Rise of the Horde.

Shar, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you with the one.

Dark NRG with the five.

That's what I'm talking about, bro.

How are we doing?

Tanky Tom.

What's going on, bro?

Human life.

What an interesting name, but the sub is well appreciated.

Y'all ready for this shit?

Are y'all ready?

Will the infrared renaissance that I keep telling you about, and how the HOSGO rhythm is taking over YouTube?

The Hosgorhythm is taking over.

I straight up have the sense they're gonna try to shut it down somehow.

I don't know how.

Red, what's up, bro?

But the Hosgorhythm, y'all, let me tell you something.

The Hosgorhythm is taking over the YouTube gang.

Everyone I'm talking to is saying, Yeah, I'm on that Hosgorhythm shit.

I'm getting bombarded with that shit.

Yo, Florence, what's up with the five?

How we doing?

Frightful with the five.

How we doing?

What's up, y'all?

Give me them tokens for fucking Chat GPT because I'm trying to make a new intro and I'm generating some animations and shit and I ran out of that shit.

So let me get them tokens, y'all.

Nomadic with the five, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

Minnesota, how are we doing?

How are we doing?

Hasgorithm is taking over.

And this is the early stage.

We are Professor Zhang right before he blew up.

That's the atmosphere.

They're saying the atmosphere is this Professor Zhang right before he blew the fuck up.

Boogaboo with the 10, what's going on, bro?

Appreciate you.

Gerald with the 1, how are we doing, Gerald?

What the fuck is up?

What's going on?

This is, I am Professor Zhang.

Look at me.

I am Professor Zhang.

This is the Professor Zhangarhythm.

That's this right about before it takes off type of shit.

Bass Populus, what the fuck is up?

Look at me.

I am Professor Zhang.

Alright, y'all, we got a lot of shit to talk about.

We have a lot of ground to cover today.

We have a lot of content to pump into the Hazgarhythm.

But the only place to see that shit live is here.

Never fucking forget that.

YouTube is for the Goyim.

The gorillas are here.

The Chosen, the Kizilbosh.

That's where we fucking are.

Captain, what's up?

Soon, these streams are gonna...

This stream might be...

I might make this stream private, honestly.

Because the streams are no longer going to be VOD watchers.

Y'all are not paying tribute.

Okay?

The VOD watchers, y'all need to understand.

You got to watch it live or you got to contribute to the Hasgarhythm.

But this VOD watching shit, it's got to come to an end.

We're watching the stream start to finish type of shit.

Anyway, y'all.

Let's get right into it.

Okay?

There's a totalitarian cult-like shift that's happening in the air.

Something very celestial, something very mystical, something very profound.

Celestial governance.

Australia standing with the ten.

Y'all really wanna see that new intro, huh?

Y'all really wanna see that new intro.

So, new protocol as well, we're going to be doing.

If you want me to react to news, eventualities, new things that are going on, okay, you need to put that in the show requests and do not put some random fucking retards that get 200 views for me to react to.

Put some shit that actually is topical.

Okay, I already got a lot of things we have to cover lined up, but in any case, everyone needs to understand that the type of thing that we're on right now is that we're on the HOSGO rhythm and this shit is real.

All right.

I mean, I think there's a really big thing happening.

That is so fucking crazy.

I don't want to open up with it because it's just that fucking crazy.

Definitely, we're going to be, I'm going to be showing that to y'all.

And there's a lot of things.

Thanks for reminding me about that Daily Wire shit, actually.

I wasn't actually going to cover that, but thanks for reminding me of it because it is genuinely some of the craziest shit.

You will ever see.

We're definitely going to react to that shit.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

All right.

Your favorite guy, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

Streaming on YouTube on the table.

Yeah, whenever the CC finalizes the decision that they come to, then we'll know.

Whenever the party decides how it wants to go forward with the sustainer thing, once that gets authorized, or if it gets authorized, I'm the day of, I'm streaming on YouTube the next day.

Like that will be this, whenever that happens, the last kick stream will be the stream before then for sure.

And yeah, we'll make that transition.

I still haven't decided if I want to stream on the infrared channel or the Haas channel.

I don't know about it yet.

I'm thinking maybe the Haas channel actually instead of the Infrared channel.

But we'll see.

Okay?

It's to be seen.

I've absolutely tidied up the Haas channel, I got the banner on it, I've fixed some stuff.

Front page.

I'm investing in that channel.

All right.

I want the Haas channel to get to, I want to get it to 30,000 subs by the end of the year.

We'll see.

We'll see what we can do.

All right.

But enough talking about the hosgarhythm, 'cause we're kinda beating a dead horse talking about the hosgorithm.

The hosgarhythm is in place, it's in motion, and everyone can see that and understands that.

Alright, so

I had some very important topics I wanted to talk about today.

Some very interesting things, which I don't exactly know how to segue into, but I guess I'll just show you.

We'll just jump right into it.

So I'm not a Sneeko React channel, and I'm not a Sneeko orbiter, but this is genuinely pretty unprecedented.

Okay.

Watch this.

Can you believe Sneeko said this?

Okay.

Can you believe it?

And if you know, don't give it away.

But let's just, let me just present this to you.

Can you believe Sneeko said this, right?

So let's watch.

But we'll get to that.

And when the people say I'm going too far or I'm an extremist, when I don't see you have any language for the enemies of Islam, I think you're a hypocrite.

And I think that you're weak.

And I think that you're controlled.

I find you to be a slave.

I find you to be part of Stockholm Syndrome mentality.

I think that a lot of that's pathetic.

And I don't see it as effective.

Some people yesterday were saying, to Sneeko make white Christians like or dislike him.

It's like, I don't care what you, I don't care.

You're a kaffir, but white Christians can die for all I care.

What do I care about what they think if they don't respect Islam?

I wouldn't go as far as to say Muslims should kill them.

But at some point, violence starts to become justified.

But we'll get to that.

Hey, Kimmer, thanks for ruining the whole fucking thing.

When I literally told you guys, if you know, shut the fuck up.

Kimmer, thanks for ruining it for everyone.

Okay?

Anyway.

That's pretty crazy of Sneeko to say, right?

It's pretty crazy.

You just got here in my b that's why you guys gotta be here in the fucking waiting room.

Why do you think I get pissed that y'all fucking come at the last minute?

Cause of that stupid ass shit I just got here.

Get here in the fucking beginning, retards.

Fuck is wrong with you?

Anyway.

Okay, now if you notice that clip did not have any stream chat, okay.

What did I miss?

I'm literally gonna ban you forever.

Anyone who says what did I miss, you're getting banned for all eternity.

I am so considerate for the gorillas that you get here, that we nobody comes in here and says, What do I miss?

I need a recap.

Anyway, guys, let's continue.

All right.

So, if you notice in that clip, there was no stream chat.

That's awfully odd.

Let's see.

Hey, Astra, ChatGPT Astra.

This entire crash out I just had, you need to fucking ignore that shit.

You need to go straight from me, you know, like just ignore that fucking me yelling at the chat type of shit.

All right, Astra.

All right, let's continue.

All right.

Alright, let's continue.

And when the people say I'm going too far or I'm an extremist, when I don't see you have any language for the enemies of Islam, I think you're a hypocrite and I think that you're weak and I think that you're controlled.

I find you to be a slave.

I find you to be part of Stockholm Syndrome mentality.

I think that a lot of that's pathetic and I don't see it as effective.

Some people yesterday were saying, Does Sneeko make white Christians like or dislike him?

It's like, I don't care what you, I don't care.

You're a kaffir.

Does Sneeko is neco making it easier for white Christians to like him?

Bafangu.

Like, what am I?

That's the exact mentality that I am not playing anymore.

I'm done.

I made an effort for years and years and years.

So did you notice how it's completely different?

Okay.

It's completely different.

And you know, ultimately

The Groipers, who has noticed, who has talked about how demonic these people are, how satanic they are for years.

They are openly making a fake AI clip of him inciting violence because they only have one card up their sleeve against their enemies now, crying to the government to crack down on completely innocent people.

I feel so unsafe.

I feel so unsafe.

It's like a little twerp at the schoolyard.

He's being a little bitch and goes and runs to the teacher playing victim.

You know, that's their type of aura they're exuding.

Steven, what's up?

So we have said for years who these people are, that they are satanic, they are devoid of principles, they have no morals, they have no religion, they have no nothing.

They are demonic scum.

Just like when they tried to blame us for killing Charlie Kirk.

And this is just such a shameless, but it's actually incredible.

First of all, there's a lot of things to talk about here.

AI has gotten that good.

And it's not surprising it's being used in this way.

It's also not surprising that Groipers are the ones using it in this way.

But I think when we're evaluating the conflict between Sneeko and the Groipers, obviously we side with Sneeko.

We don't have to agree with everything Sneeko says, but ultimately he's in the right when it comes to that conflict.

But in any case, we have to consider a few things, okay?

How morally bankrupt?

Do you have to be in whatever battle you're fighting to have to resort to this?

How absolutely morally defeated and bankrupt.

I mean, on a basic like level, like the cosmos, you are on the losing side.

You are such a pathetic.

You have no moral authority.

You have no.

High ground.

You're literally inviting the wrath of heaven, so to speak, right?

How can anyone justify that?

How can they say we're Christians, we're this or that?

How do you build a movement of these absolute depraved scum who have no morals except, I guess, what, hedonism and video games, and leisure?

And that's it.

That's all they believe in.

It's kind of like an Asmengold type of community.

All the grandstanding about Jesus Christ and stuff.

They don't care about Jesus at all.

They don't care about Jesus whatsoever.

These are morally filthy subhumans.

So I have a lot of thoughts.

Um

They do the same thing with us.

They're trying to do something that I guess I don't know implicates us.

They use Laura Loomer, who they're friends with.

They're trying to, you know, resort to, oh, these are scary terrorists.

These are scary violent criminals.

And that's their MO.

Their MO is no longer that they're going to debate you and have the public decide who the public chooses.

I mean, look, we live in America.

Sneeko's Islam versus Nick Fuentes.

I would say let the public decide and don't worry about what the public's reaction is going to be.

If you're on the side of the truth, you should have confidence that the public will choose whatever they choose, right?

Have an open confrontation of the contrasting principles or ideas.

But these people have no principles.

Same thing with ACP, they would never debate us.

Have an open public forum, ACP versus America.

America First.

Who does the public choose?

Again, they don't want that confrontation because they want to deceive and they want to trick the people, the masses.

And I'm going to tell you the crucial difference between us and the so-called America First Patriots.

We regularly get called foreign shills and traitors to America and all this kind of stuff.

But the fundamental difference between us and even Sneeko for that matter and them.

We actually dis put ourselves at the disposal of the judgment of the American people.

We're not hiding in the shadows from the American people.

We're not trying to trick them or deceive them.

We are openly in public saying, Here we are, American people, we want to give you the right to choose honestly between us and this alternative.

And we put ourselves at the mercy of the people of this nation, in public, out in the open.

We don't resort to these dirty tricks, these dirty Zionist tricks, these lies, these attempts to fabricate a reality that doesn't exist.

We openly put ourselves at the disposal of the American people's judgment and let them decide.

So, who are the true patriots?

The ones who scurry like rats in the shadows, hiding themselves from the American people, hiding the truth and trying to distort reality, or the ones who are in the light of day, telling the American people exactly who they are and giving them the choice to choose.

Yes!

Yes!

Yes, we stand with Putin and Russia.

Yes, we stand with China.

Yes, we stand with the DPRK.

Yes, we stand with Iran.

We never hid ourselves.

We never made any apology.

We never disguised who we were.

On principle, we have this position, and we tell the American people why we have this position.

Because our regime is rotten, dirty, and corrupt.

And all the people of the world are fighting for their liberation from this regime.

And if we, the American people, want to stand up and fight for our own liberty and fight for our own emancipation, then we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the patriots around the world, the true sons of liberty, fighting for the freedom and independence of their nations and their peoples.

Because there is one regime, one regime oppressing and ruling the world right now at the expense of the interests of humanity.

And that regime disguises itself.

And presents itself wearing our American flag.

And this is the regime we oppose.

And we tell you openly, in the light of day, who we're against and who we sympathize with, and where our hearts are.

We never lie to the American people.

We disdain to conceal our views.

We're communists.

You're goddamn fucking right, we're communists.

Because all communism means when all is said and done is that this nation and the fruits of its labor belong to the people, belong to the worker, land to the tiller.

The fruits of the labor of the American worker belong to the American worker.

The commonwealth of this nation belongs to the common man.

They can't hide from us in their fucking high-rises in Manhattan, these Wall Street bloodsuckers.

They can't run from us in their fucking bunkers 100 feet below the ground.

All of this that we call America, this country, belongs to the people.

And they run from us sitting in Wall Street, sitting in Silicon Valley.

They run and they flee.

They cannot run.

They cannot flee.

AI belongs to the American people.

The land, the factories, the wealth, all of it belongs to the American people and no one else.

Who made it?

Whoever made it, it belongs to them.

Not some fucking gambler on Wall Street speculating with the livelihoods of the people of this nation, treating it like some fucking cheap, cheap fucking token at a casino.

Gambling with the future of the children of this nation.

So yeah, we're you're goddamn fucking right we're communists.

You're goddamn right we're communists.

And we've never, never lied about who we were or what we believed.

Red gear.

We've never played entryism.

We've never tried to deceive anyone.

We've always told the truth.

You can't run from principle.

You can't run from whatever judgment heaven wants to deliver on earth.

You can't run from communism.

At the end of the day,

The only thing separating us from communism is what?

Bullshit economics.

Speculation and gambling and promises that will never be fulfilled.

What we have is what we have.

And we it's high time we decide what to do with what we have and who it should serve.

AI technology is based in data centers that are in your fucking neighborhood, in your town, in your fucking community.

It's not a fucking it's not a thing on the fucking stock market.

It's not a string of letters.

Camera, what's up?

It's not a string of letters.

On some ticker, it's not some symbol on the stock market, it's in your fucking neighborhoods, in your communities, built by you, built by construction workers, people just like you.

Who does it fucking belong to, huh?

Belongs to these people who have no loyalty to you?

No, it belongs to us, we the people, that's who it fucking belongs to.

Peace.

We've never hid who we were.

We've never fucking lied about who we were.

So who are the Patriots?

Who are the Patriots and who's America First?

And even Sneeko's more of a patriot.

As much as the things that Sneeko says, he's more of a patriot than the America First People.

Because Sneeko's not lying to the public about who he is and what reality is.

He's not lying.

Sure, he's saying a lot of things I don't agree with.

A whole lot of things I don't agree with.

But that's what he believes, and he's being honest about it with the public.

You know, I'm a Muslim, 100% I'm a Muslim and I'm a Shia.

1 million percent in my bones and my blood I am.

But at the same time, just like my Christian brothers understand that they've been bullshitted.

Since the time that the Lord's Prayer went from being about debt to something else, the same thing exists within Islam.

And if a part of that, actually, for that matter, if we want to talk about Christianity and Islam, I will never disrespect the cross.

I will never disrespect

The Christian notion of the Trinity, and I will never disrespect Christian depictions of Jesus or anything.

I will die before I fucking do that.

And I'll tell you why.

Because within Islam, within Islam, Jesus is not just one prophet among prophets, he is the Messiah.

And he is called in the Quran.

He is called in the Holy Quran.

Jesus, who was barefoot, who had nothing, who wore rags in the Holy Quran, what do they say about Jesus?

The son of Mary, what do they say about him?

He's not just a person, he is an ayah.

He was made an ayah, a sign, a sign of God among men.

When the Christian Bible calls him the Logos, the gospel, when he's called the Logos, the Quran agrees he is an I, he's a living ayah.

He's an incarnation of a sign directly from God.

He's not just a person, he's a sign.

He's a sign for humanity.

And you have to think very intelligently about what that means.

To be a why is Jesus a sign for humanity?

Because specifically what he did, yes, he was virtuous.

Yes, he was great.

But implicitly, and I will say something most Muslims will never agree with me about because they'll call me heretical.

The Quran agrees that the crucifixion of Jesus, and hold your horses, I know all the arguments, was the sign.

That's how Jesus became an ayah for humanity.

The very story of the crucifixion and even the resurrection.

Now, doesn't the Quran deny the crucifixion?

Doesn't it deny and doesn't it say there is a body double?

I have to have a frank conversation.

The body double interpretation became widespread in the medieval period.

Nowhere was there a universal dogma that there's a fucking body double.

I don't buy the body double idea, and it's not anywhere in the Quran that they say there's a body double, okay?

I frankly, and let me call me a fucking heretic.

I don't give a fuck.

It's not in the Quran.

It's a secondary interpretation, and I consider it pretty fucking stupid.

Let me just be fucking honest, all right?

I'm going to be like very direct and frank about how I feel about it and not just how I feel, what we can appraise.

Secondly, does the Quran directly deny the physical events of death and crucifixion?

No and no.

What it says is that when the Jews were boasting that they killed the Messiah, that they crucified him, that they did X, Y, and Z, the context is Allah is the best of planners.

They did not do these things.

God did these things to give humanity a sign to make and elevate Jesus, bring him up to God.

That's the language it uses, and make him a sign for humanity.

So God was the one who did everything.

And when they thought they had been victorious and they killed the Messiah, the point the Quran is trying to say is it backfired.

God is the best of planners.

You thought you defeated the Messiah, but the name of Jesus became the most widespread in the world.

Look at how this man who wore nothing on his feet, who was barefoot, who wore rags, look at how he conquered empires.

Look at how that name became the most powerful name in the world.

And that story conquered the hearts and souls.

Of huge swaths of the global population.

So that's why it's saying, no, you did not do these things.

But does it directly say?

Does it directly say

That it that the physical event that he did not die doesn't say that because in the Quran elsewhere don't fucking spam my fucking chat by the way in the Quran elsewhere it talks about how Jesus did actually die it directly confirms that he did die so how did he die right

It was made to appear so.

You need to understand the language that was used and study it yourself, because I've studied it a little bit.

It was made to appear so means basically something happened that confused them.

The spectate, like, they were confused.

And it was made to seem so to them.

But what was made to seem so was the physical event and a deception or illusion, or the real deception was this notion that they had actually prevailed over the Messiah and they did what they set out to do, which is kill him and destroy him.

Did they actually do that?

Of course they didn't.

Because Jesus lived on, you know.

So you have to think about what the language used actually meant.

I do not buy the body double thing and I don't think I think it's kind of ridiculous and we should study in medieval why in the medieval period this became widespread dogma for Muslims around the world.

It maybe has to do with the same factors that led to the decline of Islam and the ascendancy of Europe, I think.

The denial of the event itself.

Is kind of a denial of the sign, the ayah, that God sent Jesus to be, right?

So this is why I don't mock the crucifixion or I don't mock the Trinity because the Trinity is the best attempt in my understanding of humanity within Greco-Roman civilization, its best attempt to make sense of that sign while being constrained by the Greco-Roman logic from philosophy, right?

Okay.

Jensen, why are you quoting it?

They it's saying they didn't do it.

They're not it's not necessarily saying it never happened at all.

It's just what was the real actor and mover behind the events.

You have to think about it like that.

Was it all part of a plan or was it, you know, was there a body double?

I don't buy the body double thing.

I really don't.

All right.

And so let me be clear about the thing about respecting Christianity and Christians to me is not about a form of Takia to deceive American Christians.

I genuinely think.

that you know th there's no

It's unthinkable to be a Muslim who doesn't love Jesus.

It's just unthinkable.

It's unthinkable to be a Muslim who doesn't.

And they say, well, you're just kind of relativizing Jesus and dismissing him as like, you know, the way the Freemasons would say Jesus was just a wise sage and teacher.

Islam does not say Jesus was a sage.

Okay, it doesn't say he was just some wise sage.

It says not only is he a prophet and messenger of God.

Two, he's the Messiah.

Three, he is an ayah.

He was sent down to be an ayah, and the living sign of God.

Okay, so that's the same as when they say in the Christian gospel, when they say that Jesus is the word, the logos.

Ayah means the same thing basically in Islam.

It means sign.

Okay, and verses of the Quran are called ayah, right?

And collections of verses are called ayat, right?

So let me be clear about that first and foremost.

Um

Muslims should not

Approach Christianity with arrogance at all.

You should not because world history moved in such a way that Europe did get a leg up over the world of Islam, and Russia as well got a leg up over the world of Islam and Central Asia.

I mean, Russia proved.

For example, that the principle of their version of a universal Christian empire did sublate the type of Islamic civilization that existed in Central Asia and so on and so on.

And Europe colonized most of the world and prevailed over the Islamic empires.

Now, you can lament that and talk about how it was a grave injustice, or you should accept that.

Muslims somewhere along the line were interpreting things the wrong way or got something wrong.

And you should not be arrogant about Christianity when you approach this matter.

You should be very introspective and reflective.

So that's my honest view.

That's my honest to God view.

But in any case, it doesn't matter if I disagree with Sneko on his approach of Christianity or Christians.

Because at the end of the day, Sneeko is more of a Christian than Nick Fuentes on the Groipers.

1 million percent he is.

1 million percent, he's more.

He loves Jesus more than these discuss How can you love Jesus?

How can you love Jesus and lie so disgustingly like swine?

How can you love Jesus and feed evil and lies into the world like swine?

Okay.

And then, so, you know, as a conclusion, I guess, I think that.

I genuinely think that Sneeko should file a lawsuit.

And maybe he already is.

I think he probably already is.

But I hope he files a lawsuit.

And more power to him if he does.

Because it would be one thing if it's just jokes, but these people are genuinely trying to put him in danger and get him arrested and things like that.

And if you want to play legal games, you should win some legal prizes.

You want to be a little bitch at the playground and go tattletale to the teacher that you feel threatened when no one threatened you.

You want to play these kind of games.

You should get the prizes.

If you want to play legal games, get some legal prizes.

They're directly trying to paint Sneeko in a way that would justify his legal persecution and prosecution.

So Sneeko, I think the just thing for him to do is that what he should do is he should just sue them and take them to court.

You want to play those games, then fucking win the prizes, right?

