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

Clamanto gave me free sword.

I'm not going to be able to do it.

Do you have na as a dog?

My life been rough.

Cam Sarukula Kam Sabada and the Ga Banawali.

Halita and the Sura Peno is leha Bella in Petrofila Setmena Cosperana Mula Epela Ektoniana Seti Mule Epigibila Ectoniana Shefuruka Naki Peggy Masuru and Attola

Can you have a skin?

Yeah, I jump in my back, siby.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

Samisfan, I have lambja.

Sharta Sadai Shar Tawarta Winta Takbiyagami Bahuda Kazi Ela Ahismita Palurshippitra Allaglahuda Gazatunya Ahama Gaza Kula Adisil Para Hajania Ba'alashal Hambazara Khaznahaya Estlamoshraf Ismujoraf Aigi Moshraf Albu'asabwa Da Nazi Wa Abtu Gazarozara Ya Gaya Otiho Abtu Gazara Gada Anturin Tig Ajabi Ahma Yasir Ochigada Awata Oyesman Ahma'asira Ashana Khuya Nas Pliaturo Teilbashabasha Wintabashaminzamer Telustas Mustafa Aymaniya Anuramzele me Wa Abtu Gazara Abu Khajigadalia

This could.

2036 with the 5.

What's going on, brother?

Ed Gentry with the 5.

I see you.

EJ with the 20.

What's going on, EJ?

What's going on, EJ?

Alright.

Alright, and here we are.

Welcome everyone to the Infrared webcast.

And today we are going to be debating in a massive debate royale.

And this is going to be an incredibly painful journey, but I hope you are all excited for it because it's also going to be a lot of fun.

I hope it is, at least.

You know guys, I'm not really looking at my A game these days.

I don't know what the fuck it is.

Um

But there's something off about how I look, which I'm very not much.

Maybe I need to.

Haircut.

Anyway, guys, I I'm not reading enough.

You're actually right about that.

What the fuck?

Okay guys, so we have some stuff to talk about some updates.

I just now removed don't check though, I mean, but I just removed the link in the bio for donations because they did get back to me and they said that they're not going to be able to I'm not going to be able to get the money out into an American bank or PayPal.

So I'm going to have to have Jackson help me out and use a Russian bank and probably have him we'll do an exchange probably or something or I'll see him in person.

He'll pay me whatever.

But yeah, it's going to be hard getting that money out.

It's going to be a pain in the ass.

But at least we've confirmed there's an image that links to it.

Ah, well, just fucking don't click it then, all right?

Because I don't know how to.

I thought I got rid of it.

In any case, just don't send me text to speech.

If you want to donate, just donate subs like EJ.

What's up, brother?

Anyway.

I'm aware the debate has started.

I needed to give you these crucial updates.

I also need to tell you guys that it is apparently Halloween.

So if I get trick-or-treaters, I'm just gonna fucking ignore them.

Too bad, children.

Go to another house.

I have nothing for you.

Waylo!

I literally have nothing.

I have one bag of popcorn, I can give them one popcorn each.

Uh and that's it.

I can give them a popcorn.

I can give them a piece of popcorn.

Alright?

Uh

And there's not much else I can do.

Uh give me one second, ladies and gentlemen.

Sorry for this abrupt interruption.

Then and in.

Um you guys can still hear me, right?

I hope you can still hear me.

I hope not all has been lost on the sound front.

Uh, you can still hear me correct.

Correct, correct.

Um and if my stream does that thing that it did yesterday, where the FBI or the CIA, whoever the fuck is fucking with us, um, you know, ruins it or whatever, then then the insurrection begins.

That's a warning.

That's literally a joke.

Why did I even say that?

It's literally a fucking joke.

Um, but seriously, whoever's fucking sitting in Langley, get a fucking life for real.

Get a fucking life.

Stupid ass job that you're doing.

Just fucking with us for a living.

Just get a fucking life.

Get a fucking life.

Cause this ain't it.

This ain't it, brother.

Or I'm not gonna call you, brother.

Who the fuck are you?

But this ain't it.

Get a damn life.

As Joe Sims would say, Get a damn life.

Um

Give me one second, guys.

I just gotta

Deal with something.

Gotta deal with some really pressing issues right now.

Oh what a difficult life.

Oh what a difficult life being a streamer.

Uh anyway.

Give me a damn second.

Alright.

Alright, I'm good.

Alright, I'm good.

Erm, is the camera back on?

No, it's not.

Hold on.

Erm, what the Sigma?

Hold on, I'm professional now.

I can't say that shit.

Anyway, um, hi guys.

So, Sleeper Cell, what's up?

What's up, Sleeper Cell with the 10?

Sleeper Cell, I did see your tweet, and I just want to let you know that that will never be retweeted.

Ever.

There is ne there is not even a single chance that such a tweet would ever be retweeted in a million years.

So I just wanted to crush your spirit a little bit to reward you for your donation.

Australistani, what's going on?

Anyway, guys, we're gonna get

We're gonna get uh blue stacks.

Uh

Which is a

Incredibly bad app, but we have to use it because Elon Musk doesn't know how to fucking.

If there's an update.

Fucking update.

There's a fucking update.

Fuck my life.

Your BlueStacks is a hundred days old.

Update now for a faster.

Download BlueStacks 10.

Should I do it or should I just join?

I'm downloading it.

I don't give a fuck.

I want a faster BlueStacks experience, personally.

Uh it says it's stuck on ninety six percent.

Uh please do not be an Indian virus from New Delhi.

Holy shit, can you just fucking start?

It's checking my system requirements.

Pause your PC.

It's at five percent.

Uh

Yeah, tell Eddie I'm reinstalling Linux.

Okay, let me tell Eddie.

Uh

Can I please catch a break?

It's not even better.

They said it would be a smoother, faster experience, but it's still really bad.

Hold on.

I have blue stacks.

I do have blue stacks.

Okay, I have it.

There's no problem.

It's not even faster.

I just got fucking scammed.

The only difference is there's coins now.

You can you can buy coins for fucking blue stacks.

Erm, what the Sigma?

It's still fucking slow as shit, it still sucks.

Alright, we're joining now.

Our department for calling someone else a cocksucker.

And the justification that was given for suspending him from his job for calling someone a co-worker a cocksucker was that this was a homophobic term, that he was being homophobic towards his towards his coworker.

And this working-class person, this person who works on rail 10 hours a day in dangerous conditions for not a lot of pay, was suspended without pay.

And they weren't able to feed their family for a while because of the HR department enforcing this sort of language policing on them, even though his co-worker.

offend people but um Eddie not to interrupt but please remove Rev from co-host because they're all complaining that he hasn't blocked or something and they can't join because of that oh okay I was pretty much done you can uh no I my one response to that is what is worth what's what's what's worse you know a person getting suspended for their job or a 14 year old trans girl getting dismembered that's my question can I ask what the context for this question is they're saying that the ACP calling people fags led to this person getting dismembered no no I'm saying that is the language no no no no no no no no no that's not at all what I'm saying and you're intentionally twisting my words well that's what you're implying no no it's not I'm saying the language used by people perpetuates systems of violence the language used by ACP led to violence no it goes in the ACP and it's people like that in the ACP that perpetuates these systems of violence through language and also through active participant like culture war bullshit

by i inflaming inflaming people, whether it's in the online left or not, it is a specific tactic to isolate and alienate.

Um so this is a classic kind of uh I don't know who's who needs to mute their shit.

Everyone mute their shit.

Anyway, I don't know.

This is a classic kind of thing they'll say where they'll be like, oh, yes, using this word or having this idea perpetuates this specific system, and this way I can directly link two completely unrelated things because they happen to exist within the same universe and reality.

Language does not perpetuate anything except reflect the actual reality.

So if you have a problem with a reality, focus on that.

But this idealism and subjectivism, according to which if we just change our language and speak in different ways, we're somehow going to fundamentally affect the actual material reality is just pure idealism and it has nothing to do with Marxism.

Okay, I I just fundamentally disi disagree with this idea because first I wanna know what your commitments are.

Are you a Marxist or no?

I mean, not necessarily.

I'm all over the ideological spectrum.

I got it.

So, as Marxists, me and Eddie are Marxists and we're materialists.

I think, Eddie, I don't want to speak for you.

We're a materialist as well.

Yes, yes, yes.

Can you carefully explain to us why we should even entertain your idealist babbling if you're not even a Marxist?

I mean, based on what?

Why should we?

Because I've been I understand Marxism.

I've been a Marxist for like four years, right?

And the world is much more complex and nuanced than just pure ideological orthodoxy.

I'm not talking about ideology.

I'm talking about a specific representation of how reality works, according to which the use of language is actually what maintains and creates systems rather than actual material relations of production.

No, it's fundamentally disagree.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the use of different words and the use of language perpetuates, quote unquote, perpetuates systems.

I think if you're sanitizing your language on the basis of wanting to have a different consequence as it concerns reality, you're just being inauthentic and fake about what you actually think in the name of preventing the bad outcomes.

If language reflects a bad reality, don't blame the language.

Blame the reality.

It's as simple as that.

I blame both because when you talk in certain ways, when you perpetuate certain language, this is a reflection of reality, but it also creates reality.

Perpetuation is complete nonsense.

We're perpetuating a specific society by breathing.

We're perpetuating everything by perpetuating our very existence.

If you're going to crucify us on the cross of perpetuating reality in a bad way because we happen to reflect what reality actually is in our language, we're not the ones perpetuating reality.

We are merely acquiescing and acknowledging its existence.

Okay.

If you say the sky is blue, you're not perpetuating the reality of the sky being blue.

