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

The winner takes all

It's the thrill of one more kill

The last one to find

Who never sacrifice

They will

Don't ever look back

on the world closing in

the only attack with your wings

on the wind

oh the death will begin

and it's sweet

sweet

victory

and it's

all for the taking it's ours for the taking

It's ours for the fight

In the sweet

victory

And the one was last in all free and the

one is last to fall

The winter takes on You don't win no silver

Oh you want to lose to gold

You're pushed with a fever

Oh your time keeps

too long

against all the odds

against all your pain

your box on the wall

with no one's blame oh your backs on the wall would know what to blame

our hearts will be dinged

and it's sweet

sweet, sweet victory

oh it's all

strong

sleeping

it's always

for the

place and it's sweet

victory And it's sweet, sweet victory

And the world is asked to follow

Oh, the wind is to find Take it home Take it! Take it! when the world is hostile for us to fall. sweet

sweet

victory

it's just for the taking it's all for the taking

It's ours for the fight

And it's sweet, sweet, sweet victory

And the world was last to know

the wind is last to know baby. Baby when I met you there was peace unknown

I set out to get you with a fine tooth calm

I was soft inside

There was something going on

you do something to me that I can't explain

hold me closer and I feel no pain

every feet of my heart

we got something going on

on

tender love is flying

It requires a dedication

All this love we feel

Needs no conversation

We're lying together

Uh-uh

Making love with each other

islands in the stream

that is what we are

no one in between

how can we be wrong

settle away with me to another world

And we rely on children from one lover to another

Another one love to another I can't live without you if the love was gone

everything is nothing if you got

no one of you did

walk in the night

and slowly losing sight

of the real thing

But that won't

happen to us and we got

no doubt Too deep to us and we got no doubt.

Too deep in love and we got no way out and the message is clear.

This would be the year for the real thing.

No more will you cry

Maybe I will help together

We're starting in this one

In love forever

We can ride it together

I thought Making love forever we can ride it together making love with each other

islands in the street

that is what we are

nothing in between

how can we be wrong?

Set away with me to another world.

And we rely on each other, uh-uh, from one lover to another

Uh-uh

Uh-uh Uh-huh Uh Uh say Where can

fade the way

with me

Islands in the street

That is what we are

No one in between

how can we hear of

sail away with me

to another world

and we're alive

I'm turning

from the lover to another We're allowed From one moment

To another

Islands in the street

That is what we are

No one in between.

How can we be wrong?

Sail away with me to another world.

And we rely on each other.

From one other to another to another, I'm not.

Islands in the street, that is one way of the... there is what we are there is sorrow in me heart

O me old old gun

Did we lately have a part

O me old old gun

In Ireland's day of me

I approve the friend indeed

When you made a bullet

speed oh me old old

I was glad when you were near

Oh me old hoth gun

For the foeman did I fear

O me old old gun

When you're back in bitter bite

But the sackson course the flight and he didn't stop to fight oh me old old gun oh how glorious was your feel oh me old old gun when you made a saxon reel o me old old gun when the lancers trimming meat came charging down o'connell street and they beat a grim retreat oh me old old gun

through the parting it was sore oh me old old old gun

shall I nor see you no more oh me old, old, old gun. Shall I now see you no more?

Oh, me old old gun!

There's glorious hopes that we could have set old Ireland free.

Now you parted far from me, oh, oh me old old gunn oh the day will surely come oh me old old

gun we'll join the fighting men oh me old old gun in some brave determined band

I will surely

take my stand

for the freedom of our land

know me all we call the gun We call the gun You may sing and speak about Easter week and the heroes of 98

Of the Thienian men who roam the Glen in victory or defeat

Their names on history's pages are told their memories will endure not a song was sung of our darling ones in the valley of Nacanur.

There was Walsh and Lyons and the Dalton boys that were young and in their prime.

They ramble to a lonely spot for the black and tans did hide. The Republic bold they did uphold the

outload on the moor

and side by side

they fought and died

in the valley of knock andure

it was on a neighbouring hillside

We listened with

Candice May

In every house

In every town

A maiden L to pray

They're closing in

around them now with rifle

fire so sure

and lines is dead

and the Dalton's down in the valley

of Nac yore they talk them then beside the fence to where the furs did bloom like brother's soul they face the foe To meet their dreadful doom

When Dalton spoke, His voice it broke With passion, proud and pure, For our land we died as we face the sky in the valley of knock andure the summer sun is setting now behind the feel and knee the pay-pay moon is rising far out beyond folly the dismal stars and clouds afar are darkening all the more.

And the fans she cried when our heroes died in the valley of knocking you They call me Sonic, because I'm passive and sound, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speeds, I'm I'm

I'm

I'm The The They call me Sonic, cause I am faster than sound, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible speed, I'm moving my feet.

They call me Sonic, so now it's passed with them sound

And we've been jumping around

You have popped on it

With the credit my feet

And losing my feet

May you call me

Son

You can't

You head have done't have done. You can't have a lot. I'm Yeah, They call me Sonic, because I am passive than sound, I keep on jumping around.

Blue Hedgehog Sonic, with incredible feet, I'm losing my peace.

They call me Sonic, because I'm passionate than piece I'm losing my feet Let you call this

Sonic The ground

In touch with Sound I see

I'm just in the round

Lose that cost

Sonic

Sonic Sucing

Credit for peace

I'm moving my feet

I'm moving my feet

They can

It's Coney Sonic Hey, call it, sunny.

You can't have done it. You can't have done it. Hey, Blue Hedgehog Sonic

They call me Sonic

Because I am passive and sounds

I keep on jumping around

Blue Hedgehog Sonic With incredible speeds I'm more passive than sounds, I keep on jumping around. Blue catch, hot song, with incredible speed, I'm moving my feet. Where?

Where?

Where in the pharise and chelho?

Tchafe the day from wealoo?

Stam from bussad, betchaed, with cald, and cragap, and It's not It's a lot of It's all right You know

You'd beckoned

And I'm gonna'

I'm gonna'

I'm waiting I'm in

Not the I'm gonna be never

That you

You're

you're gonna be just to take

To take

you I'm I'm I'm I'm on I'm you're, you've got to focus to beckxed by the t'clock Oh, I,

I'm malle on the glee

I'm

I'm

I'm a little

I'm

I'm a lot

on you

turn to

tell us

and you

and you

still, you my

you're and you

say

you're there, I'm a million with her, she's and she'll be at

us at our

yeah in

the eye

and the

sight of

we're all we're

seeing what

the

btou

we're with us

with us

we're

at us and we're with us on our journey at I'm

where

I'm

that's my

I'm

and I

don't I'm

don't

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm that you that's I'm I'm I'm gonna be happy I'm gonna spend my word that's

you're gonna

be happy

you can't I'm sorry

and you

I'm sorry

that's a

I'm

I'm gonna

I'm gonna

I'm gonna

I'm gonna

I'm gonna Iai. I'm her, I'm on our on us

t'emps,

you're t'n't

t'n't t'n'n'i'n

you, she's, you my,

she's,

she's, ta'n'

'

say, you

'

, my

and the

ass'ra'

we're at us' yeah, myur the stah let's a little

a

one of a lot

to see the

I'm that

we're

with we're

with

we're we're we

have my

uh

uh

up

up

your uh my uh uh Oh, weha, I'll up your Rasmuch,

you know

Marceau'atrassie

Ah,

no becky

no,

no, no

how did

me

raus

and you

and look and loo

and and and

we're

we're we're we're we're we're You know, let's hear of us. You know, the whole Nassu'll be able to I'm sorry I'm a lot of

the What a door? Oh

What a door? I don't know I'm going to

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm I'm not

I'm

I'm I... I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm The

I don't know

I'm a lot of the

I'm

I'm

and

I'm a little more and we don't know

I'm going to be the question

I'm going to be

a lot of

and I'm going to be

and I'm going to be a guy and The I'm I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm and you know

I'm

I'm What's up, guys? What's up, guys? We have about 12 12 15 minutes until the space that we're going to be doing today

i don't mind my fit i just uh you know got back from the gym basically so i didn't have time to, you know, get in my regular suit.

Whatever, it doesn't fucking matter, all right?

Now, listen up.

There's a lot of things on the agenda that I'd like to talk about today, as a matter of fact.

And we don't have a lot of time before the speech, so I want to get right into it.

So first and foremost, I want to talk about some recent controversy, and it actually is a

recurring controversy. And it has a lot to do with cattle-like psychology, which I don't hold my people to the standard of.

I don't hold ACP members to the standard of having cattle-like psychology. We regard non-communist, non-Marxists, as having the psychology of basically cattle, because they're basically children. They don't have

consciousness yet. They are pretty much completely ignorant and completely devoid of the ability

to think critically in the sense that Marx meant the word criticism, right? They're unable to actually

understand the relationship

between the appearance and the essence of things, right? This is what non-Marxists

lack. They lack this ability. But our community,

our communists, infrared viewers, who've been here for a very long time, they're supposed to understand that distinction.

I would hold Midwestern Marx's followers to the same exact standard.

So why is there so much confusion when it comes to Jackson's tweets. If Jackson tweets something that certain people find

that, okay, this is not what a party should be communicating. Well, he's not, the party isn't

communicating that. It's just his personal Twitter account.

So why are people unable to make that basic

distinction? And

that's what I want to clarify. That's kind of what I

want to get into right now before we get

into the Twitter space. Because I do

find it a little bit frustrating

when Yellowstone, what's up?

I understand complete fucking dumbasses, not understanding this.

I understand ops making this stupid claim that whatever Jackson says is literally the same thing as our official party position.

I don't understand how our own people are confused about this.

So I'm going to be very patient and try to explain it to the best of my ability.

All right?

Because this has happened in the past and it will happen into the future in the future. So first of all, the overwhelming source of the ability for ACP to become popular and get exposure absolutely has been Jackson. 1,000%. So that is a fact. Jackson's successful ability to grow as an influencer has been the biggest advantage as far as us being able to get exposure. Now, that's not to say it's the only reason, right? Because if we

weren't doing what we were doing correctly, we would have died off by now. It wouldn't be

able to be maintained the way that it is. But Jackson definitely has been a really, really big blessing for this initiative.

We initially wanted to take over the CP USA.

We did accomplish that just in a way we didn't expect we would have, right?

And without Jackson being a successful and competent influence, that probably wouldn't have been possible. But then there's some people who take this and confuse the meaning. They make it appear as though, sorry, they make it seem as if, because of that fact, they say this is the Jackson Hinkle party, which is not to denigrate Jackson's role in the party. He is part of the executive board, but people confuse this because this is what I'm trying to get at.

Just follow me here, right?

Stay with me, as they say on TikTok.

Stay with me here.

You understand?

People don't cynically believe that if an influencer is doing

things and if they're working really hard, it's just

for their own benefit. So a lot of

people assume that Jackson

could not possibly be

helping out a communist party

if not for the fact that it's his

own personal vanity project.

So this is what idiots who don't know who Jackson is, who don't know what our party is, who don't know who we are.

This is what they assume, because it's probably true for almost every influencer.

They serve themselves.

They're self-serving, other influencers.

And, you know, the assumption is made that whatever they do, it must be an extension of their own vanity project.

But people need to understand and listen to my words very carefully.

The only proof you need that Jackson is not like any of these other influencers and he's not a grifter,

is that he genuinely has put his entire platform in the service of something that is much bigger than himself, an entire movement, which you are primarily the ones comprising.

If you understood this, if people understood this isn't his vanity project, he doesn't think of it that way, no one else thinks of it that way, that he's genuinely taking a huge fucking risk to boost this party with no precedent at all and he's using his entire

platforms being put in the service

of it in many cases. I think a lot

of the people who look down on Jackson

and assume that he's some kind of scammer

or grifter or whatever would

shut the fuck up because it's so

far removed from the truth if you just know how it fucking works.

