🔴 RED NEWS | MASSIVE DEBATE ROYALE | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

Don't stop, baby, you can walk through.

So I'm everything about you.

You know that I'm gonna spend the middle of the mirror.

Oh, see me, the lim of my middle Oh I'm thinking

I'm thinking

I'm feeling

Oh

Sometimes

I think about is you

late nights in the middle of

June

Eways been

faking me out can't make you happy oh now sometimes i think nobody's

late nights in the middle of june he ways been faking me out Can't make you happy oh now

Usually I put something on TV so we never think about you and me but today I see our reflections clearly in Hollywood laying on the screen you just need a better life than this

you need something that I can never give fake water all across the road it's gone now the night is come

but sometimes I think about it's you

Late nights in the middle of June

Ewe's been freaking me out

Can't make you happy on now

You can't fight it

You can't breathe you say something so loving

But now I gotta let you go

You'll be better off than someone you

I don't wanna be alone

You know it hurts me too

You look so broken

When you cry

And then I say goodbye

Sometimes I think about is you

That night's in the middle of June,

Eweighs been freaking me out, can't make you happy or now.

Sometimes all I think about is you, late nights in the middle of June He ways been freaking me out

Can't make you happy on now

I just wonder what you're dreaming of

When you sleep and smile so comfortable

I just wish that I could

give you that

that look that's perfectly

unsaid

sometimes all I think about is you

late nights in the middle of June

he always been faking me out

he ways been faking me out Eways been faking me out

Sometimes I think about as you

Late nights in the middle of June

Ewe's been freaking me out

Can't make you happy on now

Sometimes I think nobody's new

Late nights in the middle of June

He waves been freaking me out

Can't make you happy on now

I'm going to The The It's not a sense contrary That's easy to find out of The bono'er The bonoen exist that for plair I love I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

really

in a really

I'm

a

I'm

obliged

the

the spirit

is not the

it's not

complicated to be happy

The spirit

N'est Pne is

More

It's not complicated

Toe

It's all

It would be

We could be

We could be

We'd have to

forget

One day But there's But there's I would It would be To do Ombly One

But there

But I'm

My name

But this

Bonneux

If I

If I

I'll

I'll have

I

No

No

There

No

No

No

A

Aene Ageness Plenance plenty of sentiments

L'Henny is unconditional

I can feel

the malice of the people who dance

Try to You're just

Vue's souvenir like the DSL

And if all the

all the people-You All

It's

It's

It's

It's

We should

It would

It would

We'd

To forget To

One

But I

But I My I'm I This bono This bono I I I'm I I I'm I I'm good But there I have your joy

This bono

If I

If I

I'd

I'd

I'd

The espion

to It's not

complicated

to be

The

It's not It's is no it's not

complicated

that's not

the spirit

that's not

complicated

if it's not

if it's not

if you

would just

if you

would you

would be

turn the

eyes

forget

that you are always that you

are always youue That you are Always she's

She'll

Blue that

Blissed

Oblick

That's

She's

You've

You've You've

That's

It's

If you

If you If you If you would, you'd You'd It's just If you'd

If you'd

You'd

Beulay, you'd

Beaux

It'd

Beholding

You'd

believe

You'd

One'd Ombly

One day

But there I'd But there But there

But there

I'm

It's

If I

If I

I'll I'll

I'll I'll

You

It would

To forget

To be To To be

I You to you to be you it would

be

there there

no

the

I'm

there I'm

there I'm

and

if I

if I

would you know I

I let's more more at my back If I never would, I'll have You'll respite

To be more

To be more

It's not

It's not

To be

To be

To be To be It's not

It's not It's

To be

It's not

It's not

Just a If you If you If you'd If you'd If you would, you would, you'd It would be more at a moment It's not complicated It's just a ho

If you'd want to be

If you'd want to be

You'd be sure If you'd just be If you'd want to I'd just be I'd just like I'd My journey My journey is past

At one of these

Vitesse My name is out of And not lave pass at one of his vets,

not put the ne

and the

door

and not

to the

end up

I'm not

I'm not

a battery

faute

I'm not

to get

to be

and it

and it

never

like I

want,

I

wanted to

do you did

tell

I

don't

to tell

to tell

why

I'm not

I'm sorry

I'm sorry

I'm

I'm still

I'm still

I'm

when I'm

when I

talk about

it's too

far

it's

maybe

but oh

more I

laugh oh I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm It's too far It's Foufet But oh But I Rue

I'm

I'm To be

To not To I'm

Mewour

Mew

Mew

It's

Or

Yeah You

me Moulet

That

Yeah Or Yeah You M You've Morrow Maw Marchet Yeah, you me wanted It's yes, or or

well, So,

tomorrow

You'll Marcia Yeah

Or

Yeah

I'm

I've I've I've I've

to have to

I

Yeah or Yeah

We Yeah We Yeah I I'm No Yere Again, we're

Lied

I was

She's the

Rue

She complete

She'll

She'll have She's

That's

That's

That night

That's Rue

Monde's Mexpress You've You've You've You've You've You I guess the So we're I'm Express

You've got

I've seen

But I'm

To bring

But I'm

And then

You

Embrace

Then you

I'm

Look like

Look at

Look

I'm

Soury

Look at

I

I want

What you

When I'm

When I I'm Too too far It's so far

It's not, but oh,

I'm sorry

Oh, I'm sorry

To not want to

Mim

You're right

Or bien

If you were If you me wanted It's yes or beyond I mean you've ever,

You were to be bullied

See, or well,

tomorrow, you'll frown

You'll try to marchet

I'll be

I'll be able to

I'll have to be it I'll be it

Oh, yeah or well it's a name I'm going to have to I'll be it I'll be in

this name

Why do you

I'm more

than the other

Why even

when they love

I've been

I've got to I'm

Why I'm

I'm at my

mown

in my own in in my I've got you till I Why I'm To know I'm at my

Morrow

I'm in

Quoyance

That you

Raccount

When you

Mekrieve

That I'm

I'm gonna

And finally

It's

Demoson

It's

Yeah

Or bien

It's no

Yeah

You me Boulay It's me Or bien It's not it's yes or or well yesterday you were

you were

it's really

or well

that's

tomorrow

you'll

you'll

make

a man

to be

I'm

I've got

to have to

to be

to be

to be to

be

so

Yeah, yeah, or be it's not, yeah, or bien, it's a non. Yeah, or well, it's a non.

Yeah, or well, it's a name.

Yeah, you were,

or bien, it's a nun.

Yeah, you me wanted.

Tiawi or bien, it's a nun. The skyl is my

My friend

My

My I see

clear And the

The rain

The rain vests

Wept

The

Life is there

My

Amour And the The wind my love

and the

wind

suffle

each

day the wind

blast

to remember

that we

love

the the nights to remember that we love that we love these these

are not

the night

these nights

are these nights

are a few of the ewing nights are a few

Auberculosis

In the Ehrlich

Incheon

The Lo

Lone

the fleur

Monde

Mandsau

Dio

Dissimo Profondeur Du decim

or profound

The wind blest

To remember

That we we

Weem

To my name

At your name At your To my To my To my

To my

To my

To my Mom At your mind

To know

To know

To know

To know

To mind

To know To know

I

The sky Oh We're We're

We're free We're We're We're

We're We're all Thank you. I'm sorry I'm glad

I'm blessed

and comes around

to remember

that's

I'm not

my mind

I'm my mind Oh These nights Oh, My head

Oh,

my

are so

I'm

These nights

are A few

Emp-

Ehrlich a few A few Ablebleque I'm God Kevin blessed

and we're

to hear

that we're

we're not for us and we're I'm gonna I'm gonna

I'm

I'm not I'm

a time

I'm gonna come on

a lot

I'm

a lot

I'm a

a tomorrow I'm not. I'm not. I'm a lot.

I'm

I'm

I'm not you know because we are going to be jumping in the space quite shortly.

But welcome to the stream, everybody.

This is going to be an exciting one.

It seems like there are people who are, in fact, willing to actually confront the American Communist Party about their various criticisms and whining and crying all the time.

And it's very surprising because I thought they were just venting, but some of them actually do want to challenge us and see what we're made of.

In terms of our ability to basically respond to these confrontations, 99% of the time we're not able to respond because the people who make them have us blocked and they just bullshit with impunity, well, not with impunity because there's legal stuff involved.

Everybody, listen up.

This is going to be in a Twitter space,

and I'm also going to be streaming it.

But here's what you're going to get from the stream.

My raw and unfiltered thoughts and also commentary and a lot of other fun stuff.

And we're also going to be doing stuff after the debate. So there's also some stuff I wanted to talk about.

I don't know how much time I have for that.

But we have the election coming up in a few weeks.

We have the anniversary of the October Revolution, which, by the way, we are thinking about getting a small get-together in Chicago on the 7th to commemorate that. If you're scattered, I mean, if you're not close, if you're not, it's not driving distance, don't even think about it. But it's something we're thinking about.

But it's not going to be like a huge, huge. It's not going to be like an event that we do,

like our conferences. It's just, you know, it's just something we'd like to do to commemorate the October Revolution. In any case, I have a lot on my mind that I actually want to talk about, but we're just

going to get right into the debate, actually. And what was I going to say? Let's get right

into it. How about that? How will we just get right fucking into it?

Count zero.

Thank you for the subscription.

Minister, I appreciate the subscription.

Guys, I hate to say this.

It's not your fault.

It's totally my fault because of the inconsistent streaming. The fact that I've cut down on streaming.

Yo! Anonymous! I appreciate it with the 10. I mean, speak of the devil. Appreciate you so much, brother.

It's totally my fault. Definitely not your fault. Definitely no one's fault but my own.

But I hate to admit I've been falling on some difficult times, which in the long term I'll be able to get out, no problem.

But in terms of, you know, this being a career path, I've kind of neglected my bread and butter,

which is streaming, to focus on the party, to focus on books.

I don't know if you guys don't know this, but none of us in the party get a salary.

So this is how I'm surviving.

Nothing is urgent.

It's not an emergency.

I think I have enough for at least a few months

and uh you guys are still supporting on patreon so i appreciate that but i'm just telling you guys

this not to ask you for donations i'm just just telling you they are very, very much appreciated.

And that's really it.

You know, they're very appreciated.

Again, if people have told you that Russia funds me or China funds me, I wish.

I fucking wish. 10 million fucking dollars to timpool i don't

don't you start it don't we don't get shit though we don't get shit right human life what's up

by the way the reason we don't get shit from them

red saffron

oh my god

you guys are so fucking generous

thank you so much

australistandy red saffron

what's going on guys

um no Strails, Stanley, Red Saffron. What's going on, guys?

No, I mean, the reason isn't because they dislike

us, it's just because they know we'd get caught

instantly.

They're not stupid.

We're not stupid. We wouldn't take the money because we know it's stupid, we're not stupid.

We wouldn't take the money because we know it's illegal and we're not going to do that.

But it does make things really fucking hard, though.

I'm not going to lie.

It makes things very fucking hard, right?

Um, but, you know, such as the life and it's nothing it's nothing emergency level i'm just

you know i'm just letting you guys know it's very appreciated anonymous thank you so much brother i appreciate. Thank you so much, brother.

I appreciate you.

Appreciate you so much.

And again, at the end of the day,

this is on me, all right?

The more I stream consistently,

the more this is more viable.

I cut it to three times a week,

which is not a lot.

I did that because of all the other responsibilities and obligations I've taken on,

including the book stuff.

God, sleeper cell,

can you just let me fucking talk for one second?

All right?

I'm 12 minutes late, and they're already getting the ball rolling.

Anyway.

Um, what was I going to say?

Yeah.

The, and then I skip even the times I do, I'm supposed to do three times a week, but I skipped last Thursday.

So, you know, it is on me.

And I promise to be more consistent.

And at this point, ones if you think I should just have a fucking schedule

just 7 p.m. on the dot

Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday

no exceptions

no exception

and it's 7 p.m. Eastern time a good time

I think it is right

although I feel like you guys are more 8 p.m. Eastern

every day

I'll tell you the problem with every day

is that I'm so wrapped up

in the book and in the theory stuff that I'll have a train of thought going, which is not topical with regard or with respect to news or anything you'd be immediately interested in. So the day that I stream, I can't really focus.

It's just kind of like an issue, right?

There's no way I could do it every day right now.

Now when I finish my book, well, when I finish my book, honestly, the book is what I'm hoping

is going to be like, we'll start

a viable career.

Getting it published

and all that kind of stuff. So that's why I've

been, like,

been so balzy about

neglecting the streaming side of things.

It's just because, like, I'm hoping that when I finish this book, you know, I'll have a career going for me in terms of writing books, which is something I kind of prefer over streaming full-time.

Now, I said full-time.

I like streaming.

I just don't like doing it five or eight hours a day, every day.

How much you planning on selling it?

Well, a principal, and this is another

balzy, risky move, but for my community and my

guerrillas, you get free PDFs.

But for the rest of the world I will sell it

in terms of digital copies on Amazon

I'll sell it

for Normies

Now if you want a physical copy

You obviously have to pay

No matter who you are

But if my guerrillas cannot afford it and of course i'm not going to block

information you know of course i'm going to i'm not going to copy strike or whatever you

fucking you guys do so at first it's just going to be physical copies.

At first, they'll just be physical copies.

But as soon as it's available digitally online, basically for dumb boomers, I'm going to have it on Amazon sold digitally.

But for you guys, if you want to read it digitally, you could just have it for free.

And that'll be no problem.

You could just get it, PDF it, whatever.

It's not going to be hard to access.

The book is not going to be incredibly expensive though i don't anticipate it will i mean i think

it'll be a normal priced book i mean should i should i be should i sell it for a lot should i sell

for a hundred dollars Should I sell it for $100? You know?

No.

150 minimum.

Yeah. I love writing.

I love writing a lot.

But I also like going on the camera and yelling.

So now we're going to join the space.

Just wanted to give you that update.

Just wanted to let you know.

And appreciate the subscription,

gifted subs. That is what is continuing to support me right now. Russia, China, all these Iran,

they're not nothing. And we couldn't even take anything either because I'd go to jail right away, right?

And from the party, nothing.

There's no party.

There's no revenue in the party.

As a matter of fact, I want to tell you guys something.

And I hope this makes you a little bit proud, at least.

I would say almost everything you guys have donated to me for the entire year, at least half of it has gone to the party.

I have spent a fuck ton of money,

your money, by the way, that you have given me,

to the point where I'm broke,

that's why I'm saying this.

Like, the money you've given me,

I've given it all to the party, right?

Granted, some, not all of it, so, so like some of it was the Airbnb, then I'm staying at for the

Plenary Committee.

Darg actually is the one who rescued us.

I don't know if he wants to divulge this stuff. But in any case, the hats only, and I didn't get reimbursed,

and I don't want to get reimbursed for them because all the profits go to the party.

What else?

A lot of shit.

The production for the launch video, all this.

The plane tickets to Russia.

Because I had to leave earlier.

Basically, I'm broke.

You know?

I'm just telling you to you straight up.

But I'm telling you this not because i want you

to feel bad for me i will be okay i will ultimately be okay i don't want you to worry i will

ultimately be okay right because when there's a will there's a way and i will never ever beg for anything you know i'm all i have dignity and i'll be

fine and i'll find a way don't worry about me i'll find a way right but i'm telling you this

because anytime somebody calls me a fucking grifter,

or you're a streamer, yeah, but look

at what I fucking spend it on, though. I literally

spend everything back

to the cause.

Like, everything is back to the cause

except the fucking clothes I wear

on the back

of my back, wearing this

fucking uniclo jacket that was $20.

All right? I'm saying this

because I'm unlike Comrade Jackson

Hinkle who spends $500

trillion on Rolex. I'm just

kidding. It wasn't even a Rolex.

It's so stupid.

Somebody tried to attack Jackson because there was a photo of me and Jackson.

He had a watch.

They zoomed in and made up the idea that it was a $15,000 Rolex.

In reality, it was an affordable watch that was actually gifted to him by someone,

and it wasn't a Rolex.

But you guys need to understand something about me and Jackson and the whole crew.

We're broke.

We actually pretend to be Mr. Crabs, communists, who are like, have Gucci stuff and we're ball in.

And we only do that shit to flex on our haters.

But behind all of that

we're actually fucking broke. It's just the truth.

And, you know, we should

grift off of

our brokeness. Zen, what's

up? All right, I'm joining the space right now. Don't worry.

Zen with the 10. Thank you

so much,

brother.

We should grift off of our

brokenness like

all these other

bitches.

But I'm going to

still pretend like

I'm fucking wealthy.

Because I'm

wealthy in spirit,

bitch.

I'm going to still

pretend like I'm

fucking wealthy.

Because I feel like a million dollars no matter

where I go, bitch. I fucking

all these people wearing this dumb

Gucci design. If I genuinely

wanted Lambos, I could get Lambos.

I don't fucking want Lambos. I want

the American Communist Party and the most powerful,

vigorous, up-and-coming, based fucking political community in the West and in America.

That's what I fucking want, and I got it. Don't be feeling bad.

I'm not broke, all right?

If I wanted the high life, I would get it.

I have that determination.

I have that capacity within me.

That's why I never stressed.

That's why I'm chilling.

Anyway, guys, appreciate it.

Let me join the space right now.

The question,

it's confusing.

Some people are hesitant at first,

but I found that usually

when you'll explain it,

it makes sense.

And like,

once you get on the ground

organizing, like, you get on the ground organizing

like you see

how much sense

it makes

because it just

wouldn't make sense

for us to leave Canada

behind there

are all these

dedicated people

Rev bring me up

to join

fucking retard

what's going on

Canada

because like I said they don't believe the me up. Fucking retard. What's going on? Canada.

Because, like I said, they don't believe the left-wing or

communist parties in Canada are doing

a good job. Yikes.

They like the theoretical

foundation and the work

of the ACP. So to

leave these people behind and be like, no, you know, you're Canadian.

You can't join the ACP when, as we said, Canada basically has no sovereignty of their own.

All right.

What's going to happen is I need to use blue stacks.

God help me.

I fucking hate this app.

Violent hatred for Blue Stacks, by the way.

The shittiest app in the fucking world, but I have to use it

because the browser is even

shittier. Elon, what are you fucking doing,

man? Just let us, just fix the

Twitter spaces for desktop.

The fuck. Even Trump was

when he was in the Twitter space, he had his phone and he was he was like looking over his phone like a fucking retard it's stupid

blue stack's probably made in tel Aviv all right well i guess i'm getting bombed all right let's join the space through blue stacks

appropriate tweet one second um my phone is having a glitch attack as usual can i please be added

um we'll let l in here yes finally uh the cannabis party in

Quebec

it wasn't like straight

communism but like I used

the party to

to try to get a seat

but like I didn't get voted in.

All right, what?

Eddie's the nice guy, and I'm the root.

Yeah, I agree with you guys.

All right, get rid of this guy.

Get rid of this fucking guy.

Okay, right?

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah. All right. I you guys hear me? Yeah.

All right.

I'm the asshole and Eddie's a nice guy.

Here's what we're not doing today.

All right.

Can you guys hear me all right?

Yeah.

You're good.

So we're not here to bring up people who are like you know i kind of like you guys

yeah we're not that's not what this is for what this is for are all the people who said oh i

missed out on the thing you were you were you were bringing people up to debate them why didn't you

well we gave you a day's notice now,

and we're looking for those people. I kind of like you guys. Yeah, we're not, that's not what this is for.

What this is for are all the people who said, oh, I missed out on the thing you were, you were bringing people up to debate them.

Why didn't you?

Well, we gave you a day's notice now.

All right.

This thing is broken.

It's fucking broken.

I don't know what's going on, but it's fucking broken.

Uh-oh.

We lost here it set the tone

this is not my name

alright he's back

all right this is massively glitching

I don't know on who it's like delayed or something

can you hear me right now is it all good yeah all right

um we don't want people who like us to come up and speak we want people who are crying every single

day about acp to come up and genuinely just confront us with the things that you're saying.

And it should be that simple.

I mean, if what you're saying is so damning, then upon confronting us with whatever nonsense you're saying about us, we should not be

able to respond. We should have no ability to, you know, correct you, or we should have nothing.

You're going to own us, just like Charlie Kirk was owned by that extremely cool

woman who

owned him about fetuses or

whatever. That's what you're going to look like in front

of everyone. So please come up and confront

us with... Why is everyone scared?

I know I'm like 15 minutes late. Eddie, nobody's...

Nobody's requested?

I think this rhetorically defective

guy is one of our haters. I'm going to let him

on. He's the only one that I see it. I don't know what's going

on. I'm gonna let him on. Bring him up. I don't know what's going on.

I'm genuinely... I don't think he's a leftist, though.

I think he's like a rightist.

Oh, all right.

We'll bring him on anyway.

All right, all right, right.

Yeah.

What's up rhetorically defective?

Educational. Hello. Hello. what's up rhetorically defective education hello

hello

well I just

yeah I just want to

I just want to ask a few questions

okay

so like

are you guys like a totalitarian

organization that aims to not have any other political parties?

Cause is the king?

Yeah, we're totalitarian, and we want to put everyone in jail who tries to challenge the power of the proletarian

dictatorship right away without

trial.

Right.

So, do you understand how that

seems concerning at all?

Do you understand how someone

might have a hesitancy toward that approach how it seems like

well that's why i've said totalitarian because people call you fascists but that's a right wing thing

so i guess left wing authoritarianism or fascism wouldn't kind of be what you're doing.

No trolling. No trolling.

Here's the issue.

I'm sick of this idea

that politics is

a picnic where we're all getting together

and holding hands and being friends with each other.