You're just reflecting within the use of your language the fact the actual fact that the sky is blue.

So this is materialism versus idealism.

It's very simple.

No, no, no, I completely disagree.

And you're completely twisting my point.

Because when you call someone a faggot, it is a violent word to describe someone to call it.

But it's also violent to call someone a retard and an idiot, isn't it?

It's just calling you a fucking idiot.

That's pretty violent though, isn't it?

Nobody gets hate crime for being a fucking idiot.

People get hate crime.

Yeah, because it's not classified as a hate crime.

People beat the shit out of each other all the time in the name of accusing each other of being idiots.

So yeah, there's a lot of violence that's attached to that word.

Are you serious?

I mean, I could probably easily find you multiple cases that are in FBI or police records where somebody chopped off the arm of a 14-year-old because they thought that 14-year-old was an idiot.

So are you going to sanitize your use of the word idiot because it's associated with acts of violence?

Are you perpetuating systems of violence?

Are you perpetuating systems of violence by using the word idiot?

Because sometimes people get pissed at each other and they call each other the word idiot as a pretext for them engaging in violent acts.

No, no, no, no, no.

Because here's the reality, the stone-cold reality of trans people getting hate crimed.

Over 300 trans people were hate crimed and killed last year.

How many people in general were killed last year?

That's besides the point.

No, it isn't.

No, it isn't.

Because you're cherry-picking.

You're cherry-picking a number, and we have to understand the extent of the overrepresentation relative to the actual amount of people killed last year.

So please give us a.

A new number is unacceptable.

I agree, but how do you know that the 300 people killed were killed?

How do we know that's so extraordinary to the point where we have to all start changing how we talk?

How do I know that?

How would I know that?

Because it's insane.

320 people, over 80% of them were linked, all of them, all of them were hate crimes, and then they were linked to things such as them coming out to their partner and their partner killing them.

Right.

So what I'm talking about is an example of what I would actually consider a type of rape where someone is transgender and doesn't disclose it.

And then the person doesn't know that they actually committed a homosexual act by sleeping with a man.

Oh my God, God.

And then they get upset about it.

Now, that's not because of the words that they're using.

That's because people don't want to involuntarily change their sexuality because they were deceived and tricked and raped, actually.

And that doesn't justify violence.

It obviously doesn't justify violence, but the source of the violence isn't in the use of words.

The source of the violence is, you know, it's in people having an extremely animalistic and irrational response to having, you know, to finding out that they had a partner.

If this is the case study example that you're trying to use, they found out that they maybe slept with someone they didn't know was trans and they had an irrational and extreme response.

Why does it matter?

Why does it matter?

If you sleep with somebody and then find out they're trans, why does that matter?

Like, it's like sleeping with a woman and finding out like.

they have some sort of health condition that you didn't know about that doesn't affect ev anybody.

You know, it doesn't matter.

Affect it does affect a lot of people's uh sexual sel uh sexuality and their sense of, you know, being straight.

Straight and gay are just to you, but to to add to the real world, go go anywhere in the real world and see if that's what the majority of humanity thinks.

And you will be in the small minority.

Okay, okay, okay.

Okay.

Do we need to break down like queer theory?

You know, queer theory.

Queer theory isn't Marxist.

No, we don't need to break.

We don't need to break anything.

We don't need to break anything down because here's what happened.

I came into the space and you were talking about someone's arm being chopped off, which is horrific.

And you said that that is a consequence of people or perpetuating systems by using the F-word.

And now we found out that now you're saying there's 300 people that were killed because they were trans, which of course is completely nothing could justify that.

But then you're saying, and the majority of the cases, it's because they slept with someone and they found out their partner was trans and they didn't know.

Of course, it still makes homicide completely unacceptable, completely indefensible.

But now we've completely changed from using words to these crimes, these forms of domestic violence and crimes that are not necessarily based on people having a general problem with trans people, but having specifically just because you don't want to have sexual intercourse with transgenders doesn't mean you have a problem with them, all right?

It doesn't mean you hate them, it just means you don't want to be sexually involved with them, which is the right but they did want to be sexually involved with them because they had sex and yeah, I mean, I agree that they took the L themselves and they can't justify getting angry because they should have known probably if they had such a problem with it.

I agree.

Although whether it constitutes a type of rape, I think, you know, I kind of think it is kind of a type of rape, to be honest.

Even though because if they didn't know and they were deceived, they were tricked.

They were tricked.

They weren't tricked.

No, they were not.

Yes, they were tricked.

It was just not telling them your extensive medical history.

It has nothing to do with it.

It's not.

It's for some people in some cultures, you are in you.

Basically, you're tricking people to change their sexuality.

I think people.

No, it's not because trans are trans women women.

In my opinion, no.

But everyone is transferred.

Holy shit.

So, okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

So, you have it's just my opinion.

It's not the opinion of the party.

It's not the opinion.

Yes, it is.

You are the executive chairman.

It's my personal opinion.

I'm allowed to have a personal opinion.

All right.

It's my personal opinion.

But your opinion reflects the party.

Not necessarily.

For example, I like certain foods.

Not everyone has to like the circumstances.

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

No, this is a complete unrelated circumstance.

This is completely unrelated.

Do we have to kick everyone out of the party if they won't have sex with a trans person?

Yeah, that's basically what it's saying.

It's kind of ridiculous.

No, but your, no, no, no.

Your personal prejudices and biases are.

It's not a prejudice at all.

I have no problem with people who are transgender or want to identify however they want to.

And I'll even go so far as to say that I won't purposefully, you know, abuse people by, you know, by identifying them personally in ways they don't want to be identified as because I could care less.

But if you're asking my personal opinion, this is my actual personal opinion.

I have a right to have it.

Period.

Right.

But your opinion reflects the party.

What is so wrong with my opinion?

Why is my opinion?

First of all, no, it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one person who's transgender somewhere in the party.

Okay, I have a black friend.

You know, it's a crazy thing.

So are you saying, yeah, yeah, I'm allowed to have personal opinions that don't reflect the official position of the party?

Obviously, I am.

Okay.

Okay.

So

How I okay, let me explain this.

Okay, so how do you think?

I mean, if you want to meet halfway, I could say they're not women.

If you want to say they're trans women, I'll say I don't care.

Fine, I'm a pragmatist.

No, no, no, there's no.

They're definitely not women in any conventional sense, in my opinion.

You know, not even just in my opinion, let's be frank.

Objectively speaking, they're not.

No, objectively speaking, the World Health Organization classifies women.

The World Health Organization enforced a vaccine apartheid on the Global South.

The World Health Organization prevents the Global South from getting all sorts of necessary medicine in order to help the Western pharmaceutical companies make more money.

The World Health Organization is a piece of shit bourgeois organization.

No, well, you're God.

You're the one who started the World Health Organization as an authority.

Because they are medical.

And I'm explaining to you why the World Health Organization is a good idea.

There is nothing you could do.

There is nothing you could do.

The modern condition is a very important thing.

Why do we have to believe?

Why do we, okay, I don't care what the...

So I'm going to explain this to you.

It's not the World Health Organization that decides what we consider a man or a woman to be.

It's our culture.

Okay.

The culture that I'm from and the one that makes sense to me is the one according to which trans women are not actually women in a conventional sense.

I don't care what the World Health Organization has to say about the matter because it's frankly irrelevant.

They're not.

What culture are you from?

You know, I'm an Arab American.

Simple as that.

Did you know during the golden age of Islam, there was many transgender women.

So from your culture, if you once again feel the culture.

Heather, I don't care about all this scholarly nonsense you're going to tell me.

If you were to go to any one of my family gatherings when I was growing up, or if you were to go to the village my family came from and started spouting your nonsense, they would laugh in your face.

I don't care about this like bullshit you want to pull that you got from Western academia because it doesn't actually reflect the reality of how people think, you know, in the real world.

Now, even in the case, even in the case where people would be tolerant of transgenders, which I'm not against, you know, necessarily, but they're not going to look at a trans person and be like, yeah, that's just a woman.

Like, you're fucking crazy.

Of course not.

They're trans.

Even transgenders will say, oh, yeah, you're trans.

They're trans.

They're not like just straight up women.

That's nonsense.

No, transgender people specifically identify as women who are trans.

Okay, well, the trans thing is doing a lot of lifting there.

I'm not going to lie.

It's doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Okay, okay.

There's.

Okay, okay.

If you went down the street and you caught it, why are you so focused on this topic?

It really doesn't matter that much.

We don't care about people's private parts.

We don't care about their private parts.

We don't care about people.

Well, you clearly do.

You clearly do.

No, you're the one that's not.

Based on women, I don't care.

I just told you that even if someone I met personally claims that they're transgender, I'm not going to just call them, I'm not going to look in their face and be like, yeah, you're a man.

Because that's abusive.

That's just like completely abusive.

I wouldn't, that's, you'd be a dick if you did that, right?

But, you know, at the same time, you can't be fundamentally respecting them.

You can't force me to believe something I don't believe.

It's that simple.

No, you just wouldn't be fundamentally respecting them as a human being.

Because I don't personally think they're the same thing as a normal woman.

There's no value as a normal woman.

Even like even BreadTube says that trans women are a different kind of women, even if you, you know, I don't care.

And I'll call them by their pronouns, whatever pronouns they want, just to be respectful to the individual.

But like, it's clearly not the same type of woman as a biological person.

So here's, here's, here's why I do think there's a problem called trans narcissism because there's literally a genocide in Gaza right now, and we're on the verge of World War III and like the election is in five days and stuff.

And this person wants to take all the time in the world to like have a struggle session about why it's so problematic that we don't address the people.