All right?

So no, it's not an extension of his personality.

I want to make that absolutely clear.

Because Jackson is entitled to a degree of flexibility and freedom that is far more flexible than what we have for our own formal party communications. And there's a reason for that because when the party communicates when the

party makes a statement on its actual fucking party platforms that is the voice of the entire

collective that's everyone that's the entire party, when ACP Main posts something, that is the party.

When we put something on our website, that is the party.

Oftentimes, I understand that I'm held to the standard as the executive chairman of the party.

So I try to be very careful.

I don't have as much freedom and flexibility that Jackson, that Eddie, that other people

in the executive board have because I am formally the leader of the party and breaking

that distinction between infrared and

ACP is extremely confusing to the general layman but the bare minimum standard that I would hold a

civilized person to is to basically understand the distinction between a collective institution, which is a party,

and the opinions of individuals. Everything that Jackson says is within, obviously, the acceptable

range of opinion within the party. Members are allowed to have these opinions. But when people claim that

ACP has taken a stance on this or that or this or that, it's so fucking mind-boggling because,

no, we take a stance when we communicate this as the party.

Not just as individuals. We don't police everything.

People in leadership or people in the rank and file say.

Now, that being said, obviously there are optical considerations, but nothing Jackson has said crosses those lines.

And even if it did cross those lines, that would be something we, the leadership,

would handle internally.

And it's no one else's fucking business, frankly said.

Now, let me communicate something very clearly, all right?

Because this is going to help a lot of you understand Jackson's role and how much he's done for us.

And I mean that he selflessly has done so much for us and you don't even, you don't even know the half of it.

You don't even know 5% of it. You understand? If you knew how selflessly he's devoted himself to this cause. Not a single soul

would dare even try to

imply that he's a grifter or whatever the fuck

these idiots are trying to say, that he

has no principles and he believes in everything.

You're so fucking stupid you don't get it,

and I'm going to try to explain it to you.

All right? Sorry, I don't mean to and i'm going to try to explain it to you all right sorry i don't mean to

swear and cuss so much but frankly it's pretty frustrating lawn guy with the five appreciate you

now a lot of people think that jackson is like some unofficial mouthpiece of the party.

That's not how you should think of it.

How you should think of it, and this is the most accurate thing I could use to describe it as, Jackson is more like an agent of the party.

In the same way that Tucker Carlson gets accused of being a Russian agent,

John Stowe, what's up?

In the same way that Tucker Carlson gets accused of being a Russian agent in the same way that Jackson is constantly getting fed jacketed that he works for all these different governments right the truth is he is an agent he is literally an agent of our cause he is literally an agent of our cause. He is literally an agent of our party.

That is literally where his loyalties lie. So everything he does is to, even if he's communicating

things that our party would not be communicating everything he

is doing indirectly serves the purpose of benefiting our party that doesn't mean what you tell

the public is what the party believes if you're just an individual but an individual

like jackson communicating what he's doing serves and helps our party specifically by him building

bridges that help our party you need to understand what's going on here jackson is not going to tell random fucking idiot uneducated stupid american politicians you know marxas len's theory, why would he waste his time doing that?

What he does is he moves about in a way that opens many doors for us and helps us i need to fucking communicate something very clear you understand

just like russia just like the soviet union had kgb agents who were uh doing a lot of much more cynical

things than we're doing by the way much more cynical things than we're doing, by the way, much more cynical.

But just like how they had a KGB, we have a KGB, and Jackson is the face of our KGB.

What he does helps our party.

And how does Jackson endorsing Tulsi Gabbard help our party?

Uh, uh, I don't fucking know.

Let's start with if we lift the sanctions against Russia, that is immediate relief for us.

How about that immediately takes legal pressure away from us that we desperately need to be taken away from us?

You fucking idiot.

Why don't you use your fucking brain?

I'm not talking about comrades who had concerns.

I'm just a little frustrated how stupid people they don't understand this.

Yes.

That doesn't mean we fucking agree with...

Oh, you share Tulsi Gabbard's vision for the future.

No, we don't.

But we understand

the utility

of fucking rescuing our party

from legal danger by

doing the best we can to indirectly

affect outcomes

and build the necessary

bridges so that we don't get fucked. Holy shit.

It's like the Bolsheviks had agents that were literally working in the police to save Bolsheviks

from getting

you know

to understand to be 10 steps ahead

what we're doing is much more modest

by the way

but we don't want to be persecuted

we don't want to be we

had Kamala gotten elected I I'm sorry, but we would be in

fucking jail probably, because they probably would have changed the laws to such an extreme

degree in terms of defining what constitutes a Russian agent, that if you share opinions that Putin

has, you're a fucking Russian agent, that would have been the death of our party.

So, yeah, we're doing what we fucking need to do to ensure the victory of our party.

But I'm just trying to tell, just so my own people know this, I don't give a fuck about anyone else, frankly.

I just want to tell you.

You understand?

Everything that we do, whether it seems like it's consistent with our principles or not.

When I say we, by the way, I mean us individually.

Everything that's being done is for the party.

It's, it's

communist disdain to conceal

their aims. All

of the indirect stuff

where all the subversion we utilize,

all of this secret agent shit we every single fucking thing

we do is for our party it is for the victory of our communist party it's for the victory of our

political goals it's for our movement it's for the victory of our political goals.

It's for our movement. It's

for our army. It's for the purpose

of destroying our enemies.

And assuring

our victory. Every single fucking move we make

is for that purpose. Whether it's direct, in which case we communicate it directly through party channels or it's indirect.

And if you can't understand it, use your head and think about it for two seconds.

Use your head and think about it for two seconds. Use your head and think about for two seconds.

What impact Jackson, you know, being looked upon as favorable in the eyes of potentially.

We're not even, we don't even think this this is going to work by the way

amyla but at the bare minimum it's just going to allow us to breathe we need breathing room very

desperately and by the way the time scale i'm talking about guys is months i'm not talking about the way, the time scale I'm talking about, guys, is months. I'm not talking

about the party in the long term. Being friends with the upcoming administration, that's impossible.

But say we can buy ourselves an extra six months that we otherwise wouldn't have before we're going to engage in serious serious work against the anti-China and anti-Iran designs of the upcoming regime serious work if we can buy an extra six fucking months to build our ranks and operate, that's so

precious. The time is so fucking precious. You have no idea how much the pressure is already on us.

They're trying to say Chris Halulali has joined, he's become a police agent because he's the high bailiff, even though the role of the high bailiff is to

fucking arrest the sheriff. But in any case, Chris Hulali's getting stopped at the border every fucking time he comes back.

I'm not going to lie to you guys.

Almost every single time, with a few exceptions, that executive board members and political

members are coming into the country, we're feeling the pressure.

We're being stopped.

We're being questioned.

We're being searched.

Our shit is being taken.

Again, we're not doing anything illegal.

But they have made it very fucking clear that, yeah, they're building some shit. They're trying to they they know all of us they know

everyone in the executive board they've done their research yeah they watch my fucking streams we've

confirmed all of that so look we're trying to get we're trying to breathe a get, we're trying to breathe a little bit.

We're trying to breathe a little bit here. It has

nothing to do

with

with a change in our party's

position on geopolitics.

It's just pragmatism.

It's utilitarianism and it's fucking precious. And by the way, who cares? Yeah, we don't want bad relations with Russia. What is Jackson doing that's so unprincipled? This is utilitarianism. This is not some illusory notion that tulsi fucking gabbert is a communist or something

so please i mean honestly welcome to the real world you know the real world you got to make decisions

and choices now our party is only

ever going to endorse people that give something to our party tangibly or reflect our party's

vision and its goals and its outlook. That's why you'll never catch our fucking party

endorsing Tulsi Gabbard

or any other fucking

Zionist for that matter, right?

But Agent Jackson,

KGB Agent Jackson,

agent of the American Communist Party

is well within his fucking rights to do things Jackson, agent of the American Communist Party, is

well within his fucking rights

to do things like this. And guys,

please stop fucking ankle

biting him, because he's, you don't

know behind the scenes how much

he's helping us by doing what he's doing.

You're not seeing the full picture.

Don't ankle bite him.

Don't give him a hard time.

Again, this is not about internal party stuff.

If you're in the party and you're watching this and you might be confused, no, no.

Our internal party discussions, this is not about that.

Those are totally fine.

I encourage more of those.

I encourage people who have questions within the party.

I am directing this more toward people outside the party

who are not even obligated to keep their criticisms internal,

so are just jumping the gun and kind of going crazy.

And I'm also addressing our enemies, our haters, and people like that.

But this is not me using a stream to

hit back against

internal party concerns

and criticisms, which

I encourage. Those are completely

fine in an order.

But I'm telling my guerrillas, I'm telling everyone in general, do not ankle bite him.

Do not jump the gun and assume that he's a bad faith actor.

He's just selfish or he's a grifter.

Because if Jackson was a grifter, he would have stopped being my friend a long fucking time ago.

Because guess what both me and Jackson understand?

We understand the fact that for better

or for worse

sometime in late

21 and early 22

my

my

whole thing you know my whole thing you know my personal career more or less was completely sabotaged what else can we say by the dnc by the way. We know this for a fact.

On Twitch, the content I was doing on Twitch that I was very successful at during the SMO wasn't my bread and butter.

My bread and butter was something much more radical.

It was why most of you are here now, right? And it was stirring up a new discourse within the left. And they had to take me out right away. A masculine left-wing content creator,

they can't fucking have it. The closest thing they tolerate, they tolerate is As San Piker, but they have a

San Piker on a leash. You understand?

So they made me famous. This is what happened. In late 21 and early 22, they made

me much much

more famous destiny is included

in this by the way he also did this

they made me much much

more famous than

um

then uh

then uh then

then my actual growth was ready for,

like by directing overwhelming amounts of negative attention toward me.

Top streamers would just be shitting on me and shitting on me.

And of course, their audiences who don't know a fucking thing about me

you know are just going with it and

you know look I made I'm not entirely blaming others

I'm just saying this is how it went right

these the DNC

utilized their fucking influencer arm i mean it was fucking everyone it was the majority

report it was um just weird fucking people i didn't even know who they were i later i find out

who dylan Burns fucking is.

And it's just this whole network they unleashed on me.

And I was growing very rapidly.

Don't get me wrong.

My support was growing very, very rapidly.

It was very successful and promising.

I was making the impacts I was intending to, but it was a level of growth that I could manage and I could control and I had time to kind of react to and consolidate and things like that. But very, very suddenly, we just overwhelming amounts of negative attention started getting poured on me, especially from Reddit, you know, and the purpose of that, by the way, is to control the search indexes. So Reddit and all these fucking plat, all uh weird glowy things especially destiny's whole destiny

he's a streamer for 12 years he used his entire combined might of his entire following and

his entire platform just to destroy me and bury me.

And it's like no one can survive this, frankly.

The fact that I held my own in this kind of war is incredible, right?

And it shows what kind of people I have. It shows what

gorillas are made of. And, you know, a huge part of me is very happy that we, we, we, I only

preserve the resilience and the strong, in a sense.

And another part of me is certain of the fact that what happened had to happen.

I think about it all the time.

Like, could I have just become a normal streamer political streamer and i i couldn't have i

couldn't have because um because every single fucking day of my life i wake up with lenin's rage i

wake up with lenin's fire i wake up with his anger i wake up with Lenin's rage. I wake up with Lenin's fire.

I wake up with his anger.

I wake up with his mission.

I wake up for the cause of Lenin.

I catch bullets for Lenin.

That's who the fuck I am.

That's always who I'm going to be until the day I actually do die.

And there's no fucking way I could have accommodated myself and adjusted to the rules and the

necessities of growing normally as a political streamer.