Frankly, the existence

of states is a cancer upon humanity in some kind of way. States are a cancer. They are a burden. They are a bad thing, in a sense, because the real joys of life, the real pleasantness of life that people are looking for falsely in states, where they're

with their families and where they're together

and they're with their communities, that

is actually what it, that's the nice

part of life. The state

is an unfortunate fact of life. Why?

Because the state is a violent power. It's a violent

structure. It only exists for the purposes of being an organ of class warfare and class

dictatorship. That's the basis of states. So, naturally, we are just being honest about what the nature of the state is.

Now, in the current state that calls itself a democracy and pretends that it's a picnic,

look around.

Do you see a picnic?

Because I don't.

What I see is a dictatorship that is just

disguising itself for stupid

people, but anytime there's

a serious challenge to it in any kind

of way to this dictatorship, we

see political assassinations. As a matter

of fact, there have been already

a few assassination attempts on the frontrunner right now, who's Donald Trump, right?

We've seen a lot of cases of rigging, like they rigged it in 2020. I'm so glad I'm allowed to say that because, well, I don't know

that for certainty, but, you know, come on.

There's a lot of questions I have.

And then, you know,

they'll smear,

they'll suppress, they'll harass,

they'll utilize any and all

means to defend the current dictatorship. And then for stupid

people who aren't that educated, it all appears as a democracy. But that's just because they're too

passive and they don't know the extent of what it takes to actually challenge the state and the ruling powers that be.

They think that means participating in the red versus blue politics.

But wait, it gets better because even if you do participate in the normal red versus blue politics,

it's still treated as now a form of dictatorial suppression from one side or the other. Whether it's big tech colluding with one party or the other to enforce their will and suppress the other, or whether it's's uh you know the increasing weaponization of the federal

agencies

against the Maga movement or against

who it could be the reverse

that's just as plausible who cares right

the fact of the matter is that

politics is not a picnic it It's war. Politics is war. War is ugly. I agree. I agree it's concerning. Just like you said, it's concerning. Well, that's the nature of war. We have to ask ourselves the question, if there wasn't a state of war we wouldn't

need a state but war is the fact of our current existence and to be more specific about what kind

of war i'm talking about it's a. So, I hope that answers your question.

Okay, so you essentially want to be a collection of dictators over society is what it sounds like.

You can call it that,

but we want to have, we want to

do... What do you call it?

Proletarian dictatorship, the workers...

What I'd call it is...

Right. But you're in charge

you're the chairman you're the executive chairman

so let's not like be cute about it

like you have a hierarchy

over the proletarians

in this dictatorship correct

if ACP conquered the state then and I was leading If ACP conquered the state

and I was leading

the ACP during that conquest

yeah I deserve to be fucking dictator

why not?

I don't think that's going to happen to be

honest but if it did. I know but that's

your underlying desire

not really

I mean I'm not even dictator

of ACP by the way so probably

not I mean I'm I'm not even dictator

of the fucking party I'm sorry

excuse my French I'm not I swear I'm not even

dictator of the ACP

as chairman. So

it would be the party that's dictator

and we would have earned it because

we conquered the state. But

I don't think that's going to happen anytime

soon. I hope

it happens in 10 years, though.

Well, the party isn't a...

It's not a...

So, it's a dictator, but there's still

a group of people with a leader.

You can't... Like with a leader like with

yeah but how am I

for example

how am I a dictator

I can't even make a single decision

without getting the input

of the rest of the executive board

and the executive board can't make

major decisions without consulting

the Politburo and when the decisions without consulting the Politburo.

And when the executive board and the Politburo

have to make an extremely decisive

choice,

you know, that could possibly be contentious.

We have to consult with our chapter executives.

So it's not really

what you're, you know,

it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, how much, but how much, but how much, I'm sorry,

I won't interrupt too much, uh, but just real quick. So, but, like would you say

it was a unanimous decision with your right of fine

your constitution it seems like

you're building something

that influences

it really encourages just unanimous

and not a lot of disagreement

brother I don't know what to tell you I

the first vote was

completely unanimous for the Constitution

and then when I read the program and I

vote and we said nays I literally

said don't be scared before I said

let's count the nays I said don't be scared

and I said well you can say don't be

scared doesn't mean people aren't scared.

Like, you're a pretty commanding person.

Well, what are they scared?

I don't hear any speak up to you very often, for example.

Like, you seem to be like the dictatorial force.

So if our program wasn't gaining the support

of the working class,

we wouldn't have had anyone

in that room.

We wouldn't have all of...

Well, you're getting support.

It's not all...

Eddie, he's saying it's saying

it was...

Telling these people what to do

and controlling them like drones,

these are people who follow us because they like the program that we're offering.

And this is the nature of proletarian dictatorship and class powers.

You can't have a revolutionary movement and establish a new revolutionary government unless you have mass support from the people.

It's this idea is a very Western liberal idea that the people are just sheep who are...

I am a Western liberal, so that's there.

It's not realistic.

As Haas said, I want to...

We can't even make decisions like that within our own

party. Wait, so

you think people were scared

that I was going to come down from stage

and slap them across the face?

I didn't say that.

What were they scared of then? Why wouldn't

they say nay? What were they... What then? Why wouldn't they say nay?

What were they...

What are they have to fear?

I mean, I'm not in power, so I can't

drag them into the gulag.

Well, you want to be...

I know, but you want to be in power.

You have the energy about you.

It's like with the other space that you guys

did.

Where, like, you talked for, like, 90%

of the time, and then, like, you'll interrupt

people, no problem, but then you act

indignant when someone interrupts you.

You have this kind of interview about you.

Not, I mean, my,

that's just being Middle

Eastern

to be

honest

this is

it's not a

particular

dictatorial

pathology

but I wanted

to ask you

what do you

what do you think

people are scared of

when they gave

the unanimous vote

I don't I don't know in particular what they're

necessarily scared of but i mean a lot of times

all right hold that thought we have

someone with

Hebrew. Yeah, I can show. I'll let's

somebody else. They have Hebrew

characters in their name. I don't know

what that means. I don't know what it

says. Let's

bring them up.

Shalom. Hello.

Shalom.

Hello.

Hello. Hello. Hey.

Hello.

What is the, what is your, what's going on?

You don't know?

Just click request for no reason.

All right, they're getting the boot.

Yeah, I mean, what is this, you know, what is this, uh, what, what, what is this you know, what is this what is this fucking nonsense where you're requesting

and you don't know what you're doing up here?

How about Lamar?

Bring them up. Bring them up.

Let's go Lamar.

Welcome. bring him up bring him up bring him up welcome connecting

he's been raising his hand for a while

I hope you have something to say

by the way the Hebrew guy is still well well, he's not the Hebrew, the guy with the characters, he's still requesting to be brought up.

The audacity is incredible.

Anyway, what is going on, Lamar?

Yeah. What is going on? Lamar. And he's gone.

Whoa.

Average ACP record.

This is just profound. I mean, this is just profound i mean this is just uh profound i mean i don't know what's going on

all right shege you're next we're just going rapid fire

shee Shee Hello

Please give us a critique of the ACP

Please go ahead

That's why you hate us

Hello, can you hear me yes okay are you planning on registering with FARA no we don't need to you're not you're not

foreign agents.

No, why would you think we are?

I just scrolling through

Jackson-Ankel's Twitter feed.

I think one gets that impression.

How so?

I stand with Iran.

I stand with North Korea. I stand

with... Yeah, and they don't pay us anything. Isn't that

fucked up? We're doing it for free. But that's okay. We'll still do it.

I know. You really shouldn't.

You could almost... You could probably get... but that's okay we'll still do it I know you really shouldn't

you could almost

you could probably

get somebody

I don't think you need

we can

we can't

we're not stupid

we'll go to jail

but I mean

we do support them

yeah but isn't we do support them yeah

but

isn't he

you support them

almost more so than you would support the Americans it seems

the American people

the American government

yeah fuck the American government

all they do is take my taxes and that's it okay American government.

All they do is take my taxes and that's it.

Okay, yeah, yeah. Nothing else.

It seems like you support that.

Can you name one dollar of my taxes that North Korea has ever taken?

One dollar of your... Name one dollar of the North Koreans have ever taken. One dollar of your...

Name one dollar

the North Koreans

have ever taken from my talks.

Yeah, one.

32nd, $32nd.

That's on my point.

Russia, North Korea,

and Iran have never taken a dime

from me, ever.

You're not citizen of those countries, so how would they

even do that? Unless you are.

They wouldn't. That's why, but the U.S.

government takes half of... I make nothing,

and the U.S. government takes half of everything

I make, and then uses.S. government takes half of everything I make and then

uses it to give to Israel

to kill children. So fuck them.

Oh, that is bad. That is bad. But

it seems like

despite calling yourself the American Communist Party,

you were much much the informal

policy

then with the method

Yeah

we admire governments

that actually

have balls

and are real

governments that

represent their people

and we're very jealous

of them

but at the end of the day

yeah we're Americans

I mean here we are.

And we don't want our taxes going to destroy them. We want those reinvested in Americans

because foreign policy and domestic policy are inextricably intertwined.

Well, not really, right? No, yes, really. All of our taxes are going to Ukraine.

That's money that could be spent on hell.

Every single one of your taxes.

Every single dime is going to Ukraine?

No, but the massive amount of America's public spending is going towards bombing children in Gaza or the proxy war in Ukraine.

And all of that could be reinvested in tons of other social programs and things that benefit the American people.

It's like Eisenhower said, every

nickel that's spent on a bomb

is money that is not going

towards, you know, the American

people themselves.

So you say that's your primary concern

is with

redirecting foreign policy or money that would go to foreign

uh basically i'll talk to you straight all right i'll tell it to you straight

um yeah yeah go ahead

we want the global system to be completely smashed and completely blown up.

And all those foreign governments are the ones that are facilitating that process.

And once that happens, our land will be free. are facilitating that process and

once that happens our land

will be free and ripe for the taking

by communists

so your goals to

facilitate the invasion of America by

foreign government that That's her primary

goal. No.

No. Not at all. Is that what you just

said? By this understanding?

You are. Because I'm saying it's a global

system that

rapes America and

Americans, and it occupies this land, and it is maintained primarily on the basis of enslaving the world and stealing the resources and wealth from the entire planet.

And if that system was smashed, you know smashed it would give Americans

the opportunity to take their country back

and have it be a country for Americans

and not for this parasitic global

Atlantic system

Can I jump in here

real quick?

Yeah, go ahead,

jump in,

brother.

Hey, man,

how are you doing?

It's good

to talk to you.

I have a lot of respect

for you guys,

Rev and has

and see a few other guys in here. No, I mean, you guys. Rev and Oz and see a few other

guys in here.

I mean, you guys

tell you,

I like the truth,

man,

I mean,

like,

I agree with like 90%.

I mean,

it's like I would most people on X.

You know,

it's like we agree on the main thing.

Appreciate it so much,

brother. We love people who support us, and we on the main appreciate it so much brother we love

people who support us and

we really appreciate it

um I think you disconnected

there but there's nothing we can do about it

should we bring someone else then

yeah

okay goodbye sheg Should we bring someone else, Sam? Yeah.

Okay, goodbye, Sheig.

Um, we bring this person.

The storygiver.

You are now speaker. Offer your criticism.

You have to unmute yourself.

You have to unmute yourself.

You can do it

I see you raising your hand

I already gave you speaker

you have to unmute yourself

oh hi

I just wanted to add

it's not that our taxes are only used

but to throw bombs and kill babies.

We fund, we have 750 military bases around the world.

Yeah, definitely.

So basically, yeah, but you agree with us, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that.

Thank you so much for that.

Thank you so much for that.

We love people who we appreciate your support.

KIC.com slash infarred.

I'm live right now.

YouTube.com slash Midwestern.

Join the chat if you want,

but this is for people who hate us.

Anyway,

not to be rude, but you know, politics is a brutal, brutal business.

Okay, this guy says he's a Twitch streamer.

So, I think it gives me some hope.

All right, you're up, my friend.

Go ahead.

Oh.

Hello.

Hello.

Okay, hear me?

Yes, we can hear.

What is your plan to take over the state?

Just wait for it to collapse, literally.

Has that ever happened here?

Yeah.

In America's happened?

When?

Oh, I didn't catch you when you said in America.

I mean, no, not yet.

Okay, so just wait until it, hundreds of years.

Probably like 15 years.

Yeah, it's in the process of collapse already.

You think it's going to collapse in 15 years.

You know that we have had way more close to state collapse in our history.

Like when?

The civil war?

Civil war, yeah.

Right, and look what happened.

The southern plantation oligarchy was crushed and replaced by the powerful state yeah uh the civil war i didn't there

that wasn't a collapse that was a civil war between two conventional uh state formations but you're saying the 1930s, I don't know about that, actually.

I think in the 1930s you had FDR put together a pretty solid, like it or hated, it was solid political coalition which you know

um

but okay

I'm a big supporter of FDR

dude

um you don't think we should do the strategy

you know how the New Deal Democrats came to power

yeah they came into power because they were scared shitless by the USSR, which was holding a nuclear gun.

The New Deal Democrats propped up from New York from the labor movement in the 1910s, which ultimately led to FDR taking the presidency.

That fucking argument that tankies

like to use, that, oh, they were scared of the

they were afraid of

fucking, um, the Soviet Union.

They were.

They absolutely were.

Yeah, just because there were...

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Right after FDR, you do know that reactionary forces took back power, right?

Literally.

The reactionary forces maintained a reactionary foreign policy, but domestically, they expanded the social

welfare system significantly.

Okay.

Wait, wait, wait.

You know that FDR's

foreign policy was actually

pretty fucking solid, right?

Compared to the people who came after, sure,

but in terms of domestic policy,

after FDR died, because of the pressure

exerted by the Soviet Union, the U.S.

maintained a pretty strong and robust

social welfare system.

A lot of the main ones were introduced in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson, I believe.

Lyndon Johnson was the last New Deal president. Yeah, no, I agree. No, no, no. But my point

to you, so my point to you is that they, they, they, the

New Deal Democrats overtook the Democratic

party. You, you guys

are just waiting for the state to fall off and then

what's your, what's, what's the, we're not just

waiting. We're organizing a mass

movement for the inevitable collapse

of the state.

There's been mass movements in America.

Black Lives Matter fucking...

Can you please not?

I'm trying to be patient, but

sir, you need to sit in your seat,

take five deep breaths

right now for this

conversation to continue.

The extent of your, you're in a rush

to do, I don't know, it's overwhelming me.

Five deep breaths, I'm not even kidding.

Let's go. One.

Oh, wait. No, no, no. you're going to do the deep breaths with us.

I'll do it on with you.

Come on.

One.

One.

Two.

Three. Three. Mm-hmm. Yeah. two three

three

four

four

four

five

five let's go

five let's go.

This one should be long.

Take your time, please.

Hold it.

I'm waiting.

Now that we're calm,

basically, the difference now is that we're a dysfunctional civilization. The current political state that we have right now does not offer a framework in which a normal flow of life or the supply of goods and services will be able to continue in any kind of state of emergency whatsoever. During COVID, that was probably the closest we got in recent memory to a potential collapse of the state and society.

Now imagine something like COVID, but much more drastic, much more perilous, and much more challenging.

The state that we have is just simply outdated with respect to the development of the productive forces

and emergencies whether it's a world war whether it's an environmental disaster of some kind

or something else we can't even foresee such as civil unrest.

And I'm not talking about Black Lives Matter.

I'm talking about the kind that involves guns.

Of course, we wouldn't be the catalyst for that.

It would happen because of the madness that has already taken root in our country already.

But in any case, all of these would probably be all it takes to do the current state in, so to speak, as far as its current form.

Now, granted, there's a strong possibility that the state, that there are people in the Department of Defense or somewhere else that already have a plan for such a contingency, and they have a plan for some kind of very strong and robust, technologically-based fascist dictatorship that they have

planned. That's very possible. But, hypothetically, level with me here, if our Constitution was

suspended, if our rights were completely stripped away, and the veneer of a democracy was gone away and the veneer of a democracy was gone and the

veneer of a republic disappeared, formally speaking, there are no more laws. We don't have to follow any

laws. At least the legal framework that exists now is gone.

And Americans, according to our founding fathers, would have the right to resist that takeover by any means necessary, and our party would probably be interested in doing that in that in the case of that eventuality

so use your imagination

okay the idea that american democracy the american state in some form may survive

but american republic and democracy and constitution

probably won't, because it's actually outdated. It's literally not functional. It's a dysfunctional

state. It's not able to adapt to the increasingly, you know, fast-paced, extremely polarized historical circumstance of, you know, information technology and social media and the inflammation of passions and emotions and

psychologies and uh you know the um the rise of cybernetic economic systems which just

operate on the basis of feedback loops rather than unidirectional systems of command and, you know, authority.

So it's a whole disaster as far as the state is concerned.

And, yeah, I mean, anticipating its collapse is not really that far-fetched.

Okay.

America is an extremely wealthy country when it comes to resources.

We're not going to run out of resources.

We also have a lot of manufacturers in this country.

We're number two, only to China.

And our state is now more than ever,

extremely powerful,

especially when it comes to crushing domestic uprisings.

It has proved it over and over and over again. And why does it seem like January 6th almost completely made everyone lose their mind and topple everything?

It seems that way.

Does anybody really think

January 6th was going to be a...

January 6th in particular.

I'm not talking about what Trump is.

Also, why was there no toilet paper at the store

during COVID if we're so well to?

It's shortages, man. People people can have we have America had

America in the 30s had fucking bread lines dude

and massive shortages people we have third world fucking

all right so it's a shortage so if I can't wipe my ass

I'm going to be really angry and so will a lot of other people.

And that's probably going to do something.

Listen, Haas, I love you guys.

I'm actually outside.

I just came to talk.

I'll be listening to you guys, though.

I'm doing something.

Sorry, sorry for the...

I love you guys.

All right, for sure.

All right.

Take it easy.

Yep, see you later.

All right, let's bring on.

Is there no one else requesting or...

One sec.

Sorry, I was messaging Kyle. He wants me to say that Canada doesn't get a choice. Canada will be part of the United America. So get on board with the ACP Canadians. It's now or never. So bringing up

next, let's see.

Um, let's do

let's do

euthanone.

Hello. Can I hear me? Yes. Okay, perfect. Yeah, I mean, I have a couple of criticisms against the ACP. There's a degree to which I respect your party, but ultimately ultimately I think it's kind of a traitorous organization

traitorous movement so

that's my main argument there

all right that's it though or what else

no no I mean obviously there's

the reason for why I think that but ultimately

I think that um you know think that you know you actively try

to fight against a state

that you're meant to be loyal for

and I believe that someone

what's that

and I believe that someone that

ultimately cares about

improving America is a

genuine reformer. It's not someone that wants

to destroy. It is someone that wants to build, right?

So you will actively

supporting, or not, not

materially supporting, but, you know,

I think that's, you know, with nuance, I think that's fair,

but it doesn't account for people who have balls.

What about them?

I mean, I think the people that ultimately, I mean,

balls aside, I think that what is principled is to support the is principle to support your state, like you should

actually be...

I agree, but, for example, people like me who, like, have testicles, it's kind of hard to have your position.

No, I mean, I don't think that, I don't, I think that your position is kind of inherently barbaric. I don't think it's about having balls. I think that people with balls can be civilized. The American state is inherently barbary. Can you name one state or civilization in the history of mankind that was not the product of barbarism?

Initially, they all were, you're right, but after many, many years, that kind of state ends up cementing itself, right, like the United States did, 250 years ago. How long had the Chinese state cemented itself before the barbarian Mongols brought it to its heels?

You're right. You're right. There are cases. But even in that case, what the Mongols said, no, no, no, but even...

This is the law of history.

Sure, but even in that case, when the Mongols overtook China, that was a terrible thing. That was a horrible thing. So why would you want anything remotely similar to that? It's not about what we want. It's about understanding the laws of history. Barbarism, as you call it, is the foundation of all change

all history.

But just in

principle, wanting this change is something

that is already morally incorrect.

All right, it can be morally

incorrect or morally correct. I don't

care. Neither do the laws of history. It will happen.

Because you're ultimately just like an atheist, right? I mean, you claim to be like a believer of God, but you ultimately just think that, like, might make right and you don't think and believe in principles, you know?

If you read the Old Testament, I think God agrees with me about this.

Okay, well, I mean, there's an argument to be made that God has also has some degree of evil within him.

But regardless, I mean, I think it can be argued that you should be actively trying

to improve the institutions. And the reason I'd call you traitors, by the way, and I think you might

agree with me, given this sentiment that you have. I mean, you constantly support this foreign

entities. You talk about, like, oh, we shouldn't be, like, focusing on these foreign countries like Israel, like Ukraine, but we should be focusing domestically.

But all you talk about is Palestine, Iran, Russia.

You don't actually, you barely even talk about the things going on in America.

Apart from, I'll give you this, apart from I'll give you this.

Like the social work that you guys put in, I do respect that, but apart from that.

Our country is occupied by the same people that those countries are fighting against.

So, of course, we're rooting for them.

No, I don't think so at all.

I think that's just insane.

You know, what I think about that is, like,

that's just very clearly like a traitorous talking point, you know?

It's like, oh, you know, we actually have to support

the destruction of her own state and, you know, the people over there, right, the Iranians,

they're also on the right. So I don't know what you're talking about. What are you referring

to when you say our state? What is our state? Can you elaborate?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, our state is the United States,

the political entity that you seek to undermine.

What is the basis, what is that political entity?

Can you describe it?

Like, what is it based in?

What is that?

I mean, what do you you mean the United States is the

is the you know

political legal entity that

that has sovereignty and authority over

the territory right

what's the basis of that sovereignty

well ultimately it's the fact that they

control the guns, right? And they have the monopoly on

violence, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

So just because some guy has a monopoly on violence, I have to be

loyal to them based on what? Why?