Like who gives a fucking shit?

Who cares?

Who cares?

Literally, who cares?

Who gives a shit?

Literally, who gives a fuck?

I don't care about transgenders who are.000000001% of a given population.

Frankly, it's an insult to all of us that we're spending this much time even talking about it.

Okay, okay.

Let's talk about the genocide in Gaza, right?

Let's talk about the genocide in Gaza.

So you as Marxists, do you support Hamas and Hezbollah, religious fundamentalist organizations?

Yeah.

Yes.

Why?

Because they're resisting Zionist imperialism, which is an arm of the U.S.

Empire and which always has been.

And if you look at the economic policies and programs of groups like Hezbollah or Hamas, they're very in line with ours at the ACP.

That's actually how Hamas was able to gain power in Gaza.

I mean, it was the deterioration of the PLO, but they enacted all of these social welfare programs where they were bringing people food, water, health care, trying to meet their material needs in a very socialistic way.

So even though they don't share our ideology, we recognize them as fighting the same beast that we are, which is the global empire, and trying to develop their countries to better the standing of their working class.

So you support a religious, fundamentalist organization and platform them as freedom fighters when they are sectarian, they perpetuate human practice, but through actual violence.

Can you give me one example of sectarian violence by Hezbollah or Hamas?

I don't know.

They're like the Shias.

You're right.

You don't know.

There's no.

When has Hamas persecuted Shias and when has Hezbollah persecuted Sunnis?

Go ahead.

Oh my fucking god.

See, I could tell why you wanted to focus on the transgender thing because talking about your genitals is probably the only thing you know about when it comes to actual things that matter in the real world.

You were the one who mentioned genitals, so why are you thinking about my genitals?

Because it's just navel-gazing.

You're just the navel-gazing narcissist.

Instead of actually becoming educated about the world, you just want to focus on something so private and intimate about yourself that no one else cares about.

No, because social conservatism and perpetuating that affects real human beings.

Do you understand that?

The perpetuation of social conservatism doesn't happen at a subjective level.

It happens at the material level and the root level.

And you want to perpetuate it at a material level.

Yes, I want to continue being a human in terms of my existence.

I don't want to become a kind of post-human monster.

You're right.

What are you even talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that in Lebanon and in Palestine, Hezbollah and Hamas, you're calling them socially conservative, but all they're doing is preserving the culture that they have that makes them human.

Without culture, we're not human.

Without preserving some kind of sense of wisdom, as so far as it concerns the way in which we relate to one another as human beings, as adults, and as it pertains to family, without having that basic continuity with our past, without having some sense, some cognitive mapping of our existence, we can't really call ourselves human.

We're lost in the wilderness.

So yes, they're insisting upon your humanity, and I have nothing against it.

And moreover, you said that they're committing sectarian violence.

You couldn't even name a single example of their sectarianism.

Now, let me ask you a question.

What is so wrong with the so-called religious fundamentalism of Hezbollah or Hamas?

Go ahead.

Okay, I'll quote Marx.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I'll just throw that one out there.

Yeah, and I'd be happy to educate you on what Marx actually meant and why you could actually argue that if they're religious fundamentalists, so is Marx too.

In a sense, Marx is even more of a religious fundamentalist, and I'll tell you exactly why.

Marx rejected his own Judaism.

Okay, we are many, many steps removed for from where reality is.

So if you'll let me educate you on the matter, I'd be happy to explain everything.

No, I think Marks has me covered.

I don't think you need to regurgitate Mark's.

Okay, shoot your shot.

So, first of all, Marx didn't need to reject Judaism because he was raised a Lutheran.

Judaism had nothing to do with his upbringing.

He didn't really, he wasn't raised Jewish in the first place.

Second of all, as it regards Marx's critique of religion, this was actually done by Hegel and the young Hegelians before Marx.

And Marx was actually pushing back on the young Hegelian critique of religion, which he regarded as idealistic, because the young Hegelians were actually attacking religion.

And Marx said, if religion is the ultimate form of alienation, that could only possibly be because the world itself is somehow alienated with regard to itself.

And Marx here was referring to the capitalist mode of production.

He was referring to the capitalist alienation, which severed people from their traditional means of production and their means of subsistence.

And for Marx, religion represented not simply the opiate of the masses, it was the soul of a soulless world, the heart of a heartless world.

Religion actually represented what is fundamental to the humanity of the concrete whole of man's existence, isolated and severed off as a specific category and a specific sphere within the overall division of labor.

And that's what Marx's problem was.

Marx's problem was that on the one hand, we have our fundamental humanity bounded up with religion, which we categorize over here.

But on the other hand, as it concerns civil society, as it concerns how we relate to each other economically and politically, we say to the devil, all of that lofty and beautiful stuff that's in religion, none of that matters.

We just leave it to the devil.

And Marx, in his Jewish question, he refers to this directly, right?

In his critique of Christianity, it's like, okay, Christianity is so lofty and it's so sublime, and it's all about the pure spirit, and this is so great.

We're all equal in the kingdom of heaven.

But as it concerns our economic relations, we allowed that to just be with whatever was in continuity from before, which Marx identified with Judaism, right?

So he detected a kind of hypocrisy here, where on the one hand, we are the most human when it comes to our religion.

We're the most human when it comes to our religious feeling and our religious belief.

But that's not being reflected when it comes to our actual humanity, when it comes to how we actually behave, when it comes to how we actually relate to each other's existence, when it comes to how we actually reproduce and, to use a word that you're so fond of, perpetuate our existence.

So that was Marx's critique of religion.

He was more of a religious fundamentalist.

He wanted to, in a sense, you can interpret it this way.

He wanted something that was exclusively religious to actually be reflected in the concrete whole and totality of all society, not just religion.

He wanted every aspect of how we relate to each other as human beings to reflect the real religious essence.

He wanted us to walk in the footsteps of God, not just in word, but in deed.

That's one way you could really actually interpret where he was coming from.

Follow the Bible, follow the spirit of the gospel, not just the dead letter of the gospel.

Actually, do it in practice.

Don't just isolate it and alienate it and cast it off as one category within the division of labor.

So you're completely wrong.

Marx had no intention of rejecting any religious traditions and liquidating them.

For Marx, there was an authentic human kernel that was at the essence of what religion was.

Religion, of course, was something for Marx that reflected something fundamentally true and essential about what humanity is.

So he didn't regard it as, you know, like, oh, they're using religion to keep people asleep.

That's not what he meant at all.

You clearly didn't read the original text that you're quoting.

You just got it from some secondary source, popularized.

No, I read it.

Really?

You read it?

Where is it from then?

Tell me exactly where it's from.

Nice sermon, bro.

Nice sermon, bro.

I'm not gonna tell me the actual brain.

I'm not gonna name three songs for you.

I'm not gonna name three songs for you.

You know, yeah, because you don't know it.

Because you don't know it.

Yeah, the only thing you're gonna do is all you're good at is navel gazing, and that's the topic.

Navel gazing, yeah.

Okay, I nice sermon, bro.

I I I don't I don't know where to start because that was a lot.

That was a very lofty uh uh breakdown, but um

Okay, I'll start with here.

So when we apply rigil religious fundamentalism to any society, it alienates those who do not disagree within said society.

And why should we give a shit about the minority as opposed to the majority?

Tell me that.

Because the minority are real people too.

How about that?

The minority is a reality.

Yeah, but if the minority wants to say that I disagree with the with with uh culture and the religion of all the older people.

No, no, no, no.

Okay, so it's the same.

Why should everyone bow to the dictatorship of the minority?

Then should we not give a fuck about the minority who doesn't want slavery?

If the minority isn't convinced that it it's going to be able to persuade the majority to its side, then it may as well give up on the cause of abolishing slavery and just go live in the woods, because clearly humanity is beyond redemption for them.

Uh okay.

Okay, okay.

So

You're deranged.

That's all I can say.

You're a deranged person.

Okay, that's enough of this.

We're gonna go to the other side.

By the way, they're not religious fundamentalists imposing anything on society.

They're actually just reflecting the spirituality of the society they were in to begin with.

It's not like Hezbollah is responsible for the return of Shia Islam in the fucking south of Lebanon, where there's been Shia Muslims for over a millennia.

So what you're saying is ridiculous.

All right, Heather left.

That was an interesting conversation.

I think Heather should check out Marx's On the Jewish Question, or perhaps check out Marx's contribution to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right, where he actually talks about that.

But on the Jewish question, it's good because Marx addresses these issues specifically, because I think it's Bruno Bauer is saying, like, basically, that in order for Jews to liberate themselves, they have to abandon Judaism.

They have to abandon religion.

And Marx explicitly says that, no, that's not true liberation.

True liberation is not doing away with religion.

It's material liberation.

It's class liberation.

And a lot of the times, you know, the hyper-focus on religion is a distraction from that.

I think, you know, people often don't understand that the primary thing for Marx was not a critique of religion.

It was a critique of religious alienation.

And those are very two different things.

The critique of religion, if we understand this in the contemporary nihilistic and new atheist sense, is about liquidating religious traditions, forgetting them, just throwing the Bible away, throwing the holy books away, just totally forget about it and start from scratch.

That would be Philistinism.

Marx had no interest in that.

It was about religious alienation, the specific way in which, for some reason, religion had to represent a completely separate category of human reality that was sealed off and locked away.

And meanwhile, the rest of that reality did not reflect it at all beyond the fact of the alienation.

So anyway, let's bring up more people.

Yeah, let's go to the vulgar Marxist.

I don't think we got to him last time, and he's been one of the people in our DMs that are in our mentions a lot.