I just couldn't fucking do it.

I couldn't fucking take the fakeness. I couldn't take the phon it. I couldn't fucking take the fakeness.

I couldn't take the phoniness.

I couldn't take how disingenuous and disgusting

these leftist streamer pieces of shit were.

I hated their snarkiness and their arrogance.

And I couldn't sleep well at night

if I became like that myself for the pragmatic purpose of consolidating growing the platform.

So in a sense, a lot of what we wanted infrared to become early on, which was to surpass us on Piker

or whatever.

For better or for worse,

and I'm of the opinion, maybe I'm

coping that it was inevitable that it had to

end the way it did. But that

couldn't pass.

But let me tell you something, all right?

This is what I'm trying to get at here.

21, I go to L.A., right?

Through early 22.

And I really meet Jackson in person, right?

Jackson wasn't even that big at the time.

Now, I was in Dumer mode before this.

But after I start meeting Jackson, after he's prepping, I see him prepping for the Sam

Cedar debate.

After that debate, after I meet him,pping for the Sam Cedar debate. After that debate

after I meet him, I get an idea

of who he is, what his character is, what his

background is. I say, this is our

fucking guy. This is the guy

who's going to carry the torch

to the finish line. I couldn't fucking do it.

I couldn't fucking do it because I'm too esoteric.

I'm too angry.

I'm too,

and I'm too chaotic.

I have too much chaos.

See,

Jackson sees a straight line. I don't see that. I see fucking much chaos. See, Jackson sees a straight line.

I don't see that.

I see fucking chaos everywhere.

And that's a great advantage in a lot of cases.

It makes me a very formidable enemy.

It also makes me an enemy that can burrow themselves underground and fucking strike targets,

and they don't even know what's hitting

them. But in terms of

carrying the torch

to the finish line,

it's just impossible.

But I met Jackson and I knew

he was the fucking guy.

And I knew that then and there. I knew he was the fucking guy. And I knew that then and there.

I knew he was the fucking guy who's going to do it.

He's going to carry that fire.

He's going to carry that thing that I knew needed to happen.

Right?

And holy shit, in the years that have passed, how right I was, how correct I was. And people need to understand that when they try to draw

distinction between Haas and Jackson. There is no fucking distinction. The distinction is

Jackson's a KGB agent, and I'm just in the open revealing all the evil plans.

That's the only difference.

I just directly reveal all of our evil plans to the whole world.

And this is the most beautiful part.

This is the most beautiful part.

You ready?

Most people are too cynical and too stupid and too small-minded to know what's even going on. They don't know that Jackson has so much faith and conviction and belief in this small movement we have this small cause he's doing so many big things for this very small cause and people can't wrap their minds around that they can't understand the cause they think the only

they think everyone's a a groveling a grovelling who's getting on their knees and only serving a cause that's already more successful than they are.

But in this case, it's the opposite.

It's literally the exact opposite.

And I really want people to appreciate that fact. I really want people to appreciate that fact.

I really want people to appreciate that, you know, he, in terms of his success, he did not leave this behind.

Far, far from it.

And people, again, they underestimate what ACP is.

They underestimate infrared.

They underestimate the whole small cause and the small movement.

So that's why I'm even safe revealing the evil plans in public.

People aren't going to fucking believe it.

That's fine.

I'm telling my people.

I don't want these people to...

If these people believed it, I'd be in fucking trouble

because then they can strategize around that fact,

and then we'd be fucked, right?

But people genuinely believe that, you know, that his motivations, that the real logic and the real kind of cunning behind his actions couldn't possibly be something that's not already more successful than he is.

And people don't get that.

Sometimes people don't fucking understand.

Put it this way.

Okay. people don't fucking understand. Put it this way. I almost want to

get myself in some trouble

by

referencing an anti-Semitic

paranoid delusion. But I feel like

this is the only thing that I like... I don't know how else I would communicate

this without being too like esoteric.

So imagine the crazed mind of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, right?

You know how a lot of Hasidic

Jews are extremely poor?

They're extremely like dirt

poor. They have no success, nothing.

Imagine them

like in a cave

somewhere wearing nothing but rags

and just sitting

and it's a whole group it's a handful of them

and these guys are nobody's they're sages

right and then

like in the mind of the anti-Semitic

conspiracist

they're thinking oh of Roth's child

and all these huge powerful Jews, right?

And it could never fucking, and only that crazy paranoid anti-Semite could possibly piece together

the crazy idea that Rothschild is actually serving these broke sages, this council of broke sages,

in terms of the mystical cause that they serve or whatever.

And it's like, that's really the analogy here.

Like our cause, we are, we are the Broke'sages.

Not just infrared, but our whole cause, this, this movement of Marxism-Lendism we have that only very few people understand.

And Jackson's like Rothschild, right?

He's very rich and he's very powerful.

But the true cause he serves is not already more successful than...

You understand?

Do you guys get what I'm getting at here?

Like, people underestimate us because we're in a fucking cave with rags, but they don't

fucking understand the dynamic that's working here.

And they will never understand it.

I can say this a million times, and they won't believe it.

And I don't want them to believe it.

Because if they did believe that, we'd be in a lot of

fucking trouble.

Like, I don't even want to... I'm going to say this

because it's reverse psychology.

If Mossad was smart, they would

kill every single one of us.

And I feel like that would really harm Jackson's morale a lot rather than attack Jackson.

Why would I say that?

Because it's reverse psychology.

Because, of course, they're not going to fucking believe it.

Don't curse us.

Yeah, but trust me, they don't understand.

They don't fucking understand how it works because they're retarded.

Because, again, this skull goes back.

I'm going to go back to the space soon.

It all goes back to the cattle-like bovine psychology I like to talk about.

Amila, by the way, I'm sorry if I didn't say, thank you.

West is Red. Appreciate you, brother. Baudrillard. Thank you so much.

The cattle think in terms of clout. Can you guys repeat this for me?

Cattle think in terms of clout. Cattle only see clout. They don't see the master plan behind the clout. That's the nature of cattle.

Cattle think in terms of clout. Cattle think this person must be a nobody since they don't have a

trillion followers or something.

But I'm going to be fucking honest, that's not how influence works in the real world.

In the real world, that's not how

influence works. Australia

Stanley, what's up? And it's

not even that

it's not even that I'm the biggest influence on Jackson.

It's more like Jackson has motivations that he doesn't talk to the public about, but he communicates

only with his fellow comrades about.

That's kind of the dynamic I'm talking about.

Show, Dan, what's going on?

It's like he knows what he's doing, in other words.

It's not like he's blind and he's just

he's taking orders or some shit. He knows exactly what he's doing in other words. It's not like he's blind and he's just, he's taking orders

or some shit. He knows exactly what he's

fucking doing. But people

underestimate that. They underestimate

that motivation because they're cynical.

You know?

And

um, yeah, what you know and um yeah what's true no no cool i i used to not believe this i used to think

this was just cope and maybe i am coping and it's just convenient because whatever, because of my situation.

But what is true is precisely what's not popular, in a sense.

In a sense.

Meaning popularity is something that is not is true outwardly right it's exoteric but the esoteric

input that goes into that when i say input i don't mean from others i mean input from one's own

internal motivations one's own you know what's the french word raison de whatever one's own cause, right? That is not something that directly appears exoterically. And what did I tell you guys in the beginning? Criticism. Marx's critical thinking. the distinction between the appearance and the essence the appearance is what's popular but the essence can never become something popular the essence works in a way that's hidden the essence works in the back end you understand

it's the appearance that's popular not the essence the essence partakes in that popularity sure but not directly indirectly and that's what makes it in essence right

and um people need to fucking understand that they really do do. They really fucking do. Our enemies think they've won

and they think they have defeated us in our cause because of that wall that I hit late 21 and 22.

And I'm not measuring that in terms of popularity. Since then, I've

become way more fucking popular than I ever have been, obviously. Even as a streamer, I became

way more popular after that. But discursively, they came to define my reputation. In late 21 and early 22, it's just pure

reputation destruction. I mean, you search my fucking name on Google, and it says Adam to hear. It's not even my real fucking name. And it's not even my real fucking name on Google and it says Adam to hear it's not even my real fucking name

and it's just nonsense

you know

it's like that was all

very intentional I'm just letting you know

that happened very rapidly

and very intentionally to destroy this momentum.

And then Jackson, they didn't even see him coming. Now they bitch and whine and complain about

Jackson 24-7, but motherfucker, you thought you killed us. You thought this was dead, you stupid,

arrogant bitch. Now Jackson here has a bazooka pointed at your face, which is about to explode.

And you're bitching and whining attacking Jackson.

No, no, no, this is that dead cause you thought you fucking buried.

You thought you won.

You thought you defeated us.

But you didn't.

It's come back to fucking destroy you.

It's come back to tear you apart. And I love watching you squirm and cope. That's why,

ladies and gentlemen, they don't even fucking attack me anymore. They say everything that's wrong.

It's Jackson's personality. Jackson's so bad. Eddie is so bad. Midwestern Marx is so bad. You want to know why they don't

fucking mention me? Because it's humiliating. It's fucking humiliating for them to have to admit

the symbol

they thought they killed

in my face, they didn't fucking

kill it. It kept on going.

It kept on fucking going.

And it wasn't supposed to.

And they cannot fucking admit that.

They can't fucking admit that they didn't get the W they thought

they did. So they're going and they're attacking others because they already think that they

already got me, but they didn't. How did you get me? You're blaming all these other personalities and all these

other people for all the problems. And it's right in front of your fucking face what the real

problem is. Why am I going on this rant?

Maybe I just want some recognition.

Maybe I'm just a petty fucking loser

who's a nobody who just wants some recognition.

Please give me recognition.

I just want to be liked. And not liked, sorry. I just want to be liked.

Not liked, sorry.

I just want to be text Eddie back.

Oh shit.

I literally forgot.

I'm going to join the space in a second.

I just want, why do I, why am I going, why am I stepping out of bounds right now about this?

Because I want to experiment.

Because I want to see what fucking happens.

I want to see what happens.

Um,

I like experimenting.

Anyway, let's, uh, let's open blue stacks. um no the real reason is i want more attention so my streams grow, so more people watch me. And the reason

I'm doing this tactic right now, like revealing the game, revealing my hand, it's because if I

reveal my hand and people take it seriously, they're going to put more attention on me,

which would drive people more to the streams,

which equals more money.

And growing the guerrilla army, obviously.

So that's just a kind of experiment I'm doing.

I don't know.

Probably not going to work

because of reverse

psychology.

Anyway,

let's join Eddie Space.

Yeah,

if you guys can't tell,

I'm building,

I'm building and saving

assets for

2025.

All right.

Anyway, let's join the space.

Let's join this space.

Eddie's going to kill me.

But we fully expect that the hostility from the government towards our party and just from the ruling class in general will increase as we as we continue to grow and this is why you know you need dedicated members and dedicated leadership for sure for sure thank you uh if you want to

make me co-host. I could see people. Yeah.

All right, Eddie.

I'm so sorry.

I went on a major rant on stream about uh defending jackson anyway let's bring up this uh person wait is this sim all right if you are friends with us and like us then unrequest only if Only if you hate us, should you request. Ah, we should,

did you not make a title or no? Oh, I thought I did. Let me talking about ACP, but whenever.

Twitter's stupid.

I just went on the same exact kind of rant

defending Jackson

All right, so not to insert myself but uh we were just talking about the legality of the acp and um

invader are you a friend or an enemy of us um that's a good question i i don't know i know. I, uh, I don't know. I don't think, I don't fucking know either. That's the problem. All right. Sorry, Eddie. They're kicking him off. I don't want to, uh, you can be his friend, but. I mean, personally. Yeah, that's okay.

I told them.

Sounds like a time wasteer.