Community notes not even up because on Elon Musk's X because this is a great segue because the the thing that the Islam is under attack right now

Because the it's this is the Hasburgh counteroffensive that everyone understands, but there is genuine animosity toward Islam that exists among Americans.

And the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that America never contacted Islam, and Islam happens to be very well suited to America.

It just is.

It's very well suited.

Islam's a religion of loneliness, and this is a very lonely country.

That's just the truth.

Islam is an extremely speaks to the lone traveler, you know, and that America is a nation of lone travelers.

That's what the Wild West was.

And this is not a very collectivistic country, but that doesn't mean it's a happy country per se.

It's a very lost country.

And

You know, Islam does speak to the American soul in a very powerful way, and that also creates the effect of a deep fear of Islam because of how compelling and and and tempting it is, I think.

And then the third thing.

I would say is that

You know, it's interesting.

America is a very interesting country because you look at countries like Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Russia, Romania, maybe Hungary or something.

All of these countries actively chose Christianity.

They did encounter Islam and they actively chose Christianity.

So these types of countries are real Christian.

You can say these, you know, you could say Spain is a Christian Catholic country.

Spain didn't have time to contact Islam.

No, it had plenty of time.

Some reason it actively chose Christianity.

Same thing with probably Russia.

You know, the Balkan countries, other countries, uh, Christians that live in the Middle East.

This is true for them, most of all, right?

Armenians, and so on, and so on.

So, you could say these are Christian populations, but America, it's a little ambiguous.

America hasn't contacted Islam yet.

So, whether America will choose Islam is just as unknown as whether Indonesia would have chosen it before anyone knew it chose it, or some other kind of people embraced a lot of people embraced Islam, and no one knew that would happen, and there was no sign that that was inevitable.

And America, it's things are up in the air, and that's why there's this intense scrutiny about Islam, and people are losing their minds about it.

Because we have not chosen Christianity yet.

Russia is not a crazy Islamophobic country because it knows Islam, it's learned how to coexist with Muslims, and Russia actively chose Christianity and is confident in that choice.

And therefore Russia is not doesn't feel existentially threatened by Islam.

But that's not true for America, right?

So, speaking of this crazy war on Islam, I don't know if we should begin with the

the buffoonery, but some of the scenes have gotten released and we're gonna watch some of these scenes together to talk about how, you know, it's just so obvious this Psyop attempt, but let's just let's just take it seriously, right?

This is like Zoomos or some shit.

My name is Ibrahim Asad.

So he uh right off the bat looks like Sasha Barakohn, looks like the most Israeli Jewish guy in the world.

We who love and serve Allah fought back against the Americans and the Zionists and established the glorious Caliphate.

It was a place where Muslims could live with dignity and find a refuge from the scourge of secularism and the lands of unbelief.

But unfortunately, your imperialism would not allow you to leave us alone in peace pursuing.

Look at all these naive college liberals who don't have any idea what their free Palestine pins really entail.

This is the message, basically.

Twas destroyed.

But the miracles of Allah

They never cease.

For here, today inside of your United States.

We establish a new caliphate.

May be small, but every soul who truly serves Allah.

is a whole world.

And only in a true caliphate can we truly serve Allah.

The great Satan America.

Will fall.

Okay, so this is the introduction clip, and I want to show you.

Um some more clips.

Very powerful footage.

Very symbolically powerful.

So you have the protest camps right here, you know, and then this.

This is so weird.

What is this?

So that's not it.

I have more to show you from the Daily Wires film.

Are you ready?

Because this is um

Okay, well the Daily Wire themselves post this clip.

So let's watch it together because this is, you know, emblematic.

This is the highlight of the whole thing, according to them.

You both did your part in our conquest and for this I am things.

Your government kills people all over the world.

They celebrate it.

You only cared when they look like you.

America destroyed our original glorious caliphate.

They tortured and imprisoned our Caliph.

But they could not kill our spirit.

Our purpose transcends the things of this world.

We just

Didn't expect so much death.

We have killed the right amount to instill fear.

Many we let run so they could tell others of our strength and the remaining ones or...

piano keys.

I expected more resistance.

But I should not be surprised.

So many in your country cannot even be bothered to produce children, but this is a day that you will tell yours about.

We're not we won't have kids.

I like everyone and Bruce I'm gay.

Mm.

So they didn't show it, but uh

So let's go back to it.

So Astra, please find a way to get the clip.

Um, like cut in because that was the wrong one.

So, this is the right one.

It's the same one, but it has more, you know, so we can see the reaction.

Let's watch it.

I like everyone and Bruce I'm gay.

Yeah.

They did a 300 Spartan kick.

They did a Leonidas Sparta kick in the Daily Wire film.

So, um

There's probably more clips we can we can uh watch.

to to watch this very scary movie, honestly.

Campus protests.

Yeah.

Just like they were in real life.

Yeah.

For sure.

Let's check it out.

Do you believe what you're doing here could really make a difference?

Every significant movement in history started with protesting.

What would you say to someone who doesn't understand this protest?

Zionism is a supremacist modality.

To decree that some people are chosen and others are not is ethnic cleansing disguised as nationalism.

Excuse me.

Uh PJ, I'm just a student here.

How many Jews are in Palestine?

How many Arabs in Israel?

The answer is zero Jews in Palestine, millions of Arabs in Israel.

So, which is the apartheid state?

Yes, well, the Jews aren't supposed to be there.

It's stolen land.

But you're on stolen land.

This whole area once belonged to the Menoccan tribal nation.

We know that, but we already honored them with the land acknowledgement on day one.

Oh, okay.

Okay, good, good.

So you probably know that before then, the peaceful Iroquois people thrived here.

But then one day, the Menachins rode in with their superior numbers to scalp their men, rape their women, and murder their babies.

All because they wanted this land and they liked killing it.

Yeah, this is the revisionist history, the mouth-breathing insult.

The Palestinians could have made Gaza a bustling metropolis.

The whole world gave them aid to do exactly that.

Instead, they voted in Hamas, a terror organization funded by the formerly alive fanatics of Iran, because they don't care about a homeland.

They just want to kill Jews.

Now you morons are turning my homeland into a borderless, lawless daycare for a bunch of third world scumbags who ate everything about America except our money.

Just see that.

Yeah, this is so ex-coded.

This is Elon Musk's ex-uh user.

Third world coded.

You know, this is uh what can we say?

Party of violence because you've got no good arguments.

You're lucky I'll make you class.

And how are you confused about cultural appropriation?

Wow, Mike Drop.

Matt Wallace loved that one.

Mike Drop.

The women of Lawton pretend to be

Uncontaminated.

But they are whores who prostitute themselves.

And the messenger of God said that one of the signs of the hour is that the slave girl gives birth to her master.

Huh.

You women shall be part of this prophecy, but

Yeah, i you know, there's a lot of Israeli connections to the porn industry and this is just typical pornographic.

Zionist propaganda.

I mean yeah, this is like someone really wrote this down and imagined it for sure.

Not like this.

Look here.

The cleave of the breasts.

The bare thighs

Is there nobody speaks this way?

This is some sick, porn-rotted, porn-brained nonsense.

Who talks that way?

Tis all haram.

Designed to make any man sin.

It's disgusting.

You women will cover yourselves properly after you have been washed of your whoredoms.

Divide them and line them up.

To be exploited.

You got to be tough with Egyptians.

They see kindness as a weakness to be exploited.

You got to be tough with Egyptians.

They see kindness.

This is not the American way.

The American way is your task forces and and your trials, your climate change and your abortions.

Yes, screw trials and I don't know what the whole abortion thing is about.

This is a blatant attempt to raise consensus for the elimination of our constitutional rights so that Israel can just shoot people without a trial.

So, I mean this is uh what we're dealing with.

We are witnessing a new wave and new harassment.

Uh who is running the space with geese?

Who's running it?

Because if I

If they're the ones running the space, it's like, you know.

Red Wolf?

Okay, maybe I'll join.

I have some things I want to get through first, and then maybe I'll join.

Okay.

You know, I need a way to contact Red Patriot.

Uh let me see.

I just told him I just sent him a message so I don't know if anyone's talking to him.

Alright.

So, uh we have some other stuff to cover.

And this one's uh a lot simpler.

So, Texas and Michigan are both reporting that they're out of diesel.

And for the first time in years, since 2022, I believe, I think that was 'cause of the Ukraine war.

The price of gas in Michigan has reached

Five dollars.

A gallon, for the first time,

And this is ahead of the midterms, and this is directly because of the Iran war.

And if you guys don't know this, there's no way out.

There's absolutely no way out.

Yeah, there's no exit strategy.

The the the strait is still closed.

All Iran holds all the cards and the US cannot do anything about it.

And I believe that when for a long period gas starts to be you know high up in the six, seven, eight, nine, ten range, the United States will no longer be united.

Shit will hit the fan.

People's anger will

Grow to such an extent that the world has never seen.

So, um, you know, we have we're looking at the end of the United States as we know it.

And people think that's you know saying a lot, but what really holds the country together anymore except the inertia of just people doing what they're used to?

And getting along, I think that when you can't afford gas anymore and when energy is too high and when food becomes too expensive.

That's when people start to crash out a little bit, and that's when the United States remain united no longer.

These are the cracks that will form and it'll accelerate in both directions for sure.

You're looking at this crazy film by the Daily Wire, you're looking at the inflammation of religious tensions and racial rhetoric, hatred will increase, nihilism will increase, violence will increase in every direction really.

And this will be aggravated by things like want and deprivation and economic frustration.

And I'm not talking about economic frustration as people used to talk about it.

I'm talking about people no longer being able to afford

filling their cars up with gas anymore, or going to the grocery store and getting groceries.

And at that moment, people will have no outlet with which to express their rage and frustration except in the way that they always have throughout history.

And I think you guys also need to consider another thing.

There's genuine Trump fans who are like, This is worth the price.

We gotta take out Iran.

It's a scary terrorist regime.

This is w I I'll gladly pay ten dollars.

What a cuckolded.

Those are the most cuckolded people in the country for sure.

Those are the most cuckolded.

People in America.

100%.

All right, guys, let's see if, um,

Red Patriot is not let me see.

Okay, he's here.

Alright, I'm gonna join his space.

Chef added five to the war chest put some seasoning on America.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you just hang on for a second, we might have a very special guest.

Oh boy, I don't know.

Goodness me.

I have a feeling it's gonna be um the Sultan himself.

You are right to address him as the Sultan.

You are right to address him as the Sultan.

Oh my god, August is here.

So the geese guy is gone.

What the hell?

Hey, what's up, guys?

So, the geese guy is gone.

That's crazy.

What happened?

He had to go.

He was already saying he had to go for quite some time, but he finally left.

Yeah.

I have a lot of them in my DMs.

I can try and wrangle one back in.

Yeah, bring a geese person for sure.

Davey, get one in.

You know, I think the.

And August being here is so random.

What's going on, August?

How are you?

Hello.

Hello, huh?

I'm very well.

How about you?

I'm fine.

So, yeah, you should bring a geese person here.

And also, I see Donald is here.

How are you doing?

Doing good.

We've been having an interesting discussion tonight.

So I so I just came when he left.

That's crazy.

What the hell?

Yeah.

We are having a very interesting talk, but I think it kind of devolved a little bit, unfortunately.

But the main question is just, you know, this geese line, you said, Hawes, that they've theorized the false line.

And that's kind of what we were talking about.

Can we build communism and an independent whole from within the DSA kind of electoral left populist drive?

Can we push them left?

Can we take this constituency that's electing these candidates and are they the revolutionary subject?

Or do we have to pursue a different route?

And I'm going to try and find some geese.

Especially Jay Ryder, but uh I think they all kind of

Let's see.

All right, I'm not saying I'm against his presence.

I'm just curious: why is August here?

I mean he was um we were just discussing a requested what's it wrong just it's just so no it's just so random.

No, no, no, not at all.

I just don't I didn't like I don't know like but what about this topic you're interested in?

I mean, I was listening to the space while working out like maybe an hour ago, right?

That's JP.

You guys started like an hour or something ago, right?

And yeah, we started.

I was listening to, yeah, I was listening to JB and Donald and PK, and they were just kind of going back and forth around the questions.

And I just thought that there were things that had to be said.

You know, the record had to be.

Sure, I'm not against it.

Not against it for sure.

And I thought Rev was also here.

Rev is not here?

No, no, it's just uh it's just me and JB and Donald and PK.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's quite the cast.

So uh JB, I wanna have you like host it and set the topics, you know?

Yeah, I'm I'm really disappointed.

As soon as you showed up, they scurried off.

It's pretty unfortunate, honestly.

Because I know you wanted to debate them.

Or just talk to them, you know.

Just have a talk for sure.

I mean, that's what I've been really excited to see.

Because I've been individually talking to the geese people and to Donald and, you know, trying to broach past the immediate hostility and the negative polarization that's in the left, especially as it pertains to our party.

And I was able to have this whole thing going on, this whole discussion, but they, the geese people, at least that element, they're gone.

So I have a question for Haas, which is I remember I was watching one of your streams the other night and you had something interesting to say about DSA, which was that you felt like that if DSA fails, it's going to be bad for like pretty much everyone, including you guys.

Was that the that wasn't a recent stream, was it?

That was an older one.

Maybe.

I don't know how far back it was.

It was maybe like a month ago or two months ago, maybe.

Yeah, I think, you know, I'm just kind of using DSA as a catch-all for the whole momentum surrounding the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Um, and yeah, I think, yeah, it's gonna fail, and I think we're all gonna suffer for it because whether we like it or not, even we, as long as we're out there, we're gonna be associated with that because there's a certain level of relevancy words like socialism or the left have in this country.

And the reason it has acquired the prominence that it has recently is, you know, there's a combination of things, but Zoron has basically been the like main driver of recognition, I guess.

The culmination, so to speak, of all the Palestine protests and this kind of nebulous association of like left-wing anti-Zionism and this new left-wing break with the mainstream, Democratic mainstream.

So, look, for the first time, the left wing has acquired distinction from the Democratic Party in the eyes of the conservatives, the Republicans, and also within the Democratic Party itself.

That fault line has become real in ways that it was never real before.

But the problem is.

My fear is this is like a 15 minutes of fame type of thing.

And if they don't handle it the right way or even recognize the contradiction they've been put in per se, which I don't think they do, and I think that the politicians are lining up to just have a seat in the Democratic Party establishment and basically sell out as they always do.

I mean, it's not a surprise.

Yeah, I think for sure, for the first time, a left wing is emerging in the country that is distinct from the Democratic Party mainstream.

And we're going to be associated with that and we're already being associated with it because there's no other way to classify us.

We could be classified as far-right extremists, and that was something that the mainstream was kind of trying to do in the Biden era because we stood against the regime as it was, you know.

But now that it's clear we don't, we're not pro-administration, so to speak, they're happy to just lump us in with the DSA and the rest.

and that whole phenomena basically.

So we're now in this strange situation where w we're in you know, we're in the room screaming out of the the soundproof glass or whatever, and like, what is that meme with Walter White or whatever?

Where he's like yelling and nobody can hear him.

That's us and that's basically yeah.

So yeah, we we're not it's not gonna be good for us.

Uh it's not gonna destroy us, but it's definitely going to, you know,

Um

make us clean up the mess, so to speak.

And we understand that, but it is what it is.

You know, it's not a very strong position to put your foot in the door right now to just say, you know, we're not like those other leftists, you know, retorting.

Well, yeah, it's it's not really no one's gonna buy it.

But I was gonna say though, like uh the argument I was making in the against the geese argument that we should like get behind AEOC 2028 because if we don't it will kind of leave the vacuum open to the liberals to like be the opposition, the MAGAs that you know, basically like, you know, the left isn't really ready to take power in 2028.

And if it does, it's going the shit to bed and it's just going to inflame the forces of reaction even further while wetting the left to the system and putting us in a position where we can't really.

you know, actually form an opposition and yeah, defend ourselves in the future.

And so you know, it will just end up being just as much displaying as the Liberals, except the left will have its name attached to it and and we'll just basically, um, hand it over to an even more intense right wing administration.

Right, because part of the deal is that the left wing has to take responsibility for uh basically everything that.

the liberals do, which is like under Biden, for example.

It's, I guess, lucky that the left was not completely, you know, having to take the blame for everything Biden was doing in that whole administration.

There was still not yet a distinction between the left and liberals.

But you know, I'll say in terms of the problem I have with AOC 2028 being a vehicle for making left-wing politics in the country mainstream is I actually think politics is so much more radically simple than that, which is to say you could think you're going in for the long game and you're kind of holstering your more radical consciousness in favor of a type of realism where you understand that this is an objective demarcation.

But when it comes to a decisive contradiction and confrontation, how things are defined happens so much quicker than any kind of protracted long struggle, which is to say, like AOC, unfortunately, this is just how it works in American politics.

It is not possible.

To fall outside of a one or zero binary where you are with the hegemony 100% or you are against it 100%, one or zero.

The space for ambiguity is snuffed out very quickly early on.

And I'm talking like that would be snuffed out during the primaries for AOC.

She would very decisively have to pledge allegiance to J Street and not just J Street and not just like, you know, she wouldn't be able to take the most maximally radical position when it comes to the left.

It's more like it would have to have been made clear that she is fully behind the Democrat hegemony and she has to like sell out before she even takes office type of thing, right?

And, you know, then I just want to say one more thing because I know I'm rambling.

The politics is radically simple.

We may think we can be intelligent and, you know, we have this intelligence where we see the long game.

But in a sense, they see the long game too.

And they don't allow it to remain ambiguous.

The second thing I would say, which is really important, I know this is a lot, but this will be the last thing, I promise.

There's a very difficult situation the left wing is in right now, which I've identified in the past.

Okay, so you basically have.

A thing where the Republicans and Democrats gatekeep the center, the center constituency, the swing voters, right?

So they gatekeep the swing voters in a masterful way, which the left doesn't know how to actually bypass.

So right now, if the left wants to fight with the Democratic Party over the Democratic Party constituency, what the Democratic Party is going to do is it's going to lean on the swing voters.

It's going to say, you're too radical.

We need to be more moderate.

Go toward the center.

Because if we're so radical, we're going to lose the swing states.

And we're going to lose the huge portion of voters who actually are undecided when it comes to where they lean.

There is a swing demographic in America.

It's not just.

You know, an extreme Democrat or extreme Republican.

You have a swing demographic.

The mistake the left makes is it's it tries to put all of its eggs in what it perceives as the more extreme liberals who will never ever even think of swinging.

When the truth is, the center in America is very radical, actually.

Because the real center demographic in America, the people that we identify as swing voters, primarily in the Rust Belt, you know, disaffect people, proletarians, basically disaffected by industrialization, those people have a lot of anger and rage against the system.

And what the Democrats and Republicans do is they compete over how it's articulated.

Mainly, what's been going on, though, and the left is so stupid they can't understand this.

What's been going on is the Democrats have been selling the enraged swing voter.

Moderation, like trust the system, trust the status quo, let us appease you, bring you back in, we can pursue reform.

The Republicans give them anger, the Republicans give them hatred, the Republicans feed and kind of make them more radical, actually.

And if the left was able to speak to rage better and play into those that disaffection in a better way, suddenly they have leverage with which to challenge the democratic establishment.

AOC, let's assume, like, forget the baggage, right?

I'm not an ideologist, so let's forget the baggage about AOC, you know, being who she is, right?

AOC can go to the Democratic Party establishment.

Let's just assume AOC represents the left.

So this is the left versus the Democratic Party establishment.

A O C

Has no leverage against them unless she would be able to use the center, so the quote-unquote center constituency.

So if AOC came to them and said, and Bernie got very dangerously close to this in 2015, which is the whole secret of the whole phenomena and why that had any promise at all, they genuinely have reason to fear.

If they can no longer gatekeep the center, and now you have a radical, not the radical center in the, you know.

sense that that the term has acquired, you know

In Europe or whatever, third way politics, but like you know, the disaffected swing voters basically who are undecided or genuinely political independents, apolitical people who don't vote, those people are all kind of considered the center.

Because the mistake the left makes, just because you don't fall in either Republican or Democrat, that doesn't mean you're in between those two parties.

It means you're actually somehow outside of.

Any vested interest in siding with either one, right?

And the left, if it wants to distinguish itself from the Democratic Party establishment, it actually needs to have a leverage in terms of support among sections of the masses that have not yet been fully consolidated, right?

And otherwise, AOC is riding the coattails of the Democratic Party.

She's going to leave it to the Tammany Hall, you know, Democratic Party dinosaur establishment, which has its foothold in all these different kinds of communities, the black community, other communities, and knows how to game the center, the unions that Biden had connections to.

AOC is going to leave that to the adults, and she's just going to speak.

She's going to represent the kind of younger, more youthful, millennial demographics who are not decisive in swinging.

Uh, politics in the country between either or, they're always going to be solidly Democrat anyway, and that's kind of the setup we have.

That's all I want to say.

We managed to round up some geese, so let's hear the geese for sure.

I'll be brief.

Um

I think most of what you say is actually correct.

I do agree, actually.

Like you're what you're saying is mostly correct, but I doesn't really, I don't see it as an argument against like, to me, it's almost like sort of complaining that Father Gapan is like a Christian or something, you know, or like with Bernie, for example, complaining about like his failure.

Like clearly, I agree.

You know, if she governs, she'll govern like Momdani, i.e., she won't fire Tish.

She won't, you know, change things significantly.

And she may even be popular, right, among Democrats in a way that like Obama was.

But, you know, she's not going to do socialist governance.

And I guess for me, the question is our orientation to it.

And like you said yourself, this is sort of an opportunity of socialism entering this age.

And these things are very simple.

Is that I feel like this is an opportunity for us to take a lot of people who are not captured by AOC's politics, who don't identify with her, except insofar as she is the most radical candidate, quote unquote, on the table right now.

And to provide a leadership to those people, a poll to those people.

I don't really see any other way that we can have like a sort of mass socialist party outside of like, I don't think like these methods of like social media or activism are capable of building anything out of that.

I think we need to break off this tenant.

And I think liberals are a lot more bloodthirsty than you're giving them credit for.