So what's up, Vulgar Marxist?

I think I just gave you speaking privileges.

Go ahead.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

I have a laundry list of criticisms I left it in serious chat of your Constitution.

I'd like to discuss some of them with you tonight, and I'm actually going to plan on coming back every Wednesday or Thursday for both the Constitution and your policy platform.

Because this is not looking like a communist party to me.

Like, I'm reading this.

All right.

I just want to know that.

Who are you and what's your background?

Okay.

My background I don't go into personal details because I work in an industry that exists in abject gibbering terror of anything vaguely resembling unionization.

So do you have any experience with any real Communist parties in the real world?

Depends on your definition.

I worked with SDS for a while.

I worked with somebody.

So, you worked with some nonsense gibber student LARP organization.

What about an actual Communist Party?

There are no Communist Parties in the United States, so that would be impossible.

Okay, that's your opinion.

But you're claiming we're not a real Communist Party.

I'm just kind of like, who the fuck are you?

But anyway, go ahead.

I'm a Class A C D L truck driver.

You have no experience with any real Communist parties ever.

I have read extensively of nearly every communist work that is.

You wouldn't be one of those stupid people that would go and say that, you know, for a communist party to be real, it has to have the exact constitution as the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party when none of the constitutions between Communist parties internationally are the same.

You know, there's substantive differences.

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

You go to the same part of the state.

There are substantive differences between, for example, the structure of party organization within China versus the Soviet Union.

So I'm very curious to hear why, on what grounds does our Constitution let's just folks, I don't really care that much about your vague criticism.

I care more about the accusation that there's aspects of our constitution that preempt us from being a real communist party.

So please go ahead.

Okay, well, for starters, the idea that the workers are the central focus and the emancipation of the workers are the central focus of any communist movement appears nowhere in your constitution or your policy platform for that matter.

Okay, why don't we pull up the constitution right now?

You want to do that?

Awesome.

I actually have left on the serious chat in your Discord a point-by-point breakdown.

So there's no need to read your point breakdown.

We could just read the Constitution and look at your accusation.

So, okay.

So the first sentence, the American Communist Party is the fighting organization of the American working class.

The slogan, the future belongs to the working class.

So what about our Constitution leaves it vague and up in the air about the significance of the working class for us, please?

Okay, let's go through here.

Section Article 1, Section 1.

The American Communist Party recognizes only one Communist Party.

That is entirely contravening to the fact that the working class will invariably have differing understandings of how to proceed, and multiple communist parties will be necessary to action those understandings, to articulate clearly and precisely to leadership what the workers desire.

Well, you're just some guy who has an opinion.

You have no right to claim we're not a real communist party and that we don't have any reference to the significance of the working class just because we reject the idea of political pluralism within the ranks of the proletarians' party, the party of the proletariat.

So we reject pluralism.

You endorse it in an unprecedented way, by the way, because the Bolsheviks didn't have the patience for entertaining the idea of multiple communist parties.

In China, they didn't have the patience for that.

Not a single communist state in history had the patience for the stupid idea that there are going to be multiple communist parties.

So you and your smart head, as a real smart, you as some kind of pothead have this really smart idea of having we need multiple, we need more communist parties.

I know nothing about truck driving, sir.

Allow me to clarify for you.

Truck drivers, and I said this for a reason, are drug tested monthly.

I am not a pothead because I can't do that.

Please stop standing atop the credential that you're a truck driver because our director of personnel, arguably the second most powerful person in our party, practically speaking, Kyle, is a truck driver.

So please stop standing atop this huge and vast credentials.

I am as valid in my opinion as Kyle's.

This is the part you're not getting.

Yeah, so stop talking about no one cares that you're a truck driver.

Nobody cares you're a truck driver.

Literally, no one gives a shit.

Just make your argument.

You flatly agree.

You do not care that I am a worker.

Awesome.

I'm glad we understand.

No, no, no.

I'm saying you being a worker is not going to give you any brownie points because fucking 90% of our party are blue-collar workers and the director of personnel is literally a blue-collar worker with far more experience organizing blue-collar workers than you ever will in your life.

So please shut the fuck up about that.

Rev is literally right here and he's a truck driver too.

He's literally right next to me.

Shut the fuck up about being a worker because you're talking to the wrong party as far if you're trying to virtue signal out when the fucking whole party are workers.

Like literally besides me and a few others.

Okay, so let's go through the Constitution then because there are a number of problems here.

Okay, so let's see.

First of all, external debate is prohibited.

That is again directly contrary.

I would like to kind of like focus on a specific line of argumentation.

And once you can prove that you can succeed on even one of those, then I'm willing to entertain your other ones.

But you made several accusations.

I asked you why we weren't a real Communist Party.

You said, well, you don't mention anything about the working class.

That's contradicted by reading the very first sentence of our Constitution.

You didn't seem to acknowledge you were wrong about that.

When I pressed you on it, you immediately moved to the fact that we avow ourselves as the only Communist Party and we only have recognition for one Communist Party per country.

You say this is wrong because the working class needs multiple Communist parties in order to experiment it.

Why would who is going to prescribe the possibility of multiple Communist parties?

Even if it was true, according to historical laws, that there needs to emerge multiple ones.

That would be something entirely outside of the scope of our control.

As far as we're concerned, we only recognize one.

If we for you don't understand the paradox, if we sat here and were like, yeah, we believe there must be multiple parties, then what does that say about the status of our party?

Is our party one particular party?

Or is it just an organization that's waiting for other parties to get the results for us?

You see, this is the paradox of pluralism.

In order for there to actually be pluralism, if it's actually necessary in reality, you have to stand on business and defend what you fucking have as the solution.

If you can't fucking do that, then

Why would anyone else do it?

If everyone's just gonna sit in a fucking circle jerk, if everyone's gonna sit in a fucking circle jerk of pluralism, then we're all united in some capacity if this is going to be formally mandated in a fucking constitution.

So with all due respect, this is a really stupid point, and I would like you to follow up on it, please.

First of all, there is no paradox there.

There are and will always be multiple ideas regarding the direction forward.

Why can't one Communist Party platform?

Hold on.

Why can't a single Communist Party platform multiple ideas?

Because it has no ability to evaluate all of them.

What are you doing?

Okay, there will always be different ideas.

How does how does that doesn't make who the fuck is evaluating the different ideas in a case of acquiescing to political pluralism?

No one.

There's no central authority doing that anyway.

Why can't one communist party acknowledge a diversity of ideas and opinions within it?

The workers are the central authority.

The workers are the highest authority in any communist organization, and none may supersede it.

That's actually not true.

It's actually not true.

This is literally the basis of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split.

And Lenin explicitly rejected the idea of opening the party to workers in general just because they're workers.

He said the party needs to be comprised of the advanced intelligentsia, the advanced arm of the working class, the most advanced sections only, right?

So no, you're completely wrong.

This idea that just because someone is a worker means they have authority is complete nonsense.

Actually, I'm going to go to Len here and say, if that is your interpretation of Lenin, you are wrong.

Okay?

That's fine.

That's precisely the time.

That's fine.

Because Russia failed as well.

So you're saying Lenin was wrong.

So you're saying Lenin was wrong.

Yes, because when the Russian people were clear, to be clear, Lenin failed, but the SDS succeeded, correct?

Not in the slightest.

They failed as well, which is why I'm no longer with them.

But what has the SDS actually contributed to history?

Absolutely nothing, which is why I'm no longer with them.

What did Lenin contribute to history?

Absolutely nothing.

He just, why am I not with him either?

What the fuck?

I'm going to say this very bluntly.

If I were in power, I'm going to be frank with you, Volga Marxist.

If I was in power, I would enact the Brezhnev-style policy of just locking you in an insane asylum.

And because you're claiming, you're claiming Lenin contributed nothing to history.

The Soviet Union was nothing, according to you.

20th century communism was nothing according to you.

The very fucking meme in your profile picture is a product of taking the symbolism and imagery popularized by actual communist states and putting a postmodern ironic twist on them in the age of the internet.

Without the actual fucking communist states that actually existed, without the millions, the tens, the hundreds of millions of people that participated in the process of actual real communism, the one that actually is real in history, guess what?

There wouldn't be any fucking Marxists to speak of in the West.

Marx would have been forgotten very quickly.

There wouldn't have been an SDS.

There wouldn't have been a new left.

There wouldn't have been any of that.

They would have lobbed onto some other stupid fucking theosophy idea, ideology, instead of LARPing.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is amazing.

You do not believe capitalism reflects objective material conditions.

Because the only reason Marx would have been forgotten is if capitalism did not reflect the objective material conditions.

That's not necessarily true.

It's not necessarily true.

It's not necessarily true.

Marx could have been forgotten because no one had the fucking courage to stand on the business of the truth that he represented.

He could have been forgotten easily.

Material conditions are all that is relevant.

This is the one central concept.

Right, this is what Lenin called economism, and it was debunked in both theory and practice in the context of Russia because there was nothing about the inevitable evolution of the material economic base that inevitably and automatically led to a transition in the mode of production or even the normal development of capitalism in the context of Russia.

The importance.

It's happening right now.

It's happening right now.

If you're paying attention to macro-global data, which you should be, you can clearly see the US GDP is about to flip hard negative.

Yeah, I know people have been saying this for 150 years, and it doesn't make it any more true that you're saying it now versus then.

Look at England then.

England's already hard negative.

They have been for much longer.

Look at England.

You look at England.

I look at looked at England.

English GDP has not increased since 2008.

Did it increase in 1990?

Did it increase after 1929?

Irrelevant to the argument.