Yeah, I told them that I'm the nice guy,

and then when you came in,

we're going to crack down, so it's all good.

All right, we'll bring up Comrade Confucius.

Why not?

Everyone wants him.

Let's go.

Hello, Mr. Confucius.

Hello, from the brutal capitalist dictatorship in Darolome.

How are you guys today?

Doing very well. How are you?

Very well, myself. Thank you.

I'm surprisingly not suffering from too much jet lag.

I've just got back from London

I'm so tired but yeah

I've been pressured by your

supporters to come and

talk to you guys

um yeah

all right what are the criticisms you have guys. Yeah.

All right. What are the criticisms you have toward the ACP?

Well, let's

start with the good points

first. I commend you

for your charity

work and I commend you for your charity work and I commend you for, you know, what you've been doing for the people of America.

But I do not agree, for example, that America in its current state can ever become socialist?

That's kind of ambiguous, but broadly, I think we agree with that.

We want to reconstitute the United States, actually.

It's in our program.

I'm a bit curious, though, as to when you say reconstitute it, does that mean giving the Native American sovereignty over America?

Well, they would

have a level of

they would have, they would partake in a

general popular sovereignty, I suppose.

Maybe something that's the equivalent

to an ASSR, autonomous republic from the Soviet times, if they are more interested in preserving their local and specific ways.

But generally, we think the reserve system is a disaster.

We think that the, again, we think the United States of America was a great first step of the actual mission of the American history, which is to

actually build a united, one united

republic, the United States. This is my

opinion, by the way, Eddie, you can disagree with it,

but this is my opinion. Again, this is not

necessarily the reasoning

for what's in our program or

constitution. It's just my take on it. My take on it is that the United States of America was born out of a compromise. At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers had to compromise with the states, which had

a lot of vested in private interests

behind them, including

that of the slave-slavocrats

and the planters and other elements.

So the states wanted to preserve.

They were not really ready to

go full in on one United Republic.

So there had to be a compromise that was made before the signing of the Declaration of Independence

and the ratification of the Constitution, respectively. And that led to, you know, this idea of the United States.

The United States was just all that meant originally was, you know, we states are coming together.

But that didn't really

the federalist vision was not

really fully adopted

and then the critiques of the federalists

you know were also grounded

in not necessarily

just in the private interests of the state

so there was a very it was a very kind of chaotic patchwork.

And we've preserved it, like many other things, like the weights and measurement system that we have.

We've preserved a lot of these things

just out of historical inertia and they have not really come to face their actual

rational basis yet historically so you know that's kind of our view on U.S. American history.

It has been many things, many archaic and outdated things, including our common law framework.

I mean, common law is nice in local settings, but applied to a national scale, it's rather absurd.

We don't even have a real kind of equivalent to the Napoleonic code.

And again, on the one hand, not having these things has allowed us to be dynamic in certain respects, because it's allowed us to focus more on things like civil society which is you know economics and technology and innovation when it comes to actually building a state a functional state of people, we are an extremely young and immature nation,

in my opinion.

And that is what, you know, that's the next stage of U.S. history is going to, as Mr. Dugan has

said, actually, I fully agree with him about this.

The task of really building an American state is ahead of us.

I agree.

If you read the Federalists, their early writings, and Christian Perentheus talked about this.

They say this openly.

They're like, if we form an American state, you know, if we form this union, how, and we give people democracy, how do we stop them from taking our wealth? How do we stop, you know, the working class from preventing the ruling class from accumulating endless wealth.

And they said, well, the solution is to keep them divided.

And to this day, you know, they've done a good job of that, keeping the American people divided, whether it be by the states or, you know, by other things like race and

ethnicity. And it needs to be reconstituted, as Haas said, and really united into one real

socialist republic.

I'm just wondering if that union also includes people from the LGBT community as well.

I'm wondering as to whether that union would also include those people or if those people will be treated as degenerates.

Well, I don't regard people to be political subjects on the basis of their sexual orientation or their sexual activities.

But I don't, it's not, see, it's not really about persecuting people for stepping out of line as it is encouraging pro-social tendencies, which are necessary for a functioning and harmonious and lasting society. So that's not, you know, I don't, as far as the state's

regard for the private life of, you know, private intimate life,

I think it would just be, you know, encourage the facilitation of the continuation of the continuation of society.

And, you know, if people can't come to terms with that on an individual basis, it's real,

this is my view.

It's really up to their families.

It's up to their communities to decide to what extent they are willing to tolerate that. But I think

most societies, including the most extremely conservative ones, have shown that, you know,

exceptions to the rule are not necessarily always, you know, rooted out and completely eliminated and exterminated.

Sometimes there's, you know, just an acceptance that, yeah, there's just going to be exceptions.

And I think that's just the norm for most societies.

But, you know, when you see, I don't like this kind of, because I know there's a lot of implied. I mean, look, do we want to persecute LGBT people? No. But we get accused of wanting to do that because we, for example, don't want it to be pushed on children or we don't want it to, we don't want LGBT flags to be in like the cities and towns and like we don't want pride parades. We don't want things like that. And they very and people kind of disingenuously try to make that personalize.

And be like, oh, so you really hate the individuals and you want to persecute them or jail them.

And it's like, well, no, we're not thinking at the scale of individuals.

We're thinking at the scale of society and that level of responsibility.

And those are two very different things.

Well, in the 1950s, you know, they used to have this belief, this widespread belief that the gays were trying to corrupt American

children with their

what was the word

for it, their degeneracy

yes and

it's a common, I'm not saying

that you guys want to

persecute gay people personally, but some of your

followers, in fact, quite a number of your followers, in fact, have expressed some rather

disdainful attitudes towards gay people, like your friend Mr. Jackson Hinkle, for example.

Mr. Confucius, I have to ask you something. Because we have a consistent problem we face, which is that every single time we ask people to criticize our party, the focus always has to be on this, which don't you find that a little strange?

It's like, it's very strange.

Like, with all the things going on in the world, with all the things that actually matter. Why is it that our,

the fact,

let's just be honest,

that we are just men,

you know,

I guess we're men.

I,

not to flatter ourselves,

but I think we are, you know, masculine, unapologetically.

And, you know, we're heterosexual, normal men.

And, like, I don't, I feel like there's some kind of strange agenda. I don't know where the agenda originates that doesn't want communism to be associated with those kind of traits. And I think that is what I find deeply suspicious. And the reason I find it deeply suspicious

is because if communism is only

ever associated with

extremely, people with

very marginal and

abnormal sexual habits

and, you know,

I think that it's

that that is uh that see

you need to think about it like this Mr.

Confucius when you're fighting a war

how do how do you keep an army

fighting a war how people willing to go and die

and risk their lives they have to have something to fight for.

They have to have, maybe they have kids to defend, maybe they have a wife to defend back home.

They have a future they're looking forward toward.

You know, there's this kind of, there's this kind of successful way in which the authorities, in my opinion,

have divorced communism from having any place in the socius, in the actual heart of society itself,

so that it's consigned to the fringes by just elements that, you know, want to distinguish themselves from, you know, society in every respect. And that those will look, Mr. Confuses, I want to give you an example of this directly.

Just so you understand, we went to Carbondale, Illinois, and we actually thought we would be like, there's a possibility of a confrontation with like the DSA, who were all, by the way, all these people are these sexual minorities you're talking about.

And we thought there would be some kind of battle

or because they said they were going to protest us or whatever.

We went down there and they were nowhere to be found.

Of course they're not going to confront us.

Of course they didn't have the courage to do that. But you want to know who did muster up the courage to start doing reconnaissance

to scout us out, the actual local neo-Nazis, full-out neo-Nazis, like the actual criminal

skinhead types.

And that was, you know, that kind of awakening is like, it's kind of scary to think about the fact that we are like the only organization that can actually fight these people. And that's why we're

a target for actual

neo-Nazis. We're the only ones that are going to be fighting them

when the Civil War comes. It's just going to be fucking us.

All these people who you're talking about who are, have this existential

turmoil about their genitals, they're not going to go and fucking die in a war. They're not going to go

and die for a political cause. That's going to be us. And when you think about it that way,

communists in general are really fighting an uphill battle because

it's a war. The war has been waged on us psychologically.

And it's impossible for us to recruit soldiers. It's impossible

for us to grow at the same rapid rate that the far right is

because the actual people who would take up guns and fight in a fucking civil war are not people

who want to be associated with sexual abnormality and deviancy.

So, you know, this is a really tough situation, Mr. Confucius. I don't mean to vent on you or whatever, but it's like you need to understand it like war, man.

It's like willingness to sacrifice yourself, willingness to sacrifice your individuality.

You know, that willingness, that's what it means to be a soldier.

And fixation on sexuality, even heterosexuality, if it's a fixation, if it's porn addiction, it's just self-indulgent.

It's just extreme.

That's why in-cells are the same, in my view.

People who fixate on LGBT issues, I see insoles as the same way, because it's just incredibly

self-indulgent.

It's incredibly self-indulgent.

It's what exactly what Lenin called

it. It's navel gazing. You're just looking

at your navel and you're obsessed and

fixated on that. And that's not

what matters in the end.

What matters in the end is what outlives us.

When we're buried six feet under the grave,

what legacy we've left behind.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a biological one.

But it's got to be some kind of legacy that goes on and lives on.

And that's the communist way.

I went to Russia.

I saw how communists think.

I saw how they used to think.

I saw the monuments they build.

I saw the culture and the ideology of the society that they built.

And it's about sacrificing your own immediate self-interest for the sake of future generations who you will never live to see. And that is really the communist way

in every communist state in the world.

Damn.

Agreed.

Well, I

do take issue, Mr. Arden,

with the use of the term deviancy,

and you seem to be lumping in a you, Mr. Arden, with the use of the term deviancy, and

you seem to be lumping in

a porn addiction with

the

gay people or transgender people

who simply don't want to be

persecuted. Well, we're not

persecuting them. None of us not persecuting them.

None of us are persecuting them.

If some of our soldiers have hurt and hurt their feelings in a confrontation online,

I recommend you look at the details of what happened,

and you'll probably find that they were the aggressor

and that they were just being hit back. So all we all my soldiers have done is defend themselves,

frankly, in the face of attacks that have predated this controversy. Again, when I was on Twitch in

2021, I couldn't criticize anything LGBT. I would have gotten banned. So I didn't. My community didn't. And yet, we were under attack by the same people. And what should we do? We should look like idiots, like all these boomer leftists who just

get attacked and shit on all the time and are

apologetic about it. No, we're going to fight back.

We're going to hold our own. Why wouldn't

we?

Well, I come from a

colonized country, Malaysia.

You probably know I come from Malaysia. and you're probably aware the British were here for 200 years, and they introduced what we call the buggery law.

And the thing is, in most colonized countries, you'll notice most countries that suffered from European colonization,

LGBT persecution is particularly brutal, like in Indonesia, for example.

You know, Mr. Confucius, with all due respect, you see it in countries that were colonized by France, and you see it in countries that really weren't colonized that much at all, like Ethiopia. So I don't know exactly what you're getting at with this. And frankly, I think this is a way of trying

to explain why

collectivistic societies tend to be hostile

to LGBT propaganda

and causes but I don't really

buy it to be honest.

When the colonizers first came to China, they were shocked by how liberal they were towards

sexuality or what they perceived to be a liberal. Mr. Confucius, again, I don't want to interrupt you,

but you need to draw a simple distinction between the culture of the courts, which was incredibly decadent, which didn't just include, let's call it, non-heterosexual behavior. It also included sexual slavery and it included pederastry.

So let's not leave out these details because it's very important to include the whole thing.

So we get the full picture, right?