Well, I don't think that's the only reason, but I can, yeah, I can talk

about that. I mean, if this,

you know, the very notion that you are at board.

Let's say, okay, let's say

I take a gun and I break into your house.

Do you have to be loyal to me now?

No, but

if you took over my house and you

live there for fucking 300, for 300 years and you raised your children in my house, then that would rightfully be your house, wouldn't it?

How has the U.S. government?

We aren't slaves to the government. We are citizens. We actively participate within. We are not subjects.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. So it's not just someone with guns. You're claiming the people rule in America, right?

Well, look, I recognize that all societies, including the U.S. aren't, you know,

completely democratic. There aren't as democratic as they

claim. Can you please get to the bottom of

this thing? I'm supposedly betrayed. Wait, wait, wait.

But you're right. We do actively

participate in American kind of

civil society. You're right. Yeah, we participate

in the culture and the institutions

and the monetary system, yeah. So what am I betraying exactly?

You are betraying the system that built the roads. You're betraying the system that people

have faith in. You are betraying. What is the system? What's the system? Is that from

cybernetics

no no i mean

like the political legal structure

like the legal framework what is the basis

of that framework what's

what is that what is it based in what is it

what is it

what are you not

like grasping what I'm saying?

How am I betraying that by rooting for Russia

and Iran and Palestine?

Because it's not, well, it's not just that you're

doing, but because the international

system is not characterized as you would

say by class struggleler or something.

It's characterized by states because it is a game of competition.

And in this game, our interests are put against the interests of states like Iran, right?

Can you give an example of how the interests of

Iran contradict the interests of the American

people concretely, not using abstract

gibber, just concretely?

Well, they contradict the interest of

the American state and by extension the American

people, yes.

But the reason...

Is that because this is the only possible state

that people in this country could ever possibly have?

Well, what do you mean?

I mean, like, why should we be loyal

to the current state? Give me a reason.

Well, there's several reasons but sure I mean just give me one concretely

just one okay okay well

I would argue that

it is just the most let's just argue from utility

then it is just the most practical

thing to keep things

peaceful and to develop the country

effectively. Okay, I just

wrote that down and

I internalized it and I adopted it, but the

problem is that we're still spiraling into World War III

and everything's still collapsing. So can you

please tell us?

The reason, oh, well, as a matter of fact, the reason why the international system is collapsing

is because all of these rogue states are trying to undermine our...

So what are we going to? So you're saying we should just nuke the world because we don't like

the rogue states?

No, no, no, because I take politics seriously. Obviously, that's not what we should do.

So how is the American state going to defend our interests if it can't deal with the fact that there are states it considers rogue which have nuclear weapons and how

is it going to deal with them? Go ahead. Well, it needs to do what all great powers

have tried to do at least to some extent, which is to use

kind of some comprehensive diplomacy, right? Like, I'm willing

and I'm willing to change Taiwan. Like, if we can have like, I'm willing to and I'll give you this, I'm willing to change Taiwan.

Like, if we can have, like, I'm willing to say, like, we can negotiate, we can,

sort of Hong Kong agreement over Taiwan.

You sound very young and very naive, and I hate to break it to you, and I don't want your heart to be broken by you finding this out if you were

ever to be put in a position of power of any kind whatsoever. But just by having that stance of

willing to actually talk to the Chinese and negotiate a solution and possibly give them Taiwan,

that is something that would make you,

in the eyes of the current state

that you claim we have to be loyal to right now,

a traitor.

They would regard you as a foreign agent of China

just by having a moderate realistic position of using

diplomacy and you would be

hunted and branded just like Scott Ritter and

Douglas McGregor and all these other people

you'd be branded as a traitor

they would stick a bunch of show

out of you for an agent. Me compromising

me compromising on one, two, maybe three, geopolitical.

And that's all in the take. No, no, no. No. Because I don't fundamentally want to, I don't fundamentally want to undermine the nation. I don't want to undermine. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Uthan, brother.

None of the people that our government is targeting and brandishing as traitors, well, the majority of them, they don't want those things either.

They just had a moderate position when it came to diplomacy, and that's all it took for them

to be branded as traitors. That's all it took.

Isn't that sad?

Okay, well, sure. But even

if that's sad, okay. You can be fully loyal to the

U.S. Empire. You can be fully loyal

to the system. You could say, I don't

want a radical change. I don't want to radically

upset things. I just think we should be a little bit realistic and negotiate with the Russians

in Ukraine or negotiate with the Chinese with respect to Taiwan. And that's all it takes for you

to be regarded as an enemy of the state and a traitor.

That is crazy.

Okay, sure.

I mean, look, I don't think that's ideal and I don't know the degree to which what you're saying is true, but I'll assume it is, okay?

I'll take for granted what you said.

Even within that context, then, I would not, I would not go full anti-American and full oppose the

U.S. in every capacity like you guys do. I would not try to overthrow the state. No, in that case,

then I would say, sure, fuck it. Then the American Empire is what we're going to pursue. Because even the

American Empire, to a large extent,

benefits the American people. It benefits

the American states. And to say otherwise,

by the way, and to say otherwise, is to

contradict all of the empires,

all of the states in history.

The empire... During the all of the states in history. The empire's in history...

During the period of the British Empire, during the Industrial Revolution, the British people lived in slums and in squalor.

Yes, and look where they live now. And look how they live now. They live much better, don't they?

As a result of the United States

as a gemony.

And as a result of the labor governments

that gave them social welfare benefits.

No, I mean, what you just pointed out,

you just pointed out such a perfect example.

I mean, yes, indeed, during the period of industrialization when British imperialism was all over the place.

Yeah, the British people lived really bad.

But as a product of that imperialism, at least to some extent, where they brought resources from abroad, and they largely industrialized and they

so euthanon uh... uterun

do you read books like uh fiction

books? Fiction

no, not really. All right. Do you ever

watch fictional movies?

Sure. Do you ever just kind of like

like a character and see where they're coming from?

Even though they're not even real in this case, right?

Sure.

Well, I may not be North Korean.

I may not be Russian, and I may not be Chinese.

But if someone were to tell me that a so-called empire has the right to plunder my country

and rape my people and slaughter them, just because it benefits their citizens somehow,

I would really sympathize with the man who responds to that by saying, why don't they eat a fat nuke and let's nuke their

capital cities and burn them all and slaughter them all. And I'm not even from their countries,

and I would still respect that and sympathize with that in my heart of hearts.

Sure, I can see that point. The difference here is that you're on the

beneficiary side. You was an American. You're benefiting. So the only thing that you're doing, it's actually kind of a, it's actually very much, it's, wait, way, way, I let you go. I mean, it's very much, it's very much like this cut thing where you want

to undermine your own power, you know what I mean?

And I'm not going to be one to say that

the American Empire is so evil that we're

killing all these people, sure, some bad

things happen, don't get me wrong. Some countries

are left with little sovereignty, that is true.

But we are not this destructive entity as a matter of fact that is true but we are not this

destructive entity as a matter of fact of anything

we are a civilizing force

around the world so I think

I think it's interesting how

we've gotten you to just jump right to

fascism after being confronted

how is that fascism how is that fascism? How is that fascism?

I don't feel the need to explain why it's fascism.

Even you agree with me. I mean, you yourself are pro, I guess you could say hello.

You are very young and you like to gibber a lot and I want to have a chance to say something.

So I'm muting you right now.

You have a lot of energy I could tell.

You'll get burnt out.

Don't worry.

But in any case, here's the issue, buddy.

It's not even a matter of me, you know, deciding to support anyone.

The fact of the matter is, if there was ever a U.S. Empire, as you say, that official one,

like a formally declared one, that decides it can stomp on the rights of other nations for the benefit of its own citizens,

I wouldn't need to respect or wish for anything. There will be a thermonuclear war on a planetary

scale that will probably wipe out 80% of humanity. And that's just because no one's going to,

no one's going to take that shit. Why would

they? How could you even blame them?

Even if you did blame them, it wouldn't matter

because you're still going to eat a fat

nuke.

Moreover, I find another problem

with your reasoning, right?

Besides the fact that the

consequences would be a planetary scale thermonuclear war of annihilation when you

draw a distinction uh with respect to the dignity and humanity of others that are not of your country.

And you say this is in our, and this is just assuming it is in our interest, which is not.

If you understand the system of imperialism or super imperialism economically,

it actually impoverishes us. It doesn't benefit us. But even if I were to

grant you that it did, the issue is if you draw a line in the sand and say, well, they're non-Americans,

so we could do whatever we want with them, as long as it benefits us, the beneficiaries of the Americans,

that hard line that we draw with

respect to defining the humanity of others in relation to our humanity gets applied to us to

in indirect ways, ways we can't even control. Suddenly that savagery, that barbarism, that tribalism, inevitably comes to define how we

relate to each other as Americans, because after all, there's divisions among us as Americans, too.

If we sacrifice our humanity, our fundamental humanity, and become uncivilized savages and beasts and not barbarians because

barbarians are actually great but in this case animals having the morals of beasts

and animals what's going to prevent that from spilling over and having us start cannibalizing each other. Why does it suffice that we're Americans on paper? Why don't we look forward and accentuate more divisions, tribal divisions amongst ourselves, to search for where the real humanity is, the real humanity that's worthy of dignity and respect.

That's the issue with this cynical false realism, which regards humanism in general as some kind of cucked, lip-dard shit.

The problem with that is that it fails to establish clear parameters as far as how the humanity of your tribe can be defined.

Those parameters are never clear.

The savagery you use against others is the savagery you'll inevitably use against your own people, who won't even be considered your own people anymore.

So, by the way, this savage game theoretic understanding of international relations and this frank attitude of complete irresponsibility with respect to the future of mankind as a whole is exactly why the united states has lost the mandate of heaven on a global scale. It's why the Chinese are stepping in.

The Chinese with their Confucian humanism, their Confucian values, they understand the basics

of mutual respect and dignity. And other countries feel that way. It's not just how the Chinese feel about themselves. This is the experience other countries have with respect to them. And this is why the U.S. is losing, and this is why it's producing insane people such as yourself, who are now advocating for, what, the complete extinction of mankind?

And it's sad, because, frankly, euthanon, I know I'm talking a lot, but trust me, you'll walk away from this with a lot to think about.

As a powerless person whose opinion means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things you are allowed to have whatever ideology

you want you're allowed to have whatever belief you want you're allowed to literally think whatever you want. You're a lot to have whatever belief you want. You're a lot to literally

think whatever you want. But instead, you decide to cuck yourself and pretend like you have power,

which you don't, by adopting what, the ideology of the current system and pretending like it's a consequence of some moral or ethical

conclusion you've arrived at in your own head no you're acquiescing conveniently to the shit that's

on the table already in front of you and you're turning that into an ideology. Why? Why? You're doing it for free. You don't even have a

slice of the fucking pie that you're demanding we all sacrifice our blood to bake. You don't even have a

fucking slice of it. You could literally imagine any kind of

fucking pie you want.

And the one that you decide

to raise to the

dignity of an ideology is the one

that you'll never even have a fucking slice of.

It's pathetic, man.

Please rethink it.

Yeah.

Before we move on to another

guest, I just want to say they

at the beginning,

and like Haas said, I think they're

young with

a lot of energy.

But if, you know, you said that you want something to be built, you want, uh, you know,

you want reforms.

Um, and I would say if, if you think that's possible, you think, you know, there's any way to reform and improve and build something better without directly challenging this global empire, this global empire that Haas is talking about, which uses the U.S. state as a tool.

Join like the Bernie Sanders campaign. Join a social democratic campaign because I come from a social democratic

dot. Eddie, apparently ACP records, sorry to interrupt you. They're claiming, according to my chat, that they cannot

join because myself

and Rev are co-hosts

and that

we have them blocked, and that's

why they can't join. I don't know if that's

true. That's how

Twitter even works.

But we will rejoin as, we're going to rejoin as speakers.

And that way, yeah, we'll rejoin his speakers.

And that way, if this is true, you know, we will, we won't have them in excuse.

Please remove me as a co-host if that's possible.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I'll do that now.

Switch to us.

We'll rejoin his speakers, and that way, if this is true, you know, we will, we won't have

them.

Please remove me as a co-host

if that's possible

but to what I was saying

if you think that something new can be built

without directly challenging

and revolutionizing the U.S. state

join a social democratic political campaign,

because that's what I did. And when I watched them with my own eyes rig the election against Bernie

Sanders for proposing the most moderate reforms imaginable to make sure that he didn't win the nomination.

And that's what happened if you try and reform the system. The Democrats come, they co-opt whatever

movement you're trying to create and they destroy it from the inside.

The only way to actually build something is communism,

is to understand that as Haas says,

politics is war,

and we have to directly challenge this global imperialist system that's occupying our country.

There's no working together with them.

There's no begging them for reforms or to build something new.

You have to fight them, and you have to do it ruthlessly and strategically, if you want to build anything.

And that's what history has shown. How is universal health care

and moderate reform? It seems to get pretty extreme reform. The entire world has it except for the U.S.

and we have the lowest outcomes or the worst health outcomes in the world with the most expensive care.

And every...

The entire developed world has universal healthcare.

It's not like a...

So do you include a multi-payer system or do you mean just single-payer system?

Universal health care?

Single-payer healthcare right now.

Single-payer health care is... So you care right now. Single payer health care.

So you're including a multi-payer system.

Even the other capitalist countries have single-payer health care.

We're talking about a completely nationalized health care system.

I have a question just before I go, but it was a great talking to you.

If you want to answer it, obviously, it's quite a particular thing.

But I've looked at the ACP website, and I've seen the map, and I've seen that the capital, right, the place where ACP radiates from is like in the middle of the Rocky Mountains.

Just out of curiosity, is that where you would put your building new capital?

Just purely out of curiosity.

Rob, I mean, it's, you know, I can't speak for Eddie, but it's what I want.

Just one recommendation for that.

I'd recommend Cairo, Illinois.

It's a very central location.

That's all.

Thank you.

Yeah, but it's got to be the barbaric Rockies to me.

Fair, fair.

All right, see ya.

Yep. I just want Chicago because it's the closest city. It's purely selfish.

I mean, Chicago should have been the capital in the 1930s. It should have been moved way longer ago.

Now it's got to move even more to the west.

Yeah. True.

All right. Should we bring on Aaron?

Yeah, I can't

see a lot of these people, but please

bring on all of these people who

I've blocked.

I'm trying to find one who's

I don't see anyone that looks like a

super big hater. Let's try this person.

By the way, I mean, if I block you,

it's because you're shitting in my replies, literally

shitting. If you

ever shown even a willingness

to engage as a sapient human

being, of course I'm not going to block

you, but if you are a

basically

not even sentient bot bot, retard, who's just shitting, I'm going to block you.

Anyway, go ahead.

Kenema, whatever your name is.

Hello? Hello? whatever your name is. Hello.

Hello.

I want to make some question about the part of your constitution concerning about entry. What country are you from?

One Romania. All right go ahead. Okay.

About the creation of enterprises of the local chapters. I have two questions, concerns. The most important one is that through the enterprise, maybe the state could gain access to personal data of the local chapter members, since they will be, of course course part of the enterprise too and also personal

data of party supporters who have billing the answer is that they already have it they have everything

they want not only of the members of your chapter but they they have your data, sir. They've got you. You don't think they have you. You're all away in Romania. They can, they have you. Also, the supporters that you will have dealings with your enterprise.

Sir, they have the data of everyone on earth that they want. They could be recording, they could be doing a screen recording on your cell phone right now while they look through all of the texts that you sent to your significant

other the NSA can do whatever they want post 9-11 anything they want they have it all i think that you know

that most of the most of the people who take part in political struggles or in working class struggles all over

the world, don't necessarily

comments or have internet

activity.

I actually think that's wrong.

Name one case where that's the case.

One case.

I know many working people who are part of trade unions or something like that

who don't have internet activity.

Yeah, but is there a single political movement on earth that isn't somewhat on the internet

yes the leaders of the political movement of course they are on the internet everyone's

supporter of the political movement are not necessarily. Yeah, of course

not, but in the 21st century,

any viable

up-and-coming successful

movement is on the internet

heavily.

Yes, okay.

I think of it as like one of the grave diggers of capitalism that capitalism itself creates is the development of the means of communication like as technology has advanced we've gotten this ability to reach so many people, you know, with short videos or posts.

So any party who's not utilizing that as a tool in the 21st century, I mean, they're just not going to be legitimate.

The Internet is too big of a thing.

Yes, we're not talking about that.

Of course, you have to be part of the internet.

Not in every way, but in some ways, of course.

But if a communist party, a revolutionary party

should get their money from the people, the supporters.

And you have to protect the data of the supporters.

You don't have to...

Sir, I can't protect anyone's data.

The FBI is literally...

Knows what shape

my ball sack is right now.

I'm on kick.com slash infrared.

They've got thermal image.

They've got everything.

They literally, they know everything.

They know how many hairs are on.

They know the amount of hairs on my ass.

Just through my voice right now, by the way, not even watching the stream.

And you need to understand how advanced the ability to collect data is because it was extremely advanced 30 years ago.

30 years ago, okay, they could tap any room they wanted remotely.

30 years ago, they could listen in and hear anything they wanted in any room remotely.

Okay.

So that was 30 years ago.

Imagine what they have now.

You couldn't even imagine it.

They've got everything.

They've got literally everything.

There's no such thing as data, privacy.

There's no such thing.

So we should give every single

information to the state, the name of

the sponsors, the name of everyone.

We're not giving anything to anyone,

but I'm just telling you

if they if the payment is being done through the enterprise so it's necessarily

the data goes to the stage sir how old are you with all due respect?

Hello?

Hello, yes?

Yes, may I ask your age? Ah, yes, 25. Yes. May I ask your age?

Ah, yes.

25.

You're 25 and you're asking these dumb questions.

Sorry, but this is incredible.

Is your name Kodalong?

No. What do you thinkalong? No.

What do you think about AI?

That is a useful technology, which can be in a social system.

It will be used for the benefit of the people nowadays what do you think about um

spouses wives um what do you have any opinions on wives wives yeah

I'm not sure I understand that

is you know what I think is I think you're

code along that's what I think can you just give it up

and admit it

got along

yeah

I don't understand what you Code along. Yeah, Cote along.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Let me...

Can you just talk in a normal accent

because I know you're trolling?

No, I'm not trolling.

You're not trolling?

Yes, and I can give you my second concern, which is not that important.

And that maybe a workers party, a communist party, should differentiate itself from a bourgeois party, a party that serves a system, and not promote the notion that the party should work as a business and should not, and stuff like this.

So where do we get money?

You don't have to have a, an enterprise.

We don't need money.

What?

We don't need it.

We don't need money.

No, no, no.

You don't have to have an enterprise to get money.

So how do we get money?

You can take sponsors without an enterprise, for example.

Will you sponsor us so we don't have to?

What do you mean sponsors? Who's going you sponsor us so we don't have to? What do you, who, what do you mean sponsors?

Who's gonna sponsor us?

Sure, if we could just get a billionaire, like the PSL.

The supporters of the party.

You can have an enterprise, for example,

if you have a party newspaper or a party website for that part of course

you can have an enterprise

but not every enterprise

I'm gonna stop being polite

you're 25 fucking years old

and you're fucking talking about newspapers

you better be a troll you better be a fucking troll. What is this fucking nonsense? Why are you talking about fucking newspapers to me? I wipe my ass with a fucking newspaper when there's no more char during COVID You're telling me

You're telling us to sell newspapers

What is this fucking nonsense?

Newspaper I'm in a website

What do you mean a fucking website

This isn't 2004

We're just going to get hits on the website and get...

Listen, brother, you got a lot...

You have been living under a rock for 30 years when the internet just came out.

You woke up and you'reibbering about websites and newspapers

that does not make money there's what the only pure way to make

all right listen we have to make money to expand

and for our operations to increase in scale

and we can't know i don scale. And we can't...

No, no, I don't say that you don't have to get money.

I say that you don't need an enterprise to get the money.

So how do we get it without enterprises?

How do we get money without enterprises no one is supporting us we don't fucking have billionaires

where do we get it from you tell us do you have money

are you a billionaire will you give it to us please

we don't have what the PSL had Will you give it to us? Please.

We don't have what the PSL had, which is $12 million from a billionaire for free.

We don't have that.

So what do you offer us, sir?

We are actually all broke.

I am personally broke.

Eddie is fucking broke. Rev is broke. I don't know if Rev's broke. I am personally broke. Eddie is fucking broke.

Rev is broke. I don't know if Rebs broke. Rev works

full time.

I'm halfway broke.

You're just halfway broke, so we're all fucking broke

here. Well, but I have a website, though.

So I'll take the Midwestern Mark's website.

If I hear about newspapers one more fucking time, I might just go full Jason

enruh about this whole thing.

I'm just kidding.

That's a joke.

Fucking newspapers.

All right. let's move on

thank you for your time no answer

by the way nothing

I mean if that was a troll

you won you triggered me

all right so congratulations

please

please frame this stream

and save it.

Oops.

The guy I was going to...

Oh, here we go.

We're bringing James.

He goes, you don't need enterprises.

You could have a newspaper.

Okay. you could have a newspaper you could have a newspaper oh my god you said I thought of that before

yeah

I'm the biggest fan

I actually want to say anything of substance

I'll just say hi

okay

okay thank you

yeah I love you guys

love our supporters

um

kareem

please kareem Please Kareem

Be our biggest hater

Where are all of our haters?

Where are these people who are underneath

Every single one of my tweets

I live in my message?

Someone in the chat said that they couldn't join

Because I blocked them

Well, I'm not a co-host

So they can join.