Why is it irrelevant?

Capitalism literally collapsed in 1929.

That's wonderful, and it recovered because the government intervened.

So, why couldn't there be a recovery, hypothetically?

Because the English government will not intervene this time.

They have nothing left to intervene with.

How do you fucking know?

Simple.

Dude, Marx tells us this.

The cycle of capitalism is invariably downward trending.

What's it called?

The depreciating.

All right, listen.

I'm going to go personal.

I'm going to go harsh.

I'm going to go ruthless.

Do you believe you are going to live to see the day of this inevitable transition that you're anticipating?

You've spent your whole fucking life as a radical Western leftist waiting for the big revolution.

Are you going to see it in your lifetime?

Possibly.

The only way you're going to fucking see it is if ACP wins.

That's the only way.

No.

Yeah.

No.

You will fail.

You've already failed.

Your Constitution is.

I'm sorry, sir.

I'm sorry, sir.

You will never win an election and you will never defeat the U.S.

Army.

You have no road to power, which is what I'm telling you.

If you would bother me, excuse me for being ruthless.

But you are going to go to your grave with your whole life having been meaningless because the big revolution that you're anticipating and expecting to happen isn't going to happen in your lifetime.

So really think about that.

You're hilarious, but I love you.

Seriously, if you think, oh, this is all I'm doing with my life, you have massively underestimated me.

But this is allowing me to experience.

But this is all I'm doing with my life.

This is all I care about.

That's the difference between us.

And I'm telling you that there is a decisive significance and necessity of actual communists to intervene to get organized to take action.

And if no one responds to the material base, there is nothing...

The decisiveness of consciousness, the decisiveness of action lies in being able to respond to changes in the material base.

But without that responsivity, without that reflexivity, we can get caught in a kind of sisyphus, eternal cycle, if you will, even a Nietzschean eternal return, just constantly going down a downward spiral of degeneration until potentially we regress on a civilizational level to dark ages.

And this can go on for millennia and millennia and millennia.

And if you don't think that's true, you don't know anything about what the Marxist theory of historical materialism actually is.

There is a decisive significance.

I don't contest a single thing you just said.

What I am telling you is the organization you have as is currently structured will never be capable of that action because it will never be large enough.

The platforms you are proposing are not populous enough to attract the kind of support you need.

To win a revolution, you must have one of two things.

Either wide-scale public support or wide-scale public apathy.

What would you like to see to gain popular support since you're the expert and you've got millions behind you?

What would actually draw immediately thousands and thousands of Americans enough to have a revolution?

That's the policy platform that I'm going to discuss the next time.

I'm sure I'm going to show up.

Next time we're just going to...

Okay, you don't have it right now, but next time you're saving.

Oh, no, it's written down.

It's on your webpage, your Discord right now.

All right.

Well, here's the issue.

All right.

It's true that in normal circumstances of a smooth functioning democracy, quote unquote, we wouldn't be able to amount to much for very long.

But if we are anticipating a breakdown of the system, then I think that.

We have to ask what political forces, if we're looking at a circumstance of a breakdown of a system, will be able to successfully carry American history forward in an age that demands collective discipline, an age that...

I mean, who's to say America couldn't become Balkanized and just we can have a warlord era like China did?

Who's to say we couldn't have that?

No, that's what I'm telling you is going to happen.

Okay, and if that happens, if that happens, who's to say that the victory of communism, as long as communists have the determination and are willing to fight, what about such a circumstance preempts the possibility of a victory for communists?

Nuclear weapons.

Why?

Because if you have a breakdown to warlord era level, what is going to happen is the vast nuclear stockpiles controlled by the United States, which are scattered all over the nation, will end up in the hands of various warlords who will almost certainly eventually use them because warlords are crazy people.

Even a nuclear war.

So what we are going to instead of won't be the end of everything.

Even if that happens.

Yes, it will.

No, it won't.

It absolutely will.

It really won't.

It will be the end of any meaningful ability to rebuild afterwards.

We have consumed the overwhelming majority of surface-level resources of this planet.

You could not rebuild something like this.

What you don't understand about communism is that.

An environment of simplicity that demands simplicity.

That's what selects for the victory of Marxism.

When all you have is an army, when all you have is the discipline of a collective organization, when that's all you have, and you actually have it, and you have a strong basis for that, that's all you fucking need, straight up.

Even if we're even if we get thrown back into the stone ages, there is nothing more powerful, there's nothing more powerful than a viable and a working and a functioning paradigm of collective organization of human beings.

There is nothing more fundamental, there's no weapon more powerful than that, not even nukes.

I would disagree with the nukes, but yes, it's extremely powerful.

However, you are never going to achieve that without widescale public support.

I think we've already initiated the process.

We don't need public support right now.

We've already initiated the process of creating a paradigm in which people with different subjective stances and subjective opinions can unite on a common basis.

It's the common basis that unites us that's extremely powerful, and I think is really what you're underestimating.

This party isn't united by the fact that everyone is fond of a single personality, a single idea, a single interpretation, or a single theory.

It's that everyone is united by being committed just to the purport of having a collective unity and a collective organization that is more fundamental than the individual and the individual self-interest.

And the fact that we could accomplish the unity on that kind of basis is a really, really powerful thing, which I think you're underestimating.

And I think it's because I don't really know anything about our party, and that's why, to be honest.

And I don't what the what the party?

It's because you don't know anything about our party.

If you knew more, you'd understand that this is at the very least.

I'm on your Discord.

I regularly watch your party.

Your party's unity is

How do you explain this?

It's something you see with new organizations.

There is no organizations where they don't have anything.

Is there an organization that is from my generation that has lasted this long and it's only been three months?

Name one.

From my generation.

Name a single.

From our generation?

We didn't have organizations in our generation.

There is no organization from my generation that's lasted as long as we have so far.

I just said there is none because none of them lasted that long because material conditions stepped further to such an organization.

It's getting material conditions which we have no control over.

It's how we react and respond to those conditions that are decisive in the end as it concerns us.

Yes, and I'm telling you, your Constitution directly prohibits such a response.

Like, I'm trying to warn you as a friend right now.

I don't think you understand that.

You're warr no, I think you're being presumptuous.

I think you're ignoring all the hard work that went into creating this constitution and this party in general.

And it's it's really presumptuous to just kind of backseat critique us when you when you don't have any experience yourself putting together something like this, with all due respect.

I have extensive experience putting together organizations, nothing quite this large, but yeah, no, I do have extensive experience with this sort of thing, which is why I have a very, very long critique on your Discord right now.

Okay.

You have made very fundamental errors.

You have open contradictions in the document.

More critically.

I don't want to go read the long post you made in the Discord.

Can you explain one?

Okay.

Let's see here.

Because the first one you said was that we had nothing about the working class, and that was disproved by the...

No, that wasn't a contradiction.

The contradiction is that in one part of the document you state that all chapters will receive one vote on the central committee.

In another part of the document, you state that chapters will be apportioned votes based upon their size.

You do not go into how many votes or how, which is a huge problem because the way you've got things structured right now, you're going to end up with some chapters with 10 or 20,000 people and other chapters with five people.

So if, for instance, you have, say, four dozen chapters in West Virginia and one chapter in New York, how are you apportioning votes there?

You say we have four dozen chapters in Virginia?

If you end up with four dozen chapters in West Virginia.

We have one chapter.

We have one chapter per state.

What are you talking about?

I assume you understand this organization is going to have to grow, right?

Yeah, but one chapter per state, each chapter can have as many members as they want.

We're not going to add multiple chapters to each state.

Okay, so that's not again, that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

State chapters aren't even in any way obvious.

Particularly, I don't know if you've driven through West Virginia, dude.

It's actually pretty darn hard to get to a physical meeting if your two valleys over.

That's not a simple thing to do.

God presume, right?

Well we fixed the problem.

Skype

Okay.

So that one was wrong.

Let's move on to the next one.

So that one was wrong and based on a misconception on your part.

So let's move to the next one.

Well no, it's based on the fact that things aren't state clearly state in the Constitution.

Hang on, let's go through the next couple.

I write these down for a reason.

Oh it's good.

It's good.

Okay, state chapters are mentioned in one area only.

Okay.

You guys are fine.

Your system for bringing in new members requires personal confirmation by the Central Committee.

What's going to happen if you have, say, 10,000 members all join in a week?

Uh, show us what will happen, please.

Well, you're gonna get they're not they're gonna quit before you're able to confirm them all, so you just lost a huge base of support because you're costing systems.

We have to prepare for the eventuality in which 10,000 people join and then leave right away instead of a week.

Yeah, we should really uh cash out on that and have entry fees or something because it'd be a shame if honestly wouldn't at least take ten dollars from each of them that could fund the whole party.

You think $100,000 is going to fund your whole party.

This is moderately.

I'm just fucking around, bro.

Okay, I'm not.

Okay.

Okay, so um another example.

How do you get rid of the entire central c uh not central committee?

Uh directory board, I think you called it, in one go.

Why would you want to do that?

Uh, speccy techy situation.

Yep.

Um, and the executive board will all be subject to a uh

A review and if they failed if we failed to deliver our promises, I mean we could all all of our seats will be up for grabs in the executive board.

Okay.

Why are the why is the executive board allowed to choose its own goals rather than having goals dictated to it by the public?

It's not.

It's not.

It has to agree on the goals with the central committee.

Delegates from all chapters.

There has to be an agreement.

Okay.

Are rank-and-file members in the chapters able Let's say against thank you-tanky situation How would a rank-and-file member charge a central committee member?

There is obviously no not central committee director I keep getting that confused.