And this was court decadence that was not looked upon well by common people that were

tilling the fields who were incredibly heteronormative and that is true for every single one of

these cases that they try to tell us that heteronormativity is a western imposition and it's not it's you have to

look at what was the norm for the majority of the population not just the elites you mean to say so

that the sultans of Malacca who had third gender

priests known as cedar cedar

were not heterot

they were the exception

rather than the rule

they were the decadent elites

of the society

and the peasants would have been heteronormative in your view?

Yeah, and that's not because of any moral prescriptions or something.

It's just a very basic, it's a basic observation you'll find in history that when people have to focus on, you know, making sure they're not going to starve and having children and these kind of basic responsibilities and obligations, they don't have time to be sexually indulgent. They don't have time to indulge and, you know, experiment in all these

strange ways. Strange, I guess, is a normative judgment. You get the idea. And that's true of

almost every peasant class in almost every country in history.

You guys don't think that gay people were born that way,

they're biologically that way.

You think that...

Listen, Mr. Confucius, I, my personal opinion,

I guess,

would be contentious

with you,

but frankly,

I don't,

I don't know,

I don't know why it matters.

I mean,

why,

we're the American Communist Party.

Why are we talking about this?

Why,

why is there so much navel gazing why is there so much of an interest

in you know um these very very uh you know specific sexual activities.

What is the,

where's the communism here?

What's going,

do you know what I'm getting out?

Like, why,

there's so much going on in the world.

There's so much going on in this country.

Why is there such a fix-sa?

I mean, look,

I am a student of Lacan's psychoanalysis. In this respect, I think I differ from Eddie. And I, you know, I think I have an answer to this question that I could explain. I could explain why people are so obsessed with sexuality

today and so fixated on it and stuff. But at the same time, I don't think they need to be. I think

there's a way to move past it if you can overcome the narcissism, if you can just overcome the navel gazing and the self-indulgent mentality and just really understand that this is something that's much bigger than individuals. So something much bigger than individual desires and fantasies and wishes and wants and it's really

uh i guess that's very difficult to communicate you know it's easy to say but it's hard to really

get across and that's why i'm frankly i don't mean to ramble mr confusions i know i've taken a lot

of time but you know i'm of the personal opinion that in western societies and particularly in

america this hard pill that I'm explaining about how individual subjectivity doesn't really exist

and it's nothing to fixate on and reality is very cruel and impersonal and, well, not necessarily

cruel, but it definitely is impersonal i don't think

this lesson is something i'm going to be able to communicate to everyone with my words or with anything

i think that through the course of events there's going incredible, incredible, horrific things that happen in this

country that traumatize people into this realization. I think people are just going to have to face this

reality in a really direct way when they witness with what

ease how many millions of

people perish and just die

and how through the chaos

and the back and forth of

real political turmoil and instability

ecological catastrophes

I'm not a, obviously I'm not a green global warming alarmist, but ecology doesn't

just mean climate change.

It means, you know, we've, for example, if something like Chernobyl happened, you know,

just we have, they're so, we've created such an immense destructive power with civilization. And there's no reason to assume that we're not going to witness and have to face the destructive power of our collective existence, whether it's through nuclear war, whether it's through an accident of industry, whether it's something else.

And it's like, only when people really face this in a way they can't explain

through individualism? Are they

going to understand what I'm talking about?

Yeah, it's the same reason there's no

strong LGBTQ plus movement

in Palestine.

They're too busy fighting for their lives

every day to focus on these things and you know as the

american empire decays um it's it's highly likely as haz is saying that we're going to be in a similar

situation that the violence um the the u.s government or I should say the capitalist imperialists and the finance

capitalists have enforced on the rest of the world is going to come back home here to us.

And we're going to be facing some very dire situations. And there's not going to be time to focus on our own

individuality, our own sexuality,

our own

sexual dispositions.

It's going to be

you know, we have

to, as Haas said, fight essentially

be soldiers and think of the collective

first. And a lot of these like DSA folks who are hyper-focused on their own sexuality are going to,

I think, get a very rude awakening. And this is, you know, I don't draw from Lacan like Haas. I've never read LaConne, but it's

a very liberal idea, the idea that, you know, my sexuality and my gender identity should be

prioritized above the collective or that this is what's most important. And that's not to say we want to

persecute those people. That's not to say we want to persecute those

people. That's not to say we don't want to let people, you know, consenting adults do what they want

in their bedroom. We don't really care. But, you know, this is just the reality that there's a reason why

people in Gaza aren't focused on their own sexuality and gender identity.

If I may ramble further just a little bit, you know, I'd like to kind of, at the risk of being

controversial, I'd like to say that I really do think there needs to be a rehabilitation

of Slavo Gijs

critique of ideology,

which, to be fair, he's kind of drawing

a little from Althusser there.

He's mixing and matching things that don't

necessarily belong. But

nonetheless, when he's inquiring upon his original breakout book, the sublime object

of ideology, I think that that needs to come back in some kind of way.

There needs to be a kind of critique of

maybe not necessarily ideology, which was an idealistic framing of it.

But because in some sense, the reason there's such a fixation on sexuality, whether it's

feminism or the LGBT stuff or whatever, is because oftentimes when it comes to political radicalism, there is definitely something going on in the structure of how, let's call it loosely, subjectivity is developed in the family, right? There's something about that development, which is obscured or it's halted or it's impeded or it faces some kind of turmoil where people genuinely have problems with, you know, the authority of their parents.

They, obviously all teenagers have this problem. But that teenage angst and that, you know, basic Oedipal dilemma is being hooked into and hijacked by neoliberal capitalism in a lot of ways because it's profitable and also, also because we're entering into a post, seemingly post-edipal civilization with the rise of information technology.

The authority of a single individual head of the household, the so-called patriarch, the father,

is struggling to catch up with the rise of technology and the rise of the acceleration of culture.

I mean, when teenagers look at their parents and they're like, oh, dad, you're stupid. You don't understand.

You know, I think the thing that's tragic about our, um, today's society is that there is an extent to which this is

true. Parents don't know what social media is. They don't know what how technology works.

They don't, there are a lot of problems that young people face, which their parents are completely

like they look clownish in the face of attempting to resolve and deal with.

And that builds a lot of resentment and disappointment and problems in young people.

And for so many other reasons, obviously, the basic turmoil at the level of family life is a very, very potent pipeline toward some kind of political radicalization, whether it's the extreme right or so-called extreme left.

But in this case, with extreme left, there's a reason that it's so fundamental for people to say capitalism as patriarch, you know, even though the Communist Manifesto says the opposite, by the way.

But in any case, it's because they need the authority of the state, of, you know, the school education system, of established authorities, of the ideology of capitalism, of the ruling ideology, all of that is bounded up with their father's wisdom. And they reject all of that that wholesale so they have problems with their fathers

primarily which they then kind of gives them a kind of subjective freedom to reject the authority

of the established media and institutions of society in general.

And that is where they locate the meaningfulness of communism for a lot of young Americans.

And one of the ways in which, obviously it's the LGBT stuff, it's this complete kind of repudiation of the basic life of the family.

Now, they confuse this for Engels' inquiry upon the history of the family, but that had nothing to do with the life, the living life of the family.

Marx was a family man.

Most communists were family men.

They had family.

They weren't like saying, fuck you, dad, fuck you, mom.

I mean, I sure revolutionaries have gotten in trouble with their parents here and there and most people in general have issues

with their parents one way or another but the critique of the family that Engels engages in is not a

personal critique that's what I'm trying to say it's not being personalized and made into like a, it's not being given the status of individual subjectivity. But that's what's happening today when it comes to the adoption of like communistic ideas. Most fathers in America grew up during the Cold War at the height of anti-communism.

So a lot of people are adopting, quote-unquote, communist views because it's a complete repudiation of everything their fathers believe, everything their fathers see. And that is really the root of it. It sounds simplistic, but that's the truth. That's why there's such a focus on sexuality. And, you know, in terms of breaking out of that and solving that problem, I think people need to, they need to kind of learn how to be free from the ruling ideology while still having a basic sense of obligation and connection with

your actual family. I know that our indoctrination into the system more or less does happen

at the level of the family, and these things are to an extent synchronous but now entire

families are being victimized by the system you know it's your father is a human being too and he's also

being victimized by the system and if he's not then just admit that you're not coming from a working class background to begin with.

If your dad's actually like a real CEO patriarch who's a billionaire or something and that's, well, then okay, then you have some edible problems with your own family.

I mean, stop trying to

stop trying to

like,

stop trying to spread that extremely

destructive ideology

and subjectivity to working

class people because all working

class families are under attack right now.

And I think communism should be something that allows families to come together in terms of

families trying to make sense of the world around them. We're not living in a time where, you know,

the father is a guy who's, you know, wearing overalls and coming

home and, you know, and saying, yeah, damn commies, fuck all, con. Like, he might be saying that,

but it's like he doesn't have a vested interest in saying that, you know? And it's like, instead of resenting him and hating him, like, okay, you had some problem

that made you resent him and hate him, you know, because his authority wasn't enough

to guide you through the difficult, I'm not talking about you personally, Mr. Confucius,

just talking about people in general. In terms of being able talking about you personally, Mr. Confucius, just talking about

people in general. In terms of being able

to guide you through the problems

of modern society.

And now you've adopted communism to

rebel against him, but really look into

communism, really look into Marxism.

And if you do that enough, you'll find it within you to forgive your father.

You'll find it within you to forgive your family.

And you'll learn, you'll come together with your family and, you know, be a source of authority

in your own household in terms of you know people

are looking for answers in terms of how to make sense of the world and there's a lot of ways

people can come together and do that and that's what's going to save families what's that's what's

going to save the sacred

connection of family life frankly you know it's going to be people coming together

and you know learning how to make sense of this chaos and because you don't because even your fathers are being disillusioned with the

system and they don't know how to make sense of it and all of their authorities and their lives

are letting them down uncle sam is fucking letting them down right so now that you've accidentally

stumbled upon this communist ideology which you've

originally adopted most of the leftists despite their parents it should be a source for you

of of forgiving your parents now you can understand why you had the turmoil we did in the first place. You can understand what the source of the trouble was. It wasn't personal. It wasn't because your parents are assholes. It wasn't because your dad is an evil patriarch who wants to, you know, no, it's because it's for objective, not personal reasons. And Marxism has

given you the tools to understand that. And now that you understand that, you can mature from it and

you can, you know, and I guarantee, I guarantee if people sincerely take my

advice, we will never

have to hear about criticisms

of ACP or where

we're coming from on the basis of anything else.

There's not going to be any more pride flags.

There's not going to be any more of these

nonsense flags. It's not going to be an more of these nonsense flags. It's not going to be an

issue anymore in terms of how much

it's associated with communism and Marxism.

That's my rant, Mr. Confucius.

The floor is yours.

Thank you very much. I won't take

up too much of you gentlemen's time.

I'm heartened that you say you will not be persecuting LGBT people.

I just hope that they will not be seen as scapegoated as symbols of capitalism and

imperialism and capitalist decadence just because of a few isolated cases

of pink washing that's my concern i i hope that the anti-imperialists in the west will not will not

lump them in with

imperialism.

That is my

hope.

Well, I mean,

I frankly think

that, you know,

we, Imperialism is based on one's stances that are political.

In terms of decadence and capitalized decadence and whatever sexual behaviors would be associated with that.

The point is to go to the root cause, all right?

The point is to focus on the things that matter, which is how one politically, what stances one takes politically the rest should not be an object of focus at all

well thank you very much for your explanation gentlemen and as for the last

point I'd like to make before I

leave right

it does concern me though

that you guys I'm

not saying that you guys

are evil in theories but

do you know the American flag,

the Star-Spangled Banner,

seen by many as a symbol

of cruelty, of

imperialist brutality,

and many people around

the world regarded that way?

In fact, the founding fathers themselves were slave masters, weren't they?

People like Thomas Jefferson, for example, who had children with his slave.