So what's the issue now?

There should be none.

All right, let's try this person.

Listen, whoever's saying Russian boomers,

these aren't boomers.

This is a 25-year-old young man in Romania.

I'm trying to invite people who seem like haters, but it doesn't look like any are coming up, step it off.

What's up, True Star? You got the floor.

You're, you are muted, my friend.

So these people that shit on us every day

and cry and bitch and whine about us

every single day.

Hello?

Has the balls to come in here

and actually speak through these.

Yeah, hello.

I just wanted to know,

are there any kind of

popular left-wing

podcasters? Because

I haven't come across either on YouTube or

on social media. So

the right-wing ecosystem

is more louder, I feel.

Midwestern Arch and Infrared.

Can you recommend some?

Midwestern Marks on YouTube, infrared on Kick and YouTube.

That's all the podcasts you need right there.

Okay.

Or, you know, DDGO politics is good

too. I don't know.

Yeah, we're looking to talk to haters

right now, though. I appreciate the question, though.

No, no, no, keep them on.

Okay, all right, never mind.

The thing is that what I feel that most of the left-wingers are stuck in the, like, communist era, ideology, and they're not, like, up to the mark, up to the date on the social media or the latest technology.

They are not what you call leveraging more on the technology.'s getting the Soviet arrival.

All right, is that all?

Yeah, that would be all.

Okay, thank you sir

all right

yeah

okay

um

thanks

all right

moving on

let's see

please god

give us

someone who hates us.

Let me see.

All right, this looks

like it might work.

All right.

Pinky, please.

Tell us why we're fascist red-browns.

Oh, okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay, I wouldn't go that far, but I have a, I guess a bit of a question.

It's not very antagonistic.

If you guys are looking for more antagonistic questions, you can ask someone else.

We're not really getting any right now, so just go ahead.

Oh, I just wanted to ask, I remember not too long ago, I saw a lot more of the term mega-communism around ACP circles, and also that seems to have faded to the background or completely

gone away.

Have you guys really... No uh, no, I think

it's just we won. I mean, everyone's

Maga now. It's superfluous. Maga won.

There's no pre- like, look

at, you know, we all

thought Kamala would even win.

But I just feel like if Kamala wins, it was rigged at this point.

I mean, Maga is like in the background.

It's just like, it's just, it's everyone's Maga now, you know, it's not really, it's not really, now we can be more critical toward Trump because we've all taken for granted.

Both the haters of MAGA and the supporters of MAGA have all taken for granted its historical contribution to American history in a way that's irreversible.

There's just no way to escape it.

And now we're here.

And, you know, now, you know, Trump supporters now are like maga, maga.

They're two layers of maga, right?

The one that already has made an irreversible effect on the course of American history

and being a really big

Trump super fan, which

you know, Trump,

he's kind of become mainstream in a way, you know, so it's just

it's over, you know?

What else can we say? Point God across.

Yeah, I see that see that yeah because if you guys are interested in feedback all times when people even hear like about the idea of acp and things

like that and but when they hear like macro communism they're like bro trump really the guy who

supports israel the guy who supports all this stuff

like yeah I mean look

I get that but a lot of it was also like oh but Trump's a scary

fascist and it's like well no Trump's a mainstream American

he's like the mainstream right now like he's there's

it's not like some like looming fascist threat it's like the mainstream right now. Like he's there's, it's not like some like

looming fascist threat.

It's like,

well,

no.

I mean,

uh,

Trump is just a,

a very boring bog standard,

you know,

yeah,

politician.

And you're not that.

No,

we're not. Yeah, yeah, we're not that. No, we're not.

Yeah, yeah, we're not.

But we wanted to awaken people to the fact because here's the problem.

The so-called left,

which it's collapsed at this point,

but at the time of 2022,

when the term was coined,

they still had this faith in like

pre-Maga Democrat politics

where it's like,

oh yeah,

we could just like go back to Bernie Sanders

or we could push Biden to the left or we could whatever.

And they just didn't understand that Trump's presidency was irreversible.

Like that created a completely new political landscape where populistic politics and hyper-polarized social media politics and, like, political surrealism, all of that was just like permanently, you know, and irreversibly, you know, a fact of what America is now.

And it's like, we were just kind of like, yeah, I mean, all Americans more or less, if they're sensible, agree that like, you know, we want to kind of focus less on this U.S.

Empire, focus more on our own issues. We don't want any more foreign wars. And, you know,

the border situation is crazy. It's out of control, the country's collapsed.

I mean, like all of these things that used to be extreme maga talking points, like everyone agrees with them now.

And when we put communism in that context and say the only way we dismantle the empire, you know, is through

the Communist Party or the only way, you know, we rebuild our country is through the Communist

Party. That actually gives context to what communism can mean here.

But before then, that wasn't there. Before then, you know, maybe Bernie Sanders had free health care.

So some self-proclaimed communists were like, yeah, let's just have everything be free.

And that was the context of communism to them,

just kind of like a welfare state.

And then after that, you know, 2020,

there was a lot of radicalism, quote unquote,

where it just became anarchism.

Let's just abolish everything, everything about.

So it was just a very vague... It wasn't clear what the

concrete meaning of communist politics was

in America. And we feel

like MAGA has clearly

established the context of what

it could mean, right? Just because

it's created this baseline understanding of the idea or at least the sense of having a country that's not necessarily the same thing as the global American Empire.

Just there's a there's a bifurication of interests between the global American Empire. There's a bifurication of

interests between the global American

empire and the domestic

interests of America and the American

people. So the communists,

all we say is we will

fulfill the interests of the American

people better than anyone else.

And I think it's, that's what Maga Communism kind of means concretely and objectively at this point.

And that's why we don't use the phrase anymore because it's superfluous, because, you know, maybe a lot of people are still, you know maybe a lot of people are still you know

awakening to the fact i mean if you saw recently in hamtramick

the yemeny community is like coming out for trump which is crazy i mean

combe is probably going to lose Michigan at this point.

That's how far it's gone. I mean, it's just not an extraordinary thing anymore.

I mean, in my day-to-day life, I'm sure it's the same for Eddie.

You know what's crazy? In my day-to-day life, if you're a Democrat, you're actually a fucking crazy person.

I never entitled a normal Democrat in real life.

All the normal people are just like either apathetic they're totally conspiracy

brained or they're like

yeah Trump because the economy was good

but like that's the new norm

Democrats are unhinged

crazy people at this point

and I feel like that wasn't the case

before Trump before Trump it was the Obama people who were normal. Boomers and old people like the Republicans. And, you know, Trump supporters were kind of crazy. Everyone thought so at least. And now

it's reversed. Now Democrats are fucking

crazy. And

there's some people in

America who call themselves the left.

They're not the left.

They just want to be Democrats, but even more

fucking crazy. And that's, you know, we don't want anything to do with that. So to that... They want to be Democrats, but even more fucking crazy.

And that's, you know, we don't want anything to do with that. So to that's, they want to be Democrats, but kill you if you disagree.

That's what left.

Right, right.

Marchism is like, like, I see tweets all the time.

Now it's crazy from these people.

And they're like, guys, you have no idea.

But my younger brother, who's Hispanic, all of his, um, everyone is like supporting Trump now. It's really scary. And it's like, yeah, you don't know what's going on. Like, all of society has changed and you've remained isolated in a bubble. I don't know what to tell these people.

Anyway.

All right. Thanks for your time.

Thanks for the question.

Yeah, it's like, you you know like even among

black Americans

in the hood

yep

like it's pretty normal

to just be pro Trump

but I don't see anybody

caping for Democrats

the only people I know are like the like p mc msnbc viewers who like work at banks

and there's only a few of them that i hear about i avoid and they're always work with them and eddie

they're always fucking tilted

and angry and really like

super abnormal

crazy fucking people.

Yes, and

the ones that I'm thinking of also like

yeah, they've got

they're, they're, they're, they're, they've got some

mental, mental health problems, we'll say, and physical

health problems, usually.

Yeah, I really avoid

those people like, that's the difference.

It's like, look,

before we could be like, oh, yeah, Democrat, Republican,

there's normal. Now it's like,

I don't see a lot of, the only normal Democrats at this point

are union members who are just doing it because

your union told them

to and that's it. Out of loyalty. Yeah,

that's my grandparents. Right, that's it

and they're older and that's literally it.

But anyone who's like younger

than 40 who's a Democrat is a

fucking bat shit insane crazy person.

Yep.

That's my experience as well.

And

even what you said about the Trump people, it's

either people who are like, yeah, the economy was

better and I don't like the woke shit,

or it's people who are like you know

Trump's cryptocurrency is going to replace the US dollar as the new US currency.

Yeah, just like conspiracy.

Still the president actually.

What?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, put it this way.

Like the actual far right

have become total hipsters and they're like,

actually, Trump is a

Zinish chill and we're like,

we might even, yeah.

Like, that's how much it's like

Trump's become mainstream, you know?

Yes, the Fentas right. Right, exactly.

The hipster, right. That's interesting.

All right, you're up, Karim. I saw you said you have a critique, so.

I do. Now, I'm not going to classify myself specifically as a hater, but listen to, you know, we can see if I am or not. So congratulations actually on starting your party, you and Jackson. I agree with you guys 100% on Palestine, on on western hegemony and that things like nato are not only relics but they're actually a danger to the world at large so i think we'd agree on western imperialism 100% here's where i disagree i took a you know i read

communism when i was younger i'm 30 now and then i had a libertarian right libertarian type of thing

i was an encap for a very long time.

Recently, I've been listening to Dave Graber, Noam Chomsky, and reading about the C&T FAI. And for me,

the problem with Marxism is that it has an issue with what it would call elite theory.

Meaning when Marx postulated to get to a stateless society, you first had to have a, if you want to call it a small refractory period or a small or a regime in between,

to me, that doesn't work.

So if I were to show any historical examples of what I think

is communism working at its best

efficiency, it wouldn't actually

be what

you guys are taking a look at now

through Marxism. It wouldn't

be any regimes like

Stalin or anything like that.

It would be something like Rojava, the C&FAI, or things like that.

So that's where I would come and say like, hey, my discrepancy is I'd rather see communism be

completely decentralized. Before

Haas answers, I just

did a book review

of a book called neoliberalism

that posits Rojava

as the one true

existing socialist society and tears apart that idea and talks about how Rojava is basically just like a CIA U.S. military proxy.

Eddie, even before we get into Rojava.

What happened to the CNTFAI? What happened to that?

So to me,

the C&TFAI, which

I'm not an expert on, I started studying this.

No, no, I mean, look, look, I know everything

about what they believed and all that stuff, I mean, look, look, I know everything about what they believed

and all that stuff, but like, objectively

like what happened?

The UGP, okay.

How many years did that?

How many years did it

take for them to completely fail

and get crushed, basically? five now can keep in mind

this is a prototype of what could work it's not something that is that long like the zapatistas have

lasted over 50 years. So that is a

test. Yeah, but I'm a very practical

person and, you know, when you say

that our stuff doesn't work

the our stuff is the only

stuff that's actually seized power ever

in any case, ever.

The Zapatistas

also love the Bolshevich and we're

greatly inspired by that

the Zapatistas are not like

you know they

you know I think a lot of the confusion

just comes from this there will always be authority

even after the state is

gone, according to Marx and Engels,

there's always going to be authority.

There's always going to people who have more

authority than others.

There's probably always going to be centralized authority.

The only difference

is that there isn't going to be an entity that is at war with a given segment of the population, which is what states are. There are organs of class dictatorship. But once classes disappear, that doesn't mean centralized authority or authority disappears. That would be ridiculous. I mean, parents

are dictators to their children. Children are not free.

I mean, if you have less knowledge

and you have less, you know, you're just like not

really, you don't fucking know how to, you know, steer a ship, for example. Of course, submit to the authority of the captain. The captain knows what they're doing. So it's like, authority is something that will always be a fact of human existence.

I mean,

there will always be people who are wiser,

who know better,

and there will always be people who are less concerned with organizing,

you know,

billions of people at scale and more focused on their immediate surroundings, right?

So that distinction will not disappear with the dissolution of the state, in my view, at least.

Okay. Can I respond to that?

Yeah. So no chalky breaks down what would be called an unjustified or a justified

hierarchy.

I would agree.

We need parents.

You need a ship captain.

You actually do need people who are specialists in their field like you and Jackson in reporting. So I'll defer to you

like, okay, when something's going on in Palestine, yes, I look at Jackson's thing and then I go from

there. That being said, somebody like a congressman, even a city councilman or somebody who's elected to do the bureaucratic work of the

government, if you see that they're not doing what they're supposed to do or they don't have the

knowledge or they're just trying to have authority in and of itself, I would consider that an unjustified

hierarchy. And dismantling these unjustified hierarchies will make society that...

But who justifies it? What's the criterion of justification or lack thereof?

I think, and I agree with Chomsky on this, that you can of justification or lack thereof.

I think, and I agree with Chomsky on this, that you can do it in a sense of using rational judgment to say, hey, is this person actually... What is rationality, though? I'm not to be pedantic but that's an extremely

contentious term as you know from

the history of philosophy

who what is the criterion of rationality

is it logical consistency

because I would take issue with that

because logic formal logic is not the supreme, I mean, the notion that humans behave according to the dictates of formal logic is just profoundly wrong, right?

And informal logic doesn't even describe nature correctly.

How could it describe humans?

So I don't know what the criterion of rationality would be.

I think what I mean with rationality is taking a look at it.

Let's say this.

Who takes a look at it?

The, I would, the society in general, the commune, if that's what you're proposing.

What is the commune?

What is that?

It's a collective of people who agree to

confederate with each other. How do they agree? All of them

individually agree? Direct democracy or liquid

democracy. How do you have direct democracy when it's 500 million

people? You break it up into, democracy when it's 500 million people you break it up into well

it's 500 million people broken up

into small towns

each town

depending on how small the town is or the

municipality

what if the municipality has 1 million

people that could still be broken up into

smaller units. So it's not really direct anymore if it's just a federated system. What does that

help? Like if you're in a rural place and you become cut off from all the other cities and you have to make all the decisions yourself, like doesn't that make things extremely inconvenient?

Especially like in small rural towns like where I'm from, most of, you know, it would help to be more integrated with the big cities and have things like high-speed rail because it would facilitate more trade into the rural areas.

I think balkanization is going backwards.

Brother, let me ask you a question.

We could go into this nitty-gritty stuff and it's just not very fun what if i told you that the state is just not personal what if we depersonalize it what if we just treat it as a force of nature? Would that change your perspective? That it's just something that exists and that even if it formally collapses, it's still objectively real and someone has to take responsibility for it?

What if you treat it that way?

What have you treated

like an organ

in your body?

It can fail,

it can,

but you need it

and it's there,

right?

And, you know,

I'll give you an example,

Russia,

you know,

after the collapse

of the Soviet Union,

there was anarchy,

straight up.

The state collapsed.

Didn't even collect taxes anymore.

Nothing functioned.

There were bandits all over on the highways.

You could just get robbed.

Nothing.

There was no laws.

Nothing.

But, you know, there was just a clear understanding by everyone in russia that there needs that there's just this vacuum that there needs to be a state that it's a

even if they didn't have an ability to justify it ideologically even if they didn't have an ability to justify it ideologically, even if they didn't have the ability to, you know, formalize it as soon as someone stepped up like Putin to take responsibility for it, without even having an ideology or anything to justify it, it started working again.

And it just, everything started going smooth.

And it just worked.

And it wasn't personal.

It wasn't an idea.

It wasn't a theory.

It wasn't.

It was just stability, right?

And it worked. And people got got on and it's like you know that is something to keep in mind it's just it's not personal it's not one guy

exerting his will on everyone.

That's just, that might, it might be personal if it's a group of ten people and one guy is

like being an asshole.

But when it comes to like hundreds of millions of people, it's really not personal at that

point.

It's not one person's will superseding the will of all

others it's one person sacrificing every aspect of their own individuality more or less to dedicate

themselves to the responsibility of attending to this objective machinery that needs to continue going smoothly in order for people's lives to go on.

I think the presumption that it needs to go for people's lives to go on is untrue because there are, there's instances where we can get together and decide, like in a town hall, that, but we take, you need to understand, when you have a country of hundreds of millions of people or even tens of millions of people you are taking for granted the concrete and aggregate powers of all of those people and all of their relationships and all of their labor the sum total of the entire powers of society producing highways producing technology producing supply chains producing division labor, and all of that, all of the logistics of the supply of goods and services, all of that we just take it for granted. And it's too big for us to even map out and conceive of at an individual level. And so that needs to continue going smoothly somehow.

And a town hall is not big enough to assume a level of responsibility to ensure that.

No, but a syndicate is. That's why I actually went from being an argument. It, but a syndicate is.

That's why I actually went from being an...

It really is.

There is no enumerated, there is no formally enumerated power that is big enough, subjectively enumerated power that could ever possibly be big enough, whether it's an electoral democracy that involves the entire country or something else that could attend to the responsibility of the smooth functioning of society. Because here's the thing. The dictatorial nature of the state part of it isn't just that it's an organ of class dictatorship. That's one way of looking at it. But in so many other words to say the same thing. It's also a recognition of the objectivity of the state, that it doesn't, it's, it's

impersonal.

It has no regard for anyone's opinion.

There's no regard for any kind of subjectivity.

It is an objective reality that needs to continue working needs to be

facilitated or else the very basis upon which individuals can exist and have opinions disappears

and you have a state of anarchy like Russia after the 1990s.

So states are not the product of people coming together and making decisions.

This is a huge mistake that people make.

Statehood and decision making have nothing to do with each other.

Decision making is relegated to the realm of policy-making.

That's relegated to the realm of maybe the day-to-day tasks of a court or a ruler, sure.

But the state itself, right?

The state itself is an objective reality that is a product of the it's

an inadvertent product of the sum total of all of the activity of society concentrated and centralized

into a single organ of rule and only upon the basis of that organ can someone make decisions sure but that organ that's central unity and aggregation and concrete centralization of all the powers of society that is something that exists objectively there's no way to delegate that democratically to a council or anything like that it just exists i'm not necessarily convinced of that for a couple of reasons.

One, it seems to me centralization actually causes more problems than it fixes.

If I centralized decision-making or if I centralize anything, it seems to make it less and less efficient.

But you need to understand the reality itself is a central, it's already centralized.

Like the mode of production is already centralized.

It's a central.

Well, okay.

I know Milton Friedman is cringe, but he was kind of

right about something. It's like, if you have a pencil next to you, that

pencil is made up of materials whose origin is so diverse,

is so vast in scale just to produce a single pencil right

and it's like you could say you don't need centralization but objectively you do objectively these

supply chains have to all come together somehow from very disparate origins from very disparate places like all all of society comes together in some kind of way and there there needs to be a way to respond to that in scale and in time,

which no democratic decision-making organ could possibly do or catch up with, because it just

takes too fucking long to ask for the input of 300 million

people before decisively responding to the reality inadvertently produced by 300 million people

in terms of their existence.

So what I would say to that is, like I understand what you're calling

that the pencil getting resources

from diverse places is

it's a clunky term that

you know I use with in-cap circles

and I still like in caps, by the way.

But it's called social cooperation under the division of labor.

I don't know how to make.

But it's not cooperation because none of it is enumerated consensually or consciously.

It is an inadvertent product

of many different individuals

making many different choices

which aggregates in a rational,

central way,

unbones to them.

I'm enjoying this conversation,

but one of our biggest haters

is finally requesting.

So do you mind if we table this career?

Sure.

I'd love to debate you or Jackson at some point.

Thanks for giving me the time.

And let's keep in touch.

Free Palestine.

Oh, yeah, free Palestine.

Thanks, man.

Free Palestine, absolutely.

All right, knife maxing. This person you. Free palestine. Absolutely. All right.

Knife maxing.

This person lives in my mentions.

Let's go.

Hello.

You have the floor.

Um, is it just

hars or is it

eddie and huss

you got both of us but you can

address

address

I'm wondering first of all if I can

also have another person home up here or if it can only do one.

Sure, bring, bring whoever else you want.

Um, let me check if she's actually here. now. Now, I would see it if they requested

what's their name it's she be it's Nicole

I don't see a request from Nicole to join

damn go ahead though see a request from Nicole to join.

Damn.

Go ahead, though. Let's hear it.

All right, I'll just wait for her when she comes.

I guess first thing is, I want to address one of the points I know I made, I don't remember exactly, if Haas made or not, but I know I ever made it, that settler colonialism ended 200 years ago.

In the United States, yeah.

Yeah, in the United States.

If it ended

200, how could it have it ended

200 years ago when the California genocide

happened about 150 years ago

and like the Klondike Gold Rush

and that... Right. A problem

really 200 years. So, you know,

150 years, 200 years.

When the

project of Manifest Destiny was

complete and the indigenous modes

of production had been completely wiped

out, throwing the indigenous

people into the labor market where just

like the rest of us, they must sell their labor

for a wage in order to survive, making

them wage laborers, making them

part of the same working class as

everybody else here in America.

But I would say that in Jewish people, the settler colonialism, and mostly the indigenous relationship will makes them still under this

is the, it's reproduced

through the alienation of wage and labor.

Right, they

still have their unique culture

and nationality which needs to be

protected under a socialist government

or communist government.

Just like China has their Uyghur autonomous zone where they have cultural protections for Uyghur Muslims and give them political autonomy that is different from, they're designed to protect

their unique culture and nationality.

Yeah.

But I would say

that also indigenous nations are subject

to

colonialism in a similar way as to the global south. are subject to colonialism

in a similar way as to

the global south, it's just transformed.

So it's not the

explicit

primitive accumulation

of capital of earlier

settler colonialism,

but it's more transformed into

a regular colonialism in the sense

that

indigenous nations are...