I'm used to using that term for the highest degree.

Well they would bring it to our attention or they'd bring it to the attention of a member of the executive board who and it would be their responsibility to see to it with the other executive board members that said violator is removed.

But if we're all dirty and rotten, then the whole party collapses.

I don't know what to tell you.

Okie dokie.

People wouldn't follow us in the first place if we were doing shit like that, but thankfully donations, online donations from wide-scale membership.

Membership is such a fun.

They don't have the money to do that.

And we're just going to fleece our 300-strong core base.

That's why I raised the concern about several thousand people joining in a week.

You need a broad-based system.

The only way a small organization exerts much more influence than it has in terms of the membership is through fucking entrepreneurship and businesses, period.

It's the only fucking way you punch above your weight.

Welcome to the reality we live in.

The reality we live in.

I just asked you how we get money, and you told me fucking elections.

It's ridiculous, frankly.

Dude, we are all Marxists here.

We all understand that the only reason a business is successful is the extraction of surplus value from its workers.

Yes?

We all get that.

Would you rather have the surplus of your labor go towards the Communist Party or your Wall Street shareholder boss?

I would rather have no surplus at all.

Yeah.

Well, we don't live in that world.

You don't understand that even in a...

Look, even in the socialism that Marx hypothesizes in Critique of the Gotha program, the surpluses aren't fully retained by the worker.

They are centralized.

They're still centralized.

In any case, you're actually wrong.

All right.

Because when Marx writes in Capital Volume 3 about the average rate of profit, it's actually not true that in every case of entrepreneurship, there's surplus value being produced in the first place.

And then there's all sorts of other complications that Rev can talk about, but which we don't have enough time to, about how money, how the credit system works, about how money is just fucking printed, and how that really fundamentally complicates how surplus value is produced.

It's not just something that's automatically produced by virtue of the fact that profits are being made.

I can tell you that much.

No, backwards.

Profits are made because it's produced.

Profits are made because it's produced.

All the other stuff you just mentioned is tertiary at best.

Not when you can print money, not when there's fiat currency, which is not what existed under Marx because gold was the basis of currency.

They can literally print out money and use it to keep their own profits and surplus high, which you could look at even as a transition to more central planning, capitalism, centralizing everything.

I just want to let everyone know that the stream is back.

It completely crashed because I'm being fucking sabotaged.

But it's back now.

If you left from kick to the Twitter space, kick.com slash infrared, the stream is back.

All right.

If it crashes one more time, I'm just going to end the fucking stream though.

Okay.

So, first of all, there is no fiat currency.

It doesn't exist.

They've lied about that full on.

The US dollar is effectively backed by everything it's tradable for.

Yes.

So pretty much.

So it doesn't matter that they can print infinite dollars since all they're doing is simply using all existing items on the shelves in the stores to back them.

So that's completely irrelevant.

It doesn't help with anything.

You need to understand the essential point.

This is really bad.

Like, everyone fucking left the stream.

There's a hundred viewers that are left.

About the why do you think that Nixon did away with the gold standard then if it didn't allow them to combat the falling rate of profit?

I'll wait.

Why did they print money after 2008 in order to bail out the giant banking system?

It gives them no utility at all.

It's just the same as gold money.

Then why did they go off the gold standard?

I didn't say it gave them no utility.

I said the utility is a fiction.

The utility is the illusion that the system is.

It is illusory in a way, but it still is a way to keep their profits high, to print money and funnel it into Elon Musk's multinational corporations get millions of dollars in subsidies every year.

As I said, in 2008, a lot of money was printed because there's no real backing besides the state and public trust.

And yeah, the country with the most productive capacity is going to be the country whose dollar is worth the most because they're able to exchange for more.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that's the basis of the dollar, that they can't print out money.

I mean, it is the basis on some level.

But the dollar, when they move off the gold standard, it does detach in a way from any kind of material thing.

And the utility that they gain from that is not fictitious.

It's the utility to enable the worst kind of credit swindling and save the capitalist system when it goes into crisis, which is, of course, something they've had to do through, you know, learned that they had to do through practice.

And it's not that, I mean, and the U.S.

understands this too, which is why there's the petrodollar agreement.

So really, the basis of the US dollar as the global dominant currency is not commodities as much as it's the US military and US military power.

Yeah, yeah, I think this guy has monopolized too much time.

Frankly, let's just bring someone else up.

This is just fucking ridiculous.

Yeah, thanks.

Have a good one.

I gotta open my I gotta go on my phone to do this for some reason as being.

Being annoying.

Um one second.

Alright.

Let's go to

Who's next?

Who do we wanna talk to?

I mean lug here.

Who would be

Let's try Pro Kogan.

Come on up, Pro Kogan.

Guys, my fucking PC is like about to explode.

I swear fucking BlueStacks like fucking downloaded a computer or some shit.

Fuck.

You have the floor.

Short time, man.

Fuck my life.

Gotta go.

Fuck my life.

Shitter, get off the pot.

Alright, no Pro Kogan.

Let's try Rumpelstiltstein.

Rumple Stilts signed.

30% of the fucking.

Yeah.

18% of the GPU.

Fuck.

What is this?

20% of my fucking CPU just to fucking talk on Twitter on the fucking computer.

My phone doesn't ever fucking explode when I do this, but to use my PC to fucking talk in a space, my fucking, my $2,000 fucking computer has to literally blow up.

It's this big, but my shitty piece of shit, fucking phone, it's this small, and I fucking go on Twitter spaces and it works fine.

Fuck this whole Twitter engineer.

You're the guy that figures out who is the best in the working class.

And the last guy, the motor mouth before me, he told you he was a truck driver.

You go, well, you're not the truck driver that I like.

I have some guy that I met 10 years ago.

He's a better truck driver than you.

Who are you to choose who's better than who else in terms of being a worker?

Are you God?

Are you on drugs?

on drugs.

Uh is there something in your ears?

You're an Arab, right?

That's correct.

Christian or Jew?

'Cause I want to know your background.

Ama jihadi.

Mm-hmm.

Uh it means you don't want to sit next to me on an airplane.

And you might blow up the plane?

Is that what you're trying to tell me?

No, I just fart a lot and it smelled really bad.

I don't mind somebody that farts, but I mind if I give myself a bunch of people.

If you don't mind people that fart, you're probably a really disgusting and dirty person, to be frank.

That you didn't like because he didn't meet your standards.

You're going, Well, I'm going to get personal with you.

I'm going to get personal with you, too.

How tall are you?

Taller than your mom.

Three?

What about your mom?

What's her line of work, sir?

Your mom's line of work?

I don't fucking know.

What's your girlfriend's line of work?

Your mother's line of work?

Ask her.

I don't know.

Jewish ideology.

Whatever your mother gives me.

I'll tell you what your mother is for free.

Were you there in his house?

How do you know?

As an Arab, how do you know how he was raised?

Were you there?

You were just more like 20 years ago.

You don't know anything.

Yeah, every y we don't know anything at all.

We can't read books.

We just have to fucking we have to be there physically to say anything about history.

You just like that you just like to challenge people and jab.

What's your religion?

What's your religion?

I'm Jewish Muslim.

No, what's your real religion?

Be a man and admit it.

Stop being a pussy.

What religion is that?

I ask you first.

What's your actual religion?

Go ahead, buddy.

I asked you first and you dodged it like a little runt.

Tell me, dwarf, what's your religion?

Uh what's your religion?

Okay.

Religion.

Karl Marx, he wasn't really a Jew, even though his name is Jewish.

Why are you angry?

You're an Arabic.

Why are you angry?

I mean, you're an Arab pushes Jewish ideology?

Are you kidding me?

Why are you angry?

You're a fucking sellout.

Why are you angry?

Because you're a sellout.

You're a sellout.

Why did I sell out?

You're an egomaniac, and you go, we have to have a violent revolution in this world.

Why do you say that?

Can you say that again?

Don't be on the same plane as me because I'll fucking blow it out of the sky.

Please, can you say that again, but this time don't be angry?

I'm going to report you.

Report me, pussy.

Snitch.

That's what you are.

You're a little terrorist.

You're a little snitch.

You sound like a terrorist.

You're going to cry?

I'm not gonna leave.

Before you leave, Romania.

I'm not gonna leave.

You're gonna leave.

Can you repeat it one more time?

Can you repeat that one more time without holding your nose?

I'm talking like you.

I'm five foot five with a girlfriend that does.

I'm five foot five and I could snap you over my knee without trying, but thanks for coming on the show, bitch.

Oh, you removed him?

That's a shame.

Sorry.

Are you having fun with that guy?

I love people who talk this way to me on the internet.

Um.

Because they're awfully quiet when they see me in real life.

I don't know.

Yeah, it's weird how that works.

It's weird.

I've met those guys.

They won't even look you in the eyes in real life.

Like, what does he expect?

I'm going to entertain this on the fucking internet.

But anyway, he had an extremely nasally voice because he's a low-T pussy and he should go take some testosterone supplements.

And frankly, this is a case where I can forgive transgenderism because that is clearly a man who needs some gender affirmation to become a man.

You know, frankly, let's start by sounding like one instead of sounding like a fucking, you know, you're a five-five on the airplane.

I'm going to report you.

And basically, what's your religion?

You're a sellout.

Marks wasn't doing it.

Were you there?

Weren't you there?

Did you see it?

Were you in his house?

He goes, Were you in his house?

He literally said that.

Anyway, let's bring someone else on.

Alright, let's go with

Um that guy looks like he agrees with us mostly.

Um

Yeah okay, this looks like it might be a leftist.

Showtime.

You're up next.