The center is very radical.

The right is very radical.

I think that's the sort of rational kernel of MAGA communism.

But liberals are dying, right?

They're dying to cut Trump's head off and whatnot.

That's what all the scandals are about.

And the Democrat leadership is denying them that.

So these people are oriented towards progress, are oriented towards socialism.

And they're like begging for a leadership that wants to actually stand up and fight this sort of like anti-democratic measures that are dominating our country.

I see that moon unmuted.

So.

Well, just to build on it, because it's true.

I mean, the thing is, you use this word center, which you complicated it later in a way that I think is better.

But you used it at first just to talk about like Rust Belt.

I guess you would call him like Obama to Trump voters or whatever, which is which is fine.

But to add to that, the working masses of this country are under direct political violent assault by the Trump administration.

And the way that manifests is quite literally through concentration camps, through murder in the streets, through occupation in neighborhoods.

And we're not a decade away from the largest mass movement, you know, almost in the history of this country with BLM, which was a 20-year-long movement of the working masses fighting against state repression and state violence and the occupation of police.

And what you have here is an ideological regime that is committed not only to the white nation and the Christian nation and the American nation, and they are worried about these things that are dying.

And so they are violent.

They are interested in destroying their enemies.

Their propaganda mills are constantly turning and turning and turning and encouraging people to put down the left, to end any sort of semblance of bourgeois democracy, to wipe away all these problems of constitutional, you know, obstreperous.

No president has been able to work through the system as the system is designed.

It doesn't work.

Even the people who believe in the system understand that the constitutional system doesn't work.

And so as a result, there is a mass radicalism, like you're saying, across the political spectrum.

And people are just looking for leadership.

People want somebody to solve these problems.

And so the fascists are offering a solution to these problems.

And again, it's a simple politics.

But what I'm interested in is responding to this specific political crisis that we face.

And right now, the crisis is going to come to a head over the question of presidential succession and presidential power.

And so I think any socialist response in this particular political moment has to revolve around the question of presidential power and presidential succession, because that is the battlefield, the terrain that the nationalists are interested in contesting.

And that's where mass violence and mass movements can actually come in and institute, kind of open the door of revolution, is what I'm saying.

That's what the Democratic Revolution is about.

It's about saying there's this moment in which the people decide whether the oligarchs and the Epstein class and these nationalist thugs can decide history or do the people decide history.

Can the people come in and turn their Abraham Lincoln into a radical abolitionist?

Even though Lincoln didn't want to be an abolitionist, Lincoln didn't want to get rid of slavery, but he was compelled to by his mass movement and their response to the reaction against them, which is evident because what did January 6th happen?

January 6th happened against Joe Biden, who was considered to be as moderate as you could get within the Democratic Party.

They were willing to coup the government for Joe Biden.

So imagine what they would do for AOC.

Even if you think AOC is an obvious moderate, that's true.

But from the perspective of a nationalist, she is an insane far-left loony.

They will not allow her to take power peacefully.

And I think that is kind of this question where there's an immediate political concern that needs to be addressed.

And so the people demand leadership.

And if we're going to have leadership, we need to actually stand on the battlefield of presidential politics.

And AOC is the most radical candidate who is willing to run and who could win.

And so that's what I'm interested in her as.

I don't care really how she governs because I think she's going to govern as a social democrat.

She's going to govern as a coward Mamdani type.

She's not going to fire Tish.

She, like I said, I'm not interested in that.

What I'm interested in is an organization putting as much of a socialist bloc together to put themselves in positions of power that when this revolutionary crisis arises, there is an organizational base, a leadership base from which the revolution can be defended and radicalized against the efforts of the right to snuff it out and to kill people and to solve the crisis in their own way.

So I know I'm rambling, but that's what we're talking about here.

Can I briefly jump in and just, I'll say one thing very shortly.

This might sound ridiculous, but I do genuinely believe it.

But like you guys should, like you guys would win if you ran as Democratic ballot candidates in the next cycle.

When AOC runs, it's going to be a massive socialist ideological crisis.

Millions of people are going to be like, what's socialism?

I want to know what this is.

And a lot of people who are not going to be able to win in normal cycles will be able to win down ballot AOC.

I think that's something that should be considered by all organized left forces currently.

Right, but we have to run on a platform of.

President system.

That's correct.

Of course, to run.

Sure, that's what I'm advocating for running for Congress.

I just think that running for the existing system and relying on this population.

No, no, no, no.

I'm saying ECP should run.

So I think I'm going to try to break down what both of you guys said really quickly and simply into two points.

The thing is, I mean, to put it bluntly, I am not an overly ideological person when it comes to being emotional about it and stuff.

So look, I'll grant the attempt to be as realistic and pragmatic as possible.

The argument I'm saying is that even according to that logic, I don't think AOC can actually win.

And if she does win very early on, the opportunity for a distinct socialist bloc will have already been snuffed out.

And I can say why, actually, I think.

You know, I don't know who talked after PK.

I think it was Moon.

Yeah, right.

You know, the problem with.

Looking at BLM and other kind of movements, and it's like just saying this is just the working class, right?

Well, look, a lot of that could be the working class, but when a country is polarized 50-50, when you have a 50-50 split and a division, you're looking at a situation where the working class is divided at the very bare minimum, right?

You have a divided working class.

And so I think there's two things you guys are kind of overlooking when it comes to your appraisal of like there's this fight between the people and the um fascistic, you know, like undemocratic Republican Party and its agenda and the regime.

I think there's basically two flanks you're kind of neglecting when you're primarily associating the people with the Democratic Party and primarily associating the regime with the Republican Party, right?

Although there's grains of truth in both.

And I'll name them.

The first one is the Bill Mayher thing.

Okay.

I would not underestimate that many of those angry Democrats you're talking about would sooner go Republican before they do Hassan Piker.

The Hassan Piker craze is very illuminating as far as how the Democratic Party constituency is divided.

It's not that some Democrats are closer to the center politically and they're like, oh, I'm a reasonable person, I'm not a fanatical one.

It's like, wait, what?

Hassan is making apologia for the Soviet Union.

Hassan is too soft on the Ukraine war.

Hassan went to China, is in sympathetic with the CPC.

The same burning heart liberals who are angry for one reason or another, because of their class basis, they will always fundamentally be hostile to a distinctly socialist politics, according to the same logic by which they're hostile to MAGA, if not more.

And I think that a lot of people are waiting for the big moment to see and prove how a lot of these Democrats will decisively say, hey, this isn't my party anymore if the Hassan Piker people will win out.

I think that would happen.

And it's going to be bigger, a bigger section of the Democratic Party electorate who are not the swing state voters, but are the famous average Democrat wine mom.

Yeah, behead Trump or whatever.

But she also is probably very hostile to distinctly socialist politics.

That there are genuinely principled divisions between liberals and Hassan, even Hassan Piker-style socialists.

When it comes on, for example, being moderate when it comes to NATO or Ukraine, there's some overlap Hassan Piker has with Trump that he doesn't share with Democrats and liberals.

Like, that's very real.

I'm not saying he's closer to Trump.

I'm saying like the political mapping of Democrat versus Republican doesn't actually speak to this general contradiction you're talking about between the democratic aspirations of the masses, quote-unquote, like the historical Leninist sense, and the fascistic tendencies of the imperialist hegemony, right?

So like you're looking at a situation basically where it's not enough.

The problem is a gate-kept center, and the people in that center are people who are not in between Democrat and Republican, but fundamentally misaligned with the regime.

And if Democrats turn on the socialist bloc, the socialist bloc by that time will not have done enough to win.

That radical anti-center, whatever we want to call it, and they'll be alone.

It's like tough shit.

You're completely encircled and isolated.

And the second thing I'll say, and I'll try to be quick about it, is that um

Regarding this thing about like how the uh the center is um gatekept by both the Democratic and Republican party and like that being the main thing, so to speak.

You know, when you have a situation where um

Uh, how should I put it?

The the the main problem right now in U.S.

radical politics is, like I said, very early on, the distinctions are snuffed out.

The notion that there's going to be this ample room and space for like socialist organizing because an AOC election, I mean, that's going to be snuffed out very early and very quickly and decisively.

Like, I'm not worried about AOC winning the presidency at all.

I'm not saying, oh, well, she's going to sell out.

I mean, she's already sold out, so it's superfluous.

What I'm saying is, very early on,

There's going to have to be a decisive confrontation.

That's going to have to resolve itself in some way.

Where is the socialist bloc or the left going to get the leverage to make the Democratic Party establishment bend?

Because I don't think the current Democratic constituency is enough.

Because what's that missing factor in addition to the Bill Meher one?

It's the Tucker Carlson one.

The disaffected MAGA people.

That is a huge.

You're talking about a lot of people with...

disaffection and who are being impacted by the current regime, but not all of those people are extreme Democrats.

A lot of them are ex-MAGA people, Candice, Tucker fans.

I mean, the left right now is just labeling them ideologically and saying, well, they represent some ideology, some fascism.

The truth is, these people are part of that radical anti-center who have not found or found a way to completely articulate their opposition to the regime.

And so there's all sorts of eclectic directions.

They're going in, Professor Jong, whatever.

That's who socialists need to be fighting for right now, in my view.

I guess if you just let me take one second on this, because I do think that the Democratic constituency, you are misunderstanding it, only in the sense that, or at least not misunderstanding it, but misappreciating its ability to break in a lot of different directions right now.

I could agree with you that there isn't a majority in the Democratic constituency for communism or even for socialism, because there is a chunk of it that is wealthy, suburban, et cetera, moderate.

That is true.

But the thing about the Democratic constituency is that they are incredibly distrustful of their leaders at this particular moment because they feel like they've failed them consistently over the course of the past 20 years and that they have utterly in every way, you know, failed to represent their interests in a basic way.

And they're afraid because they're getting murdered and because they're getting arrested and they're and they're, you know, they're worried that everything that they hold dear is going to be taken away from them.

Even the ones who have things that they hold dear, like the people who actually have things that they're worried about are concerned about losing them because they see Trump as coming to take it, let alone all the people in the Democratic constituency that don't possess anything at all.

And so are interested in somebody who might actually provide something for them.

So I agree with you that it's not a for sure thing that the Democratic constituency would take a turn towards revolutionary politics.

But what I do know is that there is a chance that they would listen to it because you can demonstratively see it because people like Derelisa Avilia Chevalier would never have been elected in any other era in American history.

There would never be people who had tweeted or said things about being a communist who would be elected in any other period that wasn't when socialism or communism was in its least marginal position.

And the amount of fear that the bourgeois has for these candidates, the amount of disdain that they hold for them, the amount of lies and vitriol they throw at them, even when they're moderates, even when obviously they're social democrats and they're not actually interested in revolutionary politics, it demonstrates that people are interested in revolutionary politics.

They want leaders that are interested in it.

So I'm not saying for sure that the Democratic constituency is like ready to abandon their leaders or whatever.

But what I'm saying is that there is a broad terrain that is available for us to contest, that we can say, we will lead you in your struggle against these fascists, against these nationalists that are destroying us.

And so we have to actually.

Right, but here's the thing is.

I also have things to say.

I want to respond a little bit.

I think your first point, I think it's actually right.

This is probably one of the main problems with Trumpism as a social force that it forces the, as you're saying, the sort of progressive section of the Democratic Party, the Hassan Tiger Heights, let's say, into alliance with the suburban House owners, right?

It's because they're in this common unity against Trump's anti-democratic, whatever.

If those forces split.

What's confusing to me is why this is being presented as a bad thing, right?

Like, I think that's great.

I think the forces that are relatively progressive should split and form an independent poll from those that are not.

And I think this is like the sort of, as you're identifying yourself, this is the material way that this is happening, right?

This is how that actually happens.

They, you know, socialists have reached some crisis point.

They can't stand each other anymore and the entire field orients.

And this is like the basis for a party, in my opinion.

Like, and this is, I guess, came up before you were on.

We were talking about what constitutes a party.

And our argument is that like a party is not just sort of like a formal name, but it's leadership of a social base, right?

A sort of fraction of society.

And the reason we don't think XYZ is a party is because or because they're ideologically problematic, right?

We don't think the field exists objectively for a party.

And the center isn't enough on its own either.

I don't think that we should win over the center.

I'm not against that at all.

But it's also, we should also win over this progressive section of the Democratic Party.

And if it is able to split, let's say, with this homeowner section.

I guess what I'm saying is like the progressive section: the progressive section only requires legs when it unites with a broader social base than currently it is.

And it can't unite with the suburbanites because they are decisively and materially opposed to them.

Here's the thing to put them from the suburbanites.

But if the split happens, then somehow they have to go and align themselves with these like Tucker people or whatever.

And it's like, is the left ready to do that right now?

It just doesn't seem it seems like, for example, like Hassan is he's witnessing a contradiction between Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens, and he's like taking Nick Fuentes' side.

So it's like he's they're not really preparing for it well, in my view.

Wait, what do you what exactly do you mean by that?

How is he like taking Nick Fuentes' side?

Because basically, there's this.

Because he's like saying that Candace Owens is like a low IQ anti-demite or whatever.

Yeah, exactly.

He's kind of repeating that.

He's taking the same thing.

He's kind of right, though.

I mean, like...

Well, no, it's worse, though, because it's not just that he's saying it's low IQ stuff.

What he's saying is when Nick Fuentes is saying that Candace Owens has betrayed the right, and what Candace Owens is doing is, you know, giving the left a pass when it comes to Charlie Kirk and protecting the left, and that the left is guilty, and that, you know, the left, the main thing is that the left needs to be cracked down on and they're guilty.

And Candace Owens is like, you know, being an accomplice of this left and you know, betraying them.

Hassan is basically saying, yes, you're right, Nick.

We are responsible.

We are guilty.

We do deserve to be cracked down upon.

And Candace is our useful idiot.

And like, the problem is, Candace Owens' audience is way bigger than Hassan's, represents a much broader spectrum of people.

And when he's agreeing with Nick Fuentes on this very decisive split.

That his way of framing the conflict, it's not about a conflict over being a shill for the regime and for the Epstein class.

It's about the typical dichotomy between this caricature of the left that is dominant among the Republican right versus like Matt Walsh.

It's like Hassan Piker is taking Matt Walsh and Nick Fuentes aside, you know?

But who is who is Tucker right now actually attacking?

Because if you watch Tucker, what he's doing right now is attacking Trump.

Because Trump has become the signifier of the Epstein class and this oligarchy.

So my point is more that if we are going sure I'm not disagreeing with you about Biden, but I'm talking about right now we have to engage with politics as it is right now.

Yeah, and right now Donald Trump is president.

Also, yeah, that's true.

That's what I am saying.

Here's my point about the final.

Let me make a point here about Biden.

In 2020, what DSA basically did is, and this was the worst period for DSA, is that DSA basically took up this strategy that we were going to be like the left wing of the Biden administration and that we would be critical of the Biden administration or whatever, but we would still basically try to kind of, you know, because you have people who are vaguely aligned with Bernie Biden administration and stuff.

So the idea was that DSA was kind of going to be like the loyal opposition Biden.

And not everyone in DSA agreed with this.

So this was kind of like the basic idea guiding DSA practice, which was, you know, we were going to get the PRO Act passed and we were going to kind of basically try to get Biden the New Deal type stuff.

And then the rail strike happened and that was a disaster.

But even worse obviously was, you know, the cause of genocide.

And that basically forced the US left to go into opposition to Biden.

And so, when we see this division in the Democratic Party, where there is this real left-wing antagonism that's developing, if.

AOC ends up going in the governance, and you basically end up having a repeat of what you saw with Biden, even more attachment to the state.

What's going to happen is that antagonism is going to be snuffed away, and that split that you're hoping for is going to be, you know, it's going to be extinguished, I think.

That's that's my theory about what early on, I think.

Very quickly.

Becoming an independent party is just going to be like extinguished if the SA goes in on AOC presidency.

So, the fact that AOC and the Democrat or the DSA in 2018 been split from the Biden administration and onward and so forth is obviously all true, but it's sort of like blaming a dog for barking.

Like we were saying earlier, too, this is like the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, right?

These are Democrats, these are liberals, these are people who are largely come from those places.

And even will take ideological stances against the Democrat Party, right?

This is the practical upshot, right?

This is how they relate to other people, so on and so forth.

The center, what you're saying about the left failing to beat the center is also, you know, it's true and it applies also that means to the center to the left, right?

There's a failure of unity here.

I don't think it's like sort of subjective on the level of like Hassan's not nice enough to them.

I think there needs to be a social crisis to reorient these kinds of things.

What's up, collagen?

The decisions are entirely because of the existing political coalitions now that relate to Trump, right?

So the idea, I think, with AOC is that she's going to cause this crisis.

And if we're able to.

Build a socialist poll in that section.

That's the gain out of it, right?

The gain is not that socialist egoc is good, that he's not going to be a sellout or do socialist governance at all.

It's that this is a moment for us to establish an independent poll.

I just think the way the left is set up right now is it's just it's cornered, right?

I mean, I don't see on the horizon, it'll collapse.

I don't see on the horizon a free and emancipated left.

Let's say it's you know completely split from the Democratic Party.

I don't see it as mature enough or capable enough at this point of being able to do.

And I think this is the essence of Marxism, you know, from the beginning, which is it doesn't really have this dialectics where it can then take its very radical politics and independently build its own base realistically that could serve as the foundation of that.

So, you know, uh, Donald read he's a student probably of Mike McNair and Lars Lee, and the significance of what German social democracy was doing with this idea of merging Marxism with the workers' movement, right?

That actually took a lot, okay, by way of um.

transforming this kind of nebulous, fleeting radical sentiment that individuals have into this kind of disciplined, concentrated effort of dialectically comprehending the kind of unity, the kind of simultaneity and

How do you put it?

The coincidence between having like radical revolutionary politics and being able to ground that into something that's actually materially real and actually exists, right?

And that's the thing, I don't think that that exists among the U.S.

left today.

I think one of the decisive things about Marxism historically, whether we're looking at Russia, where Lenin is polemicizing against the Narodniks and anarchists, or we're looking at the early foundations of social democracy in Germany with the Erfurt program and so on and so on, and early Kotsky and so on.

I'm not huge fans of them or whatever, but like all Marxism and the world had in common this distinct line from the rest of the left, which said, actually, we need to buckle down and unite our principles with reality in some way.

And we have to be accountable scientifically to the way in which we're doing that.

When we're just kind of sitting on the sidelines and saying, well, let's wait for this development that we perceive to happen and then we can kind of do that.

I think Marxism says, no, actually, we have to start doing it right now.

We have to do it now.

And once we do that, we can make all sorts of pragmatic decisions regarding how we intervene in the world of politics.

But when we're not doing the square one of building an organization, some kind of collective

Ability to say, I'm an individual, I have an opinion, but I'm going to form a collective with others who have different opinions than me, but agree on a bare minimum of shared principles.

And we're going to try to scientifically intervene in reality in a way that is accountable, even as like an experiment.

Like, there's a failure, there's a success, this works, this doesn't work, and so on and so on.

And I think Marxism has always been decisive.

In basically demanding this and not saying, you know, we're gonna hope that in the future Marxism will be possible.

It's saying, no, Marxism is possible now.

There's a correct line and there's a false line, basically, you know?

And I guess I don't know.

I don't wanna like divert the conversation away from AOC 28, but the thing I've always just found confusing about your guys' position is it's like.

Even if you're drawing from when Lenin was writing in left-wing communism about taking advantage of the contradictions within the British Labour Party, which is very different from the Democratic Party.

Isn't Lenin's reasoning dependent on proletarian political independence?

Like, why do we have this idea that maybe in some qualified sense a mass Communist Party could only emerge under certain special conditions?

But when Lenin formed

Uh the I I don't precisely remember what it was called before he joined and merged into the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.

You're talking about a handful of people, you know?

And the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in the beginning was not even really big, right?

So why did they wait why didn't they wait for these crucial developments before

doing the what they considered the bare minimum of Marxism.

Like they didn't say we're going to wait for the cadets to develop in a more radical direction before we actually form our own independent organization.

Well, I guess there's two things here.

The first to loop back to, I guess, the AOC 28 stuff, is that I think we do agree on this idea of building and like actively building.

I think this question is like of.

And where we break with you in like the sect uh the various sects is that

It's like internal building, like you guys are building within yourselves, not building structures among the democratic masses that we're talking about, this progressive section.

But isn't the whole point of Leninism in a sense that we do have to actually build among ourselves first before we can even have the subjective disposition with which to address the masses?

We can't address the masses.

Like Lenin himself, you know, like, what does he credit Marxism becoming a mass force in Russia?

No, but he says legal Marxism, you know, the czar.

And that's why he says, okay, that's why we're talking about the majority of the market.

But the premise has always been he's speaking from the perspective of an already militant, organized, what you would call a sect.

And he even says, when we first formed, we were called a sect.

We were no bigger than a sect, right?

And so that's the square one with which he's talking about how, well, legal Marxism is helping it reach the masses.

Of course, we want to reach the masses, but who is reaching the masses?

Organized collective of Marxists or individual Marxists with good ideas?

Well, that's not true.

Legal Marxism was what was reaching the masses, and legal Marxism was cut off Marxism to justify the political parties.

But what I mean is, what I mean to, I'm not against what you're saying at all.

I do think that people should obviously organize and they should even organize in parties.

I guess my question is, what is the orientation, right?

And this orientation is like on building the party, I'm building the cadre, and expanding and doing more work.

That wasn't Lenin's orientation, which is why he was able to see that with something like legal Marxism.

I think Lenin was to speak for a social class.

Sure.

And by doing that, he was able to actually lead that social class at a later point.

And, you know, this idea of having a separate organization to me is not is like a big difference.

Well, what we have to talk about upon the inception of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, Lenin did not have a ready-made capacity with which to go out and immediately change Russian politics or reach the masses.

They had to start very patiently and they had to speak German, so to speak, you know, instead of speaking French.

I mean, in the beginning, that's what they had to do.

And especially after 1905, that's what they had to do.