It's transformed into their exploited the same way

as the rest of the working class.

And yeah, there are unique struggles and, you know, the reservation land is area with the highest rates of depression and alcoholism.

And they've basically just set up these casinos, you know, and told the indigenous people, this is all you get.

And that's horrible.

And what these, what they want is the same thing that all Americans want, which is improved material conditions, industrialization, more jobs, better paying jobs, more free time, all the things that regular wage laborers want under capitalism.

That's protections.

Could I ask a question to this, uh, individual?

Yeah.

Um, so would you,

you would consider yourself like an ACP hater, correct?

Yeah, I suppose, but I consider myself a Marxist linens, to be clear.

Uh, yeah, sure, you can consider yourself whatever, but did you say that, um, when is your kill list coming out?

Uh, I don't know. And you said your kill list is coming out whenever we post themselves, right?

Not you. Not me specifically, but the Minnesota Chisholm. I'm not you

Not me specifically

But the Minnesota chapter of our party

Yo

Was that just a joke or were you serious

A joke

But why such hatred

What did they do to deserve to be killed?

Well, I mean, I think the ACP is fascist, to be honest.

Okay. Why is that?

I think it's mainly because of your petty bourgeois politics.

That's really vague, but please elaborate.

It's been a while,

but I remember reading one of your articles.

I believe it might have been the one before

the Marxism

is not woke one. It explains,

you know, it said that

you defended

farmers so that they're not petty you know you defended farmers

so that they're not

petty bourgeois

that they're just

stratified

working class or whatever

and that

baristas are not

true representatives

of the working class

so you would say that true representatives of the working class.

So you would say that, you know, believing in having a base among people like farmers is basically like fascistic or at least at least fascistic, right?

Not necessarily, but I think

the petty bourgeois politics as a whole

Yeah, but I asked you what that meant

And you mentioned farmers, so I want to be clear.

Farmers who own their own land

so to speak, or at least

aspire to because

most of these farmers are in debt

actually, so they don't

really own it. They're paying mortgages.

Pretty much all of them. Yeah, pretty much all of them yeah pretty much all of them but in any case you this is what you would regard as petty bourgeois correct yeah and i don't think uh so you so you said you were a marist Leninist, correct?

Yeah.

And do you feel strongly about the Leninist component, or is it just a

label for you? Because I

assume you read Lenin, correct?

Yeah.

Okay, have you read Lenin's book, The Development of Capitalism in Russia?

I believe it was 1899.

You've read it?

Yeah.

What does you say...

Hold on.

Sorry.

I don't mean to cut you off, but I just have a question, and then you can go. What does he say about the small holding farmers and the revolutionary strategy? What strategy in particular does he develop with respect to them? And what does he say about them in that book?

I want to be clear, though, that most American farmers are not the same as Russian peasantry.

Right, but in my writing, what you're referring to is me talking about people who own their own means of subsistence, not people who employ others, people who own their own means

of subsistence. This is what you characterize as petty bourgeois politics.

Now, if this isn't the case, please clarify.

But this is what I understand

from what you've communicated so far.

Yeah.

Okay, sure. So what did Lenin say about farmland yeah okay sure

so what did

Lenin say about farmers

subsistence farmers

who owned their own land

what did he say about them

in the development of capitalism

in Russia in that book

what did he say

I don't development of capitalism in Russia in that book. What did he say?

I don't remember exactly.

Did you read the book or no? Probably not, right?

Yeah, so basically, like, could you summarize it in any way at all, or do you just remember nothing about it?

I don't remember.

Okay.

What were, okay, so Lenin, as you know, was embroiled in many debates with the other Russian Social Democrats.

You would agree with that, right?

Yeah.

Okay, well, Lenin had a specific proposal that got him in a lot of hot water with the so-called Orthodox Marxist of his day.

And he had this idea called the revolutionary dictatorship, the Democratic

dictatorship, sorry, the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants.

Now, what was the most common reproach among the Marxists of Lenin's Day against this strategy?

Um...

I remember

seriously

Now look, look, I know these are very niche questions and typically i wouldn't be this uncharitable

but the problem is that you're kind of joking about killing us for not being true marxist leninness

and it doesn't really seem like you've read anything about Lenin at all.

And I'm saying that because Lenin didn't simply distinguish himself from the social Democrats because he rejected imperialism.

To be clear, all of the other social Democrats paid lip service to some kind of rejection of imperialism, almost all of them, including Kotzki himself. But Lenin distinguished himself because of a very specific notion of what constitutes revolutionary strategy, which broke from all social Democratic precedent. And that's why there's

Marxism-Leninism today, because that strategy succeeded, and it led to a new synthesis of Marxism.

You are absolutely clueless about the content of that, which I can't really forgive because you stand so strongly against us to the point where you call as fascists and call yourself a Marxist Leninist, and you can't even tell me the basics of Lenin's development of capitalism in Russia or what Lenin meant by the revolutionary

democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants and what kind of debates that endangered

in the time in which he lived in. If you don't know facts as basic as this, I don't think

you're qualified to call yourself a Marxist-Leninist or call anyone else a fascist

for that matter.

But I'll try to be easier on you and ask you this.

What are the five stars on the flag of the People's Republic of China?

What do they stand for? Well, the big one. on the flag of the People's Republic of China.

What do they stand for?

Well, the big one is the party, and then the four ones,

the National Borghese, Bay Borgreuse, the workers, and the peasant.

And who were the peasants in China, by the way?

Because Stalin actually reproached Mao, believe it or not, in the 1930s and in the 1940s.

He said in private that he didn't even consider Mao to be a true Marxist because Mao as we know did not really have a base

in the industrial proletariat at all

and rather he had a base among the peasantry

now what characterized the Chinese peasant

were they what what relations of production characterized the Chinese peasant?

What relations of production? What relations to the ownership

of the means of production characterize them?

Could you explain?

I mean, during that time?

The 30s and the 40s, correct?

Well, they were mostly under landlords, I recall correctly.

Yeah, there was a huge tyranny of the landlords.

That's true.

But these peasants, were they subsistence peasants?

Were many of them

peasants you would even call

petty bourgeois?

Because in isolated cases

in which they were able to break

completely from the grip of landlords,

they could have their own land.

Even when they did have landlords, by the way, they attended to their own land, but they had to pay rent to the landlord.

But in any case, not dissimilar to the Russian peasants.

These are subsistence farmers who own their own means of subsistence.

And even to the extent that they didn't fully own those means of subsistence,

which of course they didn't,

one of the reasons Mao was able to even get into power in the first place

because he was promising them that they would be able to because they're going to kill the landlords or depose the landlords, remove them, so that they could finally own their own means of subsistence. And this is why Mao got to power in the first place. Now, would you regard Mao's politics

as petty bourgeois?

No. Why not?

He was promising peasants they could

own their own means of subsistence.

How isn't that petty bourgeois?

These peasants didn't have

much of a precedent for a communistic form of ownership

they were thinking at the time that they're going to own their own land their own means of subsistence

and for the ones that already did Mao accepted their support wherever he could

not only the peasants by the way but even the urban

petty bourgeoisie and even the big bourgeoisie that was at least loyal to the cause of

anti-imperialism ma rally to his side um and he didn't have a base, a strong base of support at least, in the industrial proletariat.

It wasn't his primary base of support.

So how am I, how is our politics petty bourgeois because of something I wrote about...

American Farmers. takes petty bourgeois because of something I wrote about... Go ahead.

American farmers aren't peasants.

They don't just own their own means of subsistence.

They control capital.

Regardless of whether, whether you know banks technically

own all their shit

what capital do they control

doesn't change the relations of production

what capital do they control

they control their machinery

how do they control it?

They use it and they produce it. But if it's mortgaged and the banks own it, how do they control it?

Because for all intents and purposes, it's theirs.

Ah, so what you're referring to has nothing to do with the fundamental relation of ownership of the means of production. It's a managerial distinction. They're not managed by someone. They don't have an administrator breathing down their neck and managing them.

And for this reason, you classify them as petty bourgeois. Isn't that interesting? Isn't it interesting

how for you and your warped mind, the basic categories of Marxism have become so distorted that actual ownership of the means of production doesn't matter anymore, but rather the cultural connotations and implications of not having a manager actually defines decisively class distinction in your brain. Isn't that interesting or aren't you at least

a little curious about how you've stumbled into such an incorrect and false position from the

perspective of Marxism and how you're so confident about it that you're talking about killing us

and calling us fascists

because we disagree with you about your obviously and very clearly wrong position.

Well, they also have bargaining power that they have leveraged time and time again to keep, for example, food prices up.

Didn't you just mention Starbucks baristas as the epitome of proletarians?

Not the epitome of proletarians, but definitely not not proletarians.

Have some Starbucks baristas successfully established unions?

Yeah.

So clearly they have some fucking bargaining power too, don't they?

Yes.

Right.

So stop mentioning bargaining power because it's completely irrelevant. In any case,

we want to get to the bottom of the issue. You don't know what the petty bourgeois is. You don't know

what constitutes the petty bourgeois. But let's even grant to you the idea that we are a petty bourgeois party and we have

petty bourgeois characteristics. Although I think I've successfully demonstrated that such a claim in

position could only come from a position of ignorance as far as you're concerned. I'm waiting to see if you have some champion you're willing to tap in who actually knows what they're talking about. Yeah, I do. But before they come, we're waiting for them. Before they come... Sure, bring them up.

I'd like to ask you a question about the relationship between fascism and the petty bourgeoisie.

What about petty bourgeois politics for you is primarily fascist?

Where does that come from? You call yourself a Marxist-Leninist, I presume

Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis that originates in Stalin's foundations of Leninism.

So you're not a Trotskyist, are you? You're a Marxist Leninist. Is that correct?

Yeah.

So why are you giving so much emphasis to the petty bourgeoisie with respect to your understanding of what fascism is?

Do you understand or do you know about the Marxist-Leninist literature, about the class

origins of fascism and what fascism is from a class perspective?

I know it, yes, I know what fascism is.

Recite to me, recite to me the verdict of the common turn with respect to the definition of what fascism is

and the class basis of fascism.

If you know what the Marxist-Lennon his view about fascism is, go ahead.

I know George Dimitrov's vote about being the most imperialist elements of finance capital.

Is that the

petty bourgeoisie or no?

No, but...

Okay. So where is the emphasis on the

petty bourgeoisie coming from? Because the strategy

outlined by the common turn in the popular front period was that communists need to actually win the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie and have them as a base of support for the anti-fascist struggle that was the verdict of the common turn at the time.

So what are you talking about with this notion

that having quote-unquote petty bourgeois politics

is somehow equivalent to fascism?

Because it's actually the popular front in the 1930s that started advocating for collaborating with the petty bourgeoisie, which is why it was termed the popular front, not simply the United Front. The popular elements in question beyond the industrial proletariat were in fact the petty bourgeoisie, the popular strata, the ambiguous masses in general, including the petty bourgeoisie. The notion of democracy that Marxist Lenonists emphasized so much, Lenin was very clear about where democracy comes from. Democracy comes from the bourgeoisie. Lenin's specific democratic strategy was leveraging the support of the democratic petty bourgeoisie rather than the big city bourgeoisie, which is what the Mensheviks were hedging their bets on. This is basic Leninism, Pumfi. And for someone that has murderous designs on my party on the basis that were fascists, this level of ignorance should embarrass you.

How can you call us fascists on the basis that were a petty bourgeois party when according to Marxism, Leninism,

the petty bourgeoisie is not the primary base of fascism in the first place.

Fascism arises because of the decay of capitalism and particular reaction from an inxed population, mainly middle class and petty bourgeois. Whose analysis was that? It wasn't Demetrovs and it wasn't the analysis of Marxist-Leninist. Where does that analysis actually originate since you're so educated, as we've been demonstrating?

Well, I'll actually educate you. It comes from Leon Trotsky. What you are reciting to me is word-for-word and almost adverbatim Leon Trotsky's analysis of the origin of fascism, which he regarded as a petty bourgeois phenomenon. I'm sure your Twitter groupies are familiar with the meme of the Hitler particles. That literally comes from Trotsky, who said that there's

particles of Hitler and all small business

owners and all of the petty bourgeoisie.

Trotsky, by the way, who was

collaborating with Nazi

Germany and Imperial Japan himself.

Trotsky himself, by the way,

who had fascistic designs as far as his notion of what

constituted proletarian dictatorship in the USSR, which would have involved something he called

superindustrialism and the utilization of the army to, at gunpointpoint expropriate the peasant population and

create a fascist tyranny over the 90% majority in russia at the time trotsky by the way who

fled to mussolini's italy looking asylum and sanction there. Trotsky, this is the

fascist collaborator whose analysis of fascism you're drawing on to accuse us of being fascist,

and moreover, on the basis of that accusation, to talking about your murderous fantasies

about some of our chapters. Don't you feel a little bit ashamed? No. You don't, because you don't

really care about any of this in the first place, you you call yourself a marxist leninists

as we've thoroughly demonstrated you have no relationship to the theory of marxism leninism you don't

know anything about marxism leninism you don't even know where your ideas are

coming from i've just proven that they came from trotsky you uh and you don't care

because all of this is just for you and this is my speculation so i'll ask for everyone's

forgiveness as far as factual certainty is concerned.

What I highly suspect is that you're just a lonely person who wants friends, and you've managed to

find a niche of people who are labeling themselves Marxist-Leninus, who you have come to acquire as friends, and as a consequence of your loneliness, you're hitching a ride on this label. So you could have a social support circle. You could have friends. You could be liked and recognized by people. You could have a sense of warmth and friendship and personality that you probably otherwise wouldn't have.

And that's why you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist.

It has nothing to do with a principled commitment to the tradition we call Marxism-Leninism.

It has nothing to do with any kind of selfless devotion

to the cause of communism whether historical or contemporary you are a poser a faker

and just can you add Nicole here can you add Nicole Eddie, please add this person, Nicole.

It's at Nicole FSLN.

Um, oh, there we go.

All right, should we go.

All right. It should be good. Should be up.

Nicole, please come rescue your... Right. We're asking that you rescue your

fascist

co-collaborator.

I want to emphasize that, like,

I think she might

be nervous because

usually when I talk to her, we don't call very often, but also, like, it's kind of intimidating, of course, to talk to someone who has such a huge following.

Well, she's the one you're threatened to kill us.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, if anyone should be intimidated, it's the one you're threatened to kill us. Yeah, yeah.

If anyone should be intimidated, it's

us, I guess, right?

You can't kill us.

So, we're

different, we're different

people. I've not

threatened to kill any of you

and whether that's an edgy joke or not, I think that's like not...

I think that's like not...

I'm not defending that, specifically.

I'm defending

her

theoretical ability

which I think is being hampered

by her

being incredibly

nervous for whatever reason um well go ahead yourself then explain it for us so um um i wasn't really thinking of like a a start of what i wanted to say but uh i um what she said and

all say is that where both Marxist

Leninists and not like the

Hojahist kind and the

like People's Republic of China

kind upholding

socialism with Chinese

characteristics, understanding that even though

Russia, Iran,

in other countries aren't ideal,

they are anti-imperialist,

and that contradiction

is the main contradiction

in this imperialist era,

in this hegemonic imperialist era,

specifically, because before, during Len Lenin there was an era of

multilateral imperialism.

Nicole, with all due respect, at least as far as Comrade Eddie and myself are concerned, Marxism, Leninism has a very specific meaning. And to the extent that I've been able to communicate with your friend, I have found no evidence that they are a Marxist Leninist beyond the fact that they call themselves one.

The things that you've mentioned about supporting China and these other anti-imperialist countries,

while laudable in the sense that we at least align with respect to our outlook on foreign policy, it has nothing to do decisively with distinguishing yourself as a Marxist Leninist. Because many people, including Trotskyites, by the way, Marseites in particular, can have these views on foreign policy and not be Marxist Leninists.

Marxism-Leninism has a decisive significance, and I haven't seen the proof of that as far as your friend is concerned.

I agree, but that was not me saying precisely

why she's a marxist leninus that was me trying to start off of like our uh biggest and most

important uh views and positions, in general, emphasizing that, like, because

before this, you were debating with, like, anarchist, anarchist, liberals, and right-wingers that don't profess any sort of Marxism.

And I'm not sure if we're the first tonight that come from a Marxist from at least like

that sort of position or not.

So I just wanted to say...

Can you just explain like what your problem is with ACP maybe?

I think that'd be a good jumping off point.

So my problem with ACP is specifically with Jackson Hinkle.

Okay.

So your problem with, you don't have a problem with our party.

You just have a problem with one of the personalities on our executive board.

Do I understand that correctly?

I... executive board. Do I understand that correctly? I'm not

as clear

with, with, I'm not as

I haven't

looked as much into yours and Eddie's articles as much as much as I would like to, for me to say concretely, whether I absolutely condemn the party or at least think that there is a worrying reactionary trend within it.

Okay, I'm perfectly prepared to defend my comrade Jackson, by the way, but I just wanted to be clear that you don't have any criticisms of our party. You just have a problem with one of the personalities on our executive board.

I have criticisms, but those are secondary.

Okay, then we'll proceed in order. What is your problem with Jackson? My problem

with Jackson Hinkle is that, because earlier you said, and you made the distinction between people

with general Marxist-Leninist beliefs versus Marxist Leninists. I also believe that communism is like a scientific term and we should look at communists how we wouldn't say like someone who read like a couple pages of chemistry as a chemist. We wouldn't say someone who

read like the manifesto and now just debates online is a communist. I know that my friend is very research, but that's besides the point because I'd rather talk about Hinkle here.

I would not consider Hinkle a Marxist-Leninist or a Marxist at all?

Well, it's, well, you don't know that, but I assume what you're saying is that based on his manner of communication with uneducated people because that's who he's talking to

you could not know whether he was a Marxist or a Marxist

but how could you make then the assumption that he isn't one at all

I mean for example if Jackson has, in the capacity of his work within our party, communicated very clearly to the rest of the executive ward and to myself personally, that he has a good comprehension of Marxism, Leninismism and what it is, and the classics of Marxist-Leninist literature.

What about what he has said in public, which undoubtedly has probably offended you in some capacity on a personal level.

But what about that preempts the possibility that he actually is a relatively well-read Marxist

Leninist?

Because in my opinion, and we're speaking specifically on the conditions of America, we're clear with this, right?

Like we under, like, because different trends are reactionary versus progressive depending on the country, like how

Joseph Stalin said in his work, anarchism, or socialism, that advocating for a bourgeois democracy in 1901 Russia is a step up from feudalism.

But advocating for a bourgeois democracy and say the era of socialism, of course course would be reactionary. I believe that you cannot

be as reactionary as Hinkle is and still be a Marxist Leninist within America specifically.

You mentioned a very concrete issue, which it was at the time, which is the question of bourgeois democracy.

This is the extent of involvement in parliamentary politics.

This is the extent of the advocacy of bourgeois democratic forms of statehood within the context of feudal states.

And to be clear, you are using the term reactionary to describe Jackson because, because according to you, something has changed in a way that's comparable

to the rise of victorious and triumphant socialism

in the age of, well, when Stalin was

referring to it.

So what is that thing that's equivalent to the triumph and rise of socialism that for you, Jackson, is reactionary with respect to in our age?

That's in 1901.

Just to be clear before the revolution, before even the bourgeois revolution.

So to repeat myself, because you don't seem to have understood my question.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Listen, I, I, I tend to go on tangents, and it takes me a while for me to finish what I'm saying, and I apologize for that. I tend to lose my train of thought easily or get sidetracked think easily but I'll narrow down on

this specific point for you because I know that you're kind of getting tired with me like

just being like set up set up set up set up set up so specifically in

a bourgeois advanced bourgeois country like the US.S. What

Marx and Ingalls specifically were very

clear about

was that

these capitalist

the most advanced

capitalist countries start dissolving systems like like unneeded holdover systems from earlier eras of feudalism and even before that like the other stages

and should be clear leninism has proven Jackson Jackson has a reactionary position when it comes to the family, when it comes to gender, when it comes to sexuality.

And I don't think...

Let's begin from there, because with all due respect, it's not my intention to offend you.

Are you sober right now? Are you on drugs of any kind?

I'm not. I was yesterday. Are you like reading my tweets? No, I'm not. I'm just, uh, listening to

your voice. I mean, I'm sober today, but I'm like yesterday I was not.

So the reason I asked you what new development that in this case argumentatively or logically would be the equivalent of the rise of triumphant socialism, is Jackson reactionary with respect to?

It sounds like you're trying to say that he's reactionary with respect to the progressive developments of bourgeois civilization as it concerns and as it pertains to the development of the family and patriarchy, at least in comparison to feudal society. Is that correct?

Close enough. So in your view jackson is a reactionary because his views on the

family somehow represent an attempt to resist the advances of bourgeois civilization over feudalism.

Yes, and I think...

Okay, so before we be...

My line of questioning hasn't finished,

but thank you for confirming that.

You believe that.

The process of the dissolution of the vestiges of feudalism in England

had more or less already been completed by the time Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto.

The political superstructure, of course,

maintained many of these vestiges and still do the House of Lords and whatnot,

but these are just cosmetic, this is just pageantry.

In any case, at the level of civil society and the relations of production,

Marx and Engels were clear that England had already more or less at the level of civil society and the relations of production.

Marx and Engels were clear that England had already more or less succeeded in eliminating feudalism.

The United States of America was an even more stark case because we never actually had feudalism.

The closest equivalent would be slavery, which was eliminated in the aftermath of the Civil War. We are now living in the year 2024 where there are no traces of

feudalism. How is bourgeois civilization still advancing and still triumphing over the vestiges of feudalism?

