system.

And that presents unique circumstances, sure.

And that's why we have a category of race.

I mean, racial distinction, it's a category of continental distinctions, right?

Because you mentioned Europe and you mention Africa and these are continents.

And wha why that's important is geography is important for how people come to be.

When people separated for thousands of years from different continents come together into one place,

Um their physical characteristics.

are accentuated to a huge extent.

But

Now that they are here sharing this geographic proximity in one place, you say it's a question of magic turret.

It's not, it's just a question of people living amongst each other.

That's all.

And laboring amongst each other and producing amongst each other and creating.

Because what a nation is, it's not a static thing.

I mean, people feed themselves, they build, they support themselves.

This is not something that's given.

It has to be done through labor.

Okay?

So a shared community of labor and production and geographic proximity.

Is a sufficient reci recipe for the uh genesis and unification of a nation, regardless of, you know, the the the extreme

Physical differences that are a consequence of the separation by continents for thousands of years.

So that would be my argument.

I would say there may be an argument for ethnogenesis and right, like a lot of schizophrenic, like white nationalists, for example, say, oh, next race people have been here for like several decades after they get killed.

But like there is, you know, if you're not genetically of a nation, right?

There's kind of a difficulty with identifying with that nation.

That's why there are a lot of people in this country that don't know what they really are, what really an American is.

So, I mean, but I think it all boils down to a question of labor and commitment.

So, for example, a lot of the people that are immigrants who are not strongly loyal to America are people that are usually working jobs that are not connected to productive labor, industries, or agriculture, anything that forces them to commit to the land.

It's usually stuff that, like, it's a quick, you know, I'll be a coder, I'll be some kind of professional or something, and you can eventually just immigrate back if you raise enough capital or make enough money.

Versus, you know, if you're tied to the land, then you're going to have your family here, you're going to have your descendants be here, they're going to have to coexist with the communities that are already here and merge with them and mingle with them.

And that reflects a degree of commitment.

And that is not.

Not all immigrants are committed to that.

It's true.

But that's the capitalist system.

We have a free-for-all.

Okay.

So we don't have a socialist system that binds everyone to a degree of commitment to the nation and to the common welfare of the people.

We have a free-for-all system where everything's...

I mean, you can buy citizenship right now for a few million dollars.

They have the gold card, right, that Trump created.

So I think it's like a good idea to return to what the founding fathers intended and go back to their paperwork and what the first Congress deemed American is.

So it's easier to identify.

Look, I'll speedrun it and simplify it.

I know it's very late, but I'll just tell you my take.

Okay.

That's civil war.

That's bloody conflict.

That's balkanization.

It cannot unify this country.

It would lead to this country being torn apart.

I will tell you with certainty, not only will all the minorities object to it, half of the white people will object, if not more than half.

Most white people don't agree with it.

Most white people don't agree with excluding all the non-whites.

It's just the truth.

You can get maybe a maximum of 25%, I think, maybe, who would sign up for that.

The rest would say that's unreasonable.

I have black coworkers, I have Mexican friends, I have a Mexican girlfriend, I have a this, I have and they would say I don't wanna I don't wanna do this thing where we're just gonna make it all white people.

I have native blood, I have this, I have that.

I know white people, okay, so I'm not talking out of my ass here.

I know you're evangelizing it.

You're trying to convince all of them, but I don't even think you're going to succeed in convincing white people to agree with you.

I mean, there is a growing sentiment within a lot of politics, right?

Where a lot of people.

Yeah, but to name that sentiment, you have the Nick Fuentes thing, and most of them are not fully white.

Most of them are Mexican or they're Latino.

Yeah, but necessarily, like I wouldn't say they're the only, I think you're confusing, like Groipers aren't necessarily the only faction within that sphere, right?

You also have ethnic Americans.

The Groipers are the only ones.

They're the only ones growing at a sufficient rate.

To where you can say this phenomenon has taken hold.