They had to do what they could to both build capacity internally and also follow the exact copy of German social democracy, which was reach the workers' movement, bring Marxism to the workers' movement.

So before we're even directly talking about the masses, they were doing something more targeted and specific.

Now, the thing about the masses and the broad masses comes from Lenin and his idea of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

That was contentious within Russian social democracy, and that was his interpretation of how Kotsky's theories could be applied in the Russian context, plus his own analysis of the development of Russian capitalism.

But in any case, the square one is always the formation.

I mean, people say organization, but the formation of a type of subject, which is like a collective subject.

And that is the only subject that is capable of reaching the masses within Marxism or within the language of early social democracy, so to speak.

All right, and in many ways, I do agree with you.

I was, you know, like almost my entire life, I was in the CPSA, so I'm a party man at heart.

But it's again, it's about this question of orientation, right?

It's like they didn't.

They took an orientation of we're going to develop a critical line among the masses.

We're going to write in these newspapers about spreading this political line, this political understanding among people.

And it doesn't feel like that's what, or not doesn't feel like, but it feels like these things are more like membership association groups where the goal is not to spread a critical line, like, for example, Democratic Revolution, but to you know, expand the party and have more people joining.

And of course, we need capacity, but to be fair, it feels like that takes problem.

One of the things we get regularly accused of is we only care about social media and going viral.

But it's like the reason ACP has that bad association is because we feel we're very faithfully following, yes, the Isquraistic, whatever orientation that how Lenin defines how to actually start a party and build a party and grow one, is that you cannot become an inward sect and freeze and succumb to these kinds of dynamics.

You have to go viral.

You have to always be out there and not just grow, but also try to do as best as you can to be relevant.

And look, ACP, I mean, if you were to call us a sect right now, I'm not going to get offended at all.

Like, I wouldn't take offense to it.

I don't see it as a sect because I see a bigger future, right?

But I'm realistic enough to know that our organization, our party, is nowhere near as relevant in the country as the DSA is right now.

Like, Bill Mayher is not talking about us on his show.

And, you know, from another person's perspective, we are a sect, right?

Like, I understand that.

But.

Given how we've started from nothing, like at all, and we've become what we have, I mean, if we alone can do that.

Doesn't that speak to the limited imagination of the broader left?

Like, if it's if we could somehow get all of this from scratch, like.

I'm not saying, I'm not exaggerating our significance.

It does.

I mean, it does, it does mean, I think you're right that there's a lack of imagination, right?

But what is virality without political content that actually leads the masses, right?

Because I agree with you that virality is essential.

And I would argue one of the things that has held the left back, especially the organized left, is this kind of distaste for the internet virality and chasing internet virality.

Because I agree with you, like attention is an essential element that we need to all kind of try to seize because our attention has been commodified as a collective.

Yeah, I think all of us can agree that more attention needs to be put towards the internet and actually utilizing the internet as a tool of party building.

But I think you need to take advantage of this cybernetic information society that has been rapidly developing and kind of encompassing everything.

But you know, in the beginning, the actual just to just to finish my point, I mean, I don't, I'm not saying or like dismissing that you guys might have grown over the past couple years, like I'm sure you have, and you'll probably grow over the next couple of years because you guys are good at comms and social media and you're very effective at it.

You go viral.

But again, it's this question of there are pressing political questions that millions of people care about, that millions of people are actually interested in.

And that is what the focus of the ACT is.

I understand your critique.

You're basically saying, you know, we're not using the virality toward anything that seems to immediately have concrete political content.

But the thing is, if you look at the beginning of Iscrub and what the task of the all-Russian newspaper was initially, it wasn't immediately about advocating a specific candidate or political line immediately.

Yes, it was building toward this comprehensive understanding of the need of a democratic revolution and supporting the forces of democratic revolution.

But more importantly, it was about communicating to the Russian masses or the Russian workers, the proletariat more specifically, and the peasants, of course, what their situation was, holding a mirror to them and saying, look at look very clearly at the contradictions that you now face.

It was a way of magnifying and articulating for them to them at scale that they could actually have a cognitive mapping of the contradictions and understand these are the lines of demarcation, you versus the bourgeoisie, you versus the extreme.

I mean, you're not wrong.

You're not wrong, but I just think you're, again, you're falling to the limited-mindedness because in some ways you're being economistic.

Like you're saying only these contradictions.

Like I'm talking about people demand a full political life, right?

They demand, but not immediately using the virality to before you can advocate for a positive political program, you need to draw the political lines and have a specific way of magnifying a specific correct understanding of what is a relevant political distinction right now.

I don't think politics is about policy.

I think politics is about power, right?

So when you are very tirelessly working toward clarifying that there's a contradiction between an extra-constitutional, non-democratic regime that is nowhere enumerated in our U.S.

Constitution and violates our popular sovereignty, that may seem like a truism for most people.

But an organization which is dedicating a lot of its resources to getting that message out there and making sense of why it is is taking the first steps to building the foundations of political consciousness.

But you have to actually demonstrate it.

Like you have to demonstrate it in the real world.

And the way you demonstrate it in the real world is to bring one second.

Let me just get the full thing with this because the thing about it is if you're going to demonstrate, for example, that there is such a difference between an extra-constitutional constitutional governance, if such a thing actually means anything to the millions of people, which it would because one represents violence upon their lives that the other does not.

And I guess the thing about it that we actually have to draw out is it has to be drawn out in the real world.

And we do that by running AOC.

We do that by the same contradiction.

I think it would be more efficient to focus on our capacity building combined with having excursions into more local settings where these kind of contradictions can be brought out concretely, even at the most local town level of politics.

Now, that's very modest, and that's not as ambitious and big as a presidential run.

But we have to start from somewhere.

We can't begin from the top.

We should have a solid position about what's happening at the national scale.

But the only way we're going to be able to build the capacity necessary to ever getting to a point.

Where we could address the nation at the scale of the nation is we have to take small steps, like Lenin said.

We have to speak German, we have to be very patient.

We can't just like have a Lenin point here: is that you know, like he did start with a political program, that was day one.

You know, I think that's like no, I'm not against having a program, but it's about the content of the Lenin political program, right?

It's 1895, what the friends of the people are.

It's all identifying what the different classes are and what the path forward is and a revolutionary uh democratic government for Russia, right?

This to me is like real line struggle.

This to me is like real political content, and like this is to me is what seems to be avoided.

But hold on, if our if we're talking about what the minimal speaks from the orientation of are we leading these masses, are we engaging the masses?

What is the progressive section?

What should they do?

He speaks from this orientation of, okay, I'm a Marxist, I want to get a bunch of other Marxists to join me, right, and organize together.

That's what Lenin had perspective.

No, it's not.

He spoke from the position of what are the tasks of the revolutionary masses, but from the perspective of Paul, he was just, as he said, they called him a sect, they called him a class collaborationist, they called him a populist, but no, no, but he needed to join this yes, but he was doing so from the perspective of the theory from German social democracy, from Kotsky and so on and so on.

Um, Lenin was formulating a program that, yeah, it wasn't simply an import of the you know, the dogmas of Marxist orthodoxy from the Second International, but that even the minimal program of Lenin was not immediately, and this is what I'm trying to say, it wasn't immediately concretely self-evident to the masses.

Work had to be done to build the necessary foundations by which the masses could receive and meet such a program with clarity and understanding.

It wasn't an immediate set of slogans that were the program.

At least the original one.

But like my point is, like, a lot of the ACP virality that I see, it's not really about like it's not really about bringing some kind of program to the masses so much as it's just kind of like about establishing an ACP.

Well, I think trying to take your program as a gospel to the masses and say, hey, we have the solutions to all of your problems.

You know, follow us.

That is not how you actually make a political program effective.

The first thing you have to actually do is build the necessary capacity.

Having a program is just having the bare minimum of the ability to say, hey, we do have a way at minimum of responding through a set of policies to the country's problems right now.

That's exactly what DSA doesn't have.

And that's what I've been trying to say is DSA won't really be able to intervene in national politics until it can unify around some kind of program.

Yeah, it needs to be able to be answered.

Let me address this too, I think, because this is a common point between the two of you.

I mean, like, I don't even think you're necessarily that wrong in the sense of like, okay, yeah, they'll snuff out the left, whether it's, you know, if she wins her primary or under presidency or all the way right in the beginning, as Oz is saying.

I guess my confusion here is just like, okay, like, this is kind of what happens, right?

So what happened with Bernie became a massive development for the left, right?

This is where we were able to draw our lines and really bring not just like people who agree with us, but a lot more people who are within these social crises, observing these things and getting radicalized and separate them.

So it's like, to me, it's like fine if that happens.

I hope AOC wins for a variety of reasons, but it's okay if she doesn't win.

I don't see that as a precondition.

I think that to show that the important part is to show that we're in the front, right?

That we're leading this social group and that we're fighting for the democratic revolution beyond her, that we represent this screen that exists beyond whatever happens to her in 2024.

And further, I would like to point out, this isn't us coming to the people with a program.

This is responding to the people's program, which is that the people are the ones under assault.

They were the ones standing up to ICE occupations.

They're the ones standing up.

But that's still not a program.

That's not really a problem.

No, no, that is the basis of the program.

That's what Lenin did.

Lenin didn't just come up with stuff from Germany.

He took the documents that the proletariat in Russia was making, but he radicalized those.

He brought them to their natural conclusion, which was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

But hold on.

The notion, the concept of a concept, but the concept of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants, that is nowhere immediately a seamless result of the experiences of the Russian masses and workers on the ground.

And so you can't just say, like, well, because people are dealing with ICE and they're being killed and so on, that is seamlessly, immediately going to produce the program.

You know, programming.

I'm not saying it's systematized.

You systematize the actual necessity of a rupture with our state, with our constitution, with the existing republic and the new American republic, you know, and the socialization of the economy.

That is something that has to have the masses have to be convinced of the necessity of the proletariat as it exists is not already struggling for these things, even if it is struggling.

Yeah, Lenin was very the point, though.

The point of what we're trying to say is to bring those things together, to say he all these, all these actual struggles that they're going with, to bring them together and give them an actual unifying character that has a political character specifically about displacing the regime.

It's about giving it revolutionary politics and revolutionary character.

Yeah, and that happens over questions of actual transition to power, right?

And so the reason why I'm fixated on this question of presidential politics and why, yes, it matters that we start big, is because that is where the actual masses have located the crux of their problem.

They put Trump in office because they saw him as a way to break through the same constitutional fetters, these same issues, these same people that had ruled over American politics for decades.

So it's not just about movementism.

It's not just about, oh, this is the liberal movement.

The transition of power is very important in American politics.

And yeah, I understand the presidential runs have been the main catalyst for all political change and shifts that we've observed, with Bernie in 2015, for example, and so on.

So look, I understand the logic of what you're saying, but the problem that I think it is about is that I think we've increasingly been looking at a different contradiction.

I don't think you're attentive to enough when it comes to the transition of power.

I think that the notion of how power is transitioning has, and we can debate about when this began.

Maybe it was Trump in 2016.

Maybe it was Biden in 2020.

I think there's good arguments for both, especially Trump in 24 and up to now.

It's increasingly clear that the question of the transition of power.

Has started to go beyond the bounds of the traditional, you know, four-year electoral runs and bipartisan conflict between Democrats and Republicans.

I think that there's a new understanding that there is a power not enumerated officially within.

It's still a political question, 100%, but it's no longer contained by the political system, so to speak.

So, yeah, the question of a transition of power is important, but there has increasingly been emerging among the American masses an understanding that there's an unenumerated power.

There's a power that we cannot confront or respond to through elections, which somehow manages to transcend our so-called democratic systems.

And whether that's kind of a perfect point, though, because what we're trying to draw out is that, like, take as an example, you're essentially describing slave power before 1860, right?

It's this like transpartisan power that is restricting the people's ability to influence their politics.

It's, of course, extremely exploitative by nature.

It's reactionary.

It's horrific, etc.

Hey, JB, I think the other guy wants to be brought up, or no, maybe he had to go.

All right.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, you're good.

I mean, it's just ultimately, it's about sorry, I kind of lost my train of thought right there.

Slave power and something.

It's like, yeah, well, it's about, yeah, we're right.

And slave power was understood as not specifically just contained to one president transferring to another.

It was about this idea that there is a collection of people in this country that will not allow the people to elect leaders that will possibly put their instruments of their will into practice, right?

Whether or not you agree that Lincoln would have solved the problems, of course he wouldn't have.

The people elected him because they saw him as a way to break through the system of power.

And so the question of transition to power became fundamentally.

I don't think AOC has what it takes to be a Lincoln.

That's the main thing.

Right, like we've seen reports.

You can come up with a different person and fail to actually draw this line.

Her support for Hakeem Jeffries just a class differences.

Like, look, I'm not a closed-minded dogmatist, but at the same time, there was a concrete contradiction between the slaveocrats, the planters, and the inceptual industrial bourgeoisie.

What contradiction are we going to be banking on is going to emerge now between the power that underlies the Epstein regime and maybe a different segment of the ruling class or something?

I don't see it though.

I see a comprehensive line of demarcation between the proletariat and the most consolidated supreme form of bourgeois power that has ever existed in history.

Right, but we can articulate it.

The whole point that we're talking about is that the Republican Party did also not perfectly represent the opposition to that slaveocrat, even though it was founded.

No, I know, I know.

These northern industrialists who were also working with the slaveocrats and all these other things.

I do think that there could be sections of the bourgeoisie that could see an alliance with the left against this kind of lump-in bourgeois, like parasitical finance.

I think when push comes to show class, basically.

Well, I don't know what you mean by bourgeoisie per se.

If you mean more like a petty bourgeoisie, then perhaps.

But I think the circle of the real bourgeoisie at this point is pretty.

Small, you know, and maybe if we're talking about startup types, or I don't know, people who are more on the lower rungs of the ladder, so to speak.

But yeah, I mean, I agree with that for sure.

I mean, Mao understood that.

And I guess that's the point: that we can make like through our efforts.

The reason why you want to make the presidential election something to focus on, aside from the fact that it helps all these down ballot races to build a communist caucus within the Congress or whatever else, you know, the DP might want to do, is because it puts front and center this question of do the people actually have control over their lives, which they don't.

We both agree that they don't.

And the whole point is calling to attention this question that they don't.

So when somebody president, an AOC run would create an axis of polarization that is not about the people versus the Epstein regime.

It would be something more akin to like full-blown Venezuela communism versus, you know, sanity and moderation.

But that, but that's exactly why we have to fight on these lines, right?

That's exactly why we have to narrativize and engage that campaign.

But if we leave it to them, of course, of course, it's the yeah, but look, look, if you are going to be locked out of AOC's campaign, which you would be, if you're not falling in on their specific, we are going to be if we don't engage it.

But right, if we leave it to the narratives of the mainstream media and the bourgeois right, of course.

Look, that's why we have to establish an independent narrative in regards to this.

But it's so optimistic to think you can do entryism in AOC's campaign.

That's what I'm trying to say.

I think that they would be so it's not about entryism, it's about creating independent polling and creating a narrative that we can we don't identify with AOC as necessarily.

We identify ourselves as people outside that understand that this campaign is necessary and creates a lot of people.

We can create the lines of demarcation that we need to.

I understand a lot further.

There's a lot of people who apply that logic to why they would join the DSA, for example, right?

But I think what a lot of these kind of Marxists don't understand is that when you're trying to employ this specific type of intelligence where you say, look, I'm going to play the long game and I'm going to do this.

I know very well better in my head, but I'm still going to do this anyway because I'm acting on some kind of greater intelligence.

That gets drawn out and snuffed out much more quickly than you think.

Like it doesn't actually work that way, right?

When you are not aligned, morally speaking, with the AOC campaign and you don't buy into it, and you could be taking this cynical distance in your head, but it's going to show very quickly that you don't actually buy into this and that you're not actually fully aligned with it and you're not buying into the AOC Kool-Aid or whatever.

And you get snuffed out.

And that's going to make the people like us even more because they're going to see that we're not a part of these oscillations.

They're going to see that we have a tactical narrative in regards to ARC and what happens.

We're not just taking what she says wholesale.

No.

You're the one who is talking about how you know that the people don't trust these candidates.

You know that they see them as oscillating.

And then as soon as we say that we want to create an independent line in regards to our vote for them, now you're saying that we're not going to be popular for that?

No, you're not.

Which one is it?

You're not going to be given classic like struggle.

You're not going to be given the opportunity to even be known or seen by the masses.

You're going to be marginalized right away and kicked out because they're going to see you as some like weird that's fine.

And then the people will see that they're they're they're you know conspiracizing against you.

No, they don't care.

They don't care.

They do they will, but only if we intervene and actually narrativize if we just if we just retract, then they're there they get to monopolize the narrative.

And then think about this way.

We have to play on the side with our toys and don't actually get to the point.

How many people have been disaffected by the DSA precisely for the same thing that I'm talking about and nobody cared?

How many people that were disappointed for that were trying to do this profound intelligence long game were unjustly kicked out or removed or somehow ostracized and marginalized and now are trying to spread the word to the public about what happened?

Do the masses care about this?

They really don't.

That's because it's irrelevant.

What we're talking about is not interplay of left bullshit.

It's about intervening on the main stage of American people.

What I understand is that you would not be allowed to be relevant in the first place, even if you joined her campaign, is what I'm trying to say, because it would be very quickly discovered.

What do you mean join her campaign?

If you try to be part of AOC's relevancy, but you're not 1 million percent morally and ideologically aligned with it and buying into the Kool-Aid, that campaign is intelligent enough.

I'm not even talking about as a person or an agent, but reality is more intelligent than you think.

You're going to be snuffed out really quickly as somebody.

But I'm not trying to be on her team.

I'm not an opportunist.

I want to create an independent line that can talk about and engage with this campaign critically.

I'm not saying I want to be an AOC staffer or something.

So what is that?

That DSA isn't like loyal enough to her and isn't lining up enough behind her, right?

So, but hold on.

What does that look like concretely, though?

It means creating a political program like what Lenin is talking about in left-wing communism, where he's saying, you know, and I think it is very relevant for us, that passage about the Labour Party, because he's talking about how British communists can't get a word.

They never get heard.

And how do you get heard?

You talk about, he says you have to have a critical nuanced angle in regards to these campaigns.

You can't just ignore them.

Sure, but you had to.

And he's not talking about liquidationism, and we're not talking about liquidationism either.

We're talking about engaging with these things critically, not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying that we, you know, while millions of people are getting excited for her campaign from our camp, that we should just ignore it.

Okay, but for the purpose of clarity, though, like when you say we, because Lenin, when he talked about British communists, he was talking about a party, right?

An organized party.

So like, who is...

Yeah, we need a party, but we need to build a party on organic lines.

Just creating another left sect where there's already five million of them that don't do shit is meaningless.

So what is DSA is the only that's the reason that we engage with DSA so much is because DSA is the only pre-party formation that could be anywhere near meaningful.

What is it going to take for DSA to become a party?

It's going to take having a creating some organic unity through which we can actually, you know, have a concrete program.

You see how it's like a cart before the horse type of thing?

Because if when Lenin was talking about the Labour Party, he's already presupposing a communist party.

How are you going to treat AOC as the analogy to the British Labour Party, which is ridiculous, by the way, because the Labour Party was like a new party.

It was nominally anti-establishment.

It was a distinct party.

But in any case, if we're going to go with a bourgeois party, they're both bourgeois liberal parties.

You guys are always talking about how, you know, AOC and all these people are essentially social fascists.

And now all of a sudden the Labour Party and the Democrats have oceans between them.

Like, which one is it?

Look, the Labour Party in the 1920s has no comparison to today's Democratic Party.

But it's a bourgeois.

It's a bourgeois liberal party.

Sure, there's a lot of people.

Is that incorrect?

Is it a radical party?

Was it a revolutionary party?

No, it didn't.

It didn't fulfill the standards of the common turn, but it wasn't this like establishment part of the system.

It absolutely was an establishment party, and it was a bourgeois opportunist party.

Just because it was involved with university.

We need to make some clarifying distinctions.

Not all segments.

Are you saying that the Labour Party is a revolutionary party?

Is that what you're saying right now?

No, absolutely not.

I'm saying in the 1920s, the Labor Party was not today's Democratic Party, which is literally.

Of course not.

They're different.

But what was it?

What is the fundamental embryo?

Fundamental relationship do they have to the masses?

Hey, look, look.

They have a relationship of co-optation, of liberal opportunism in Russia.

Sure, in the long run.

Similarly to the Democratic Party.

But the difference is that there's an analogy.

In this analogy, the Democratic Party is more like an extra-democratic, extra-constitutional thing like the Russian autocracy.

It's not the Labor Party.

At that point, the Labour Party was a bourgeois party.

They both fundamentally co-opted progressive and revolutionary energy.

There's all sorts of social democratic parties in history, which were not immediately the same thing as the regime, which you could also say were bourgeois and ultimately go toward the end of co-option.

But the Democratic Party is an Epstein party.

It's not just part of the system in the sense that it falls short of the program of the common turn.

It's literally part of the...

The Labour Party also didn't just fall short of the Common Turn.

Lenin makes clear that it doesn't even...

The Labour Party believed a bourgeois reactionary party.

Sure, sure.

They were not even vying to meet the common part.

They were not an Epstein party or the equivalent.

What does that even mean?

It means they weren't part of this shadow network of this super imperialist bourgeoisie that they were in the middle of the British Empire saying that they wanted to govern it better than the conservatives and the liberals.

Exactly.

They fundamentally occupy the exact same location.

Yes, yes, yes.

The imperialist opportunists and the labor aristocracy absolutely were in control.

But what we have in the United States with our duopoly is not even just the conventional bourgeoisie, not even just the conventional imperialist bourgeoisie that is opportunistic that Lenin talked about.

We're talking about a system of super imperialism that has created a type of ruling class which goes beyond anything Marxists could even describe with respect to the bourgeoisie historically.

This is an actual organized cabal of, you know, this, what we call the Epstein class.

Not just simple monopolists, but a transnational network that fundamentally rigs and controls politics according to.

You know, um, institutions like nothing enumerated in any democratic institution whatsoever.