What's up?

Go ahead and accept the speaker and then unmute yourself and go ahead.

Yo, peace and blessings, love and light.

This is uh Joe Top from the Iron Mike.

I I got a question for Haas.

Maybe um, you know, I've been listening to his debates and tragically, they've been, you know,

Few people that can truly engage with the guy.

So I think it'd be more interesting if just Hans debated himself.

I think we would get more out of that.

But my question is: I don't really have it formulated, but I see like a contradiction or a contradiction emerging between this kind of civilizational approach and this kind of Marxist-Leninist nationalism.

And I think MAGA communism and a communist party in the United States, this kind of internal national approach.

I've been hearing you, and I know Heidegger and others talk about the civilizational approach.

So, could you talk about that if you see any contradictions or if you're wrestling with any contradictions on these different approaches?

Thank you.

That's a really good question.

Yeah, I don't the civilizational paradigm, I don't think directly comes from Heidegger, not at least as far as I'm concerned.

As a matter of fact, I think no, actually.

Heidegger has nothing to do with the civilizational paradigm.

The civilizational paradigm has a lot to do with history itself, because in the 20th century, the nation-state was more or less considered to be the

the highest development of the national form, right?

The nation state, the national existence.

But what we can see in the era of multipolarity, emergent multipolarity, is the rise of um

Regional integral civilizations, which contain a plurality of ethnic identities, at least, and you know, by the standards of what a nation-state is, even a plurality of nations, if you can even depending how you define nations.

And the determinate way in which these different nations or ethnic groups interact with each other, whether that's through exchange, whether that's through the way they view each other, whether that's through the established conventions defining specific cultural relationships with each other, come together to form a kind of integral civilization, which is a specific entity.

And there are multiple different civilizations.

Russia has many different ethnic and they were defined national minorities.

And not just the Russian ethnicity, right?

And they all exist within this kind of Russian civilization.

And the specific way in which they interact and relate to each other comes to form what Russia is as a civilization.

The same is true for China.

The same is true for others.

So that is the civilizational paradigm, which is a step above.

The nation state.

Nation states are homogenous, right?

They don't have room for the recognition of differences.

There's only one, so to speak, there's only one nation.

And the nation is defined formally, right?

So that there doesn't take Heidegger, I don't think.

I think Hegel has more of a significance, in my opinion.

Specifically, for me, someone who helped, you know, I think a lot of people underestimate the extent to which there's a lot of independent synthesis going on.

Where, for example, I'm inspired by Kojev's idea of the universal and homogenous state.

And I'm applying or I'm understanding that within the context of the development of the 20th century and now the 21st century and multipolarity.

And there's a lot of ways in which things are being put together, reality and past ideas, and they all come together.

And the significance doesn't have to do with, oh, this is Heidegger, this is this or that thinker.

Kojev or whoever, or Dugan even.

It has to do with like, there's clearly something new going on in reality itself.

So all these different thinkers just are stand-ins for different forms of recognition of that fact.

But like, there's clearly this symptom, if you want to call it that, underlying symptom of the fact that like we're in an era of multipolarity.

We're in an era where nations are no longer the highest form of, you know.

Um of collective existence.

I think, yeah, I misspoke.

I was thinking of, I should have said Dugan.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Dugan instead of Heidi, Heidi.

But do you have any?

Like, I'm asking you to be kind of vulnerable.

And do you have any, have you come across any contradictions that you wrestle with?

Because I heard you say that you even looked at, if I could quote you correctly, I could just kind of summarize.

You looked at the American experience as being more of a civilizational experience.

And you even described yourself in that context versus a national project.

So that really kind of stunned me.

And I was just, I just saw a lot of contradictions with that.

Like, which civilization are you looking at?

I think we're trying to.

I want to go on this after you, Haz, by the way.

Sorry.

Yeah, we're trying to.

We think that the national question needs to be relitigated, so to speak, in the age of multipolarity.

So that we can say China is a nation, Russia is a nation.

Nations can be words that are not necessarily exclusive and homogenous, but can just refer to some kind of unified collect specific, historically constituted, unified collective existence.

Drawing on Stalin's writings on the matter, but updating them as well.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say for Midwestern Marx, this is where we bring in Martin Luther King, because that was the elimination of apartheid and this idea that Noah Krachevic of the Midwestern Marx Institute always quotes, or this quote from Martin Luther King, that we all came on different boats, but we're sorry, we all came on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.

That's kind of the American experience.

It's always been this sort of melting pot of different nationalities, but it is objectively one country.

It is one union.

So is the Marxist solution to then balkanize and cut up the United States into a bunch of little pieces and turn it into a Europe-looking thing?

I don't think so.

I think it's to unify the working class of the entire country and build a socialist project or potentially in the event of a collapse.

But as Haas was saying, we look at it more as a civilizational state.

At least that's the word that I would say.

And I think King is important because the civil rights revolution represents a material change in this country where black and white workers were placed at least on the same legal playing field.

We know that there were still years of economic oppression and stuff that still afflicted the black community at the time.

But it really unified America and said, no, no matter where you come from, no matter what your skin color, no matter what nation you're in, we are one country.

And the black belt thesis in America never caught on.

This idea that black people taken from Africa should have their own nation separate from white.

It's just something that didn't catch on because black people in this country overwhelmingly see themselves as Americans.

They see themselves as being part of the same state, the same civilizational project, the same country, the same nation, you could say.

So that's I would I think King and the civil understanding the civil rights revolution is important for understanding this in the specifically American context too.

That's what's up.

Thanks for bringing me up, guys.

I'm going to drop back down.

But respect to you guys.

Wish the party well.

What you guys are doing is historic and impressive.

And to Haz, I look forward to seeing you on some bigger debate stages, man.

Go ahead and get on the Oxford stage, get on some bigger platforms.

More people need to hear you.

But love and like.

Showtime for the Iron Mic.

And make sure you guys hook me up if you come to China.

Shanghai.

Appreciate it, brother.

See you later.

Thank you so much.

I like that he uses the word wrestle with contradictions.

I got to start using that one more.

I like that.

'Cause wrestling matches are like the most dialectical thing ever.

Um, all right, one sec.

Let's move to the next person.

Okay, here we go.

Um I wrote a whole ass article on the dialectics of wrestling.

If anybody I don't know who would be interested in that other than me, but all right, Pro Kogan, we're gonna try again 'cause you didn't join last time and then we're leaving comments.

So um please accept the invite to be speaker and then unmute yourself.

Okay, there you are.

Alright, go ahead.

You go ahead, Prol Kogan.

Your m your mic not be your mic may not be working or something.

By the way, guys, this is an incredibly aggressive hater, I'm pretty sure, and um we're really curious about what they sound like.

Pro Kogan.

But they're probably gonna say that we muted them.

But thankfully this is being recorded, correct?

Yes.

So it's clearly he's not being muted.

It's records that as well, right?

Yes.

Yeah, so they're probably gonna say that they were muted or they're gonna make some kind of excuse for because they keep making excuses 'cause they just are afraid, I think.

Seems that way.

Unless Prolk Hogan oh, they just muted themselves when you said that Go ahead, Prok.

Speak.

Stand on business.

Be a man.

I'm going to give you like ten more seconds to figure your mic situation out.

Please.

Don't be annoying and okay, they left.

Sweet.

Now they'll probably start.

Yeah, now they're gonna say that they were kicked and that, you know, they were they were muted and you know, that that you kicked them because you were so t terrified and you were trembling of them.

We know the story.

We know the story of these people.

They like typing because when they talk, you know, it's just.

You can hear the trembling in their voice.

Mm-hmm.

I I don't blame him.

I'd be scared too.

What's nice is when you actually believe the shit that you say, you can defend it.

It's awesome.

It's crazy.

Um, okay, I guess we'll go O'Nee wait, no, isn't that a troll?

Oneegin.

Um

Okay, let's see here.

Uh David, okay, David, we'll let you in.

It seems like he's got some experience or he's got some stuff to say.

So, David Z, you have the floor, go ahead and accept the speaker request, unmute yourself and then go ahead.

Thank you, Uyghur.

And hi, Haz.

No, I just heard you a few minutes ago.

I'm Irish and I have an experience dealing with on your topic there about half an hour ago.

How do you fund a political party?

As a young man, I was a member of an Irish Marxist-Leninist party that was very successful, actually.

It broke the bank of the back and the bank of the respective generational Conservative parties in Ireland for the first time in history.

It was a part of the corporate.

Eddie, can you make me co-host, please?

And check your text.

It was a party that was called Workers' Party.

It still exists today, but its principles have been greatly watered down.

However, when you were discussing how do you fund a political party, at that time in Conservative Ireland, it was very difficult to get a left-wing party established, indeed, to get it funded, to get in the people that were needed in, persons within the trade union network, within the universities, etc.

etc.

So what we organized was that in Irish term it's called a common, which is a local group of people who are brought together out of the working class, mostly out of trade unions.

You arrange an office, you go door to door.

Basically, listen, this could be an interesting conversation, but this space is about haters and records, longtime enemies of our party.

And you seem very sympathetic, and it's not what the space is about.

I apologize.

Well, regarding how we fund our party, if you have suggestions, please feel free to email us or just message us privately.

But by what I'm hearing, you're talking about knocking door to door and these kind of things.

We don't have any confidence in that.

And we're just living in a different era.

And we're not living in an era where, you know.

Well, I was going to expand on that.

The words of social media.

I appreciate that, brother.

Let's have this conversation another time.

Struggling to scrap money together.

And, you know, doing it in person is just, we have no confidence in that.

You know, it's just not how the world works anymore.