But s serious white nationalism I don't think is

Winning at all.

A more kind of ironic one, which is like brown self-hatred is taking root.

I agree with that.

But that yeah, that that is a thing, right?

But would you not deny, like, due to the extreme conditions, right, within the country, and especially the H1V discourse, like a lot of the right-wing has sort of become more racialized, at least even amongst the people.

I don't even see that as racial.

I see that as that's a lot of people, black Americans, like black Americans, people that are more working class and committed to this country are upset that foreign labor is coming and being imported at their expense.

And that's not necessarily black Americans like genetically, I did studies into this.

Like they have their dental records go back to the founding fathers because there was a lot of mixing that happened.

So I mean like they sort of have a stake in the country, at least genetically speaking, like 80% of them on average have like 23%.

There's natives, there's Latinos even that are here.

Yeah, but Latinos have an entirely different culture compared to like the base of what America is.

That's why I beg the difference.

When I go to Texas and when I go to the Southwest, I see a fusion and a mixing of cultures.

Again, it's the geographic proximity thing.

It's totally normal.

I I would say it's it's a hard argument to make and I don't want to come up here and insult you or anything like that.

So I'll just put it in the middle of the morning.

No, you can you can insult the way.

I'm an I'm an uh Arab, son of Lebanese immigrants.

And what can I say?

I mean, I am what I am.

I have no

I don't rest on the laurels of my ancestry.

I don't need to.

I rest on the laurels of what I am and what I do, and I'm nothing else but that.

I am nothing else but what I am and what I do.

That's it.

I don't have an aristocratic pedigree, you know, of Sir Willington with a white powdered head or something.

All I am is what I do.

That's it.

Yeah, and I would just say, you know, best of luck to you.

I just consider an American to what the Founding Fathers decreed within this country.

And I don't think I can really convince you otherwise.

So it's kind of a pointless debate in the first place.

I mean, I've thought, for example, at a point in my life, I thought about me moving back.

I don't know what that means, moving back, going to live in Lebanon or something.

You want to like fight Israel?

Being with my co-eth.

What's that one?

What's that one?

I'm not even the problem.

I go to Lebanon, which I have gone.

And don't get me wrong, I love the people there.

They're great.

It's a great country.

But.

I don't have the culture.

I don't.

It's just the truth.

I I I I was born and raised here and this is all I know.

I go over there, I'm a foreigner.

I'm a foreigner in Lebanon, okay?

I am functionally a foreigner.

I don't even speak the language.

And

All the people that I know are here and that I've met and that I've been socialized with are here.

So why would I go just because it's like the episode of SpongeBob where Squidward went and all the people looked like him, who looked like Squidward?

Squidward didn't even get along with those people.

He wanted to go back to the Krusty Crab with Patrick and SpongeBob, even though they're not Squids.

I just think like if you look at all the racial riots like in LA and like BLM, like those are representations of like contradiction with within like the American mythos, right?

Due to the confliction of identity, like the various groups are fighting themselves within the country 'cause we don't know what an American is.

Um I think it's more complicated than or not even more complicated.

I just think it's different from that.

I think that

First of all,

Race riots have been a thing in history.

I don't know if BLM and the Mexican riots in LA were that.

Dude, th there were literally Mexicans all over social media claiming that they have a claim to the United States and that it's greater Mexico.

Like, if that's not ethnic grievances

That's a racial conflict, I would say.

That's more of a national well, it's a few things.

It's more of a national sentiment.

What is a nation then?

What is a nation?

I agree, it's a result of confusion over American identity for sure.

I mean, it it's parallel to that.

I can agree with that.

But what I would say basically is that.

Um

Defining what America is as a nation has to take into account the people already here objectively that form the nation.

And I don't think the reason look, I'm just gonna say I'm gonna simplify it.

The solution is communism.

And the solution is communism for the very simple reason that it's the only thing it's going to establish as a principle committing to the land and committing to the people here.