And what constitutes these vestiges, which would have to, if you're a materialist, serve as the material basis for Jackson's reactionary outlook. If Jackson is a reactionary

and represents a reactionary position with respect to the advance of bourgeois civilization and the

capitalist mode of production, what is the material basis of that outlook? What you're suggesting is preposterous. It's that there are somehow materially holdovers and remnants of the feudal mode of production that somehow are endangering and producing reactionary outlooks such as Jackson's.

So I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your position

because it just doesn't make any sense from a Marxist perspective.

Well, although the system has changed when it comes to, I'm sorry, because like I write down notes as you're talking, can I have just like 10, 15 seconds to formulate what I want to say before?

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I will say also that I appreciate that you're having this debating speech in the first place because there's not enough Marxist conversation in America even when there's, you know, very large contentions. So, the thing is that the thing is that the

culture in any society is loosely

and

gains its power primarily

from the mode of production

that um, that primarily from the mode of production that the whole society is based on. So a capitalist culture will have capitalist tendencies, but there comes a time in, especially in, particularly

imperialist in colonial and reactionary countries, where a formal, futile mindsets still have their place in the society because the

capitalist society, the imperialist capitalist society, for example, imperialism

has the same, can benefit off of the cultural basis that was already established in earlier areas of colonialist feudalism.

So you're trying to say that U.S. imperialism has succeeded in preserving feudalism. How has it?

Lutalist culture.

Well, culture has a material basis. You're saying the basis of feudal culture is imperialism, but Lenin said that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and is the degenerate phase of capitalism.

By the way...

So actually, may I...

Go ahead.

I want to say, I said specifically I was careful in my wording, I was saying colonialism and imperialism in the highest

stage of capitalism benefits from the same types of structures that used to exist in colonialism.

But also I would like to say that...

Well, these have to be concrete structures, right? These aren't just parallels. For example, if we talk in vague terms about parallels, we could be reaching back into thousands and thousands of years. In this case, we wouldn't be talking about feudalism. We would be talking about ancient Rome and ancient Greece and the

parallels between U.S. Imperial

hegemony and the hegemony of

ancient Rome, which would be ridiculous.

So please locate

concretely in what

former mode of production

do Jackson's views derive from?

What feudal relation of production forms the foundation of Jackson's views that is resisting progress in the form of bourgeois normal capitalism.

Go ahead.

The feudal and patriarchal views on family and gender, but...

Nicole, you're describing them as futile.

You're describing them as futile, right?

But in reality, you cannot

you cannot locate

to me where the feudalism

is. So how can there be a futile

superstructure without a futile base?

There's a point that actually plays into this that I've been meaning to say, but I keep getting caught up in, that when Lenin said that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and that capitalism has reached its

imperialist phase. If you read the pamphlet itself, he also confirms that ancient Rome was also imperialist. He describes that as another imperialist society. And that's because it's not just capitalism that has an imperialist phase.

Nicole, what was the sentence he wrote directly after the sentence that ancient Rome was imperialist?

Can you read that sentence aloud for me? Or would you like me to pull it up?

I can pull it up.

Yeah, just read the sentence directly after

Yeah both the sentence directly after and the footnote please

I could tell you're maybe a fan of

Bad Empanada who also doesn't read books

I'm not a huge fan of

bad empanada

I

uh

I like some of his videos on

Palestine but I think he's kind of

foolish shit in a lot of ways.

Okay. Let's get

to this quote.

And then I'll give you the opportunity

to explain to you what Lenin actually meant once you can read.

Do you have the quote rev?

I have it ready at hand.

I'll just read it so we can save time.

So let's read exactly what Lenin says because you're actually precisely and completely wrong, if you mean to suggest that imperialism, as Lenin was describing it, has somehow created the foundation for a return of previous modes of production as a base. So here's what Lenin says. Okay, well, here's

what, let me explain to you why Lenin is

directly responding to you almost

in what he says and rejecting your

viewpoint. So keep in mind,

here's the context.

Before Lenin actually

uses the term imperialism, before he writes this book, before this book is well known and widely known and adopted as an official Marxist-Lennonist theoretical vernacular, the word imperialism was an extremely vague word. It didn't describe anything in particular, right? It was a vague word that was used to describe, you know, the tendency of building empires. So before Lenin writes imperialism, that's what the word connotated and that's kind of what it referred to and meant very

vaguely in people's minds. So Lenin is addressing that directly. Colonial

policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism and even

before capitalism. Rome founded on slavery, pursued a colonial

policy and practiced imperialism. But, and here's the part you probably didn't read, but general

disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore or put into the background, the fundamental difference, so this is a

qualitative difference, and this is where your argument falters, between different socioeconomic

formations, inedively turns into the most vapid banality or bragging.

That sounds like a pretty good description of your way of characterizing Jackson's views on the family.

It's a vapid banality, which attempts to compare it to feudalism and all these other things, when there's no material basis for it.

Greater Rome and Greater Britain.

Even the capitalist colonial policy

of previous stages of capitalism

is essentially, he says

essentially different from the colonial

policy of finance capital.

So if it's essentially different,

we're talking about a qualitatively different mode of production.

We're not talking about the return of the attributes of the feudal mode of production

or the ancient Roman mode of production

with respect to the rise of the imperialism that

Lenin is talking about we're talking about something that is essentially different it doesn't

share common attributes it doesn't share parallels and similar substances with respect

to the material base.

It is a fundamentally, qualitatively different material base that is essentially different,

such as Lenin's view on the matter.

And this is, by the way, in the preface, I believe...

Not in the preface, I believe.

Not in the preface. Sorry, this is in this is in

one of the later chapters actually.

But in any case,

by the time of the end of this book,

the word imperialism comes to mean something

entirely different. It comes to refer to the latest, the word imperialism comes to mean something entirely different. It comes to refer to the

latest, the last stage of the capitalist mode of production. And that is, by the way, not just

Lenin's perspective, that is the perspective that was officially adopted by the synthesis of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union

and in China as well. All the Marxist-Leninist literature that you could ever find

will confirm that, including basic Soviet textbooks that were meant for literal schoolchildren.

So, when you talk about a qualitative difference between earlier forms of

the capitalist imperialism and the colonialism

and the colonialism of previous eras. I do agree

that there's a real qualitative

difference. Nicole, I want this to be faster, so you agree with that.

But let me explain to the problem and give you an opportunity to respond to the problem.

The problem is that I asked you a simple question.

You said Jackson's views on the family were reactionary, and that in particular they're

reactionary because these are futile mindsets. I asked you, where is the feudal base coming from? Well, you said, well, with the rise of imperialism, these utilize feudal and colonial structures and whatever gibber you were talking about. But now we've clearly established that

imperialism is an essentially different and qualitatively new mode of production with respect

to feudalism and ancient Rome and all these other places. So you can't call Jackson's mindset

feudal. You can't attribute it to feudalism. So exactly where, what material base you can attribute his viewpoints to? We don't know. We're still in the dark about. So I would like you to clarify that. Go ahead. I was going to, I'm, um, I was going to clarify that when I was start, uh, starting to say that, uh, by

specifically, um, when just, you know, I am. I'm sorry. I am.

I'm sorry.

I, I,

specifically when Lenin was

when London was talking about

I'm sorry, when

people interrupt me, I kind of

lose my train of thought and I know that I talk for a very long time.

I just don't think you've thought this through, and that's okay.

No, no, no.

Listen to me. Listen to me for just a second.

Lennon was at a point

he was talking about great Russian chauvinism

as a response

that the proletarian movement

will have to handle. Now,

this is already when

the Soviet Union was making its transition from a semi-feudal society to not even just a state capitalist society, but instead of transitioning to a socialist society.

So chauvinism, which is a characteristic of feudalism, instead of transitioning to socialist society.

So chauvinism, which is a characteristic of feudalism,

should theoretically no longer be a problem here.

Why is it a problem here?

Because even when those stages are gone,

there's still cultural vestiges from the previous Mosa production ingrained into... There's three prongs that I could come up with on the spot with respect to the deep error in this line of thinking.

One, if there's a direct transition between feudalism, so to speak, and socialism, and we're talking about this is a

manner of what a decade or two decades

then of course

it would be reasonable to say there's vestiges of the prior

mode of production which socialist construction

is precisely founding itself upon

the elimination of that That makes total sense,

but we're living in 2024 in the United States of America. The equivalent to Russia's

feudal and backward mode of production, you haven't been able to provide it with respect to the United States. That's the first

prong, okay? Now, the second prong has to do with this problem of then saying that, you know, okay, Lenin, more or less, is writing about great Russian chauvinism, and that chauvinism was a product and a relic. The context is feudalism. That's actually factually incorrect. When Lenin uses the phrase chauvinism, it's actually a term that comes into popular usage as a consequence of the great the first imperialist war or the first world war as people call it when social democracy when politicians but in particular as far as lin was concerned, social democrats in advanced capitalist countries advocated and voted for the war credits and advocated the policy of the defense of the fatherland, as they called it, where German imperialism and its rapacious interests in the Balkans were disguised in the name of repelling the threat of backward Russian tyranny or despotism, which is what the German Social Democrats were doing, or how the French Social Democrats were saying the same thing, but with respect to the Germans.

And on and on it goes.

So the chauvinism, which Lenin is problematizing, doesn't actually come from feudalism.

The great Russian chauvinism doesn't either.

The context is the First World War, where there are still political forces within Russia

who want Russia to remain within the First World War, where the First World War is establishing

a context for a Russian form of modernization that is predicated upon adopting the European modern capitalist style nationalistic chauvinism.

So you completely have ignored the actual historical context of where the chauvinism Lenin was talking about actually came from.

It didn't come from feudalism or some pre-capitalist

era. That would actually be meaningless.

Now, the third problem, I guess,

finally, that we'd have to point our attention to,

is the fact that,

and it's similar to the first problem that we immediately came up with,

which is that you're not actually talking about a case in which the superstructure outlives the base, because during the period of socialist construction, the previous base has not actually fully been eliminated yet. Its vestiges are still discernible and can still be located materially. Lenin actually talks about locating the vestiges of the capitalist mode of production in the countryside.

He says every minute, of every hour, of every day, it's being reproduced and replenished in the countryside.

It's the kind of direct quote he's famous for saying.

So here are the three prongs of my response.

Go ahead.

So

I wrote down the prongs

as you were talking, but I didn't have enough

on prong one. Do you remember

what you said? Or I won't blame you. I don't want you to remember. I remember what I said. I said

that it's incomparable because even if it's true that we're talking about, which I showed, it's not true in prong three. But even if it was true that somehow there was an immediate and sudden leap from feudalism to socialism within the time span of 10 years, at least, you know, when Lenin is still alive to write about this.

Even if that's true, that time gap is not comparable to America in 2024 to whatever pre-capitalist mode of production you're trying to say, you know, we've just gotten out of. It's been hundreds of years. So how could a mode of production from hundreds of years ago, hypothetically? I don't even know if that could be said to be true because America never really had feudalism. We had slavery.

But if you're talking about slavery,

even, how could something from 150 years ago form the foundation

materially speaking of

Jackson's outlook today? It makes no sense.

So let's

I'll start with prong one.

Well, I'm, I apologize.

I know more, I will admit that I don't know

enough about

British feudalism

specifically

but

would

it be more fair for me to make a comparison, would you say, I know that the People's Republic of China is still like a third the age of America, but would it be better for me to make a comparison with uh in

twenty twenty four to uh american uh cultural reactionism for this general

point of just chauvinism in particular.

In that

case, we wouldn't be talking about feudalism

at all. We would be talking about

triumphant socialism

in the process of

overcoming capitalism. and the reactionary thing in that case would be an attempt to defend capitalism in the face of the triumph of socialism which is represented in your view by the existence of China. Now, the problem with that

comparison would be that you would have to somehow demonstrate that the socialist mode of production

as it is developing within China has directly exerted its influence upon America

in such a way that has resulted

in the

transformations in the family that Jackson

I mean we're very vague about what we're talking about here

by the way but but Jackson opposes.

But the problem with making that argument is that, well, China isn't itself experiencing those same transformations, and it's the socialist country in question.

I think there might have been a misunderstanding on my regards.

Originally, I was comparing the issues in Lenin's

Russia and you said that

there wasn't that the time gap is just not at all comparable

I was mentioning...

You need to understand the precision of the argument. The time gap... You need to understand the precision of the argument.

The time gap was with respect to the rapidity of the supposed transition straight from feudalism to socialism that you claimed was happened, which it didn't happen, by the way. But I just hypothetically entertained it. That's why it was three prongs, right? I didn't, I didn't say that the transition was immediate. I was saying that there was a transition happening. And I know that those trans...

No, you said that socialism had already

triumphed over feudalism, which it didn't.

That's not what I said.

Well, it may not have been what you intended,

Nicole, but it is what you said.

In any case. No, it wasn't. It just

wasn't what I said. I remember what I said. I said that

the U.S.S.R was...

The pace at which you're speaking leads me to believe you probably don't even remember what you had for

breakfast today. So please, let's not pretend that you remembered the exact wording of what

you had said. You said

that in that case...

USSR was transitioning not only from

semi-futalism

to state capitalism, but was also

transitioning from semi-feudalism to socialism.

And the decisive point of your argument was that it had already done so, and yet futile mindsets, futile mindsets still persisted.

If you were meaning to say that it had not done so why even make the argument that futile

mindsets persisted when your argument was supposed to be that futile mindsets can persist independently

of the original mode of production. Do you see the issue?

That was a genuine mistake of mine,

and I don't know the

equivalent to self-criticism

on an online debate or anything,

but that was a mistake my bad.

That was a bad example,

which is why I'm asking instead

to draw a comparison to the People's Republic

of China. Yeah, and I

responded about why that comparison

would also be...

Well, I didn't. As far as

I can, maybe there's some genius to it that I'm missing.

So please fill me in on the genius I've missed as far as comparing America to China and calling Jackson a reactionary with respect to that.

So,

so I have a

I apologize for the

sloppiness of this original discussion, but I

recently wrote an anthropological

article on China, and to do so, I interviewed a Chinese friend of mine named, I'm going to butcher this pronunciation, I'm sorry, Leon Zong.

Please, please immediately get to the point. Leon-Zong.

Please immediately get to the point.

That, for example,

China's a 5,000-year-old relationship

with Korea and Vietnam

still has the average Chinese person seeing Korea and Vietnam is still opposed to China, even though the situation demonstrates that Vietnam, Korea,

and China are

allies

and no longer opposed to

So to speed this up, you're saying

that this could be an example of how

you know, mentalities

that come from

ancient modes of

production

could still outlive

their material base

is that

we were trying to

get at

there's still

a material

base there

but it's very

decayed

yeah

but I disagree

with that I disagree with that.

I disagree with that because Korea is hostile to China and so is Vietnam.

The communist,

in the contemporary,

immediate sense of the word, by the way.

I mean,

there's something that some, I don't know what to call them, self-orientalists will do in Russia or China. Well, they'll take a given very immediate, very

materially immediate and contemporary dispute between Russia and some country or China in some country. Ah, this is from

thousands of years ago, but you could apply that to literally anything. Why isn't China fighting

the Arabs just like they were under the Tang Dynasty? It's nonsense. If China was fighting Arabs right now, they could say this is

the result of longstanding things from the Tang dynasty. So I don't buy that at all. Korea and

Vietnam are very clearly materiallyially, right now,

China had a war with Vietnam less than a century ago, okay?

Very less than a century ago, okay?

And, you know, with respect to Korea,

it's a, South Korea is a U.S. military base. The perception that the

Chinese people have toward Korea and Vietnam, isn't from 5,000 years ago. It's from today.

When I say Korea, I mean the DPRK.

I call the DPRK Korea.

Sorry for the confusion.

I say South Korea when I mean South Korea because I recognize when we...

But even then, that doesn't work still.

Korea and China still have land disputes over that one

Mount Pake 2, isn't it?

Yeah, they still have...

Yeah, that's the mountain.

So, even then, that still doesn't apply, really.

Um,

so, uh, um so uh in any case look by the way your view would be interesting and whatever but and if you were in our party we might permit you to write it in the journal, but here's the

thing, it contradicts the

Marxist-Lenin's view, according to which

the material

base serves as the foundation

of the superstructure. Superstructures cannot outlive

their material base for generations.

They can maybe do so for a generation.

They can maybe do so in the immediate period following a transition,

but then completely get grinded underfoot a new superstructure produced by the motor production.

But they can't survive for generations after the consolidation of the victory of a new motive production.

That would completely contradict the Marxist outlook.

Well, then why does the monarchy

exist in Great Britain,

for example?

Because it's just

pageantry. The monarchy isn't a real

monarchy. It's just for show.

Yeah, well,

I'm talking specifically about the cultural aspect.

But hold on.

You can't go from treating the monarchy as the real institution of state power to a mere fact of culture.

But you need to be consistent. Because

if you're going to use the monarchy as an example

of how the

prior mode of production can somehow

survive past...

It's not the mode of production, it's the culture

associated with... No, it's not in mode of production it's the culture is culture associated with that. It's not in this case the cultural system. It's the political superstructure. You're you're treating it now as a cultural thing because that's basically what it's been reduced to because we live in a new mode of production. But back then,

it wasn't a mere matter of culture. It was the actual political organ of dictatorial state power.

So you see how your argument is faulty? It can't somehow transform from going from the actual institution of state dictatorship to then just becoming some facetious cosmetic cultural attribute of a given society it's just total nonsense um i have a question

Um, this question isn't

aggressive, so bear with me, is this being recorded or no?

Um, yeah, yes, it is, yeah. It is. Yeah.

It is.

Uh, could you by chance, uh, send me the recording after so that way I can listen to it?

It'll probably be up on our YouTube, um, but I can send it to you, yeah.

I appreciate that.

In any case, I think this could be sped up a lot by just pointing out to the simple fact.

Nicole, to the extent of your familiarity, did Marxist Leninists have a analysis

of degeneracy and decay

of society under imperialism?

What do you mean by that question?

In the Soviet Union,

at the same time

as the post-war United States, specifically under Andrei

Jadanov, and I don't know if you're familiar with the Jadanov's China, as it's called, the kind

of cultural dictator-trip of Jdanov, who established the guidelines of

acceptable culture within the Soviet Union,

there were novel cultural developments

in the United States.

You know, I think liberals would even regard them as

progressive. But the Soviets regarded a great,

a great portion of these developments as degenerate.

They said these are the examples of the decay and degeneracy of society under capitalism, the proliferation of fixation on sexuality,

even, there were even Soviet cartoons that were lambasting the rise of fucking jazz music and shit.

So basically,

when you're saying something

is reactionary because it's not

living up to the standards of the current year,

you need to understand

where those standards come from from a

consistent Marxist-Leninist perspective.

Just because cultures change in specific ways

doesn't make that change progressive.

Because Marxism-Leninism has a very clear understanding,

by historical precedent,

of how a great many cultural changes could actually be degenerate, could actually be examples of the decay of humanity, culture, and society, spiraling into madness, spiraling into the destruction of humanity, spiraling into barbarism. And, you know, Soviets oftentimes did regard the development of American culture, the sexual revolution, the counterculture, the rise of hippies and all this kind of stuff as degenerate.

And so did the Chinese, who were even more hardcore with respect to

things like that so although although they very strongly championed the empowerment of women as

they saw saw it that has nothing to do with contemporary

neoliberal american feminism

where the empowerment of women is really about

the destruction of the masculine

and the castration

of males

and as a matter of fact you go so far as to say that the Soviet and

Chinese championing of women's participation in society was about opening up conventionally

masculine roles to women, right? Allowing women to be pilots and

tractor drivers and, you know, engineers and doctors and scholars and people who are studying and so on and so on.

But never did they even seed an inch to men becoming feminine.

It was unthinkable for them, for a man to wear a fucking dress, either in China or the USSR.

Don't you find that curious?

So I know what you're referring to in general.

When you were talking about jazz music, for instance...

Oh, God.

I have, like, that's so much to respond to that I can't remember at all.

I apologize for that.

I'm not, like, skilled at debating.

I don't usually, like, uh, like, uh, I... It's okay. You don't have to apologize. Just make the argument the best you can.

Uh... Or respond to his argument the best you can. Uh, or respond to his argument the best you can.

Um, so I remember, I, I, if I recall correctly, I, uh, that some of those points were addressed by Domenico Lacerdo in his book,

Stalin, The History and Critique of a Black Legend. But I don't remember exactly where and I don't know if I can pull it up efficiently.

What would you recommend that I do?

Just read the whole book right now on this space.

Well, look, I think it's fair to say that the United States pursued a highly experimental, individualistic, and libertine culture in many respects after the post-war period, and the Soviets were not at all receptive to it.

They were much more in favor, for example, of remaining embedded in the realist and neoclassical artistic traditions,

rather than entertain the diarrhea splatter of Pollock and all this other kind of stuff that the CIA was promoting.

So from a very basic, progressivistic standpoint, the Soviets would be regarded as conservative and even reactionary in the face of progress in examples like this.

So I think that there, I have two things to say about that specifically.

One that I agree that there's cultural developments in these advanced capitalist countries that are popped up by the CIA that aren't always exactly good.

Like, for example, prostitution, which Alexandra Colentai wrote about, I can't remember the year i think like in 1923 so you you uh don't think sex work is a

progressive work i would blame the sex work system rather than the sex worker in most circumstances, but I would say that there are circumstances to where sex workers are sentencing.

But you know what the problem, Nicole, is that just for having

that position, you know that a lot of people would say

you're a fascist, right?

Yeah, I

do know that, and I've been called

a fascist for that before.

Right, so this is, you need to,

so please, if you can have empathy, please understand that this is how we feel when people call us that when it comes to our positions.