So I'm not sure how one can, you know, resolve the contradiction of the star-spangled banners' symbolism with the symbolism of communism.

Not sure how that...

Well, I would just say that the history is everything.

So the U.S. flag is...

Yeah, it's a flag of genocide.

It's a flag of persecution and extermination and imperialism.

And that's also... That's, that that that is there obviously but there's also other things there and um the question and there's also a history of a country you know is what i mean to say and yeah that all of those things I mentioned are part of that country's history.

But can you annihilate history?

Can you annihilate it?

Can you somehow abolish all of it?

And I think the answer is no

I think

America has become a global

hegemon and you know

the dollars become the world reserve

currency and America's world

historical significance for better

or for worse seems to be more or less

something that can only be sublated

which is what China has done

already

by hijacking the kind of

this world market and system

America helped create

through bloodshed and all these other things and assailing

that world market toward the end

of socialist construction.

And now, you know,

the legacy of America

is the entire legacy, you know,

everything. Nothing can be spared from the totality of what America is the entire legacy, you know, everything.

Nothing can be spared from the totality of what America is in terms of its existence.

But again, is there a stance we can assume that is free from that?

Is there anyone who can be free from it?

And the answer is

that's a really, Mr.

Confucius, I would think about that. Because

the Soviet Union

did it have to

disappear? No. But it's gone

and China's still here. Why is China still here?

And we have to think about things like that. We have to think about, is it possible to be free from the

sinfulness that is the great Satan America? Now in the future, yes, obviously, but even such a future will be tainted, right?

China, for example, with the reform and opening up, and obviously it stopped being in a perpetual state of war with America. Other countries

had a history of trade with America and being part of America's, you know, global system and

still are, as a matter of fact. So even when Bricks, not if, when Bricks succeeds in just overthrowing the dollar and really being free from America's political, current political, you know, regime, is it possible for any kind of subjectivity in the world

to be pure and free from the impurity of the evil that is America

in terms of their history? And I don't think it is.

And China even...

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, I was just going to say China has even given a name to this sort of rejecting of your country's whole history and just viewing it as one side and only seeing the genocidal, you know, aspects of your country's history and not, not embracing the, the resistance to the ruling class that's also a part of your country's history. They call it national historical nihilism. They say you have to come to terms with the entire history of your country, you know, in the U.S.

That means genocide and imperialism.

But it also means, you know, the civil war, the war against slavery.

It also means the civil rights revolution, the mass movement against apartheid.

And we need to come to terms with, you know, all aspects of our history. And China has identified,

you know, not doing that as a failure of socialist countries in the past, including the USSR.

And they've said you can't said you have to embrace your country's history and tradition.

You can't just reject them outright, whether that be the positive aspects, the progressive

aspects, or the reactionary aspects.

And Carlos talks about this in his book,

why we need American Marxism.

If we ignore the positive aspects of America's history,

it's an incorrect picture.

It's not the full picture.

And this is why Midwestern Marx has made

such an effort to embrace

explicitly American

heroes, you know, heroes in the

class struggle like WB. Du Bois

and Martin Luther King.

So yeah.

I'm not basouging I'd also say

yeah sorry I'd also say that

when it comes to the Marxist appraisal

of history

the way in which something is regarded

as progressive or reactionary is not based in, you know, if I was alive at this time and had unlimited power, would I fashion reality in this way, according to my moral sensibilities?

It's actually about given the reality at the time of history.

When I say the reality of the time, I don't mean in a cheap sense.

I mean the mode of production, the history.

What is new here?

What has changed?

What is the change that has happened?

What decisive outcome of a given development, right?

So oftentimes Soviet historians had no trouble praising certain

elements even within feudal societies

which they viewed

as facilitating the development of

history. You know, ultimately

in a direction out of feudalism, of course, but

even before then, Soviet

authors would debate and talk about whether historical figures during times where slavery was normal and where rape and war was normal and all these horrific, terrible things were completely normal.

And they would have no problem regarding certain people

as progressive i think even michael perente who's not necessarily a marxist leninist would talk

about julius caesar having a progressive significance but julius caesar went to gaul and enslaved and raped everyone. So you need to understand

when Marxists talk about something being historically progressive, it's not about it being progressive.

It's not, sorry, it's not about it reflecting your own moral sensibilities in terms of what you would consider a correct or incorrect thing to do or good or bad thing.

In terms of how you would either want to design a society or how you personally would like to act.

It's about the impersonal

development of history.

And there's no...

Sorry, go ahead.

I would go so fast to call

Oliver Cromwell historically

progressive. Of course.

And he was.

Even though he

butchered Irish people

left right and center.

Yeah, I get what you mean.

It's not whether he was nice or not,

just like Henry VIII was also

historically progressive

for breaking the power of the Catholic Church.

Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, that's basically it.

And, you know, when it comes to America, I think, you know, what we as the ACP want to communicate to the world is that we don't, we're not waving an American flag because we want to represent the U.S. regime and the continuation of the American world system.

We are doing it because we want to finally take responsibility for our country

and all of the harm and evils that it's committed and

start on a new fresh basis. And when it comes to the forces that are fighting america

and when i say fight america i mean the regime we're on their side so it's not just like we're

asking them to trust us because we see ourselves

as fighting alongside them.

So when we topple the American regime

hopefully, well, I have for

legal reasons, of course, we aren't going

to topple it, but when the

U.S. regime is going to be toppled

and we're going to have to build our country from scratch, build a state from scratch, you know, we are going to be the ones who are very vulnerable. And that is the position we're taking when it comes to the international world, that there's still going to be a

country and a people here. And we want to build on a new fresh basis. And, uh, you know, we want to

take responsibility for what our regime has done. and we want a new world order.

Yes.

The reality is that American people are not going away,

just like the Jewish people in Israel are not going away either.

You can't just kick them out.

Well, Jewish is too broad of a term on this case,

but in terms of Zionist settlers,

for example, in the West Bank,

I mean, I think it's fair to say that they're going out.

And I think it's also fair to say that many people in the Zionist entity will be leaving on their own accord because they're already fleeing.

So I think America and Israel have similar history, though America the foundation of America the manifest

destiny sorry to interrupt you

manifest destiny and

Zionism don't they have parallels

with each other

no I think the main

I think it's easy to draw a parallel but i think the main difference

is that and i've elaborated on this before in um and long form ex post actually

but i think the difference is is that well there's's a few. First, I think that Zionism was an ethno-nationalistic ideology that specifically preempted the possibility of the construction of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state right at the outset.

I think obviously the founders of America had racist prejudices and expectations.

But that doesn't mean the notion of an American state was from the outset preempted the very possibility of a multiracial, multi-ethnic country.

I think it's not baked in.

I think the only thing that's baked in is what, you know, is what happened in terms of the aspiration of building a single republic.

And many things remained ambiguous and left open.

I mean, there was even, well, anyway, in any case, I also think in the case of Manifest

Destiny, in terms of the treatment and of the indigenous people that were living there of course it was horrific and brutal and nothing could justify it.

But the difference with Zionism is that Zionists

knew exactly what the consequences

they knew that there were

people living in Palestine

the Palestinian people already

had internationally recognized

status more or less.

This was an era of the self-determine of nations as a principle of international law,

which didn't exist at the time of Manifest Destiny, by the way.

And the Zionists

baked into

the

very

fabric of

their

ideology,

a complete

repudiation

and

rejection of

this

that is

explicit

and express.

I mean,

the

fact that there wasn't a historical process in which there was any real encounter with others.

The settlers did encounter various indigenous people. That was a real historical encounter. Their response speaks for

itself. It's completely unjustifiable.

But Zionism

and its meticulous cunning

already knew

about these others. It already knew

everything. It already

understood that they had a status within both the framework of international law and you know the norm of what would what was considered morality at the time. And they didn't care. They still went through

it anyway. They completely denied the process of entering into an encounter with the Palestinian people where there would be a process of mutual recognition initiated.

Settlers, the form of the mutual recognition with indigenous people took is that they were, the indigenous were demonized

for superstitious reasons,

for fanatical reasons,

for oftentimes,

and this is another thing that's really neglected.

Here's why my final point, I think,

I think Manifest Destiny was not principally a political project.

It was primarily a movement that was occurring within civil society that was based in economic greed, primarily economic greed.

But in terms of an ideology, so Manifest Destiny in terms of an ideology, was just this broad theme that reflected this incredible capitalistic greed within civil society that was sublimated as manifest destiny. It's secondarily how it was more or less turned into a story of some kind.

But Zionism wasn't just, at least directly at least.

I know it fits within the whole capitalist world system in a specific way. But

that is a political, ideological

project

whose ends

are, whose ends with

respect to civil society

are defined at the outset.

And I think that's a fundamental difference.

I think Manifaz Destiny reflects the evils of capitalism in general.

But Zionism doesn't just reflect the evils of capitalism.

It assumes a fascistic dimension

precisely because it

responds to the breakdown

and failures of capitalism in a very

specific way, and for a very specific

people. Namely,

the Jewish proletariat in

Europe. That Jewish proletariat in Europe.

That Jewish proletariat had socialistic aspirations like the rest of the proletariat.

And Zionism, similar to fascism, hijacked the disappointment of capitalism, the failure of capitalism in order to extend its lifespan artificially through the terroristic dictatorship of the state.

And that is what Zionism did. But Manifest Destiny didn't do that. That was literally just the naked and ugly reality of capitalism itself.

So I think that's a fundamental distinction I draw, but stage is yours.

Thank you very much. I think I'm done, actually. Just one more thing before I go. I have a friend, an American friend, actually. I don't mean to use the black friend sort of trope. But yeah, he grew up in the ghetto, had a very hard life. And,, he, from his point of view,

he's experienced nothing but cruelty and hardship in America.

But then he lives

in the global south

and he enjoys a much better

standard of living in the global south.

So he says that

he feels

he has no obligation

to America and he hates

America in fact. Because

you know, he only started

experiencing a good life when

he started living in the global self. So he wants

to help the global self achieve socialism,

but he feels he has no duty to the American people. What would your response to him be?

I think, you know, I don't

I don't necessarily have a response

in the sense of saying

you know what he did is wrong

and it's he can't do that

you hate America

because America is a cruel society

Yeah I mean look If if that You hate America because America is a cruel society.

Yeah, I mean, look, if that's his path, that's his path.

But that's an individual choice.

I don't think individual choices like that can be applied at the scale of societies and community. I don't think the majority of people can solve the problems here just by leaving.

I think a lot of people will leave, frankly, but most people are going to have to stay and sort out how to coexist and live amongst each other here and they're

not going to be able to go anywhere. And that is where we're rooted in. That's where our focus is.

If people cannot do that and they want, they have to move and go somewhere else for their own personal reasons

i'm not sitting in judgment and going to sit and you know tell them that they you know how

could you do that whatever i mean i'll give you an example you know my grandfather was on the kill list when the Israelis, the Zionists came and invaded

South Lebanon.

He was put on a kill list.

He was a wanted dead.

Not wanted dead or alive.

He was wanted dead.

So there was a bounty on his head. He had a family to raise. And he was the only breadwinner for the entire extended family, not just his own kids, but for siblings as well, and he, and he, because his parents were gone. And, you know, if he was gone, it would have been the end of everyone.

It would have, everyone would have been out on the street. No one would have taken care of

the whole extended family so you know he decided

listen uh i can't defend my rights here i just can't this these zionists are only able to do this

because they're getting weapons and funding from america so i may as well go to the belly of the beast to petition my right to exist

and, you know, the right for my family to exist.

And that's what he did.

You know, he couldn't stay in Lebanon.

So for one reason or another, personally, we all have reasons we have to leave or we can't take it anymore. But that doesn't mean, you know, people in Lebanon stop fighting.