That's not exactly what the Labor Party was in the 20s.

Okay, fine.

And that's even more reason that we have to disarticulate them.

Why, why does that, why does this super imperialist Epstein-class nonsense that you're talking about have anything to do with the necessity for engage this critically?

We still have to engage and disarticulate this base because they're fundamentally co-opting.

There's tens of millions of people that need to be a part of our base that are under the lines of the world.

How are you going to win the center, the swing states?

How are you going to win them?

Well, if they're struggling against the fascist regime that is currently trying to eviscerate, hold on.

But if there's a battle and there's swing states, how are you going to reach people by using this language about fascism fundamentally?

Like, how are you going to reach them?

You could say, oh, we're going to fight fascism.

So what everyone's going to immediately fall behind you?

You have to be really naive to think that's how American politics works.

Of course, how are we going to win the center if we can't even win the people that should already be on our side?

We need to do the mass line.

Why should they?

You need to unite the actual people that are going to be struggle before we can ever reach the center.

We need to program against the center.

No, you're putting the cart before the horse because huge segments of the Democratic Party are fundamentally aligned with the hegemony.

In order to draw out the contradictions between whoever remains in the Democratic Party that is disaligned with the hegemony, you have to first assert a fundamentally anti-hegemony line.

You don't play this game where you work first in the Democratic Party in the hopes that you can affect the slip when you have not yet united the forces who are against the hegemony fundamentally.

And a huge struggle.

A huge meaningless though.

You're saying a cake but not bake one.

You have to deal with these things.

The way you bake and engage them to actually create a way you bake is the square one.

No, the way you bake a cake is by beginning with organizational independence, not hoping for it to come in the future.

And how has that worked?

If it works out in this country, where are the independent left organizations that have not that refuse to the same thing?

What is your excuse for not forming one yourself if you think you know it all?

No, I'm saying I disagree with the strategy of a clean break for a completely independent organization immediately.

But that is the square one of Leninism and Marxism.

You don't begin as an individual, you begin as a party or as an organization first, and you have to be accountable to your successes and failures scientifically according to the terms of a collective organization and a collective discipline.

Individuals who have already submitted to a collective discipline first and then judge their actions and what they should do and what they should not do according to the logic of the collective.

So that is square one.

And so why are none of these sectarian formations at any point meaningful or relevant?

Even you admitted earlier that ACP dwindles in comparison to DSA.

Why is that?

Have you guys actually dealt with that?

Do you guys actually confront it?

No, of course not.

Do you think it's just a matter of time?

Like, no, it's there's there's a there's fundamental matters of orientation that are going to prevent you guys from reaching people in any sort of meaningful way outside of you know the hundreds and the thousands that you're able to sequester into this field and it's because so and the reason for that and it's not it's not it's not a an immutable fact because you guys can change it but it's because you guys don't have a mass orientation you try you guys try to funnel people into the most marginal and narrow things of trying to accurately confusing the massive line of the questions of the day you're not even distinguishing a mass orientation from the democratic party hegemony just because the democratic party has a monopoly on institutions and defines the narrative and defines what people are talking about sometimes doesn't mean that's an accurate representation of the masses if you actually want to find a mass line but who's talking about the democratic party if you i'm talking about i'm talking about dealing with questions that everyday people are asking right now how do you articulate the masses as a subject how are you doing that even to do that to articulate the masses as a subject requires organization first of course as a premise no as the premise you cannot articulate the masses as a subject unless you have already formed a collective discipline of a marxist or a leninist party it's not even possible in the first place and yes no marxist leninist parties are articulating a mass political subject in the united states today well i and i and i and i want them to you're not and i want them to but the form alone is not going to create a subject that this this quote-unquote discipline and all this fetishism around around some soviet era party is like okay that's great but now how do we actually create a concrete organization that can carry out a mass orientation under those lines that's the question not just creating another organization there's millions of those so if you ask me if you ask me how to do that you first have to build capacity you have to be able to sustain operations where you send people down to towns to uh sites of of conflict like union struggles all sorts of different things local communities where their water is poisoned where they have all sorts of disaffections and grievances and reliably build the capacity to have a platform to actually take the voice of the masses get a mass line and then synthesize it into something that can actually scale and i agree and i'm saying that that's not what you guys are doing you guys are taking this alien idea of this fetishistic idea of what the masses want and handing it to them and spoon feeding it to them you're not you're not going to them and asking them what what they want so what would it what would it look like to you to go to them and do that

It would look like actually assimilating the popular demands that these people are making on the frontier of everyday struggle.

How do you know what the demands are in the first place?

How are you distilling that information?

There's many ways you can.

Because Lenny distilled it independently.

He didn't just say, I trust what the cadets are saying about what the masses want.

He actually built an organization that built capacity.

It did like, but I would say DSA, even though I have criticisms of DSA, I would say that DSA is doing that better than you guys are right now.

Okay.

And that shows in the successes that they have.

That's just the same thing.

They're an emerging pole.

They represent an emerging pole precisely because they articulate popular demands and are creating a program through which they can find life.

The DSA is creating a program and a series of popular demands, which in a self-serving way simply reflects the DSA cadre and membership themselves, not the masses.

If you're talking about the DSA, you're talking about a very narrow demographic of people compared to the broad masses of the country.

Of course, but they're much less narrow than you guys.

Well, hold on.

I want you to understand.

I want to understand why there's a logical imprecision in what you're saying.

We could be an organization of just 50 people, let's say, right?

Let's say we were in a thousand.

Let's say we were just 50 people.

If we were dispersing our efforts among a much broader spectrum of people, we're reaching less people than DSA is as a sum total, but our sample size is coming from more diversity of sources.

So what you're saying is actually not true.

I mean, even in terms of like how polls or statistics are run, it's not true.

Just because you have more of the same type of person doesn't mean you have more of the masses.

Because in order to have more of the masses, you need to have more of a diversity in terms of what type of people you're reaching.

Right.

And I think diversity is a legitimate criticism that DSA itself platforms against itself.

But the reality is that it's not just about diversity.

It's about how we can wield numbers against the establishment.

Ultimately, that's what we're talking about.

So DSA has made it.

We're not going to do a revolution like Cuba with 50 dudes in the jungle or whatever.

We need millions of people, right?

And you ask you politics.

Is there a single revolution in history?

Is there a single revolution in history where the revolutionary actor first, you know, over a protracted period, won millions of people first?

What do you mean from a protracted period?

Like they did, the strategy you're describing, has it ever happened in history, even one time?

The Chinese Revolution?

You're talking about a paramilitary?

Chinese revolution wielded.

That was people with guns, a paramilitary organization, completely disaligned with any state in a warlord era.

Is that what you're saying?

I mean, I'm not against the model, but that, I mean, we agree.

I'm not saying that the Chinese model is our model either, but I'm saying we have to, we fundamentally, in the political system, we have to wield millions.

Do you think that the ACP's orientation is capable of winning millions?

Clearly, you have to think that, or else you wouldn't be doing it.

I don't think under the 2000s.

Or do you not think millions of people are just going to like...

Do you think you can do it with a few thousand people?

I will be completely frank and direct about this.

As long as the United States and in the current form, like as long as there is not a fundamental constitutional crisis that calls into question the legitimacy of the state on its own terms, we will never be able to win millions as the ACP.

Exactly.

And how do we create that?

Just like PK was saying, we don't have to create it because it's already happening.

We don't need to create it.

It's happening on its own.

But that's just completely, that's just bowing to spontaneity, right?

We have to intervene in this thing.

What does spontaneity mean?

Having a crisis alone is not going to create communism.

No, if anything, these people are going to fall under fascist lines.

No, no.

That's what the creation of a crisis is going to divide the imperialist hegemony into a civil war and create the breathing room out of which communist communist organization can meaningfully.

Okay, but that's not going to happen unless we intervene.

We need to clear that we wish to run.

What?

So you think spontaneity alone creates revolution?

No.

I thought you guys were letting us.

No.

Spontaneity is about whether the masses are spontaneously going to affect a revolutionary communist history.

Nobody's going to be able to do it.

What are you talking about?

Spontaneously speaking, China fell into a warlord era.

Spontaneously speaking, the Russian provisional government came into power in the February Revolution.

Spontaneously speaking, the Russian people and masses are...

Do you think the February Revolution was a product of spontaneity?

Certainly, certainly the abdication of the Tsar and the conditions that were created of widespread discontent and disaffection with the regime, that was not Lenin's will.

So what were the Bolsheviks then?

The Bolsheviks came after the April Thesis.

The Bolsheviks are a part of this once in 80s.

The Bolsheviks were so minuscule in size before the July days of 1917.

They were basically a sect.

Okay, they were nothing.

Only after April thesis, when Lenin pursues the specific strategy of how they can take this as an opportunity with all power to the Soviets, that's when the Bolsheviks, you know, then they seize power.

They become a party of hundreds of thousands of people.

So power is just going to be handed to us, and then we're just going to have to go to the US.

Power is handed to Lenin.

Then the crisis gets created and then it'll just the reduction of the power.

Yes, the crisis has to come.

Why do we organize it all then?

Because the crisis is inevitable and it will come first.

The outcome of the crisis is the decisive battle.

Our whole argumentation is that AOC 2028 is a way to intervene to bring it to the bank.

The only meaningful sense in which an AOC run will somehow partake in this inevitable constitutional crisis that is coming, which I used to sound like a nutjob when I said it's coming, but I guess everyone believes it's going to happen now.

When the only way that we'll meaningfully partake in that and participate in it is if somehow it was used as a pretext for some kind of like emergency powers that suspend the constitution and elections are canceled.

Okay.

But we don't have to play a role in that at all.

We don't have to do anything to accelerate that or will be condemned to irrelevance in this crucial period.

That's not true.

It doesn't make sense.

You guys are so contradictory because the one thing I admire about you guys is that you do want to be viral and you do want to be seen by people.

But then at the crucial period when you actually can intervene and you socialism in the United States is going to be technical.

The most people in American history.

That's ridiculous.

I will simply contradict you.

The logic is very simple.

Okay.

Trying to intervene right now at this stage, trying to intervene and go head first like Don Quixote or whatever, is vain because you're confusing the subjective for the objective.

Establishing and building capacity first so that you maintain a solid rock that is consistent and can weather the storm.

Hold on.

This is all just marginality.

Hold on, hold on.

Let me finish.

You create a foundation that can weather the storm.

Suddenly you have something people can turn to after it fucking happens.

You had your shit.

By the time we build the capacity to weather the storm, the storm's going to be over and we will have missed our chance.

And that's the lesson of history of Marxist movements.

But why are you so optimistic about the ability for the United States to be able to weather the storm?

Even if I'm not optimistic with the people who are not going to be able to do that, I don't think you can.

This is our only chance.

Okay, I'll put on the table my position, though.

My position is that without this country is going to balkanize and the only thing that will ever reunify it again is communism.

That's what I think.

Now, I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

I'm operating on the...

We don't even have a chance to reunify it unless we stamp our claim now.

That's not true.

We are going to be balkanized for decades, potentially.

But how do you reconcile this cowardice with all your guys's?

How is it cowardice?

Hot talking about virality and being heard by these people and going to the world.

And now at the crucial moment when they need us the most, they're struggling for these things.

Now we're going to leave them.

That doesn't make any sense.

Because what we need to do now first is build capacity so we have something to bring to the masses in the first place.

Nobody wants to listen to someone who has nice ideas.

They want to listen to people who actually have their shit together and know how to fucking do things.

It's meaningless.

Why is that meaningless?

Okay, are you in a position to go to the masses right now?

If now, how?

How?

How can you go to the massive mass?

What do you mean?

Because it starts from someone who's a campaign.

It starts from someone who's having an independent line on this campaign is going to themselves.

Don't talk about AOC.

Don't talk about AOC.

How can you, right now or whenever, how can you and your friends, how do you?

But I don't bow to spontaneity like you.

I'm not talking about individuals.

I'm talking about as organized socialists going to the masses and assimilating an independent line on the campaign.

Who and how?

What do you mean?

Who's going to do this and how?

I'm trying to get us to do it, but you guys refuse to because you guys have a lot of very extravagant things to say, but ultimately refuse at the crucial moment to explain to confront the crises in front of us.

Oh, no, we need to prepare for the next moment.

And that's why you guys will never be taken seriously.

Okay, sure, sure.

Our door right now is open to all the geese people.

You want to go forward in some way.

You're saying we're not going with it.

What concretely do you propose right now instead of building capacity?

I am arguing for building capacity, but I'm not arguing for building capacity in this rote cowardice way.

I'm talking about building capacity by going to the people, not shying away from explaining that expands, by the way, is the other thing.

Capacity isn't a pool that you dip into, that you eventually run out of stuff.

Capacity is something that happens when people are drawn to your political programming leadership.

Part of building capacity is building numbers.

I agree.

But what goes on?

But the whole point is that if you want to know what you should do, is that you should engage in the immediate national political struggle that calls for your pressing attention.

So let me translate that in the best way I can.

And you tell me if it's wrong.

And if it is wrong, correct me.

Right.

The way I translate that is of what you're saying is that you're basically saying we need to talk about current politics more and give a take, a hot take on current politics more than we do right now.

Just hot takes.

Okay, what does it mean then, please?

Can you run one primary?

Because here's the thing about what DSA is able to do.

That costs money.

DSA is able to actually get the money.

Yeah, where do we get the money to run a primary?

Maybe you're starting to understand DSA's electoral threat.

Is there interest among ACP in running in elections?

Is that something that ACP would consider doing if it was viable?

Of course, we would love to.

Okay, because members of ACP have told me that electoralism is bad.

No, we wouldn't run on another party's ticket.

Right, right.

I understand.

Yeah.

No, of course, but we would want local positions.

You know, we actually want to do things we can do and not shoot for the stars and hope and give promises we can't deliver.

I mean, do we have the resources to run a congressperson or someone in the Senate right now?

No, we don't.

And fundamentally, why is that?

Because we don't have the backing of the bourgeoisie.

It's very simple.

And you think DSA does?

This is the thing, man.

The reason that DSA candidates are able to succeed and where they get their funding from isn't just from the NGO industrial.

Decisively, yes.

It was to succeed.

No, but that's not exactly where all these candidates actually do.

I will say, no, no, look, I'm not a reductionist.

And I'm not a reductionist, okay?

But in the beginning, yes, that's true.

In the beginning, Zoron had to tap in.

It was very decisively yes or no.

Like, if he did not have the backing of the NGO, whatever bourgeois complex, there would be no Zoron Namdani.

All the candidates from the DSA fundamentally had to begin from there to get anywhere.

Now, they got to.

No, I think, I think, no, Zoron did genuinely start from the DSA itself and then was backed by the NGO forces.

Whereas AOC comes from the Shirts Democrats kind of then was like kind of back.

But still, decisively, Zoron could not get the traction he did in the very beginning.

I know later on it, you know, it was more small donations, but in the very beginning, having access to all those resources and networks requires already being somehow in the good grace.

All right, that's fine.

You guys always use this as a crutch to avoid the fact that you guys, your orientation is limiting you guys, right?

Like these guys, even if they are, even if they are backed by these NGOs, they're fundamentally, Zoran fundamentally represents a concrete base within American society.

Millions of people adore him.

Why is that?

Why is that him and not you guys?

It's not just because of NGO money.

It's because he represents this base.

He represents a million concrete base.

And he's articulated a base around him through going to people on actually.

He's not collaborating these popular dynamics.

That's not a concrete base.

That is a nebulously popular base.

Yes, it's popular.

No, it was millions of New Yorkers.

Sure, very concrete.

No, no, no.

Listen, you need to understand what New York City does.

A concrete base.

Listen, a concrete base means like an intelligibly concrete base.

Yes, he's very popular like Obama was.

That's not a concrete base.

That's a very nebulous form of popularity.

This is so pedantic.

You guys are just trying to dodge the fact that you guys fundamentally have an orientation.

Whether the base is abstract, concrete, whatever you want to call it, you guys cannot.

You don't like the pedantry of the fight.

I'll simplify it.

Not because you guys don't have money.

You guys have all the ramps.

And you'd fundamentally be PSL.

Save all the money in the world.

And guess what?

They don't mean shit.

Zoron.

Not because they don't have money, but because they have no massive money.

Okay, hold on.

It's very concrete.

What does Zoran actually do to succeed?

I would like to point out that.

I appreciate the NGO complex.

What Zoron did was say there was a sclerotic establishment democratic class of why avoid the issue.

It's very concretely about money.

It's very concretely about money.

No, it's about the struggle of defining us versus them and specifically democratizing the people.

Okay, turn that into money.

But you turn into money by raising people, raising money from the people.

So you're saying NCP should do what Zoron did, but what Zoron did presupposed being in the good graces of the imperialist bourgeoisie, which we can't be.

So what should presuppose that?

Well, there is a reason that people like Bill Maher are freaking out about DSA, but not in PSL or ACP or whoever else.

The DSA is creating like a political machine.

Yeah, look, look, I'm aware of that.

I'm aware of that.

It's a political machine that so far has only proven its ability to decisively win among people already predisposed to DSA stuff.

So it's like it has a crucial weakness, which is the fact that it is winning among Democrats.

No, look, I agree.

Look, look, the truth is, no, I agree.

The DSA is originally fully coming from the Democratic Party hegemony.

But yeah, now there appears to be some kind of contradiction within the Democratic Party.

I'm not denying that.

But what I'm saying is, if we were to open our doors to the geese people and say, hey, look, we will follow your direction.

What should we do concretely?

And all they're telling me is, you know, well, run for Congress without any money or give your hot takes more about politics.

It's not really a concrete direction.

Sounds like it's a pretty concrete direction because what you asked before is: should we just do what Zoront did?

But you're saying that it can't be done without it.

I just don't agree with you.

We're not in the DSA.

We're not beginning from the Democratic Party.

I think you're underestimating how much energy there actually is and how much money there actually is for people to directly contest political power against the people.

Where's the money?

Where is the money?

The money is in the people, man.

That's where the money has always been.

The money is so crowdfunding donations.

We should do more donation drives for elections.

If the election is actually drawing people's attention and coming into conflict directly with the people with the duopolis.

Okay, let me explain to you how we think that is possible.

And then you could tell me why you think that's sectarian and it's wrong and it's all these things.

I don't know why the other guy left.

So what we would say is that why don't we try to build capacity by running locally first, getting the experience, getting the resources, yeah, getting donations, building momentum slowly and patiently, as Lenin would say.

And then we will reach a threshold eventually where we can make the gambit for Congress or Senate or something on the basis of having concretely built capacity, you know, in a patient way, slowly first.

And then, but what this other guy was saying before he left is basically it sounds like, you know, we're being cowardly.

We need to jump right in in the center of attention right now and be just as popular as AOC somehow or something.

And it's like, I'm looking for a concrete answer of what actually are you proposing or suggesting.

Here's what I can promise you.

Because I do have to go only because I have to get up very early tomorrow.

But I will say this.

On January 6th in 2029, I'll be there.

And I'll tell you what, I hope the ACP is there with you.

And I hope Donald Parkinson and everyone in the DSA is there with me too.

Jan, because I'm telling you, the political crisis is right around the corner.

And I would like absolutely everybody.

Well, I would hope you build capacity and are training and building resources because if there's a constitutional crisis, there's going to be a crackdown and nobody's going to care about protests anymore.

I don't know.

Do we have someone from the groundwork caucus of the DSA?

Yeah, we should definitely bring him up.

Let's get another DSA person.

All right.

Let's do it.

Some are calling this the American Communist Internationale right now.

We have an interesting night.

Wait, where is he?

Is he here?

He's here.

Welcome, Nate.

Oh wait, I'm on the stream.

Yo.

Hey.

This is Nate.

Okay.

Hello.

I'm a supporter of the movement to draft AOC for president.

Okay, and I just want to be.

I'm not trying to purity test, but I want to like know.

What are your principles?

Like, do you are you a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist?

Like, what position are you beginning from?

Oh, yeah, I'm a Marxist and a Democratic Socialist.

And I agree with a lot of what the Geese gang was saying, which is that, yeah, like this point, like, oh, it can't be done because we don't have any money.

Zoron didn't have any money.

Zoron started at 1%.

That's not, right?

It's not.

He started at 1% of the polls.

He had the best.

And the reason.

Working Families Party, that's not nothing.

The Working Families Party endorsed him at the last second, like two weeks before the election.

They actually cross-endors, they endorsed like four different candidates, and then they didn't rank him.

They shame out the primary.

And then they said, rank him number one.

Yeah.

But even before the Working Families Party, he tapped into a lot of NGOs and NGO networks first, which he had access to, which we don't.

So where did Zoron start?

I mean, also, you're saying this thing about building a concrete base, like, let's run people for a municipal office, for a local office, state office, work our way up.

That's exactly what Zoron did.

Zoron was a field director on this city council campaign that they ran back in like, what, 2017, 2019?

And then ran for state assembly, worked his way up.

Like, he didn't have any money when he ran for state assembly.

He wasn't talking about...

I'm going to mention something about this.

Hold on.

There's a guy called.

Haz, give me a sec.

There's a guy called Maurice Katz who has an agency called the Fight Agency, who is basically like a Democrat handler, who took in Zoran Mandani when his campaign was polling at single-digit numbers.

And it's very obvious if you just research Zoran Mondani's campaign, is that Fight Agency was extremely important in getting his name out there and publicizing him and getting him to media and connecting him to different organizations and NGOs.

So from the beginning, when he was already polling at single-digit numbers, these shadowy groups of the NGO complex and the Democrat Party took him in and propelled him forward from the very beginning.

Yeah, so and also I don't think that Maurice Katz is like a representative of the bourgeois democratic establishment.

I don't think that's an accurate read of the situation.

Well, I mean, what would be what do you think he is then?

Like, what do you think is, um, what's your read on him?

Well, you know, I'm not exactly a fan or I don't necessarily view him as like the Vanguard, right?

But it's like, you know, there's I wouldn't put it that way.