Now, with respect to the problems you have with Jackson, I'm just going to be frank with you.

Has Jackson made inflammatory comments to uneducated people in the past? Yeah. But, well, before you, before you take personal offense to it,

and I think that's where the real problem comes from, Ask the question of who he's talking to, who the audience is, and ask the question of what the goal is.

Lenin was very clear that Marxists should advocate for their exact positions whenever possible, and to try to change their rhetoric only when necessary.

But there's a few problems, right? Firstly, Jackson was not, there was no

American Communist Party at the time in which Jackson made these comments you have a problem

with. Uh, so an individual position is meaningless. It could be a joke.

It doesn't mean anything.

Second of all, to have an exact position, of course, is important, wherever necessary.

But in the age of social media and being a media personality, sometimes when you convey your position in the same way that you would,

for example, within a party journal, you're actually communicating the opposite of what you intend to,

to the audiences who are actually receiving it. For example, how I speak to my comrades internally, I can't talk that way to the masses,

because they don't even know the terminology. They wouldn't even understand what I'm saying.

So for me to even communicate to them and have a conversation with them, I have to take inventory

and take into account where their consciousness is now jackson

was on a show called fresh and fit um and he made these uh supposedly very offensive and very

bad comments but don't you understand that had Jackson just made a one-for...

Do you know how much intelligence it takes to maneuver this

in a way that's not going to lead to a completely negative backlash and disaster?

Because here's the thing

you need to understand

Nicole is that

we need to win

support

and I'm not necessarily

saying that as a party

we would make

those same comments

now anywhere

I went on fresh and fit

and I think

you know

because thanks to Jackson's example

we could

we could have time to think about it

he didn't have time right he just was on the spot

called on the spot

but these leftists

that also call you a fascist they want to kill us they want to straight up kill us so we have to reach these apathetic non-political you know brain-rodded audiences and we have to somehow reach them and get our message across to them.

And if we just talk like nerds and, you know, sound cringe or whatever to them,

you know, what then?

We don't reach them.

They dismiss us. And then what happens? We don't reach them. They dismiss us.

And then what happens?

How are we able to actually get the truth across when all this self-proclaimed leftists are smearing us and attacking us at the same time?

So I'm telling you the past, our situation in the past,

this is not our problem anymore

as a party

because we have a party now.

We know how to handle

these kind of things.

We can plan for them

very methodically.

We know how to communicate

in an organized way.

We didn't have that before.

There was no organization

of communication before.

But, you know, I don't think it's fair to hold these things against Jackson, hold him over his head,

in consideration of the fact that his goal is to communicate to people, not necessarily to look good in the eyes of, you know, from the perspective of theory. It's to be good in practice, not just theory. So I have a question then because I also believe that theory should

be more

accessible. I honestly

think that there should be translations

of like some

of the more

hardcore like Hegel stuff for

people to understand it now because it's really hard for like the average person to just read Hegel.

But Jackson's, and I know this was before the formation of this ACP, but Jackson's

Maga-Communist Manifesto was also worded in like that sort of armchair way.

The manifesto was written by me.

What manifesto?

I'm sorry.

I thought it was written by Jack.

Maybe it was just because when I looked it up initially, it said Jack's been on it.

Well, I don't know.

He didn't write a manifest.

He shared a photo of many policy points.

Is that what you're referring to?

If you DM me, I can send you what I'm looking at.

Is it just a list of policy ideas,

or is it actually like a bunch of paragraphs?

It's a, it's a bunch of paragraphs.

It's a relatively long article.

Yeah, the rise of Maga communism.

That's my article.

Yeah, but that isn't written in the same...

You're right. And that's why Jackson and I work together so well, because I have the freedom to communicate theoretically in this really dense way that only

300 Spartans understand, and Jackson has the ability to talk to millions.

And the only reason I have the freedom that I have to be

theoretical is because

of the work that Jackson does

otherwise

otherwise I'd be a

fucking nobody straight up

so then

my other point is the relationship between like a specific rhetoric versus terminology.

Like I think a good example here.

I don't remember her name, but like, I'm sure you guys are familiar with, uh, breakthrough news.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, a breakthrough, uh, news reporter got on Fox News

at some point or another

to talk about Venezuela

and she

was being interviewed

by Tucker Carlson

and even though Tucker Carlson wanted at first to believe that the position of the U.S. State Department to Venezuela is an issue with the Democrats.

They managed to make a breakthrough. Listen, I understand there's cases of this and they're isolated cases

and they're usually exceptional.

But

before even ACP is formed,

Jackson and I have mastered the art

alongside RTSG.

I'll give them credit as well.

And now Midwestern Marks

obviously is really good at it. And all Midwestern Marx, obviously, is really good

at it. And all of ASE, we've mastered the art of communication.

We know how to talk to anyone

and communicate our position.

And communicate it to non-communist

and even anti-s, self-proclaimed anti-communists.

And that is literally what we train for

and that is literally what we've become experts at.

And

breakthrough news can make some breakthroughs

sometimes and other people can have breakthroughs

sometimes, but we have actually dedicated

ourselves fully to

mastering it as a science.

You know, and it pisses off

leftists. To the point of teaching classes

on it. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And, you know, some, I don't want to call them

leftists because why are they leftists? They're right wingers.

But the fascist collaborators, as I like to call them leftists because why are they leftists? They're right-wingers. But the fascist collaborators, as I like to call them,

who don't understand the concrete anti-fascism we're engaged in,

will object to our rhetoric sometimes,

and they'll object to our terminology.

They'll object to the fact that we're not

going up to a random, uneducated person and telling them and not telling them we want to

abolish private property as if that is, I mean, what does that communicate to a random person?

That communicates that

you want to abolish their right to have their own things. That's absurd.

By the way, the person you're talking about is Ania Parimple, actually, right?

Anya is actually on our side.

Anya is just like us.

I mean, I'm not going to attribute to her

all the politics we have,

but she's on the same pages as far as

we're concerned about,

yeah, she, okay, that's who it was.

Someone in my chat is telling me that's who it was it was the gray zone people yeah i mean

they understand the same thing we do though and they get called red-brown fascist for the same reason

yeah i don't think ania works for breakthrough news because

yeah i was gray's maybe I was

confusing them

I'm sorry

um

I

yeah but she gets called

she gets called a fascist as well

you know

she gets canceled the same way we are so

well

the whole gray's on

my point was where, what I regard the as the correct position, where some people, some communists when communicating with the masses, will say that there need to be serious and I can't think of the word, I'm

serious and relentless

criticisms of both the Republicans

and the Democrats.

When talking with Maduro, Hinkle will, in my opinion, kind of dishonestly, try to get Maduro to say that the Republicans

will be better when

um

and how is that? What do you ask?

No he didn't he didn't say that to Maduro.

He had, uh-uh.

He very clearly

um,

he very clearly. It was how the question was framed i'm um i'm not claiming to be an expert but i'm a major in journalism no he was trying to ask he was trying he was trying to talk about

how there's americans he wasn't referring to

Republicans in particular, who want

peace and if there's a possibility

and that, you know, because most

Americans think at Maduro is this

evil guy who just hates

America for no reason.

And you need to understand Jackson's brilliance.

I mean, he's gone as far as he has for a reason.

And people underestimate him because he's not acting like a nerd everywhere he goes.

But he knows what he's saying.

He knows the implication.

He knows what he's saying. He knows the implication. He knows what he's doing.

And in this case, he very brilliantly

was communicating

not even just primarily to Maduro,

but to America and to the world,

right? That Maduro doesn't hate ordinary regular average joes

he doesn't hate americans he doesn't hate the people he hates the same government that a great

deal of many americans are beginning to hate.

And that is a very good alliance.

That is a very good thing to establish,

a commonality between the opposition to the U.S. Empire that exists

abroad and the same feelings

that are organically and inadvertently

being cultivated domestically.

I mean, that is exactly what anti-imperialist forces around the world want.

They don't want to make alliances with people in America who declare themselves to be enemies of society and enemies of the population who just burn the flag and say, fuck America, they don't need those people. Those people have completely ostracized themselves from making any kind of impact whatsoever on anything that could possibly affect the American state.

But to get traction and support and a basis of support among the masses, that is something invaluable to the cause of anti-imperialism.

And all Marxist-inists in history took this as a truism.

It's not simply that they agreed with it.

It was a truism.

Yes.

Let's wrap up this conversation so we can move on to someone else i see like uh we got like a furry or something so i'm excited for that but thank you for coming on nicole can i can i ask one last question i'm sorry this isn't a hostile question and i appreciate that both of you took so much time with me.

I know that you're both busy people, and I genuinely

appreciate it.

But I do have one last question.

Go for it.

In your opinion, then,

and this is a question, not as

much as me debating,

uh, would you,

what's the differences?

Would you say between, uh,

Michael Perenni's, uh, strategy with,

uh, engaging with people tactically and um hinkles where perani was not as focused on um the more republican voters, I guess.

I would say very simply, and I'll let Eddie go after this, but I just want to say it before I forget it.

Parenti was a very brilliant popularizer of anti-imperialist ideas.

Unfortunately, he did not exist in the age of social media. And I think that's the

decisive thing here, difference in question. It's not about Republicans, essentially. It's about how the

environment of social media has made it impossible to appear as authentic, at least, while coming from the liberal or Democrat or hegemony position.

So these politically incorrect and quote-unquote conservative coded cultural positions are a direct product of the decentralized nature of social media that has led to an environment where people actually say what they think. They don't just say what they're supposed to think, according to institutions.

They genuinely just speak how they feel, right?

And Michael Parenti probably wasn't strongly emphasizing culture war stuff because he wasn't operating in an environment in which the authenticity of personality actually mattered. He was an academic who was giving lectures. He was popularizing ideas. He was giving speeches.

But as far as Michael Parenti, the face, no one cared. He wasn't an influencer.

Now Jackson is operating in a completely different media environment in which all the things I just mentioned, personality, having a face, having a sense of authenticity, this matters. Being honest matters. People can tell when you're bullshitting, when you sound like Hassan Piker, or you sound like, you know, a Twitch politically correct streamer or something.

People see this as completely fake and phony.

Yeah, Michael Parenti, I would echo what Haas said and then say,

not only did he exist before social media but he existed before wokeism became

the ideology of the ruling class so when he's writing in the 90s like yeah most of the ruling

class were like these you know old white conservative or neo-conservative men like you know, old, white, conservative or neo-conservative men, like, you know, the Koch brothers.

Nowadays, you have Raytheon and Boeing and, you know, these military industrial complex companies

and the big banks and Wall Street, plastering rainbow flags all over everything and, you know, really co-opting various cultural movements or, you know, hot-button cultural issues and weaponizing that in order to justify the worst kind of imperialism and capitalist exploitation.

And this is something that actually Perente's son, Christian Parenti, is very aware of and has written on and has even talked about how this obsession with diversity is a is a ruling class ideology but that wasn't really the case in in michael parenthi's time it was you know more of like uh they hadn't really diversified the ruling class as much.

The ruling class hadn't co-opted all these culture war issues and, you know, which the liberal ruling class frames itself as being the left.

It frames itself as being the left. It frames itself as being the left

because it's weaponizing these

cultural issues.

Whereas during Parenthes time, they were more

openly, you know, just conservative

or the liberals were more openly just like

Bill Clinton Democrats. Even in his time, look at the comedians

like George Carlin. All they would do is shit on political correctness all the time

for how it was.

I would, uh, I guess the only thing I would like to say there, and you have to address this.

But like Perani, for example, in Blackshirts and Reds, he said that the first people, Hitler massacred, were gay people, and he was pronounced in a lot of his speeches about being

pro-gay rights while Hinkle on the other hand has said that Hitler is gay. He said that.

Is it a lot of evidence?

Hold on, but is that wrong?

It is.

How do you know?

Have you seen the evidence?

The point is refuted specifically in black shirts and res.

Hinkle says specifically that the...

Yeah, I mean, look, all that would prove is that the Nazis were hypocrites, though.

That wouldn't prove that they were impert.

And by the way, this was the view of Marxists.

This was the view of the Soviets at the time.

It was the same.

So why are you attributing to Hinkle a

fascist position when this was just the position

of the Soviet

cultural leadership at the time in their appraisal of what fascism was and frankly what even what everyone knew you know implicitly at the time I mean this is what it had the reputation for being.

And Hitler, I mean, look at him.

You don't even need the evidence. Just look at his speeches.

By the way,

the purpose is not to promote... By the way, why? You see, this is a problem, though, because this is the problem with where you're coming from. Because look at the context. The widespread lionization of Hitlerism on the basis of opposing the excesses of the LGBT ideology. And of course, these are excesses. I think that's a non-negotiable position from my perspective. It's a position that if I went to Hamtramic right now where the Yemeni community

lives and ask them if there have been excesses with respect to the books that they have found

in the libraries that their children have access to in public schools, it will be a unanimous

position on their part that, yes, it's excesses. But in any case,

the excesses of the LGBT movement are being spinned in such a way that Hitlerism is seen as the

solution, that, oh, yes, this is what Hitler was fighting. Hitler was fighting the degeneracy, yada, yada, yada. So this is what Hitler was fighting Hitler was fighting the degeneracy

yada yada yada so this is the

context Jackson is working with he's on

Sneco stream

Sneco's audience is knee

deep in the Hitlerism jabber

because it's also Nick Fuentes' audience

and this is who Jackson has to respond to.

So when you think about it, what Jackson is saying is incredibly... That was just a public tweet.

It wasn't with Sniko, but... I wasn't sure what you were referring to. In any case, it's the same

context. Look at X.

Look at the environment that's on X right now.

It's all Hitlerism.

In any case, this is the context.

So Jackson's saying this doesn't increase the degree of animosity or hostility toward gay people, not even by 1%. That hostility and animosity, for better or for worse, I think for worse, by the way, I don't want hostility toward anyone, regardless of whether I agree with whatever ideology.

But I want people to find peace and to be healed of whatever ailment or trouble or turmoil or whatever persecution even by their immediate surroundings.

In any case, you know, we don't hate anyone,

but that environment of animosity toward the LGBT movement in general is not, Jackson's not

responsible for that. That's already

very widespread

and frankly

there's nothing Jackson

could do to reverse it even one percent.

On the other hand,

what is Jackson actually directing animosity and hostility toward?

Hitlerism.

See, the objective consequence of what Jackson said damages Hitler's image.

Isn't damage the safety of gay people? Doesn't make a difference with respect to that. It damages the ideology of fascism and Hitlerism. And that's the objective result. Why do people think Jackson is attacking gay people when he's just attacking Hitler?

He's attacking the very foundation of pro-Hitler ideology.

He said, ah, he's attacking Hitler because Hitler is gay.

What's wrong with being gay?

Well, according to the Hitler rights themselves, there's a big problem with it.

So he's attacking them on the terms of their own ideology and thereby discrediting it.

Why is this so overlooked by everyone?

Why is the focus overlooked by everyone? Why is it, why is the focus on, it's insulting.

It's insulting because of how out of touch people are.

Because it's not just some niche, forged and basement dwellers.

Go as, I don't know how old you are, Nicole.

Ask people from the generation, millennial, the Zoomer generation.

They've all got little brothers.

They've all got people that they have cousins.

They have people that are their friends in school.

It is becoming so widespread to Hitlerism. And leftists somehow think that they've created a bubble of righteousness and virtue, that they're not somehow culpable and responsible for this rising, because they haven't been able to provide an alternative to it.

And frankly, the takeaway from Jackson's anti-fascist war, his anti-fascist,

frankly, it's an incredibly principled anti-fascist stance he's assuming he's literally on sneako stream saying this shit

and it's like he's he's going against what everyone in that environment believes and thinks

and um he is an anti-fascist soldier

and now he's being crucified

because he hurt the feelings

of some out of touch

I mean the

he's not the one

promoting hatred toward the LGBT's

he's not the one doing that that's not promoting hatred toward the LGBT's.

He's not the one doing that.

That is something that is being done by a combination of the excesses of the LGBT movement itself and the far right response to it.

And it's a feedback loop, by the way.

But all Jackson has done, with respect to that phenomena, is discredit the ideology of Hitlerism and fascism.

So I would like to say real quick, I know that like if I kept responding and this would go on for it, because you've already been talking to me for like an hour and 30 minutes, I just wanted to say that I know you want to talk to other people

so I appreciate your time

and would either of you be open to talking again in the future?

I know I'm not popular or anything.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, Eddie,

we could have another space either Tuesday or Thursday, what

sounds good for you? If any of those

are the two days that I'm least available.

I'm a college

student and I work.

So we could do them next Sunday then, yeah?

Next Sunday will probably work. Thank you.

Yeah.

I appreciate that.

All right. Well, thank you, Nicole.

Appreciate you coming on.

Good conversation

there. Respect people.

At least having the

Cajonese to step up and have a

conversation with us.

But

moving on

Liam

what do you got

no that's me

uh okay so

as the Marxist Lennonist

I feel the need to ask you this question has

if you're listening

we're here

I don't really think you're a marxist leninist

and i think you're probably here to troll but go ahead

have a crack at it

okay

well how many holes do women

have below the belt

um so

so by the way

Liam I already knew you were a degenerate and a porn addict

just by looking at your profile picture

I didn't even have to click your profile

I already knew it and um

you know I hope you find uh I hope you find some kind of peace and I hope you find some kind of, uh,

it's a fucking comfort character, man.

Liam, uh, just by the way that you're hysterically and maniacally laughing, I could already tell

that you are a complete

porn addict, you're

a complete...

To the point, it's you're in a state of mental

psychosis, and

you know, you...

I pray for those around you, and you know, you, uh, I, I pray for those around you. And, you know, I, I could even say I pray for you as well.

I think that, you know, you are very, you are very sexually disturbed person very clearly. And, uh, you know, I that... I hope you don't have pets.

I hope there are no animals

within your vicinity

that you have access to in private.

Oh.

You know...

Well, how are you going to mock that question?

You literally have like an animal

as your profile picture.

I just, and it's like 27 pronouns.

I don't really believe in animal rights.

I have no problem

like eating

animals, but I don't think

whatever you want to do to the pets that are potentially around you, I don't think it's fair to them. I think it's a crime against nature and God. And I hope it's brought to justice if you're guilty of what I think you are.

Because I think so far I've been accurate with respect to my predictions, you know.

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

Run that shit back.

You called me a fucking zoo file

because I have a fucking...

Because I have fucking rambly

the raccoon is my PFP.

No, I called you a degenerate

and a porn addict

and a pervert in general,

which you are.

But you said, but you said you'd hope that I didn't

have any animals in private, so you're

essentially implying that I'm a fucking zoo

zoo file. Yeah, you probably

are. Yeah, you probably are, to be honest.

See? to be honest. See.

That is just

your profile. I am a crackhead who memes

every day. He slash him, heterosexual,

demisexual, petos slash zoos.

People are going to think you're a zoo

file. So if you have to

put in your description telling

other zoo files not to interact with you,

it probably speaks a lot

with respect to

your position.

Eddie, can you kick this degenerate out?

I frankly think it's unbecoming

of us. It's unbecoming

of us as executive board members

to even associate with this

filth and women. Agre sorry my my computer glitched

out when he came on i think it was disgusted um yeah so it just shut down on me which which tends to

happen but let's show you you want to do another one or?

We could do one more and then that's it.

One more?

Okay. Sounds good to me.

This person has been waiting for a while.

Proletarian Kool.

Are you a hater?

I am not. I just have one question.

Okay.

Yeah, so adding on to what Nicole was saying earlier about Jackson, right?

I like most

the work you guys do but

the thing is that

how am I supposed

to sell ACP or

Midwestern

Marks or ever to just regular

normal people when you have Jackson saying things like...

Because Jackson is the person that normal regular people like. It's people like me that you have a hard time selling to normal ordinary people.

Yeah, when I have ordinary people in my life who ask about Marxism, I always say follow

this guy and it's Jackson Hinkle because I know he's not going to say anything that puts

them off and I know, you know, 90% of them won't have a problem with his, you know, even...

The people you're talking about are probably people who are already subjectively and politically and ideologically engaged, in which case, refer them to Midwestern Marx.

Exactly.

And if they're, you know, if they're a little bit more schizophrenic, them to me but in any case you know um

Jackson is our outward facing figure for Normies and he's very good at what he does

evidently he's very good at it uh we, evidently. He's very good at it.

We are the ones, or I'll just speak for myself.

I'm the one that talks to freaky people and weirdos

who become normal because I inspire them to.

One's in the chat right now,

if you were weird

before me

probably like 10%

you guys were always normal right

in any case

yeah

Heather do you want to go because I know

Heather's been waiting for a while.

She might be more of a hater.

Thanks for a question, proletarian.

Go ahead, Heather.

Last one.

Oh, she left, of course.

She's been begging to come on and bugging me for...

Maybe try again.

Are they gone?

Go ahead. Last one, Heather.

You have the floor.

Got to unmute yourself.

You can do it.

I believe in you.

You've been tweeting at me asking me to add you for like an hour now so let's go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead you got yourself you got yourself now you just got to talk.

Is there something wrong on my end?

I can't hear nor see them all All right.

Well,

thanks for messaging me 700 times to come on

and then saying nothing.

I promote me to co-host.

One last

go at it and maybe I can do it.

Okay. I'm removing he there's someone named cat person are we doing one more your co-host now on us yeah cat person 1917 uh are you're lagging here?

Go ahead. This could be unlawy.

Go ahead. Unmute yourself and speak.

Hello?

Hello.

Hello.

I have a few questions about the ACP.

Make it very quick, please.

What does the ACP think about the party for socialism and liberation?

I hear some ACP members somewhat support them.

I don't regard them as a Marxist-Leninist party.