The absence of this commitment and the dominance of the capitalist principle

Leads to a situation where we don't effectively have a national consciousness at all within this country or a unified national consciousness.

Because take California, for example, and the conflicts there.

What is the crux of the conflict?

The crux of the conflict is the importation of cheap labor.

They do farm work.

Yeah, but it displaces the native ethnic Americans.

And like I said, how do you deal with this if the people who are here weren't intended to be here by the Founding Fathers?

Like how do you handle that, right?

Regardless of what the Founding Fathers wanted, there needs to be instituted a commitment to the land and to the people.

Commitment is square one.

of national existence.

And a national principle.

Um

You know, for as long as

The flows of population and the relationships between people within this country are purely defined by money.

There is no principle of social harmony, whether national or otherwise, that will be possible.

People will continue to be divided according to many different tribes and many different things.

Yeah, but if there's a piece of paper, right, and there's a document, right, for the basis of the country that clearly quantifies what an American is, I mean, then that's that.

It's concrete.

Like, that is what the founding fathers wanted.

Piece of paper isn't concrete.

You don't believe that.

If you believe that, then you would believe that paper citizenship is what makes an American.

You don't believe that.

So a piece of paper is a very important thing.

No, it's like the founding documents, like the basis of what the country is, like what things intended.

They're wishes for the country.

The country is a material reality.

It's not a document.

It's a fact of existence.

It's a fact of how people live, how they eat, how they reproduce themselves, how they reproduce biologically, how they form communities, how they transmit values.

Those are living tendencies and principles.

They're not yeah, the reality was that people came here, you know, the people living here beforehand didn't have a country, and then those settlers killed them, conquered them, and made a country that exists in this day, and that was made for those people.

No, what happened was that people were pursuing land grabs to make a quick profit, and there was no national intentions at all.

It was an individual intention.

And afterwards, it was said that this is a new nation.

The the killing of the natives and all this was all a consequence of individual pursuit of profit.

And in fact, we would have been we would have been better and and all those people that went west doing that all got fucked over themselves.

So they went and killed the natives to get the quick profit.

And then bigger fish came and fucked them.

And that's the whole story of the Wild West, by the way.

That's the whole story of how the West ended.

And ev all the Western movies are about it.

But in any case it would have been better.

Instead of genocide,

for us to have instituted a principle a civilizational principle of developing the land in common, productively, and um

you know, in ways that could be done uh

With the natives, you know, we would have been better off for it.

We wouldn't have gotten screwed in the way we ended up getting.

But I digress.

Or not we.

I don't want to say we.

Huh?

How how were the Americans screwed?

You know, we killed like, I wouldn't even necessarily it was necessarily a genocide.

Of course they were screwed.

Americans were screwed because they had they all the land that they had was taken from them and they became slaves.

themselves.

They became wage slaves.

So that's how they got screwed.

But I mean, like, th I I wouldn't ne I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

Sure, there was a governance form that, you know, would tax some property tax.

It's a pain in the ass, right?

But not just property taxes, we're talking dispossession.

Like when Rockefeller found oil under the land and how much people he evacuated and kicked out and how much dirty business was going on with that prospecting shit.

And that's the tip of the iceberg, obviously, but

The winners of the westward expansion weren't the American people.

They didn't.

But I mean, like, there was suffering, but the country that was built afterwards was beautiful.

It was beautiful for most of the ethnic Americans.

You know what America was beautiful in the consciousness of 99% of people?

It was beautiful in the 50s when we more or less had like.

Pressure from the Soviet Union to adopt socialistic policies.

Well, as soon as that pressure I would disagree because I think that was when the nuclear family came around, which kind of destroyed the multi-generational family.

And that was born of the GI Bill, and it was born of the New Deal, and it was born of all these things that had to happen because of pressure from the USSR.

And as soon as that pressure was taken off, it all went to the wind.

I just disagree with that.

And also I would just say, right, the fifties were a horrible time.