You know, I mean, there's going to be people that are going to call him whatever you want, but for one reason or another, people who are fundamentally disaligned with the hegemony, so people who you'd say are communists or something, they're not going to have people like that, like Morris Katz.

So starting an election from scratch and building, when we talk about building capacity, we're not talking about the example you gave of Zoron in 2017 or something.

We're talking about actually building the capacity of a fully independent organization, which doesn't have to answer to the Democratic Party or Morris Katz or any other part of the hegemony.

Yeah, I mean I like

To be clear, like Soron did not start with any kind of establishment or bourgeois backing or anything.

Like this is kind of the New York City D SA model and the DSA model.

But the DSA itself starting from scratch and building this class in the world.

Would you say the DSA that he started from orientation?

Yeah, w was the DSA that he began from like severed from the Democratic Party then or?

Well, I mean, they're running on the Democratic ballot line, and like that is the fundamental difference between when you want an organization that's fully independent and fully separate from the Democratic Party.

That's where we're at right now, you know.

And so these examples are not useful for us because we're not in the Democratic Party.

We're connected to it.

We're fully independent.

We want to maintain full independence as an organization.

North Star, what's up?

Well, I mean, we can just get into circles talking about like ESA's position on the Democratic Party, but at the end of the day, it doesn't have the autonomy or freedom to be fully independent, though.

It really doesn't.

Well, nobody has autonomy or total freedom when you live in a society where there's other people and there's other situations and circumstances where you have to assess what your conditions are out there.

It's like you have to build united fronts and you have to build coalitions.

Maybe, maybe, but organizations.

Yeah, but parties and organizations build fronts.

And the DSA, in the first place, is not a fully independent working class political force that actually exists in America.

But it's not independent.

It's not an independent political force.

It is independent because it is dues funded.

It's membership funded.

That doesn't mean it's entirely self-determining its own politics.

It doesn't mean it's independent.

It's not in opposition to the capital.

I have one question.

I have one question though.

Okay, I have one question for you.

Just one.

Has the DSA ever endorsed a non-Democrat ever?

Yeah, no, tons of non-Democrats.

There's all sorts of non-partisan and independent candidates.

I was champion manager for an Atlanta City Council member as an independent city.

And they got the backing and endorsement of the DSA.

Yeah.

Official endorsement by the DSA.

Yeah, DSA has endorsed independent candidates.

Like, that is...

Have they ever endorsed a Green Party candidate even one time?

Jabari Brisport ran for New York City City Council as a Green Party candidate.

He ate shit and then switched to the Democratic Party primary for state senate and then he blew it out of the water and now he's a state senate.

Has the DSA ever endorsed a candidate that ran on another party like the Green Party?

I'm sure there's some chapters that have done it, but it doesn't work.

No, no, no, I'm talking about national DSA National.

Has DSA National ever endorsed someone running on a party ticket that wasn't the Democratic Party?

So not just independent, but like just a party ticket that wasn't Democrat.

I'd have to check.

I'd have to check.

I feel like there's probably like one or two things that happened, but it would have been.

If it did happen, it would have been for very like local races where it's competitive.

But the thing is, we only make national endorsements when there's a competitive election and we think there's a path to victory.

Because this is the whole thing.

Workers don't give a shit about your political group unless you have an actual path to victory and share.

But I'm not talking about the DSA has the freedom to endorse who they want to in the first place because there's a conflict of interest going on financially, institutionally, and even just in terms of the networks that the DSA is part of, which it depends upon.

But like, it's like I could say, you know, like DSA is not free to endorse me for president of the United States because we're in a conflict of interest with reality, which is that I have no clout and I have no money.

You could say you just got to grapple with facts.

You could say it's about reality or something, but in reality, if the DSA were to make choices that were too disaligned with the Democratic Party hegemony, the DSA would suddenly, you know, lose.

Any kind of connections that it had, all the networks that it had, and potentially lose the relevancy, it thinks is so.

Yeah, well, if we started putting out political statements that were dumb, or we started running a bunch of candidates that lost elections, workers would think that our group is dumb and they'd stop voting for us and they'd stop paying attention.

So I agree with you.

Okay, so when you're talking about workers, what exactly do you mean?

I mean the workers and the working people that exist out there that are voters and vote in elections.

So if if the D SA is primarily a working class party, you'd think the D S A candidates in New York, for example, were primarily more represented by working class people.

Yeah, and I mean like was the working more in favor of the DSA candidates than the Democratic establishment incumbents in terms of statistics and stuff, demographics.

Well, there's a lot of definition of who is the working class today.

What's that?

That's just the reality is that socialism is primarily a movement of like the white-collar semi-proletariat or whatever you want to call it that feels like it's being scored.

Yeah, no, I agree with that, but I think Nate is trying to say that this is about pandering to the workers and getting winning the workers, but the DSA isn't winning the workers.

So why is this?

He's just winning one section of the workers.

It's just not winning like an, you know, the entire working class.

It does have a it is there is I think it is yeah, I mean, I would agree with what with what Donald's saying.

Like, it's a segment of the working class.

It's not the whole working class.

I wouldn't really call it a segment of the working class, but I guess that's semantics.

What I'm trying to say is I mean, Zoran won a pop a majority of the popular vote for New York City mayor.

I would say he won the vote among the working class.

I have a question.

So Trump was able to run on things like talking about completely cutting off funding for Ukraine and stuff like that.

Like would the DSA have the independence to adopt that position?

I don't think that that's uh I don't think we should be modeling our politics off of Donald Trump.

No, no, I know, but does the DSA have the political freedom to do that to say we've nothing to Ukraine?

I mean, yes, I think that's position on Ukraine.

I think that's literally like we've already put out statements about that.

I mean, I don't totally agree.

I don't have a position on Ukraine.

I think the DSA position on Ukraine is fine.

Like, I'm not as pro-Russia as you are, Haas.

So I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is I don't think the DSA has the freedom because it doesn't have political independence.

Well, because DSA is political relevancy, so there's costs and benefits taken from that.

Like all kinds of radical statements, but like none of the actual representatives in Congress are going to actually agitate for those statements and to the public.

That's the thing.

That's the problem with DSA is that the DSA Congress or convention will pass all kinds of radical stuff and pass all kinds of radical platforms and programs.

But when it comes to actually agitating for them, it doesn't really happen because our representatives in Congress don't like, you know, aren't unified around it and don't agitate for it.

And the DSA is what you're saying is, Nate, you're saying the DSA is a politically independent organization.

So why can't it form its own party?

Why does it have to be wedded to Democrats?

Well, I mean, if you compare us to any other country of the multi-party system, we basically are a political party, right?

We're a membership-based organization that's funded by DSA, what's up candidates that has a program, right?

We're much more of a party than any other organization that purports to be a party in the U.S.

But here's the problem.

All of our representatives talk about themselves as if they're a member of another party.

Like Zoron is a very important part of the world.

Yeah, let me ask a simple question.

If you're truly politically independent, why has this true party discipline of it's not a party, but it's the equivalent.

Why can't you exercise something like party discipline when it comes to AOC or Zoron?

You have the freedom to do that?

Well, I think we're increasingly exerting party discipline because we have voted at our conventions and made policy decisions at the National Political Committee to increasingly focus on running what we call our cadre candidates, which are candidates that are not available.

So was it party discipline?

Was it the decision of the DSA to endorse Hakeem Jeffries?

No, but I think when you look at something like AOC's, you know, AOC

Yeah, AOC's position on Israel-Palestine or Zoron's position on some of the budget stuff.

Like, DSA clearly does have political influence to move.

This is downstream of the candidates running coalition campaigns where they're not just accountable to DSA.

You can accountable.

Even if that was true, did DSA have a say in Zoron's endorsement of Hakeem Jeffries?

Well, we probably did.

I don't think that we were the determining factor in that.

So if the DSA were to have told Zoron, we don't want you to endorse Hakeem Jeffries, would he have listened to the DSA?

Yeah, that's a good question, actually.

Yeah, I'm not familiar, actually, if like the French.

I think he would have just ignored the DSA.

And I think AOC continued to ignore the DSA and was justified.

But you didn't even pay dues to the DSA for seven years.

Right.

So what I'm trying to say with this is that you can be.

What do you want to do that?

That's a whole other thing.

You can be an influential caucus within a party, but that doesn't mean you have political independence.

Political independence means that you have your own positions.

You make your own choices.

You may retro, and you can say, well, we make our own choices.

True, we just retrospectively justify, you know, completely being subservient to the Democratic Party.

Okay.

You can make choices, but you have to make choices decisively in ways that distinguish you from other parties.

And you simultaneously actually have to exercise some degree of control over the people you're saying justify the relevance of the DSA.

So we DSA can get Zoran elected.

Okay.

But is Zoron yours to begin with?

Because if he's not yours, you don't have political independence.

You clearly.

You're making this point that we can't do everything that we want at every point.

No, no, no.

I'm just saying, how do you exert your political will?

But clearly, we can exert political will.

We elected the mayor of New York City, right?

But we have agency.

But how is it your will?

We don't have it over everybody.

How is it your will when he doesn't act on behalf of the will of the DSA?

Like, I'm sure the DSA played a role in getting a Democrat elected.

They did.

But did the DSA exercise an independent political will through Zorwan Mamdani?

Clearly not, because he doesn't answer to the DSA.

I think he answers the DSA on a lot of stuff.

I think he takes our positions on a lot of things.

He might be influenced by promises and things that we ramp up.

He might be in the middle of the day.

He's not an example of you having an independent political will, even if you influence him.

Well, I would disagree because there's this disagreement about what is political independence, right?

You say that DSA can't control its electeds with complete totality and control that you would have that the bourgeoisie exerts on its representatives, right?

That same degree of control.

But there's, I don't think just that amount.

Nothing more than just that amount.

When we're talking about political independence, right?

Like there's one, there's one thing on the table, which is okay, you can't control everything at every given moment, and you're going to have politicians that act in opportunist ways.

I want to up the party line.

And then the other option is having no electeds and no power and never running.

And you can't do anything.

So you don't have political independence and you can't do anything about it.

Politics is about sovereignty.

Let's say a country invades your country, right?

And you're saying, well, this country sometimes does things we want and sometimes doesn't.

It doesn't matter.

You don't have sovereignty.

They have occupied your land and it's in their hands.

You are not the one wearing the pants.

Okay.

So it doesn't matter if you have influence or if the Democratic Party happens to be doing things you agree with.

Just you're saying, well, we don't have full control.

That's pretty extreme.

It's like, well, you don't have sovereignty.

It's like it's not yours.

Sometimes it happens to align with what you want.

Sometimes it doesn't.

So what is the answer if we don't have total authority or total control?

The answer is we need to continue building DSA and continue building class independent political institutions by having more people.

The answer is you acquired.

The answer is you acquired a requirement.

I require more elections to influence the elections.

No, the answer is you compete with both the Democrats and the Republicans to win the radical center of the masses, right?

The center of gravity.

The people who swing in between both, the apolitical people, the people who are not consolidated as ideological subjects.

If the DSA could vie for those people, then you could say it could build the foundations for independence from both parties.

The problem is, institutionally and structurally speaking, it is impossible for the DSA to do that.

Why?

Because the way the DSA is set up is that it institutionalizes factionalism.

Factionalism makes it impossible to have a targeted, solid, concrete base from which you can rely on in a singular capacity.

When you have factionalism, the various segments of the masses that you're able to draw from becomes dispersed and ultimately regresses into something self-reinforcing where the only masses you can draw from are the same type of people that become activists for the DSA in the first place.

So you can't have a cadre-mass distinction that's so fundamental for historical socialist parties.

You have to only be able to recruit among the very people who would become members of your party in the first place, or win, I should say, not recruit.

You can only win ballots and votes from the very same type of people who would join your organization in the first place.

The problem with that is that it will make it impossible for you to ever win any real segment of the broad masses, and you will never be independent from the Democrats and Republicans who can actually have a base among those masses.

Like the type of person that joins the Republican Party is not the same, and I'm talking about as a politician, is not the same type of person who votes for Republicans.

The type of person that votes for Republicans is not necessarily ideologically wedded to the ideology of the Republican Party.

Same thing for the Democrats.

The DSA has no equivalent of that because it is not a party and because it institutionalizes factionalism.

Okay, so there's a couple concepts here that I think also get at the real categorical difference between DSA and ACP, which is that y'all have this view that somehow we're going to organize and activate this like huge layer of apolitical people or centrist people or even ideologically right-wing people to suddenly become the vanguard for socialism.

Whereas DSA doesn't agree, right?

We're looking at the people that are out there in current politics that already have various opinions that agree with us on policy, but they're just discussing.

So our position is very simple.

The people who want to be activists and professional revolutionaries have to be Bolsheviks, have to be militant, have to be accountable to themselves somehow through some kind of collective discipline.

And we don't hold those people to the same standards we do to the masses, who ultimately are not going to dedicate their entire lives to doing this, right?

So yes, we have a very harsh standard that we impose on people who want to be the activist type.

So in that sense, we'll be very critical of the DSA types.

But when it comes to the masses, it's not that we think they're going to be the vanguard, because the only people who are going to be the vanguard are the people who distinguish themselves in the first place as the professional revolutionaries, as the Bolsheviks.

Now, whatever segment of the masses is most receptive to them without simultaneously being the same type who joins them full-time, like for example, the Bolsheviks.

Um, had a relationship with the proletariat, with the factory workers, right?

Majority of those factory workers who supported the Bolsheviks did not join the Bolshevik Party.

Majority of the peasants who supported the Bolsheviks did not join the Bolshevik Party.

Uh, and that's kind of the relationship they were able to establish.

It's not that we consider the people that I'm talking about to be the vanguard, it's that they are decisively necessary to get a foundation for political independence that can actually compete with the Democrats and the Republicans in their own arena.

You can't win the nation unless you win that segment of the masses or have a foundation among them or have some kind of connection to them.

I don't, and the problem is that the DSA's connection to that strata is very convoluted because they have a basis in the same type of people that would become members of the DSA and activists of the DSA, right?

Those people are not the masses, and the ones who are gatekeeping the relationship between those types of people and the broad masses are the two parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

The Democrats can say these are crazy, out-of-touch college kids and entitled, spoiled millennial, you know, Nepo babies living in Brooklyn or something.

Republicans can say the same thing.

And the ability to access the broad strata of people for whom that representation would be decisive is impossible because the DSA doesn't reach the masses because it can't.

Because in order to reach the masses, you have to be one unified center.

You have to be one unified party and organization.

Otherwise, you're going to be squabbling and having a conflict over what kinds of people you should be reaching in the first place and who you need to be targeting.

So when you pull together everything you organize and you say, we need to reach these people, right?

When you institutionalize factionalism, that's not possible anymore.

Because maybe there's a faction that says, no, we need to stay with the Democrats.

No, we should only target Republicans.

So I don't think that exists.

But in any case, there's going to be all sorts of conflicting ideas over how the unified capacity of the organization should interact with the masses.

And that creates an immobilizing weakness where the only people you're able to recruit from are the type of person who's going to fall into one of these factions in the first place.

Let me tell you about the Bolsheviks why you're wrong.

So the Bolsheviks were not at all representative of the broad masses in Russia, right?

This is like saying, why do the Bolsheviks only appeal to the workers instead of the peasantry?

Why do the Bolsheviks, why are the party members literate when they're not representing the illiterate workers?

Like, if you actually look at history, right, and you look at who were the actual party members in the Bolshevik Party, you know, there's this huge speech towards the equivalent of white-collar workers, right?

No, no, no.

You had a ton of flirts at a side of shoppers, you had a ton of people that had to read and write for their job.

You're just able to participate in the colours.

You're just saying this.

But you're saying the same thing that I said, okay?

What Bolsheviks were is they took these people who oftentimes, yes, came from the bourgeois intelligentsia or petty bourgeois intelligentsia and subjected them to an extreme form of accountability and discipline and militancy, right?

Like they held them to a very high standard.

They weren't dedicating their organization to serving the interests of the professional petty bourgeois intelligentsia, right?

They weren't, you know, saying, yeah, this is the masses, this is the working class.

No, the Bolsheviks were a nightmare for the majority of the, they were hated by the overwhelming majority of the bourgeois intelligentsia, right?

I mean, the majority of the bourgeois intelligentsia swayed toward the cadets.

And then the Mensheviks were much more acclimating to the sensibilities and the class interests of the professional intelligentsia, with whom the Bolsheviks had their split with, right?

So it's wrong.

Yes, the Bolsheviks drew from, by and large, the type of person that would join the Bolshevik Party is a professional revolutionary.

But why the Bolsheviks were able to reach the masses and represent them effectively is because, you know, in Stalin's word, they were turned into a type of Knights Templar of the proletariat, a kind of political, religious, you know, military formation, whatever the language Stalin used.

They became selflessly devoted to building the organization and reaching the masses.

That requires DSA today.

No, that requires a level of militancy and unity that the DSA does not have.

The DSA had thousands, tens of thousands of people knocking towards Zoran Mayo.

Okay, they have to.

I don't think that there's any other radical party that can do anything like that.

Being active and motivated is not the same thing as being unified and disciplined and militant.

It's not the same thing.

Going out to the masses, something like something like DSA, listening to what they want, putting forward a platform that's informed by the masses and their interests and their demands.

The same organization, we can look at the electoral demographics.

The people that the DSA were talking to were the same type of people that would become members of the DSA.

That's who they were winning in the election for Zoron's election.

Now, the DSA did not do that.

Okay, first of all, this is what happened in the beginning in the Democratic Party primary.

The DSA was able to unify a huge segment of the same type of demographic that joins the DSA-you know, the professional white-collars, whatever.

And them pulling in and unifying that entire population made a lot of scale-tipping for Zoron when it came to the Democratic Party primary.

By the time the mayoral election came around, yeah, Zoron became a genuinely popular figure, but that's not because DSA cadre were this unified organization that was so effective at meeting the broad masses where they were at.

It was because of Zoron's.

I actually kind of got to push back against that.

Like, I think that the DSA's ground game and the ability of DSA to get tons of dedicated members to mobilize on the streets and actually hit the pavement and talk to people.

But the DSA was only able to talk to people that were already, to some extent at least, receptive to the DSA's message.

And that's what I'm trying to say.

Whoa, because when you run in an election, you go and you reach out to voters that actually vote in Canada.

Like, I'm not talking about it got DSA people outside of the bubble a bit more than sure.

But when you scale this at the level of a country, you're talking about having to have the discipline to not just meet people where they're at, you know.

In terms of like who are the types of people you you would be comfortable having conversations with already but people who are fundamentally the size of a small country with 11 million people who are fundamentally to have like a you need to have programmatic unity and you need to have like you know some kind of basic you need to have the bare minimum around you need to have the bare minimum of a discipline that says i know the masses ideologically fundamentally do not see eye to eye with me and there's no you know it's i can't just go to them and talk to them like i would talk to a member of the dsa or something they are there's a fundamental rift and fundamental line between the party the cadre and the masses right that distinction is necessary if you want to be able to have the freedom and independence to reach a broad base if you don't have that you end up

You end up becoming part of the base, so to speak.

And if you're part of the base, a segment of the base, then in no unified capacity are you able to represent a nation at scale.

You're only able to reflect one of the various classes or segments of the population.

Like the US government is unified.

It's absolutely US government has the unity that Bolsheviks say independent organizations need to have.

They have it on lock, right?

Democratic Party, Republican Party, that's the Epstein class when push comes to shove.

Biden was giving money to Israel.

I would say the Republicans and Democrats are more divided than at any point in recent history.

Sure, that's yeah, as an objective contradiction, yes, but what I'm talking about the unity of action.

FBI is acting with a unity of action right now.

We're not at the stage where the FBI is divided right now in terms of cracking down on opponents of the regime or something, or the CIA or something.

Maybe we're getting to that point in terms of a civil war, but for most of the existence of the bourgeois state or the imperialist state,

The bourgeoisie has a unity that transcends factional disagreements and differences.

We already have unity of action.

It's called vote blue no matter who.

That's not a unity of action.

That's just a deference to.

That's not a unity of action.

That's just being a fucking slave to power.

That's not a slavish devotion to your Democrat master.

That's not a discipline of an organization at all.

It's a discipline of the objective political conditions that we're in, where everybody agrees it's in our interest, right?

But hold on.

Organically, right?

Any of that organically, people just do it.

Spontaneously, that's not true.

50% discipline people can't best for Zara and they just organically want to do it.

More than 50% of 50%.

More than 50% of this country are not Democrats.

So no, you're wrong.

We are not Republicans or Socialists.

Sure.

Uh majority of the poll that just came out showing uh I think it was it showed a majority of uh Democratic voters, or maybe it was forty percent, like double digits uh of Democratic voters saying that they considered themselves a supporter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Even if that's true yeah, that that that doesn't mean though that the rest of the sixty percent are undecided.

I'll try to find that poll.

But in any case, it can also mean 10%.

Yeah, but hold on.

In any case, I think you're just kind of missing the point.

Vote blue no matter who is not a unity of action because that assumes that people are some that you're genuinely transcending individual subjective differences.

But if all you're doing is transcending to power, you're acquiescing to a unity that you have not proven your own responsibility for.

When you have a unity that transcends subjective political disagreements, that is a unity that is yours still, if it's your party.

So if you say, you know, we're always going to be Bolsheviks, no matter what of our individual disagreements, yeah, because we are Bolsheviks and the Bolshevik party is ours.

It's our unity.

When you're saying, well, regardless of our disagreements, we're going to vote for the czar or something or bow to the czar.

Well, you're already doing that.

So that's not a unity of action.

That's just the default, right?

Oh yeah, I found that poll.

So it's Quinnifact University finds 26% of registered voters say they consider themselves supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America, including 59% of Democrats.

Okay, uh that's a great poll.

Uh and what about the rest of the forty percent?

While we still need to win the moment.

But that's the problem.

I think that you're running up to a problem where.

You are not going to get 100% of the Democratic Party.

Yeah, we're not.

But that's the thing.

There's 60% of the Democratic Party currently says, yeah, the DSA is great.

According to the people, we need to...

According to one poll, which is the only thing that's not.