At best, they're a Marciite party, which is a Trotskyite splinter. And I treat them the same way as I would treat any kind of other non

communist, which is

not to say that they're enemies,

but I don't,

for example, there are

libertarians who have good views on foreign policy.

And if they're willing

to work with us, if anyone're willing to work with us,

if anyone's willing to work with us,

we will accept it, including the PSL.

But we don't recognize them as Marxist-Lenin is.

To whatever extent they want to collaborate with us,

with respect to the anti-imperialist cause,

we're open to it, though I suspect that the anti-imperialist cause is not really their priority.

I could be wrong, but that's what I suspect.

Agreed. And in terms of organizing strategy, I think they focus too much on student groups and uh protests and

people who are already politically involved getting whereas you know we're we're trying to go down

to the industrial and agricultural proletariat something i was wondering, will there ever be like a communist youth league in the ACP,

like how some other foreign communist parties have?

The trouble we've had with that is that, first of all, we would never have a youth league of people under 18.

It still have to be adults, and typically youth leagues are 18 to 35.

Well, most of the party and leadership are very young.

Um... most of the party and leadership are very young.

So that, well, yeah, I mean, no one, no minors in the party ever.

That's my answer.

If we have a youth league, it would not be comprised of anyone below the age of 18. In my opinion,

in America, especially, to be a communist, is to be a militant, it's to devote your life to something very dangerous, and a child is not capable of making that decision for as long as communism

is a is not a mass movement got it those were the only two questions i was going to ask

you guys. Sure.

Bye.

Yep.

Bye.

All right.

I think the Heather person is not...

Not going to... Uh... other person is not not gonna Heather

Okay, can you hear me?

I can.

Oh, let's go, let's go.

I wanted to talk to you.

I was waiting for

like an hour Brad

okay um

okay

uh so

I guess like my problem with the

ACP it's like okay

so to give some context I I don't know, I'm just a communist, you know, I don't have any strict, like, ideology or whatever, you know, I was organized with the RCA a little bit but because of political

ideological

differences and organizational

differences I decided I don't even

know if I'm still in the party because there's some

confusion they're not really organized

but you know they're chill people for the most part.

You know, I don't have any beef.

But my issues with, like, the ACP is, like, I'm not a Traskist, though.

I've never even read Trotsky.

You know, I just thought you know they're like the most popular one. I saw their like Instagram had the most followers so I'm like okay. And they had like that big march so I'm like okay these guys seem to have like the most potential but then i showed up at the minnesota chapter and they ain't it they ain't it but anyways um my problem with the

acp it's like the it's like the... It's like the anti-degeneracy stuff.

Like, you know, like, I don't have, like, I'm not a degenerate.

I'm like, trust me, I get it, bro.

I get it 100%.

But it's like,

what counts as degenerate?

Like, are we going to count like trans people as degeneracy?

You know?

It's like,

or like gay people?

Because that's historically

as a generacy.

Visible and open displays of sexuality in public, of any kind.

Okay.

Talking crossing boundaries with your comrades in any kind of way.

Okay.

Okay. The sensibilities of the public and trying to shock them and...

Fair enough.

We don't...

We're not interested in people's private and intimate

characteristics you should listen

all right all right that sounds cool at the at the convention

I described um

degeneracy is just having no respect for yourself

the people around you to your community or your environment.

So it's just respect for you, yourself, your community, and the environment.

Right, right. Okay, okay. I agree with that. You know, I agree with with that I don't see any problem with it um

y'all I don't know y'all get called fascists all the time and I'm like you know I kind of see it but at the

same time I don't see it because you you know, I think you're definitely like statist, right?

And like in your program, I read, you know, there was no disillusion of private property,

which you said for the reason was for a...

No, no, no, no. The program is not...

Right.

The program is, does reflect and uses language that reflects internal party language.

And the reason we didn't mention the dissolution of private property in our program...

No, it's not optics. It's not optics. Oh, really? No. I thought I heard that earlier. No, let me educate people about the Marxist view of private property.

So the dissolution of private property is not a direct consequence of the policy of the state.

It's not something legislated or enacted voluntarily.

Rather, the policies of the state are meant to manage and oversee the transition from the capitalist into the socialist mode of production, a transition which, according to its own economic logic facilitates the eventual

dissolution of private property

but the dissolution of

private property does not

happen by decree nobody

sets about to abolish it

it doesn't happen that way it

happens over the course of

the development of history

after the consolidation

of the proletarian dictatorship, which

is removing the fetters that

the capitalist class

is artificially imposing

on history and the development of the mode of production.

And allowing that transition to happen.

So it's not something that the state is going to enact by law.

It's not something the state is going to do.

If you look at it, this is right, because it's a state.

This is why in the ten planks

of the Communist Manifesto, they don't talk

about abolishing private property.

Now, does the Communist

manifesto say that communism

is about

the abolition of private property, yes.

But communism is a historical process.

Communism is not a voluntary

act

of political will.

It is a historic, it's the riddle of history

solved. It's a historical tendency.

So of course we believe that private property is going to be, uh, is going to

wither away alongside the state itself.

But it's not going to do so by decree.

And if you look at the policies we endorse,

these are policies which facilitate the transition out of the capitalist mode of production.

I mean, we directly talk about,

we directly talk about the creation of an entirely new kind of economy, which is based in information rather than money, right?

That's interesting.

Right, so it's like, it's very clearly there, but we don't spell it out because it's not a policy itself.

Okay, I guess that makes sense.

I guess, like, because I read the program and, you know, I just, I came to

a few conclusions

about it, like, uh,

the, the tenant, or not the tenant, but like the,

you know, the, uh,

dog, and I guess, of like,

uh, incorporating doctrine, I guess, of like incorporating

or like incorporating

and basically taking over all of the land

as the government

and like enterprises and even like families signing a contract to live on the land with the government like i feel like

it's kind of it's trying to, it's like

trying to dissolve a state

by giving a state

like even more power

than it has today, you know?

Well, it's just the Chinese,

uh,

it's just the Chinese policy

on land ownership.

Right. And I don't, I don't agree with the Chinese policy on land ownership. Right, and I don't agree with the Chinese policy.

Why not?

Why not? Because personally...

I didn't mean to interrupt us.

Yeah, okay. Stalin said, dialectically speaking... personally... I didn't mean to interrupt those. Yeah.

As Stalin said,

dialectically speaking,

uh,

the dissolution of the state is possible only insofar as the state is built up to the strongest and most powerful capacity in order that it can attend to and participate in the process of dismantling itself. A weak state could not be up to the task of participating in the process of its own dissolution

dialectically speaking

the state must be to the strongest and most

powerful extent of its possible

existence in order

that it attends to the process

by which it eventually

is dissolved.

I just, I don't understand.

Why not just get rid of the state?

Why not after the revolution?

Because it is precisely,

it's only a state could attend to that task

because it's

such a monumental

task of

organization

and the

exercise of

power and

political will

and keeping

at bay

forces that

would oppose

this process

that this thing has to be incredibly

powerful in order for that process to begin.

I feel like if you have

such a mass movement of the proletariat,

then you have all the power.

You have all the power and You have all the power. And you can organize in however which way you can.

The real power doesn't come from movements.

It doesn't come from demonstrations.

It doesn't come from declarations of loyalty and devotion by the masses the real power comes from habit from the everyday habits of the masses that are largely unconscious that are largely apolitical, that are going about their routines day and day, day and out.

Right.

Day and day out.

And that is where the power comes from.

And for that to change is something very different than to

and to change

a given policy.

You know, and I think those habits start

with rejecting authority

in all instances, you know,

because there's

no authority. There's no authority.

There's no safety.

I mean, okay.

And project authority

in all instances.

And

why don't you scale it down?

Why don't you try that in a community of 15 people and see what happens?

Right.

I think, you know, it could...

By the way, many people...

It depends on the level of consciousness and education, for sure.

No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't.

I think it definitely does because...

If I'm drunk and I'm incapacitated,

I have to depend upon the authority of sober people,

regardless of the state of my consciousness,

to protect me.

If I'm unconscious, uh uh okay we have a society in which

people are interdependent we have a society in which some people are more knowledgeable

and more wise and more experienced, regardless of the state of consciousness.

I don't think...

It's for this reason that parents have authority over their children.

Right. Well, honestly, I believe, you know, it stems, you know, from somebody protecting you while you're drunk stems from something other than them having authority over you.

It sends from them being a good friend.

If you're drunk and you're almost blackout drunk and you do not obey the authority of a sober friend.

You will end up on the side of the road, potentially dead,

having been run over by a car, because your drunk self wants to go play in traffic.

So I completely disagree with that.

I don't know. I think listening to a friend's

sober words is different than you

submitting to their authority

I feel like that's a matter of submitting

they objectively have the authority

whether you want them to or not

because you're drunk

and you can't defend themselves.

So, you know, objectively, whether you want

them to have that authority or not, they

have it. Or unless

you just want to go to die. Any case,

we have to wrap this up.

Okay. Okay.

Thanks for coming on.

I'm gonna definitely try to talk to y'all again.

All right.

Sounds good.

We'll be here. We could actually do this a few times this week.

We could do it next Sunday.

Let me know what works for you.

I'm down to do this like,

let's say, Thursday

and Sunday.

What do you think? I'm down for

either day works for me.

Or both. Well, actually, sorry, sorry. Sunday

I'll be at that concert.

All right, let's do Thursday

and let's prepare it in advance

so everyone knows it's coming in advance

and we'll do it on Thursday.

Perfect. Perfect.

This was great.

Okay, good. All right. Thanks, great. Okay, good.

All right. Thanks, everyone.

See you later. Bye-bye.

We'll see you on the next one.

Okay, finally.

All right, guys.

What did you guys think? Good content? Probably not for you.

The next one should be better

because we're going to give people more of a notice.

And I think we may have provoked people

by this one

because they're going to see the performance

of the one person and they're going to be like,

ah, we need, I can own Haas.

This person is not doing it well.

So, yeah.

Do right-wingers next.

Right-wingers. They're just kind of...

Well, we'll see.

We'll see, actually. We'll see. We'll see who is willing to tap in in debaters next. But, yeah. but uh yeah i hope you guys had fun notice how patient i've become this patience i have

it's a consequence of numbness. I've become numb, not patient. The same patience I have

when I listen to idiots, it's the same patience I have if I witnessed a nuclear Armageddon, and I witnessed a nuclear an nuclear Armageddon

and I witnessed an entire city burned to the ground

I would be just as patient

it's the same patience I have

I have the same patience I have.

I have the same patience that I have, when I'm in these debates,

it's the same one that I have witnessing future war crimes that I commit.

That's a joke. That's a joke in any case uh yeah

see you guys tuesday i said thursday because tuesday i want to switch up the content a little and talk more but four hours of content today i usually do two hours so i made up for last thursday which i

missed and there you go guys don't say i don't give you content because I do are you in the kick partner.

Are you in the kick partner program?

No, I should be, though.

Future dictator.

The feds are actually

onto us now

because of my bazooka

how do I know

uh just just trust that I know

I can't tell you

but trust that I know

and that yeah

100% certain

they're onto the party

we're on the radar now

but we're doing nothing We're on the radar now.

But we're doing nothing thing if we were breaking laws and then went to jail and this whole thing was fucking done because of stupidity, you know?

if you do a YouTube short stream

what oh

reacting to YouTube shorts.

Ah, the thing with the countries that are warriors.

I love that.

Ah, I love that stuff. Good idea

The Mondeu Pepsi

started making videos again with AI

All right, I am watching that

No they didn't I've been waiting for that Started making videos again with AI. All right, I am watching that.

No, they didn't.

I've been waiting for that.

Because AI has advanced a lot since them.

Where?

Where? Where?

Planet Mountain Dew.

Where? Planet Mountain Dew. Where?

No, they fucking didn't.

The last one was Planet Mountain Dew, the TV show.

All right, his name is, uh...

All right.

Well, they're not... those are not the videos about Planet Mountain Dew.

The shapes are overrated

There's no fat people're all, they're literally non, none of them are good.

The Denny's one.

Okay.

This doesn't look like there's fat people.

It's only funny if there's fat people, let's be honest.

This shit with like zombies, whatever's in the thumbnail is just like

gives a shit about that it's nothing funny about that Hey Ron, did you spray the bags with disinfectant?

Come on, man. Nobody does that.

Besides, it's just some pancakes and shit.

Bring the fucking Mountain Dew shit back.

That stuff should never ended.

It should only progress

with the development of AI.

You're really supposed

to spray the bags with disinfectant.

Dude, what's the worst that could happen?

Yeah! happen. I'm just laughing at the stupid fucking voice effects. What is that an alien in a dumpster?

His name is Optimus Slime, and he's my friend.

Introducing the Lumberjack slam for just 1199.

Denny's.

Somebody's got to eat it.

During my Nickland

Reza

Sarmung Brotherhood days

I actually would fucking eat Denny's like every day at like 5.30 a.m.

It was actually a dangerous Denny's too.

It was like in a bad place. it's like fucking hell's angels and

shit but i did it anyway because nobody nobody wanted to fuck with me because i was just like

very scary person very visibly scary with ripped shirts and like fucking knee deep and like some fucking scary shit

Fucking weird entities from the CCRU like completely fucked up schizophrenia.

Anyway.

History with Joe Pesky.

All right.

Welcome to History with AI Joe Pesci. Welcome to History with AI Joe Pesci.

The moon landing was staged, you dumb fuck. How the hell are they going to get to the moon?

Good point.

You think the pyramids were built by Egyptians?

You ever met a fucking Egyptian?

I've never met an Egyptian.

All right, you motherfuckers, listen up, because I'm about to teach you a thing or two about history.

Oh, really?

Do tell Mr. Pesci.

You know that Benjamin Franklin Schmuck?

He invented electricity or some shit?

What they don't tell you is he single-handedly

ended the war in 1576.

Wow. Please, go on.

It was a warm summer night. You could hear the Robbins chirping a harmonious song.

So this is right in the middle of the tea bagging or whatever.

I think it's like June 1576 or something.

The British, these red coat schmucks are marching in like they own the place,

thinking they're going to crush the revolution.

But what they didn't know

was that Benjamin Franklin had been working on

a little side project, see?

This motherfucker

walks in with a fully loaded M16

assault rifle. This looks so fucking

cool. Oh my God. Is there

more AI stuff like this? It's so clean looking. Oh my god. Is there more AI stuff like this?

It's so clean looking.

...and starts breathing fire on these

red coal schmucks.

I don't know where he got it.

All I know is this son of a bitch was loaded to the

fucking teeth with ammunition.

These British

bastards are shitting bricks by now.

And you know the best part.

In between rounds.

He's cracking jokes.

I'm telling you, Ben's a real

smart ass. He's like, what, you thought

the revolution was going to be easy?

Wrong fucking war, pal.

Boom!

Boom!

Red coats are dropping like flies, and Ben's just getting warmed up.

And when he's done, he doesn't even break a sweat.

This motherfucker walks over to the British

General who's like

shaking in his boots

and he says

next time

bring something better

than a freaking

musket, you

motherfucker you.

Then Franklin

tosses him a copy

of the Declaration

of Independence.

Sign this, he says, or I'll come back with a fucking bazooka. And you know what? That general signed so fast his wig flew off.

It flew right off, right into the fucking Delaware.

I've never seen nothing

like it.

Wow. Thanks for that history lesson.

AI Joe Pesci.

But I want

Planet Mountain Dewback. That shit was interesting.

That shit was interesting.

All right, I have an idea.

Guys, so I saw 1984 on YouTube.

There was a montage

I liked it

So look at

Look how hard this shit goes

I mean I'm not

I'm not even fucking lying

All right

I didn't watch this movie

I know the book

Obviously I don't remember it

But am I Am I supposed to be against this?

Because I'm not, I'm not fucking lying.

I'm not like saying this to be funny or like edgy.

I straight up really like Ink Sog and would fully support them.

And I don't understand

Oh, Winston's hurt. Feelings were hurt.

I don't give a fuck, bitch.

We only let live for like, what,

75 years?

This shit lasts and is a turn...

It's an immortal fucking idea.

It's like a...

Of course, you'd live and die for this shit.

I mean,

I'm supposed... This is supposed to be scary to me

because it's not.

I'm not, I don't see this as bad.

I actually fully support it.

Oh, man. God Godin Godin

Godin

God

God God God God God God of victory of the saint

of

never high

with

all the

sip of

heart

and pride

the

land of

the

black and

cry

for the Lord of who who and This is my favorite This is my favorite

This is my favorite part

This shit goes so hard

Oh my God

Watch Oh my God, watch.

They fucking won you over oh my god

they wanted to be over

look at this part

it's so fucking beautiful

look at this part

shit

that's just a go

that's such a that's just a good that's such a

am I

am I brain

my brain

is that I support this shit?

Because I straight up unironically, like I'm fucking, I dig it.

Like, I'm straight up fully endorsing this shit.

It's so beautiful.

I'm straight up beautiful.

I'm not even lying.

The song is great.

And the salute

goes hard.

The salute goes...

That shit goes hard as fuck should we adopt it

I mean we're not it's not a serious proposal

because we're a serious party

we have to like do shit bureaucratically

but like

oh is party. We have to like do shit bureaucratically. But like Oh, is that the Wakanda salute?

That's the

Wakanda. I know it ain't. Let me look that up.

Wakanda forever.

Salute. No. up. Waconda Forever Uh salute.

Nah, that's different.

No, we're talking about

up here.

But yeah, that's how most

people in America would see it.

But

that shit goes so hard

like uh oh but

Winston's feelings were I mean what what was so bad about Ink Sog

what did they fucking do that's wrong

oh well Winston Winston was a fucking

disgusting fuck. I read

that when I was 11 years old, and the

first 10 pages is Winston

fantasizing about raping some

random woman for no reason.

I mean, there's never a good reason, but like,

he's like, I looked over to that woman in the

office next to me, and I fantasized about raping her. This motherfucker is the bad guy. Lock him up.

Inksog did nothing bad in that book. He was actually fucked up.

Am I wrong?

I remember reading that when I was 11.

Am I wrong?

Isn't that what happened?

Isn't that what happened in the book that he had rape fantasies?

I'm correct. Yeah.

So, like, what's wrong with this?

This is anti-rape prevention.

This is establishing collective solidarity, not rape society.

And yeah, he's bitching about his ex-wife and shit.

Ink Sok is Anglo.

If Anglos were like this, I would support them.

This is English communism.

This is what...

If Russia went all the way west and not only Germany, but they took France and England, this is what it would look like. This is what English people's democracy would look like in the Warsaw Pact

and I fully support it and this is

this is the Vic

guys all the problems I have with

Anglos this would solve all of it

this is the legacy of Cromwell

and the Puritans and the

roundheads and the levelers and the diggers and they were successful

Watt Tyler's revolution successful

Anglo individualism totally stamped out and eliminated and replaced with collectivistic Eurasian solidarity.

And how it's against racism.

White and black shaking hands and these fucking racist pieces of shit

trying to sell me this is bad

I love a

god God and Goddard, the United States and God,

and God, God, God and God.

Lord is God in God God. This is so fucking based This is so fucking based

this proves that this is just some like

conventional army these are

ideological guerrillas soldiers

fighting for communism

how soldiers fighting for communism.

How base is this?

And I'm going to pretend this is the battle.

They're in Belgium. They're fighting the Belgians.

That's what I'm going to pretend.

And they're the victory of communism in Belgium.

They're destroying Belgium as a state.

You know what I see?

You know what's so poetic? is my mind twisted and warped

because when I see this

I'm like these guys

they are mortal human beings

they may live for maximum 75 years

who knows

and they don't know everything in the world.

They don't, you know, they're like, they're, they're just

normal people. They're, they're imperfect,

mortal people, right? But they do

this salute because they're showing they're part of something

fucking bigger. It's going to outlive them.

It's going to be generations and generations.

They may not know it all, but they know what they're a part of.

They know what they're fighting for.

They're going to be part of history.

They're going to be part of the party.

They're going to be part of the country, the movement.

And, you know, they know whose side they're on, you know?

They know what they're fighting for.

They're fighting for the cause of the international proletariat.

Look at this.

Even if they die, it wouldn't be in vain

there was meaning to their lives

that's how I see it though

this is why they call this fascists

I mean

fascists didn't do this shit

Look, all the fascist marches were totally choreographed

Let me tell you why this isn't a fascist

Because you can genuinely see there's some uncertainty and doubt in their faces.

But they're doing it anyway because they have just enough to believe.

And that's authenticity.

That's not the fascist stuff.

That was just pageantry.

It was all choreographed.

This is fucking real communist shit.

This is so beautiful. I don't know what it is.

Like I see this as a people similar to North Korea defending themselves against a world that's besieging them because they freed themselves and now they're under attack and they're defending themselves to the last man

fucking bitch-ass people trying to fuck with them i don't maybe i need to unbrainwash myself to see

why this is supposed to be scary,

but I'm just telling you genuinely, genuinely, genuinely,

genuinely I see this is beautiful.

They're the ones attacking Eurasia.

Okay, see, I don't even want to know about this shit.

I'm just talking about what I see on this video. I didn't even want to know about this shit I'm just talking about what I see

on this video I didn't even know

I don't remember all the fucking details

alright

yeah anyway guys I'm gonna...

The world besieging them is...

Yeah, I mean... yeah i mean it's eurasia no it's uh something else

it's belgium

it's just belgium the one country I don't like.

The one country I dislike more than Britain is Belgium.

All right, guys.

We're going gonna sign off.

But...

I'll see you guys Tuesday.

Ah, fuck, there's a new penguin,

and I'm not going to be able to watch it

because I have given you guys so much content.

Fuck.

Watch it tomorrow.

It's okay.

See you guys.

Bye-bye.