It doesn't mean they give up on Lebanon entirely. It doesn't mean

they stop fighting the aggressor and fighting for their people in their country. It just means

for one reason or another, you know, individuals find themselves where they are. But you can't think just as an individual you got to think

in a bigger level of scale to understand countries and how they work thank you very much mr aldean

and mr leagosmith i think for today Thank you very much, Mr. Aldeen and Mr. Ligers-Fith.

I think for today, and yes, the floor is all yours, gentlemen.

All right, thank you.

That was great.

You want to go with zolo next to us

uh

no

i'd like to go for

actual haters

not

provocateurs.

You want to go going tard?

Yeah, I don't know what that is, whatever.

Something. Alright, let's do that.

They just can't be shooters.

Hello.

Hello, can you guys hear me okay?

Yeah, we can hear.

Okay.

Yeah, so thank you for letting me on.

I have a pretty specific line of criticism,

well, I guess depending on what it means to be specific,

but I think that there has been a fetterization

and a kind of non-Marxist, I would say, focus on civilizational slash national politics that I understand

as a Leninist is very important, right? It's a fundamental principle, right,

of Leninist politics going all the way back.

But I don't see a lot of discussion,

and I guess you guys can call me a Marxoid or an, you know,

an ultra or whatever you want,

but I think there's a lack of discussion about

commodities. I think there's a lack of discussion about what it

means to live in a post-commodity society.

Again, these are not like sexy topics,

but I feel like these things should

be central to any Marxist

Leninist project.

So what

is a commodity?

I guess

I would define it with a twofold character, right?

Something which has a use value and an exchange value.

Okay. And what does that mean?

In the capitalist context, it's something that's, well, not even in the capitalist context, but as far as commodities have existed, something that can be disposed of for, you know, an exchange value, and something that's produced not for immediate consumption

by the individual or the community

but

specifically for the purpose of

exchange

So for you a commodity is something

that has exchange value

Yeah I would say I would say commodity is something that has exchange value.

Yeah, I would say that's a fundamental

characteristic of a commodity.

All right.

What is the basis of commodities?

In what sense?

Like the productive or technical basis?

How do commodities come into existence?

Through a concrete labor process.

Can you be more concrete though?

Sure, I guess in the same more concrete though? Sure.

I guess

I guess

in the simplest sense, if we go to

simple commodity production,

in the simplest sense,

it is

the kind of surplus stock

of whatever item or use

value we can call it that a

person or group of people have

made for the purpose

of disposal on a

on a market

yeah but

that doesn't that's that's tautological.

If there's already a market, then there's already commodities.

So where do commodities come from?

I guess I'm, I see your question.

I see, I see your point. But I guess I'm asking...

I'll just tell... I'll just, instead of the Socratic thing, I'll just tell you what I'm getting at. Even upon a minimal inquiry in the basic categories of classical political economy, which is the object of Marx's inquiry and critique.

We have to think in terms of civilizations, very distinct civilizations, by the way.

And we can't think in terms of economic categories by themselves. We have to think in terms of

civilizational contexts. Classical political economy presumed a lot as universal that was very

specific to European civilization.

This is something Marx critiqued, by the way, as well.

Now that we're living in a world that's bigger than Europe,

we have to think in terms of civilizations. We have to even think about European and American civilization because we cannot make the assumption that that specific context within which things like commodities arise or disappear for that matter is universally applicable and holds universally.

So that's basically my short answer. I mean, there's no dichotomy between thinking in civilizational

terms versus thinking in terms of

classical political economy,

which is what you mean when you say

you want more emphasis on commodities.

Because there is no way to think about

again go to the root word

what is political economy

what is that even what is the political

what is a policy

these are all categories

of what would fundamentally be

an analysis of civilizations.

I'm a long time watcher of you

Haas and, you know, even though

I know you said only enemies come on.

I would only consider myself an enemy

in this ideological line, right? So I understand you have a very

sophisticated and deep, very deep understanding of civilizational history, which I respect. But I would not say that there is a dichotomy in my mind. I would rather say that you are putting the cart before the horse. I mean, again, maybe I'm a Marxoid or something, right? But I fail to see how it's possible to, to, you know, posit the civilization or the polity as somehow primary or kind of the primordial substrate from which these

economic categories such as the commodity arises. I mean, I think it's, you know, I think it's a fairly classical position that it is the economic and material life. And I try not to say this in a mechanical sense, like in a vulgar mechanical sense, but it's the economic and material life, right? It's the engagement of man with nature, which then determines, of course, through a very complex process the polity

right the form of civilization

I think if you go back to the discussions

that the Soviets had about

things like the patriotic mode of production

sorry for the purposes of

getting this along faster

well I think that's not a correct assumption.

I think it is true that the economic precedes the political institutions and the political

ideologies and the political state in the sense of the Athenian constitution described by Engels.

But if we conflate the political for civilization, or if we conflate the political for a unified social existence and a totality of social production and reproduction.

We cannot say this.

In order for economic intercourse to even be possible, we already must presume the existence of some kind of social body. Now, the cognizance

that consciousness is capable of with respect to the extent of what the form of that social body is in terms of how people think of

society, what institutions they establish to represent that polity and so on.

Yes, that is very much something that is almost oftentimes it can be mechanically reactive to changes at the level of economic and material life.

But economic and material life does not end with individual survival and individuals helping each other survive, which is base animal life.

Material and economic life

is how a given

social existence reproduces

itself. How not just

life of individual biological

organisms, but the

reproduction of

lives and families and communities and societies, how that happens.

And that is much more complicated than what Marx actually described in Grundry, say, as the Robinson Crusoe of classical political economy, which just begins with the individual and the individual self-interest.

And what I describe as this communal reproduction is a polity of some kind um even before the

establishment of formal statehood we have some kind of social body, which has delimitations, which has a beginning and which has an end and which can in some sense be described as political.

And the transition to states, I should also add, is not something Engels fleshed out very

properly. He made a very, very big leap from what he describes as the Gentile form of existence to the Athenian constitution.

He leapfrogged over millennia of history of Mesopotamia and the Iron Age and the Bronze Age where centralized state bureaucracies,

not just states, far more advanced and comprehensive than anything that could possibly have been

the product of ancient Greece,

were being formed quite seamlessly with respect

to the amalgamation of various different Gentile societies.

For example, there were at least millennia 1.5,000 years of cities settled temple authorities and cities in the Copper Age in Mesopotamia, and there was no state with an organized monopoly on violence that enforced rules upon the population.

So is that a polity or is that not a polity, right that that was a seamless product of the social existence

the economic and material social existence so absolutely economics is tied to the political from the beginning.

There is no

Edenic state of economic existence

that precedes policies,

if we understand policies

in terms of civilizations, at least.

No, I agree, and this is the last thing I'll say to let other people speak.

Even if I grant you all of that, right?

Even, and to some extent I do,

if you take the contradictions of generalized commodity production series, as I believe any Marxist should, right?

You still have yet to demonstrate, or the ACP has yet to demonstrate, what serious people like Paul Cockshot, for example, have done,

which is a serious wrestling

with

the commodity form,

with decommodifying

society, right?

And look, I'm not saying that

what the idea of civilization

but that's what i think

it sounds a lot to me like what you're saying

and you can correct me if i'm wrong

it sounds a lot like the

the critique that trotskyites

like ernest vandal have made of

the soviet union where they basically say, well, it wasn't real socialism.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

My own family comes from there.

So I'm not saying.

Right, but you're talking about the commodity form itself, right?

And the emphasis that he's right? And the emphasis.

Eddie, I think what he's trying to say is that generalized commodity production is a unique challenge, let's say, that a conventional analysis of civilization by itself would not succeed in surmounting

because it's a very new thing in history, history of civilization.

But I think going, I think you maybe underestimate a little bit

the extent to which

the focus on

civilization has been precisely

about wrestling with this. I know I'm

infamous among, you know,

leftist theory circles for my

reactionary critique of modernity but when I talk

about modernity I am literally just talking about the rise of the abstract commodity form

I'm talking about precisely that unique peculiarities of the capitalist mode of production, which differ from every other preceding mode of production, and which has managed to sweep the entire globe in one fell swoop more or less.

And that is a civil, but that is also a civilizational predicament.

It has, and it shouldn't, I think the disagreement comes down to this.

That problem cannot just be thought of in terms of the existence of the commodity there's also a deeper cause of commodities which is which can be understood politically and civilizationally as well What changes in the trajectory and development of civilization gave rise to commodity production?

And to what extent can this be regarded as a necessary consequence of world history?

And to some extent, it seems like it does.

It seems like for the same reasons technology emerges, so has capitalism.

It's the same thing, actually.

I mean, Nick Land, love him or hate him.

He probably don't like him.

But he made a fair point, I think, when he said, in a stream I saw him in, he said,

when people are talking about modernity, when people are talking about technology, people are

talking about capitalism, they're actually talking about the same things with different words, right? And that's something I fully agree with them about, actually. And so when we understand it more broadly like that, we're able to reflect upon, you know, not, not just the commodity form, but, for example, the enclosure

movement and the, and, and, and, and you know who does this very interestingly, and this is why

we're interested in him is Michael Hudson, because he locates the root cause, if you can call it that, in a much

deeper history, which is the history of credit or debtor relationships, specifically since

antiquity

and even before then a little bit

but antiquity is where he draws the line

and I think other thinkers have drawn

the lines and Marx and Engels drew the line with antiquity

let's remember that it's not for nothing that they said asia fell asleep during

history a very eurocentric comment according to post-colonial scholars but there is a reason they said

that that has a basis and truth not that others didn't have history that's preposterous

but the specific trajectory of the development of private property and alienation according

to marks and Engels,

really begins in antiquity with the rise of the slave societies

and the Athenian constitution.

Now, granted, there are...

In barbarism and in Gentile society, this is Engels's words, there are roots of this, there are traces of this, but the institution of alienation and private property really begins with antiquity for Marx and Engels.

So, you know, I think that in terms of understanding where we are today and where we can go in the future and where we are going, as a matter of fact, it's very important to

situate the critique of classical political economy, the critique of political economy within a civilizational context and couple that with a similar kind of analysis of the development of civilizations

that we see with Paul Coxhot, for example.

Sorry, with Michael Hudson, for example.

Yeah, well, I mean, it sounds like

there's still this wrestling, right?

There is still an attempt

to account for, like

you said, we all call it different things,

modernity, generalized commodity production. I guess

my concern there is

when will

you know, maybe I'm

like too

quick to the start, but

we need a viable alternative

for people to ever

get behind, right?

Maybe that viable

is American socialism

with American characteristics.

I'm not saying that this is work.

If that's the end-old be-all, I don't know.

I don't know if that's going to get us to the finish.

I think the problem, though, is that you can have a solid program.

And by the way, Paul Coxshot endorsed our program. You can have a program program. And by the way, Paul Coxside endorsed their program.

You can have a program.

Yeah, he did.

But if what you're saying seems like, okay, what is communism then?

What is really communism?

They're really overcoming of commodity production.

Right.

Finally.

This is...

I think to...

Sorry.

Just one last thing.

I finished.

And then I'm going.

All I'm saying is, please

write down the thought, hold it.

All I'm saying is that if you want to think about communism, very long term, like what does it mean for the commodity form to really be overcome?

You have to have a civilization orientation.

You have to think about things in terms of processes already in motion,

and maybe that have been in motion already for hundreds, even thousands of years. You have to

have this level of scale of thinking because if China is anything to go by, the

overcoming of the commodity form is

not going to happen within a single lifetime.

It's so it has to be immersed

in a civilizational context

of time. This is what I'm, this

was what I was saying before I was interrupted

is that, you you know this is the

trotziite argument that these these countries aren't socialist because they didn't

overcome general yeah I'm not a I'm not a trotian and I'm not right I'm not calling you

trots I'm just saying that's the argument they make. And what the Chinese communists are saying are, no, we haven't completely overcome generalized commodity production yet.