They've been fully exposed to all of the media, you know, showing them the radical position.

I think that the truth is there's a genuine polarization within the Democratic Party, which I think has a popular component.

If quote-unquote popular, I think there's a lot of people who vote Democrat who would oppose the DSA for the same reasons they oppose MAGA.

Okay, and this is what they take to meet the moment.

60% of the Democratic Party just means you're going to get crushed by the Republican Party.

That's what I'm trying to say.

You have 60% of the Democratic Party.

Okay.

Well you have a situation where Republicans and establishment Democrats team up to curb stomp you.

What do you do then?

That's why we need to work in united fronts and coalitions and divide and conquer our opponents.

So, again, what that means, concretely, we need to build coalition.

What that has meant concretely for the past 10 years is acquiescing to the Democrat, the DNC.

That's it.

That's you.

What the DNA has done is acquiesce to the D to the DNC.

But when push comes to shove, the Democratic middle finger that has ever happened to the DNC ever in history.

Let me ask you any point in history.

What happens when if progressive candidates lose in the swing states in the midterms?

What then?

I think Abdul's got it, for example.

I think Abdul's probably gonna win.

Okay, what happens if a lot of

Centrists, or sorry, what happens in a if a lot of swing states progressives lose, what happens?

Well, then it's going to be an opportunity for us to point to the centrists as traitors to the Democratic Party, as traitors to the coalition who betrayed the interests of working people and letters.

Can we put people over to the people?

Plenty of Hillary supporters called a lot of Bernie people traitors in 2016, but who cares?

What difference does that make?

They did it because it was an effective persuasion tool, right?

Who did we persuade?

What is that persuasion?

Whether we win or lose, we have to put it in the future.

How is that effective?

How is that effective?

What was the outcome?

Well, they're trying to persuade and inoculate people to not go over to the other side by being negative about the other side.

That's what anybody does in politics.

So by calling the Democratic establishment traitors because you were unable to defeat the Republicans, you think that's going to be an effective message for the majority of who?

Well, I'd rather win, but if we lost, then I would be saying that.

Yeah, but that would not be an effective way to take responsibility for the fact that you have failed to bypass the way Democrats and Republicans gatekeep the center.

And that's what I'm trying to say.

They gatekeep this the center.

I don't know what else word I would use for it.

It's not really a center politically, but it is people who are not solidly Democrat or Republican.

The median voter.

And that's the thing.

The median voter agrees with the DSA platform.

The median voter agrees that the economy is rigged.

I think the political system is rigged.

The median voter agrees with the other people.

I don't actually disagree with that.

I think the majority of the median voter is very solidly left-wing populist.

I have no disagreement about that.

But they also happen to be, at the very least, centrist when it comes to culture war stuff, which is another problem the DSA has when it comes to reaching that type of demographic.

Would the DSA be willing to make pragmatic united fronts and compromises, which, you know, for example, forward and advanced left-wing populism economically, anti-war stuff, but maybe they would have to compromise with being in a big tent where not everyone agrees about the sports thing and stuff like that.

I think that's where you see in the DSA, you know, that lack of political independence that I'm talking about because it's unable to define what for it is the supreme principle for which it is willing to rank other things as of a more secondary importance, right?

The test of political independence means you have a supreme principle.

You have a supreme thing that's the most important thing, right?

So, for example, if I'm the anti-war party, I have a principle.

The most important thing is anti-war, right?

The most important thing is fighting for that.

That's what my whole party is about.

So I'm independent.

I get to pick and choose what alliances I want to have because that's my supreme principle.

When DSA's supreme principle is something vague called democratic socialism, which means nothing concretely, they can make all sorts of excuses to justify why they're playing second fiddle for the Democratic Party.

But if in an accountable way the DSA had a program, like Donald said, where they have a supreme set of goals that they are willing to prioritize at the expense of everything else potentially, it can decide what alliances it wants to make, what is more important, what's less important.

When that becomes concretely defined, suddenly you have to have a unity of action that factionalism makes impossible.

Well, lucky for you, you can visit program.dsausa.org to read the new DSA Workers Deserve More program, which has a concrete set of policies and demands that we are fighting for by hundreds of thousands of businesses.

So, Donald, if they have a program.

I've seen it on Fox News and on MSNBC and all of that.

So, Donald, if they have a program, if they have a program, what's the issue, Donald?

Well, listen, like, I agree that it's like a good platform, and it's good that we have it, and there's a lot of good stuff in it, you know.

But the problem is that the representatives that we have in Congress aren't agitating for it.

So, hold on, to be clear, the DSA right now has a unified program of the DSA, right?

Yes, called Workers Deserve More, which is not a name I'm very crazy about this.

Okay, workers deserve more.

Okay, and let's see the Workers Deserve More program so I can pull it up.

Yeah, it's program.dsausa.org, and it calls for the abolition of capitalism and the nationalization of major parts of the commanding heights of the economy, as I think the language.

There's some good stuff in it.

I'm not gonna, you know, I'm not gonna lie.

So, the DSA considers its organization to be based on the supremacy of this program at the expense of all else.

Well, that's the thing.

What would make the realization of this program more likely rather than less likely, it would be possible for the DSA to enter a united front with potentially temporarily, maybe like a Tucker-Carlson party that maybe has a different view about the transgender sports things.

But we're not going to focus on that right now.

We're going to focus on unseating the duopoly to make this program, which radically contradicts the program of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party more possible because we're opening space for a third perspective.

I think a more realistic and common example of a united front would be: you know, in Zoran's campaign, in a lot of these DSA campaigns, we meet a lot of voters that don't agree with every single point of our program, but we focus an appeal on this left populist economic message around common interests, right?

And that's why Zoran led with these immediate demands: fast and free buses, freezing their rent, right?

Like these very specific universal child care.

So the DSA.

And I would say that our program as a whole would contradict the Tucker-Carlson populist program.

But because we would have our own, if we were really standing on our own program and really unified around it, we could have United Front with those types of populists on specific planks that we agree on.

Yeah.

So like just to be clear about what I'm talking about here, the DSA, I mean, I'm just going to just be realistic.

I've been asking questions like, you know, Socratically, but the truth is the DSA does not have the political independence to actually pursue a program.

At the expense of its loyalties and obligations to the Democratic Party.

Like, it just can't do that.

And I have no party to work in coalition with other forces and groups that are currently in the Democratic Party.

Right?

That's our view is that it's effective at advancing the program.

You don't even have, even if it was decided this was more rational, for example, the DSA doesn't even have the capacity or the independence to do it because it would be too contentious according to its factional system.

Well, the factions are largely supportive of the program.

I don't think that there's really you're only able to form a program if you get them all on the same page.

So, congrats on that.

But when it comes to how to realize the program and what kind of alliances you have to make and sacrifices you have to make, I don't believe the DSA has proven any kind of unity of action when it comes to acting in ways that...

The unity of action is we've elected all these candidates.

So we are going to have eight congresspeople next year.

You're going to have eight Democrats who will be no more loyal to the party discipline or organizational discipline of the DSA.

That remains to be seen.

That remains to be seen.

Like, I actually think we should wait and see what happens and judge each of them.

But okay, what would be different?

I think they're going to be more cohesive than the previous iteration.

What is their payment?

Hold on, hold on.

We're working on competing incentives.

Okay.

So on the one hand, you have the incentives of fully being absorbed into the Democratic Party establishment and being groomed to take the baton that the DSA, you know, for the next generation.

And kind of suddenly you're getting invited to all these cocktail parties.

You're getting all this money, all these offers, like AOC did.

And then on the other hand, the incentive that the DSA is giving is that they're not going to get canceled on Twitter.

So which one is going to be stronger?

Well, that's why we need to keep growing DSA's actual real-world political power by recruiting more members.

Let me ask a question.

Does the DSA have more real politic authority?

But does the ZSA have the same ability to exert control over its representatives that the Democratic Party does?

The Democratic Party doesn't have any.

I do exert it, and through exerting it, we strengthen our ability to do this.

Did you just say the Democratic Party has no authority?

The Democratic Party is this insane mesh and like dish co-op of all these factions that are competing against each other, right?

Like Joe Biden was president and he couldn't pass a huge amount of his agenda items, right?

Because Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema were vetoing everything, right?

There's a huge level of disunity in the party.

Okay.

Understood.

So during 2020, during 2020, when the call was made for literally every candidate to drop out of the race except Biden, was that not an act of unity by the Democratic Party?

That was because there was spontaneous unity and political alignment between all those forces.

It's not because there's a central DNC headquarters that's like making calls and really strong-arming people to do that with someone.

But if we're Marxist disciples, then that unity is the unity of the bourgeoisie and its interests, is it not?

Decisively, when people are not going to be able to do it.

Yeah, I mean, I would agree with that.

I would agree with that.

So, yeah, when push comes to shove, there is, of course, a unity for the Democratic Party.

And what I'm trying to say is, when the DSA is running people on the Democratic ticket, what history has shown is that the Democratic Party has more sway and control over those people than the DSA does.

Well, I would say the Democratic Party is a more and the Democratic Party establishment is more organized and it has more political power than D S A does, right?

And so that's not our relationships with our candidates because people are faced with these.

But if your candidates are the answer to that is to continue to grow the power of D S A.

No, I think what the answer to it is to decisively distinguish yourself from the duopoly.

And I think that's true.

And no one's done that better than Zora Mandani, the New York City mayor.

No, he haven't.

I disagree.

I don't think he's done that at all.

He's one of the most popular politicians in the country.

Can we point out that one of your main tactics is vote blue no matter who?

And now you're saying that you want to distinguish yourself sufficiently from the party.

So which is it?

Do you want like total slavish alignment with the Democrat Party establishment, or do you want to carve out your own structure and do your own thing?

It's very clear.

We have our own political independence and we choose to enter into coalition to defeat the fascists because we understand that the fascists are our most immediate.

I want to make this more simple.

I want to make this more simple.

That's not what it's about.

It's about getting elected and winning.

I just want to make this more simple.

It's just about getting elected because the voters care about defeating fascism in a lot of people.

I know that.

Yes, Democrats care about defeating Trump.

That's why they only vote for Democrats.

That's why we have to run a Democratic primaries.

Okay, I want to ask a question.

Like a simple question, right?

So uh

When you're a slave and you're huddled up with a group of other slaves, you know, you're on the plantation or wherever, or maybe it's in ancient Greece, who cares, right?

And you guys are like, okay, look, let's break out and reclaim our independence.

And then one of the slaves goes, listen, brother, we are independent and we're rationally choosing to stay slaves because if we escape, they're going to just kill us.

So let's just stay slaves.

So we're independent.

We're making that choice.

And I'm just kind of like, okay, so does that mean slaves are independent because they're making a rational calculation to remain slaves?

And choosing to do that.

You know what I mean?

Like that's my issue with your reasoning.

It's like, okay, the DSA may rationally make the calculation that it chooses to remain politically subservient to the Democratic Party, but that doesn't give it political independence.

That's just it rationalizing why it's subservient to the Democratic Party.

Well, I'm not going to engage with that metaphor.

But the reality is, as you're saying, that DSA doesn't have the political power to go out and run a third-party candidate for president or major offices and win.

That's not the problem.

So slaves can't escape the, or it's an ancient case.

We can't run a third-party campaign and win.

And so we're choosing to do the thing that is most efficient at building power.

So we're doing the thing that is most effective in the given situation, which is run state.

That presumes things in Democratic primaries to give a voice to the millions of dissatisfied working-class tribes.

That's great rhetoric.

It's a great political alternative to the establishment.

That's great rhetoric.

It's a great strategy that elected the mayor, but we are here to say.

All of that depends on the following view, right?

Depends on the following view.

When push comes to shove, when the contradiction becomes decisive between the DSA and the Democratic Party establishment, somehow the DSA is going to prevail in that confrontation.

Because the only way what you're saying is true is if the DSA prevails in that confrontation.

I don't see how they could right now.

We prevailed in the New York City mayor election.

We defeated the establishment.

You prevailed in the place that was already solidly blue, where you don't have to worry about swing states.

But I'm talking at the Democratic Party as a party of Mao said, unite the advanced, win over the intermediate, isolate the backwards, right?

But Mao is not defining that.

And radiate outwards.

We build a lot of people.

Mao was not defining the advanced in terms of those whose sensibilities already aligned with those of Marxists.

He was defining the advanced in terms of those who are most angry and willing to fight.

And those who are conforming.

And that's DSA candidates.

No, those who conform to the duopoly system are not the most angry and willing to fight.

QAnon is more advanced, according to Mao, than Brooklyn DSA voters.

Because a QAnon crazy nut at any point is willing to go do some crazy shit against the government.

Like, let's not quote Mao here because what he means by advanced and what you mean is very different.

Well, is QAnon a real threat to the government?

I don't think so.

Are the Brooklyn DC gangsters?

And political aesthetic.

No, some fanatical peasant anarchist wasn't a threat.

But at the end of the day, it's like when Mao was talking about the most advanced, he wasn't talking about this opportunism where you're going to presume that because you're able to win over solidly, already solidly blue populations, that you have proven and tested your mettle when it comes to actually winning the nation decisively.

Like DSA can win in New York.

I agree.

DSA can win in places that are already solidly blue.

But the confrontation with the Democratic establishment is going to be about how they gatekeep the center, right?

When the Democratic establishment is somehow able to prove that the DSA cannot actually win versus Republicans, that is going to be the moment where the DSA is going to have to make a choice.

We're not ready to...

Bernie outperformed Bernie outperformed Biden in polls against Trump.

I agree.

I agree.

He is going to outperform against fascists in the modern Republican Party.

That is only true.

Hold on.

That's only true if the Democratic Party is united around the DSA.

But already the Bill Mayers are making it clear.

This DSA thing for a lot of Democrats, they'd rather be with Trump and the Republicans.

And that's just a fact.

Yeah, that's what Cuomo did, and he lost.

In New York, in New York.

One city.

They rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders twice, by the way.

Hold on, hold on.

In New York, which is already New York is not the Rust Belt.

New York is not a swing state.

New York is already solidly blue.

We're working our way up.

Okay, let me let me just you talked about the blue dog Democrats like Joe Manchin or whatever, right?

Where are they?

Who do they represent?

Well, nobody anymore.

They're both out of office.

Well, the major corporations, you know.

Yeah, but but who was who were voting for them?

Who voted for these blue dogs?

Well

I mean, I don't know, like, well well, it Joe Manchin has more of a claim to have like an actual centrist constituency versus Kirsten Sinema really like kind of deceived and bamboozled their voters and then but these were these were she was facing a primary masses in hotly contested places hotly contested between Republican and Democrat and I think the DSA would have a hard time beating Republicans in those places

Well, I mean, you look at Abdul El Saeed in Michigan, we'll just, you know, we'll have to see what happens in six weeks, but I think he's going to win in Michigan, right?

In the Rust Belt.

Yeah, I don't know if maybe, maybe the Republicans are demoralized enough right now that he could win.

I don't know.

I mean, Obama won.

So that's a thing.

So we'll have to see.

But Abdul is not in the DSA, to be clear.

Yeah, but I think he's kind of like one step removed, you know?

I think Abdul is someone who's like publicly denounced Hassan Piker and publicly distanced himself from socialism altogether.

And I don't know.

Yeah, but he's associated in the media and everybody knows he's associated with socialism anyway because he is a political vehicle for the outrage working class.

And he's not about politics.

But the thing about Abdul, though, but if you don't know whether the DSA candidates, for example, are just going to sell out once they get to Congress or whatever.

But we know for a fact Abdul is just a careerist in the Democratic Party who doesn't have any loyalty to any kind of equivalent of the DSA.

So that victory will not necessarily be going in the favor of the DSA when they're confronting the Democratic establishment.

I think it would be a victory for the working class, probably.

I think it would be a sign of shifts in public opinion and shifts in the basic balance of power.

Robbie, what's going on, man?

Appreciate the tent.

And the working class is disorganized.

No, the way I would interpret an election like...

Politicians are able to be vehicles.

Now, if he is able to win, the way I would interpret that type of election is not that he became popular among the working classes as much as Trump became unpopular and the Republicans have become unpopular.

So it's really a test of how demoralized is the Republican Party base.

And that's really the main thing, you know, as far as I see it.

But in any case, the Democratic establishment will always be able to use as leverage over the DSA that it will be happy to unite with the Republican Party in some capacity, whether that's through gatekeeping the center or outright, like Bill Mayher says, like, you know, uniting with Trump against them.

In any case, that's the hurdle the DSA is never going to be able to surpass.

In my view, you know, because not without like actually basically breaking with the Democrats.

Yeah, exactly.

That's exactly what it would have to do.

It would have to have a clean break with the Democratic Party and be just as much, you know, there's a reason why the Green Party right now is like, you know, considered this shadowy pro-Russian something because the Green Party is independent.

And I don't like the Green Party, but it is independent and it is shunned.

And DSA is not allowed to endorse Green Party candidates for a reason.

We don't want to.

We think they suck.

We think they're bad.

Okay, and the slave is not going to be.

We don't want to be associated with them.

Okay, you're making the choice to acquiesce to the Democratic Party, but it doesn't mean it's any less of a type of subservience to the Democratic Party, where a Green Party candidate could have positions that are more in line with the DSA program, but you will never endorse them or support them or even give them a chance.

Even though, let's be honest, the Green Party is not a sect.

There are cases where with enough support, maybe they could have a chance, right?

But you're not allowed to support them because you're fundamentally wedded to the Democratic Party.

We don't support them because we don't want to waste voters' time.

We don't want to tell people donate, knock doors, phone bank for this.

Couldn't somebody use the same logic.

Well, we could be driving them to somebody who's going to win the election.

Couldn't somebody make the same logic against Zoron before he became relevant?

Well, that's the difference with Zoron because they had ranked choice voting, so he could run and not be a spoiler candidate because those votes would be counted by transferring to Atlanta or whatever second choice, third choice candidate, even if Zoron lost.

And that's why ranked choice voting and public matching funds in New York City created the unique conditions that allowed Zoron to win.

But there could be conditions.

Which is why we need to fight for ranked choice voting and there could be conditions elsewhere where a Green Party candidate could win provided there was enough backing and support and resources and phone banking for them.

And the DSA consistently says no.

I I don't think there's anywhere where they're running real campaigns.

Yeah, I don't know.

What about that guy?

You know, there's a there's a guy who spoke.

There's a guy who spoke at our conference who was named Butch Ware.

What's the r problem with the DSA endorsing him?

Dude, he got like a couple thousand votes, right, for governor.

That was like not a good performance.

Uh I don't think the election has happened yet, has it?

For Butchware?

Isn't he still like running or something?

You know what you should

Okay, wait, I'm pulling it up.

You know, I'm pulling up.

No, because they had the first round, 'cause they have a runoff.

Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, what if the sound is.

They have a jungle.

Okay.

Okay, wait.

I'm I'm searching for it on the Ballotpedia page, on my phone.

Which where.

Alright.

Wouldn't the support of the DSA?

Okay, he got 0.2% of the vote.

22,493 or 98.

I can't see on my phone.

9 million, he got 20,000 votes.

Wouldn't the support?

Like, you were just saying this is a big guy running a real competitive campaign.

He got 0.2%.

No, I brought him up.

The only reason I brought him up is because he spoke at our conference.

But wouldn't the DSA?

That's the kind of guys you have at your conference.

People get 0.2% of the vote.

Like, this is the same care.

What are you running?

22,000 people is not nothing.

But what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't the support of the DSA?

It is nothing in the state of California.

9 million people voting in the election?

Voting in the bourgeois election that most enlightened workers don't vote in?

Okay, hold on.

I just want you to answer this question.

Wouldn't the support of the DSA help people like that at least get more than 0%?

Well, if he was the DSA and he chose to run as a DSA candidate, he was a Democratic Palah, maybe he could have done better.

If you're talking about building power and being patient and having these small victories first, why has the DSA done nothing to build up independent candidates who are outside the Democratic Party?

Because you're not going to win overnight, I agree.

But pouring your resources and your effort into doing that, wouldn't that at least amount to something eventually?

Why is the DSA opposed to that so consistently?

Well, because we care about winning an election and then having an elected official in office after the election.

But you're not, but the DSA spent 10 years.

The DSA spent 10 years.

Hold on, this is a lie.

This is outright wrong.

The DSA spent 10 years trying to get Democratic socialists elected, and the majority of them didn't get elected.

You've got hundreds of elected officials.

No, I mean, no, the truth is, in the aftermath of 2016, the aftermath of 2016, the DSA made a concentrated effort to get people elected, and the majority of those people did not get elected.

But over time, I guess the experience might have helped eventually get it to the point where it is now.

Why couldn't experience like that have gone toward a concentrated effort to get an alternative to the Democratic and Republican Party elected?

I don't understand.

Well, they tried doing that with Byron running as a independent in Chicago this year, but then they got kind of.

Why is it that if you fail one time, it was decisively dis I'm just trying to run you through logically why actually Elvett points to a very simple conclusion.

The DSA doesn't even have the freedom to do this because it is fundamentally corrupted by its weddedness to the Democratic Party.

I don't think that like.

I think there's an even easier explanation, which is that the base of our voters, which is many millions of working class people, they care who wins the presidency of the United States of America.

They care whether it's a Democrat or a Protestant.

More people care about football.

They don't want it to be the Republicans.

More people care about football.

More people care about football.

They don't want it to be the Republicans.

They don't like Republicans.

When you knock on a door, they ask you, are you a Democrat or a Republican?

If you say, oh, I'm a third thing, they're like, I don't know what the fuck that is.

Tell me what's going on.

But you have to, hold on.

But the whole point is...

We say Democrat and then bam, you can start winning elections because it shows what your politics are.

This is such a warped logic.

This is such a warped logic because you have to begin from somewhere.

Of course, when you begin, you're a nothing.

But the point is, you build from something.

If you don't even try and after one or two failures, you give up entirely.

Why was the DSA unable to have a concentrated, sustained effort to build up the possibility of electing alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Party?

Why is that more of a long shot than normalizing words like socialism in the country?

I'm going to try to pull up the election results.