Everything is.

I appreciate you for joining the space, though.

We're going to move on to some haters now, though.

Let's have this conversation another time, though.

Reach out via a personal message or something.

I was the end.

All right.

Well, thank you, David, for coming on.

Sorry that I'd like to.

I'll bring on the unanimous person, I guess.

The unanimous person?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Come on.

Come on.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Someone's got their stuff.

They need to mute it.

Uh yes.

I had uh some questions about uh your distancing from uh the Center for Political Innovation.

Go ahead.

Guys, my fucking spirit is broken by the fact that, like, my fucking stream, like, fucked up and, like, took off, like, half the viewers and shit.

The fuck is that, man?

It's fucking bullshit.

That's such fucking bullshit, man.

Like, I'm still in a bad mood over that fucking shit.

Listen, can you please fix your mic?

I can't hear anything you're saying.

Uh, yes, the question was why uh Mr.

Aldean distanced himself from Mr.

Malpin because uh because Caleb because he's got many personal issues and it makes it impossible to work with him in any capacity.

That's why uh Mr.

Melpin seemed to uh be open to work under Can you please get out of the bathtub and back to the surface?

I mean, I don't know what I don't know what this is.

Sorry, yeah, hold on.

Uh, yeah, uh, it seemed as if Mr.

Melpin was open to having a discussion with you, uh, one of you gentlemen, okay, United.

So, what does he want to talk about?

What does he want to talk about?

What is there to talk about?

We don't, he has proven himself to be unwilling to be able to work with others because he has an inc he's incredibly narcissistic and he thinks he's the next MLK.

What do you want from me?

Uh, yeah, it seems interesting that you have quick to throw him under the bus, especially since Mr.

Hinkle has praised Andrew Tate and has not been reprimanded.

It seems praising Andrew Tate is a lot different than committing actual sexual harassment against your party and against people in your organization where you're bringing them in.

And I, you know, I have experience working with narcissists in organizations, and it makes it, as Haz said, very difficult to do anything because they're constantly injecting their own personal motivations or their own God complex into party decisions, and that causes problems at the organizational level.

Theoretically, you know, Caleb is on point with a lot of stuff.

I used to listen to a lot of his shows, but the reason I never joined his organization, the reason we only had a very tentative relationship, was because of the personal issues.

And, you know, it's sad.

I wish it didn't have to be that way, but we have to do what's best for the party.

Listen, you because you're missing a lot of context as well.

First of all, Caleb deeply betrayed all of us by his actions, first of all.

Second of all, he completely tried to snake me somehow during his apology or whatever, trying to rope me in as if like I as if I have anything to do with him.

And then Mr.

Aldean, Mr.

Aldine, that all sounds like a very childish reason.

People Mr.

Melpin under the bus.

You want to see childish.

Yeah, but we actually have personal beef with him.

And then the final nail on the straw coffin is that he randomly starts attacking Jackson Hinkle.

And then says Jack, you know, he's that Jackson, he says, I know things.

And he went fucking around in RT and told everyone that he, you know, because he got some shit from Twitter, and that was literally his source.

It was some schizophrenic retard that is why Mr.

Melpin did not repeat the rumors.

He didn't because he knew he would look like an idiot if he did.

I would have wished he did, but he left it so ambiguous to make it seem like there was like a even truth or substance behind it, and there wasn't.

So that's the fucking problem.

He did that on purpose anyway.

Like, you know, if you can't see that he's just like, he's extremely incapable of working with others and he's just like, he's just has bad personal qualities.

I don't know what to fucking tell you.

I could just tell you he gets spanked and we don't want anything to do with that.

Would that suffice?

Mr.

Aldean, I will ignore the homoeroticism in that last comment.

No, there's no homoeroticism.

All right.

There's no it's a fact.

It's an embarrassment.

It embarrassed all of us, frankly, and he didn't atone for it.

What is embarrassing is your refusal to let it go and your refusal to he burned us multiple times.

He was given so many opportunities to fix it and he didn't fix it.

All right.

He did the opposite.

So what do you want from me?

Uh miss O'Callion is laughing at me.

Very interesting.

Uh yeah, why is she allowed here?

Because uh she is uh Malthusian and has re reposted things from Candace Owens and whatnot.

Oh no.

Candace Owens had some good takes.

Like not everything Candace Owens says is wrong.

Would you why what's wrong with the repost?

Let's bring on the next person.

One gin, go ahead.

Hello.

Thanks for the mic.

Yeah, I appreciate you guys and I I have some sort of um healthy criticism.

I'm not necessarily here to spread hatred, but uh from a consumer standpoint, um are are you guys keeping track of new members?

Is there s some some sort of statistics?

What's the criticism?

Do you have one or no?

All right, so no.

Eddie, is there anyone else that I can't see that's requesting besides the unanimous troll?

You there Eddie?

Oh man.

Shit, I was muted.

My bad.

Pro Kogan is back.

They said they fixed their mic.

Bring him up.

Bring him up.

Pro Kogan, you're up.

You no excuses now.

You said your mic was fixed.

I sent you the request.

Join.

Join.

What the fuck?

There's there's no excuse any more.

You ran.

They left?

I don't know.

They're they're not joining.

They're not accepting my request after they just spammed me with messages telling me to accept.

So I'm gonna assume they ran like a bitch.

Do you want me to bring on this Antifa guy?

Yeah, yeah.

Bring on all the actual like uh you know, the the rainbow fascists as we call them.

Hello.

Hi, so uh I had the opportunity to speak to Eddie the other day, which I was grateful for.

I didn't I miss you, Haas, but uh I just want to start with a question, very simple one.

Would you consider the ACP an anti-fascist party?

Yes.

And uh how would you define fascism in that in that sense?

Same way Dmitrov did.

Do you mind uh elaborating?

Yes, the most terroristic and reactionary segment of monopoly the ar the terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary segment of monopoly capital.

Okay.

And uh do you think it's prevalent in the United States today?

I think um something resembling it and I think Ukraine is the primary paradigm, but I think yeah that something like that is taking form here.

Would you not say Israel is uh also a paradigm?

Like like the Zionist ideology, would you consider that fascist?

Yeah, I would.

Okay.

And so so I I really fail to understand uh I guess like the support of Donald Trump.

Like I understand it's critical.

I'm not saying you you believe that um that Donald Trump is like a m Marxist or whatever, he's clearly not.

But uh so how do how how would you justify like support for like an outspoken Zionist?

Uh what support are you referring to?

Oh, I mean like Donald Trump was notoriously pro-Israel during his presidency.

No, no, no, what support on our part for Trump are you referring to?

Um, I mean, I was in your space the other day, and uh, you were speaking very highly of him.

You said you wanted him to win the election.

You said that it was the other day?

When was this?

Like the the space the other day.

The one on Sunday, I was praising Trump.

I don't remember that.

Oh, you you were you were speaking highly of him, yes.

What do you mean speaking highly talking about?

Okay, so so to to to avoid, I guess, like like you said like could you just like reiterate, I guess, like your stance on Donald Trump?

Yeah, I'm really confused about what you're talking about, but um

Trump uh

Uh, we don't have a strong stance on him.

He's just a generic American politician at this point, as as we can see it.

I mean, we're interested to see what will happen, obviously, in the the fifth next week, but um

You know, uh, we don't we don't support Trump.

Uh we support the ACP, which is our party.

Uh, you know, who Trump to us is uh completely outside of the realm of our control and our ability to influence or impact.

Uh yeah, and so would you say you said would you say like mega communism is still like a strategy?

And in what sense?

Yeah, but I think things have evolved to a point where it's just become it's a truism.

I mean, that even even the people who rejected MAGA communism years ago are now MAGA Communists in some way, because everyone in order to have a dialogue with uh people, they're taking for granted what the MAGA movement uh set the standard for uh in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, which is a new paradigm of popular sovereignty, primarily based in um

Articula articulating politics in terms of uh kind of popular and national self-interest rather than uh

uh the interest of the fulfilling the global empire.

Yeah, okay.

And so I I w I would say personally, like I I would consider myself a Marxist.

I w I would consider Donald Trump like a particularly uh a particular case of fascism.

And I think a lot of that manifests in the immigration question.

Um I I think this is one of the most uh in in in the West particularly, it is one of the most uh uh I gu I guess fascistic uh points.

And so what is the ACP's stance on immigration?

Why is Bruce's view on immigration fascist?

Well, I would say that a lot of his rhetoric, particularly, like, is othering, and I think that is one of the tenets of fascism.

You can look to what I'm saying.

With all due respect, I just find that incredibly vague.

I think that quote-unquote othering is just inherent to any political discourse whatsoever.

But not to the point where it's dehumanizing.

And I would say Donald Trump has dehumanized.

Is it othering, and is it dehumanizing when Trump's supporters were called deplorables and called garbage?

Yeah, probably.

So, I mean, it's just a fact of politics.

There's nothing particularly fascist about it.

It's just a fact of politics.

Okay, so what is the ACP's stance on immigration?

It's in our program.

And Haas wrote a long response to this, I don't even know what to call him, this thing named Colin Bodale expounding the Marxist position on immigration.

It's a good read.

Okay, and would you mind summarizing?

Yeah, we consider that the phenomena of mass immigration is a complete disaster.

It's a humanitarian disaster.

It's a form of modern slavery.

It's causing, it's inflaming tensions between different nations and different cultural groups.

It's incredibly clearly a cynical device to and what is the solution to that?

The solution to that is, well, it depends.

Are we in power or are we just responding to it outside of power?

Because I think there's two different strategies there.

Okay, let's hear both of them.