It was very chaotic and it was when the nuclear family became pro proliferated in the West and it really beautiful the multi-generational family structure which maintained the country.

I would say its peak was around between the eighteen hundreds around that time, it was really the peak around American time.

What?

The the middle or the the early or the late?

The middle to late.

So the Civil War?

Uh to some the Greek hosts of a war as well.

So reconstruction.

Yeah, and I I would say the last chance we really had to really fix this country was during the Civil War.

Afterwards we were kinda fucked.

Like that was our moment in America where we made a decision as a nation and chose our path, which was pretty shit in general, but we did choose our path.

I mean like the Civil War was our last chance to really save the country but after that yeah from there it kind of went from shit.

So I j we gotta end it there because we've gone on too late, but I don't know.

I mean yeah, yeah, and that that's fine.

I I hope I didn't take up too much of your time.

I was waiting very patiently, so All right, no problem.

So we'll just end it there, you know.

I d I don't think you see it's a utopia.

I mean, America is what it is.

We can't go back to the past and I don't even know where we would go back.

And we gotta take

responsibility.

You know what's funny, not a single groiper came on this whole space.

Not a single one.

That's fascinating.

Well, anyway, guys, for the purposes of the algorithm, I'm going to be removing the post

From my uh from my timeline.

It's not even recorded on X, but kick.com/slash infrared.

is where you can um

is where you can uh watch the video.

Alright.

So

Alright, we're wrapping it up.

Says one person's requesting to speak, I can't see who it is, who's requesting to speak.

Oh boy, let me invite someone to co-host.

Maybe they can see

Urban genius.

I'll give you a really quick chance.

Go ahead, very quickly.

Very quickly, go ahead.

What unmute yourself.

Unmute yourself.

Go ahead.

How are you doing, my brother?

We got a lot of time, so we gotta make it go fast.

You got it, brother.

Sound like a Muslim too.

I need not Muslim name, brow.

Oh, yeah.

Well, I wanted to ask, first of all, you know, there's some aspects of communism that, you know, I can concede to, but my problem with the ACP movement and with communism in general is I don't know how it's still relevant today because most of the benefits that, you know, like Karl Marx wrote in his book and all that, we already see today.

So people have people have social nets that protect you if you're unemployed, if you can injure that work.

And then, oh no, the space ended.

Oh, no.

Fuck.

I'd end it, it was a glitch, what can I say?

Uh

Have I been muted this entire fucking time?

I'm about to end

the stream, so if you're gonna drop

Subs speak now, forever hold your peace.

I'm just saying.

You know not to crab it up in here.

Not to crab it up.

Anyway guys, uh why is the mod doing that?

Why is it fucking doing that?

I everything I'm seeing on Streamlabs is like a mod removed, mod deleted.

What is going on?

Is that kick?

Oh, it's MrBeast kick.

MrBeast took over kick.

Removes the R word.

Can I change my settings?

Uh banned words.

Mm I don't have a lot of band words, so I don't know how to change the settings, man.

No, no, I'm not the one who's banning these words, it must be a site-wide thing.

Nuna.

Nunn in.

Na na na na na na na na na na na.

They banned the word redneck, it's fucking crazy.

Me no no no.

Hey look at this, forty six percent of farmers have profitability.

I I I knew it.

I knew I was right.

I didn't wanna let him know that I'm not yet.

It wasn't his job seeing you and made him look like a wiggle.

Anyway.

Yo, I'm so funny.

Chris, thank you so much, bro.

Appreciate you.

Appreciate you.

Oh AI moderation.

Right.

Okay, hate speech maximum.

Okay, um

Alright, free speech is back.

Hey speech is back.

Oh, but you still can't say slurs like crack.

Like Graham.

Lin in a nin and in.

Neen in.

Alright y'all.

Alright y'all, we're just gonna have to build back better on Sunday.

Dun dun dun dun dun nun.

No no no no no no no.

In and in.