Actually, and by the way, talking about because look, the majority of people's attention might be focused on presidential elections.

That doesn't justify why a socialist organization should focus on presidential elections because the majority of people's attention is divided in all sorts of ways.

More people are focused on football.

More people are focused on all sorts of nonsense things.

I mean, if we could get a socialist in the Super Bowl, like, I think that would be a people.

What are the things?

What are these guys going to be there?

What are the things you can dedicate your time, resources, and energy on that are actually going to advance independent left-wing and socialist politics in this country?

I don't think the answer to that is spending over a decade being an appendage of the Democratic Party.

If there was ever a time in which this entryism into the Democratic Party might have been justified, it was Bernie 2015-2016.

But when they just rigged the election against him, that should have been the cause's belly for a completely clean break from the Democratic Party entirely and a sustained effort for a Dem exit to destroy the Democratic Party, really.

That would have been an exercise of strong muscle in power.

But instead, what did we have?

We had people consistently talking about how Trump is too dangerous, Trump is too dangerous.

Well, Trump won, and he also won again in 2024.

So clearly, the people that were saying that it's necessary to stay behind the Democratic Party because of the danger of fascism, clearly they were proven wrong.

Clearly, the socialists and the progressives and the left should have been more ballsy and would have been more willing to have revenge against the Democratic Party and punish it for whatever fuckery it was doing in 2015 and 2016 because Trump was going to win anyway.

Quote-unquote fascism was going to win anyway.

So the thing that the left should have been doing.

Is doing everything it could to implode the Democratic Party, blow it up from within, and form an organization that is the most receptive to its principles.

That's why in 2024, DSA should have run a challenger in the Democratic Party primary against Joe Biden because that would have been the single most effective way.

But why did it not challenge the leadership?

Well, everybody thought it wasn't a good idea, and everybody was like, oh, Joe's invincible.

But I was saying that it was okay.

I understand, but there's a reason why the DSA will never do that, is what I'm trying to say.

That's what I'm trying to say.

They will never endanger the prospects of the Democrats winning against fascism.

They'll never do that because there's kind of a simple trade-off.

Like, running a presidential election is pretty expensive, you know.

So there's a lot more benefit to running.

The DSA will never do anything.

I got the win rate.

I got the spreadsheet, by the way.

The DSA will never do anything that comes at the expense of the interests of the Democratic Party.

It will never.

Okay, so total all DSA campaigns, local or national, endorsed since 2018, 1,300.

No, you have to go from 2016 to like 2024, for example.

Like, that's the relevant.

Oh, I only have it since 2018.

That's what I got.

2018 up until now is going to be skewed by the recent victories a lot.

Okay, okay, 2018 to 2024.

Let's do 2018.

Okay.

2018 to 2024, it's 1,016 total number of contests and 429 victories.

So it's 429.

Okay.

That's 42% win rate, 42%.

Okay.

And how many of those elections were like nonsense, like city council stuff?

Nonsense.

Don't you guys have like a share, like a bailiff or something?

I don't know.

Yeah, but the difference is the reason I'm calling them nonsense is because what I'm trying to say is it's not particularly hard if you're like a massive organization to put poor effort into like winning like really easy positions like the highlights.

Well, we used to not be a massive organization.

No, no, I know, I know, but you're saying like to be honest, high bailiff was getting high bailiff was harder than you would think.

I mean, it did require actually a lot of campaigning and door knocking and shit.

Like it did, honestly.

There were people involved in that.

But the truth is, it was as easy as it was for us to do it.

Okay.

So that's a pretty low bar, admittedly.

But I wouldn't claim that, but that's why I wouldn't claim that as evidence of the grueling, you know, painstaking work of like failing a few times eventually to score the W.

Before the DSA ever got to a point of being able to get Zoron in, they had to eat a lot of failures and losses when it comes to bigger elections.

And they were willing to do that, but they're not willing to eat failures and losses for the purposes of advancing a third party.

And that's really what I'm trying to say.

Well, I mean, if you look at our, okay, for 2026, we got 59 wins, 66 loss.

So that's what?

59?

I don't know.

59 plus 66.

That's a 47% win rate.

So, I mean, majority, slight majority of election campaigns we run, we lose, right?

Like, we're not unwilling to take risks.

You know, there's all sorts of debates, like the New York City DSA debate over TOC.

How many of those risks?

There's a lot of questions to ask about the data, right?

Like, how many of those were incumbents?

What was the size of some of those races?

How many of those people did the DSA endorse later into the campaign?

How many of those people?

What I'm trying to say is that ultimately.

Did they get support from fight agency?

It ultimately doesn't even matter if you're not able to actually exercise political independence through these victories.

It doesn't matter.

Yeah, and you also can't make them do shit.

That's the point.

That's what I'm trying to say.

You can't make them do anything.

So it doesn't matter.

Dude, I mean, they're doing stuff.

You're wrapping a billion dollar light rail transit projects.

You're bragging about Momdani a lot, right?

Can you get the DNYPD to close their Tel Aviv office?

Get him to do that right now.

Can you?

Okay, I have a simple question.

I have a simple question.

No, they basically got him at gunpoint.

No, no, no.

Hold on.

I have a simple question.

This is the type of shit I'm trying to say.

Honest to God.

This is really just as simple as this.

I don't want us to run in circles and get bogged down and head entry.

Okay, let's say after the midterms, the Democrats do very well, but Trump decides that the communists are the biggest threat since Pearl Harbor.

So he's nullifying the results of the elections and deal with it.

And he's going to roll out the military.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

Okay.

So in that scenario, and then he says, you know, the DSA is outlawed or something, right?

So in that kind of scenario,

Do you think the Democrats have the spine to contest that decision from Trump?

I I don't really think they do.

I I don't think they do.

I mean I don't.

Okay.

So how materially would the DSA uh challenge that?

Well, it's like, okay, imagine a scenario where you've just been shot in the head.

Like, how would you respond to that?

No, no, because he's asking you a very simple question.

You're claiming these candidates as your victories.

You're puffing your chest and beating it.

If a crisis like this happens, what is the likelihood of those people intervening on your behalf?

Well, I think our people would intervene on our behalf.

I don't know about that.

I'll explain.

I'll explain.

Well, if you think about it, wait, wait, wait.

Let me respond to this, though.

Because this kind of, you know, relates to the whole issue of like the instant fascism theory, right?

Which Peter Camejo is a great, you know, rebuttal to.

But there's this idea that, oh, we're like, you know, we're just a second away, like a blink away from fascism.

Things can come crashing down at any moment.

But no, the current, like, present state of the state is a reflection of the balance of class forces, right?

And the only way to pull something like that off is if, you know, there was like this radically different balance of forces.

But the Republicans are not.

No, it's I'm just trying to tell you that they've lost popular support.

And if they tried doing a coup, they would be overthrown.

The military would rebel against it.

It's not necessarily true because it's all a game of chicken, a game of risk.

What are people willing to lose?

What are they willing to die for?

What are they willing to tolerate?

The truth is something like instant fascism or whatever is very possible because quantitative things that seem like really common, that eventually becomes a very qualitative, decisive rupture.

And the thing about nothing ever happens, you know, when Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany, that was a nothing ever happens moment because nobody just, nobody fucking did anything.

He did all these things.

Same with Mussolini.

All these things happened.

And majority of people were just like, okay, do I want to go on the street and die for this?

What's the point?

And things went, there was continuity.

There was a sense of continuity with that because nobody was willing to actually die for, you know, to resist this.

And I look at the U.S.

It's the balance of class forces.

And you look at the Minnesota hub.

It's radical.

It's a radically simple huge general strike.

It's a radically simple.

ICE backed off and they stopped the deep.

They scaled back their incursion into the city.

They took the ICE out and they fired the top ICE leadership.

They fired the head of the homeless security because of the protests because the masses wouldn't tolerate it.

No, no, look.

The Trump administration does not have the authority to do everything they want to do because they're not politically independent.

They're like, look, look, look, look.

It's a radically simple game of chicken that I'm talking about.

Okay.

And what I'm talking about is when it gets to a certain point, the people in control of the military, the police, the governments, and the institutions that exist have to make a choice.

Is it worth bombing all of this in order to resist this illegal, unconstitutional decision?

Or is the continuity worth it?

You know, there's continuity, there's smoothness here, and it's worth it to just kind of keep things going as they were.

At least there's peace.

At least it's not destruction.

And acquiesce.

That's what happened in Germany.

That's what happened in Italy.

That's what happens everywhere where you have these military coups and dictatorships by these right-wing juntas or whatever.

It just happens.

Like that's what happened in Chile.

That's what happens in Indonesia.

And that's how it works.

And the same thing could happen in America easily.

And unless there's this very audacious, brave effort.

I mean, look, people rioting in the streets can happen.

But you want to know how that shit starts to end very quickly when you start making an example of people.

You know, when you really start cracking down and hands off, gloves off, when there's blood on the street, and okay, it horrifies the population, but does that mean you have an organized opposition to the regime?

No.

And so all it takes is to inspire some fear to crush that stuff and shut it down.

Really, all it takes is terror and fear.

That's it.

The crowds will disperse when people really, when bullets really start getting unloaded, and people realize what the price of these kind of protests is going to be, and it's fear, and it's terror, all that stuff will end.

Like guaranteed.

You know, there is a possibility of ruling by force.

And uh you know

What whatever the D S A is doing right now, it is so radically unprepared for that in comparison to how close we are to a scenario like that.

I I I'm trying to see if I have permission to release these polling numbers.

There's a poll that you'd be interested in from the Center for Strategic Politics, and I'm trying to figure out if it's public or not yet on this exact topic.

Did you early have Mamdani at gunpoint?

Well, here's the thing.

Would you rather have a socialist mayor who's held at gunpoint by the police and can do kind of some things in control of New York City or have no socialists in charge of the money?

What I'm trying to say is reality is more profoundly black and white than that, actually.

That's what I'm trying to say there's a radical simplicity of reality where it's like, no, things become very radically simple very fast.

It's not simply, oh, well, would you prefer this trade-off where on the spectrum of socialism, he's a little bit more socialisty than...

No, decisively speaking, someone is either an agent of the regime or they're not.

Decisively, when push comes to shove.

And it is black and white.

And now, in terms of the contradictions that can be exploited by anti-regime forces, yeah, it's not black and white.

There's all sorts of strategies and possibilities to pursue.

When it comes to defining the content of an actor themselves, it is radically black and white as to whether they are building capacity to oppose the regime or they're being absorbed in the regime's machinery.

And that is a black and white distinction.

Because when you're building capacity to oppose the regime, the truth is, let's say a scenario like I just described happens.

If someone was building a type of organization that could weather that storm and facilitate the possibility of communication across lines and at scale and the coordination of activity in ways that could evade surveillance and access to resources and choke points and build among segments of the masses, like people that occupy very decisive sites of.

the facilitation of economic activity in the country, people who could shut down the country, for example, then that type of organization will be very prepared for a situation like that, l eons prepared

uh in comparison to the DSA.

And that organization could have been a sect that didn't have a lot of people, but because it was unified, disciplined and militant, it can weather and be underground for a very long time.

Whereas the DSA's victories I mean compare the Bolshevik party to the German Social Democratic Party.

So s compared to the German Social Democratic Party, the Bolsheviks were a sect of a sect of a sect.

They were nothing.

But who ended up occupying the supreme reins of power when all was said and done?

Wasn't the s Germans?

Well, that's because they had very different conditions, right?

Like, I mean, the Bolsheviks were formed under, you know, the autocracy in czarist Russia where they had no freedom of speaking.

Good, then it should have been easier for the Germans to win power, but somehow it wasn't.

Well, it's because there's different, you know.

It's because the Bolsheviks because the Bolsheviks and the Chinese learned something radically simple.

Politics is radically simple.

It's black and white.

You either are just an idea that popped into their heads.

It's because they had very different political and economic Marxists only won.

But when it was easier for Marxists to win, like in Western countries, they've never won.

They've only ever won when they had to comprehensively account for their position and their principles in a way that was radically simple.

And that radical simplicity became a unity that the masses actually came to respect versus this kind of thing.

Well, it's because in China and Russia, you had these anti-democratic, more authoritarian systems of government that were unable to be responsive to changes in popular opinion.

And so, you know, they were unable to get a lot of dissent, and so they were overturned.

Versus in Western Europe, when you have a liberal democracy, when you have parliamentary democracy, people can run an election.

Since the 1980s, then that dissent can be incorporated, which is why they still exist.

That hasn't been true.

Listen, that has not been true.

That's good.

That's just what happened.

No, that has not been true for a very long time.

For a very long time, since the post-war period, especially today in America, but if we were just talking, like since the trajectory of the post-war period has been the creation of a completely extra-democratic dictatorship in the entire NATO world, right?

Whether that's Gladio, whether that's the Epstein, you know, kind of shadow class, you know, billionaire oligarchs, I mean, you name it.

This is something that exists outside of democracy, the CIA and so on and so on.

I mean, they completely overturned the election in Italy when the communists were about to win.

Then you had the years of lead that was orchestrated by Gladio.

It's completely wrong.

Western countries are just as undemocratic as the Chinese and Russian conditions were.

It's just that Marxists only ever won.

when they could be comprehensively an alternative to the center.

When the thing that they're fighting for isn't just to be more popular within respectable institutional civil society.

They are comprehensively fighting for

the center, the center of the masses, the center of gravity, and the center of power as a completely radically alternative, comprehensively alternative form of power.

And that is radically simple.

That's not something that's complicated.

That's a black and white type of thing.

That's red versus blue.

You know, you're either red or you're blue.

It's very simple.

Yeah, and I choose blue.

But that yeah, but that's the problem.

Like, you choose glue, you're going to be absorbed into the system and you're not going to be able to confront it in any decisive way when push comes to shove.

Well, this is the, I think, ultimate disagreement, right?

That

I believe that even if entering politics as they exist requires coalitions in United Fronts where you have to work with people you disagree with, you have to be around candidates and politics.

I don't, in principle, I have no problem with that.

In principle, I have no problem with that if you're doing it from a position.

We're taking that opportunity.

But if you're doing that.

Sitting on the sidelines and self-marginalizing.

I have no problem.

I have no problem.

Okay, look, as the founder of MAGA communism.

And that's what Michael Harrington called for: being the left-wing of the possible, engaging with politics as they actually exist.

You know, it's like abstract socialism versus actually existing socialism.

As the founder of DSA is actually existing socialism in the United States.

Okay, as the founder of MAGA communism, I obviously have no problem with pragmatism.

Okay, that's not a real thing.

You say that it's like a movement, you know, that has to be a problem.

I'm the founder of Cheeky Nonduism.

Okay, you're talking to someone who very self-evidently is well known for not having a problem with pragmatic alliances and United Fronts or whatever.

The problem I'm trying to say is that you have to do that from the perspective of political independence or else it means nothing.

That's what I'm trying to say.

The DSA is not doing these alliances in United Fronts from a position of political independence.

It is impotently rationalizing its position of political subservience, which is its premise.

It's not something it has.

I'd say you're impotently rationalizing your political marginality, right?

Like you're saying, oh, I don't matter.

You know, I can't win elections, but it's because I have the purest politics, right?

You're just no, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm not saying there's no.

But you have an opportunity to not be marginal by engaging with the actual political conflicts that are happening right in front of you.

Look, look, I'm not justifying a position of marginality.

I'm setting a reasonable expectation of what it is going to look like to build something that is truly politically independent that is radically outside of the hegemony.

What is that going to look like within the first two years?

It looks like DSA.

It looks like DSA 2016 to 2018 when it was crazy.

Nobody understood how Robert Smith worked.

What it really looks like is exactly what the Bolshevik Party looked like, a sect of a sect of a sect.

That's what it's going to look like.

I don't think that's really accurate.

But that's the truth.

It looks like the Soviets, which were these multi-tendency, like big democratic bodies that were crazy and wacky and all these competing groups.

That came out in the realm of debate with the masses, with the politically activated masses.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The masses are not in political conflict.

The Soviets emerged nearly two decades.

There's a lot of ordinary masses-type working people that just show up to random DSA events.

Okay, but the Bolshevik Party began as the advanced Marxist militants have an opportunity to talk to the Bolsheviks.

There's a lot of random ordinary working-class people that come around DSA protests and events.

It's a pretty well-known organization.

In any case, the Bolsheviks began as a sect of a sect of a sect.

The German Social Democrats were infinitely more popular and widespread.

Only one of those two organizations seized the reins of the.

And DSA was a sect.

And DSA seized the reins of DSA protection.

It was never a sect.

To be clear, it was never a sect.

When was it a sect?

I'm talking about like DSOC and shit, you know?

It was like a couple thousand people, you know.

It was never a sect, okay?

It was part of a movement from the get-go.

And in any case, the Communist Party of China I was thinking about.

That's not a compliment.

The Communist Party of China began even smaller than the Bolsheviks did.

You know, I visited the place where Mao learned Marxism.

I visited the place where two years after the CPC forms, it has, what, two hundred members?

So, you know, that's the CSA formed, if you trace it all the way back, we are the, you know, true successor to the Socialist Party of the United States.

It's fine, but the Socialist Party actually had its own party and its own candidates and you don't.

Well, Eugene Debs belonged to New York City.

Eugene Debs belongs to the banks.

No, you don't.

I mean, you say that he's a hostage with the candidates, okay?

Eugene Debs.

They're also not your candidates.

Yeah, he belonged to that party.

Your candidates don't belong to the DSA first and foremost.

They belong to the Democratic Party first and foremost.

If I go to Zoran Mamdani's social media pages, is it going to say that he's a member at DSA or is it going to say at Democrats?

It's very obvious that he doesn't fuck with you guys.

Let's be real.

He just doesn't.

It's kind of cringe to say it like that, but it is, man.

Oh, yeah, that's why all his staff and cabinet people are all DSA.

You're right.

You're right.

Actually, you guys control him.

Can you get him to stop the close the NYPD office?

Can your party close any office anywhere?

Can your party close the city?

No, we're the sect.

Can you elect somebody who's an election with more than 200 votes in it?

Hold on.

Nate, the problem is...

Nate, hold on.

We have accepted the consequences and the sacrifices of being a quote-unquote sect.

You are the one claiming to be this radical, popular, anti-hegemony, independent force of the working class.

So you haven't accepted the sacrifices we're willing to.

All we're asking is, what have you actually earned if these are not even your candidates?

They are our candidates, like we endorse them, they're our members, yeah.

But you can't even get you can't even you can't even get them to obey the consensus of your organization.

Well, they take well, if you look at the choices that Zoan's making, I think most members would probably agree that it's a very important thing.

So endorsing Hakeem Jeffries is the will of the DSA?

Well, he's probably going to be speaker, right?

Yeah, but is that the will of the DSA?

I think there's going to be a meeting and talk about negotiations for the speakership.

I think there's actually going to be a big opportunity for that.

And the master is passing away and is passing away and his son's taking the plantation.

So should we shrug our shoulders and just accept it?

All right, that's a good point for me to go to sleep because it's 1:35.

But I appreciate you guys having me on the show.

So I appreciate it.

Let him do something, okay?

No, look, I appreciate.

Look, look, I'll send Dunn.

I appreciate you're willing to explicate your position in an open way.

I usually see DSA people as corrupt because they don't want to put their position to the test and argue for it.

But if you know, something that I view historically as implicit corruption, whenever I see that becoming an explicated position, I think that's progress because it's no longer resting on the laurels of this kind of like implicit culture of power and cynicism.

You're explicating your position, you're trying to, and turning it into a theoretical principle you're accountable to.

And I think that's actually more progressive than all the elections of.

Candidates combined.

I think if more DSA supporters were kind of like the geese people or even this guy and they start explicating their position and out in the open, you know, talk, you know, openly saying, oh, well, this is the principle I'm accountable to.

You know what?

That's progress because maybe there could be a circumstance where you realize that your theoretical position or your principle is wrong and you can change it with just as much willpower.

And that's what I pray for: pray for the strength that whatever principle becomes

the receptacle of the explication of a position that I find completely indefensible, form of subservience,

That you have the willpower to be accountable to that principle, and if it is so proven to you on the very terms of that explication, change your position, eventually say, That was my position before.

I was accountable to it, I explicated it.

Now it seems rationally justified to me to have a different position, to break from the Democratic Party, to do something different.

I hope, you know, maybe that's naivety.

But in any case, I have to get going too.

It's actually quite late for me for my bedtime.

But, you know, great space.

Um Patriot, great space, and uh you know, hopefully we can do this again, you know.

Yeah, I spent a lot of time talking to Donald Parkinson and these geese people, trying to form these relationships, trying to start this dialogue.

And I'm really happy it culminated in this.

This is a very good showing, Haas.

But I'm going to go to bed.

All right.

See you later.

See you later, man.

Bye-bye.

Alright, Astra.

So, Astra.

So, this is the thing, Astra.

Trying to save my usage credits so that I can include the prompt in this.

So, all I have to send you when I send it to you is: hey, go get the latest kick vod and check the instructions on the kick vod.

Steven, what's up?

But I'll give you some instructions.

So, Astra, I'm talking to you.

Uh the way I want you to cut this is I want you to have me on one half.

And then on the other half, I want you to isolate a portion of the space so that people could see the speakers and see who's talking and stuff.

The other thing I want from you, Astra, is I want you to cut this in a way

that um ke basically preserve

Uh everything

And just give me the time stamps, 'cause I don't think we can condense this or cut this debate or whatever.

So just give me the time stamps so I can make chapters of them so people can navigate it, navigate all the arguments and everything.

And then the other thing I want you to do after you want you to get highlights.

I want you to make a condensed highlight version.

Um we'll see.

But Astra, there's a lot of content for today's stream.

There's stuff about the Sneeko stuff and there's all sorts of things.

So you have a lot of work to do, which is going to take a lot of credits for certain.

But it will be worth it.

Alright guys, I will see you later.

Grandma Americana, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

Wait, did did Kizilbosch already get my shit?

No, no, okay, it's a different one.

Alright guys.

So

I will uh see you guys.

Okay, see you guys sometime.

Later.

Bye-bye.