But what the socialist markets and socialist commodity production takes a different form than

generalized capitalist commodity

production. And to go back

to the contradiction between use

and exchange value, there's much

more of an emphasis on use value

production in China than there

is on exchange value. The use value production in China than there is on exchange value.

The, you know, the use value that the commodity actually serves for the population is given much more emphasis in the five-year plans and in the, the socialist economic planning of the Chinese state and the Chinese economy than it is in the capitalist U.S. where, you know, surplus value and exchange value is the number one focus. You know, commodities are produced for exchange and exchange alone here, whereas in China, they're produced more so for use value. And this

continues and increases as China continues the construction of their socialist society. So it's a

process of overcoming the commodity form. And it's not something that can just be done overnight.

And the reason I connected to Trotsky as like Ernest Mandel is because this is the critique that they make of the USSR.

They say that, you know, they were still producing commodities, so therefore it's not real socialism.

But that's a utopian view they're not

looking at it as a process of overcoming commodity production all right well thanks guys

yeah thank you eddie my bad if i'm interrupting. Just be more aggressive, honestly. It's just a Middle Eastern nonsense thing I have. I'm going to blame my race for my bad behavior.

Typical. Yeah, to learn my way out. It's probably not even middle eastern at all anyway um i have bad manners because uh well i just i don't know i'll i'll try to get better but um no no to add to your point, by the way, it's like, uh, the whole thing that

Stalin, and people are so stupid on Twitter, like they don't even understand, like, for the,

for example, why was Lenin contentious? What was even the contention between them, between the Stalin and Trotsky, with regard to Lenin's legacy concretely? And it was like, well, it's the peasants. Lenin was a quote-unquote tailist who wanted to have a co-dictatorship of the advanced city proletariat and the backward peasants, quote-unquote.

You know, the dumb, illiterate, you know, Estrotsky saw them, and Stalin was defending them.

You know, he was like Maga communism before anyone anyway sorry but it was about

his economic problems in the ussr and in and where he defines a socialist commodity and so all

these idiot left comms and trotskyites smug idiots think they're so smart because they're like, oh, you know, clearly there can't be any socialist commodities.

It's a contradiction.

It's an absurdity.

And it shows they don't have a grasp of the rudiments of Marx and Engels and the logic that

they use in the very writing of Capital and other texts where they make it clear how socialism

develops from the womb of the previous mode of production. How the development of

anything, I mean, Reed Engels is

dialectic of nature, the development

of any given thing, not just modes of

production. It doesn't happen

when, you know, you

grab something and smash it against

something else out of nowhere and some kind of dualism.

It's things develop,

according to the very,

they develop imminently according to the very logic of the development of the previous form of the thing itself.

And that's how novelty arises in existence. It doesn't arise on the basis of, you know, it doesn't arise from me thinking of the concept of capitalism in my head

then abstracting myself from that concept and make and enclosing it in my fucking fist and smashing it in my hands.

That's just some nonsense idealism.

It can't even be called utopianism.

It's infantilism.

Capitalism is not a concept.

It's not an ideology. It's not an ideology.

It's not an object we take and we smash it on the ground or whatever.

It's something that is in the process of developing into something else.

And how we respond to that politically, of course, is very decisive.

We need to seize power, of course. We need to smash the bourgeoisie as a class. But what did Lenin show us?

Even after we smash the political bourgeoisie, we haven't destroyed bourgeois relationships within civil society.

All we could do is oversee and facilitate the development of new relations of production that are already there.

And then one last thing.

I know I ramble.

Of course it takes decisive will to do this in many cases.

Collectivization took will.

But what was collectivization?

Was it Stalin thinking of post-capitalism and then imposing it on reality?

No.

There was already a cooperative movement.

All they did is have the courage to defend that movement and raise it to never-before-seen heights.

So you see, that's what socialist construction is.

It's, you're taking something that's already there and you're developing that.

You're not, you're not just smashing, you know, you're not creating an enclosure around

reality, calling it capitalism and then

you know belly flopping it or

something you're you're

discerning tendencies in the

very object of inquiry and

partaking in the development of

those tendencies and encouraging those

sorry go ahead.

Yeah, no, I agree. And to the last guy, Goink,

um, or whatever his

name was, if you feel like we haven't focused

enough on commodity

production, you could check out like my analysis

on American healthcare, which focuses on,

or uses the opioid crisis as an example and shows how the American healthcare system is

entirely focused on the production of exchange value and surplus value and offers some ideas, mostly nationalizing the entire system, for transitioning healthcare towards a focus on use value, towards a focus on uplifting the population and keeping the population as healthy as possible, a focus on um uplifting the population and keeping the population as healthy as possible a focus on

what in health care is just called public health um rather than on on profit making and i you know

take that down to the level of the commodity because you know health care is sold as a commodity in this country but

um like anything that would be a process of construction that would you know you would need to

identify the changes that need to be made in commodity production in each industry. And so I get what he's saying when he says he wants us to focus more on commodity production.

But I also agree with what you said, that it's not the end-all be-all, that there are also all these other factors

that need to be taken account,

civilizational factors and whatnot.

But, yeah, that's in the Journal of American Social Studies, too,

that I did the analysis of healthcare as a commodity.

But, you know, that was a good, good question.

Yeah, if people don't know this about Eddie, he's very much someone who's inquiring and

investigating and understanding economics, I would say, more than any of us in the executive board.

Am I stepping on anyone's toes by saying that?

I feel like it's...

No, I don't think so.

Yeah.

I mean, I studied it in college because I got a...

You know, they tell you to study economics when you become a socialist.

So I got a, um, a background in neoclassical economics. And then a lot of my work has focused on, um, socialist commodity production,

socialist economics versus you know,

capitalist neoclassical, because neoclassical

economics really

emerged after Marx because

Marx, you know, so

thoroughly critiqued the classical school. He so, he really brought

classical economic political economy to its, its logical conclusion. So the bourgeoisie needed to come

up with a more subjectivist way of a more, you know, pseudoscientific, really economic, quote-unquote, science in order to explain why capitalism is the best.

And this is where you get folks like Hayek and and Milton Friedman and they you know have an entirely different basis for their economic system than classical political economy but um yeah yeah i mean uh classical political economy the key word there is political. It was a holistic understanding of societies, and it grappled with fundamental questions of where wealth and value actually came from. And it viewed societies as these integral holistic totalities of production

where wealth is not something produced in isolation it's societies are producing the wealth

you know the peoples are entire um entire policies are right and

that is the scale at which it was operating it was really leaving no stone unturned it was

it was a total and concrete aspiration at least.

Whereas neoclassical economics would be regarded by Lenin and Marx as Philistinism.

It's not a concrete outlook.

It's an abstract one.

It doesn't deal with, it's not a political economy.

It's attempting to draw what they call macroeconomic conclusions on the basis of various assumptions about, you know, the nature of individuals and

individual choices and, you know, consumers and whatever. And there, it doesn't have this

integral, holistic outlook. The closest it gets is in this integral holistic outlook.

The closest it gets is in this dumb phrase, they call it macroeconomic.

But it's not really a form of knowledge.

It's more like a utility, a scam utility, by the way, for policymaking institutions, where they are not looking at the

reality of production and the reality of society, they're looking at that reality

to the extent that it fulfills, you know, policymaking agendas and decisions.

But not this kind of, I guess, we would call it metaphysical now, aspiration for the truth in and of itself about the nature of reality.

It has no concern for that that i think it was marginalism

that started that tendency where they basically said classical political economy is metaphysical

we don't care about value we don't care about all this other stuff let's just look at you know

marginal costs versus profits and so on and so on that absolutely absolutely you could yeah

yeah you could um i don't know when the marginal school came out, but you could trace it to Alfred Marshall, too, who tried to argue that supply, you know, against the labor value of every commodity, because that's the basis that classical political economy starts from is that the real value of every commodity is the labor time that it costs to produce it and alfred marshall comes in and says no it's just supply and demand. It's completely subjective. It's based on, you know, what a, it's based solely on what the consumers are willing to pay, which is they, you know, if you read volume three, Mark talks about supply and demand a ton and the effect that they have on

the actual labor cost

of a commodity, but what

neoclassical economics does is what a lot of bourgeois

pseudosciences do, which is isolate

two factors, isolate

supply and demand or isolate, you know, how consumers act in a market and ignore all of these other factors, which is just, you know, very typical of undialectical bourgeois pseudoscience is not having a dialectical and more totalistic view of

political economy and all the factors involved but that stuff's kind of boring i know so eddie i know

you're a big fan of my provocations, but I'd like to make another one.

Please.

You know, but here's what's interesting.

If we try to historicize...

Sorry, you're getting feedback.

If we try to historicize,

why did that

outlook with respect

to economy emerge?

Why did they say

all that matters

are consumers' desires,

supply and demand,

and then,

you know,

value as such

means nothing. here's my provocative thesis more or less my

provocative thesis is that this is actually something that corresponded in reality to the breakdown of the capitalist mode of production.

And the notion that the discretion of consumer societies, because here's why, I mean, obviously the rise of light industries, where the discretion of consumers became much more decisive than it was in Marx's time.

In Marx's time, it was kind of self-evident that what people consume is kind of predetermined.

At least it could be culture.

It could be the necessities of survival and subsistence.

It could be just convention and norms. But with the rise of light industries, those are all about breaking norms and conventions to get people to consume and

buy new things that they're not used to, new novelties and trinkets and light goods right that's why it corresponds to such a level of the disruption of traditional culture that that it never was before but in any case but what is that consumerism? What does that attest to

when it comes to determining factors

in production?

Well, for one,

production is increasingly

paradoxically,

not individually,

but socially determined.

Because the light industry companies and corporations later that are tracking consumer

choices are not tracking them as individual choices.

They're tracking them as aggregates, social and societal and cultural aggregates fundamentally.

Right. So this ability for society to decide production on the basis of desires attests to the increasingly social factor of production over the factor of

uh over the factor of um the value form but on the basis

of the logic of value itself

in order to increase their profits they have to

yield and give way to the whims

and fancies of

social production, what society

wants. So basically to cut

a long story short, an ironic provocation I'd like to suggest is that the rise of neoclassical economics is actually proof of the victory of socialism and the destruction of capitalism itself.

But that's any kind of long shot.

I have to think about it more. I'll have to go back and relisten, but I think I agree.

Yeah, I could go in further on the like the law of value is still in command obviously but it's like

right it is true that consumption has become more decisive when it comes to making or breaking entire industries.

Right.

To that point, like advertising and marketing didn't even really arise until post-marks.

Right, right.

At least in the U.S. was in the early 1900s.

Basically, to put it this way, decisions about where we're allocating our resources and wealth are heavily tied to demand like they never were before it because demand it can be subject to so much change, unpredictable change.

Why do we, why are so many supply chains and resources directed to the production of iPhones?

Right?

Well, as opposed to a cheaper, you know, Android alternative or something.

But the ability, but I think that's a social factor. as opposed to a cheaper, you know, Android alternative or something.

But the ability, but I think that's a social factor of production.

I think that's, it shows how society is somehow driving production according to changes in culture and changes in in ways of life and stuff and that's in some cases is more decisive than just you know, just a pure profit motive, I guess.

Right.

No, that's interesting.

And it is kind of like we were talking about earlier, how modes of production, you know, it's a process as they evolve into the next

mode of production, like communism, socialism evolves out of capitalism. Like you said, that shows the

victory or the necessity of socialism. Obviously, you need the revolution for the working class to assert political power, but capitalism is creating the conditions for the possibility of socialism. It's centralizing itself. It's leading to more planned production. And this is just another factor of that that there's more of a focus on demand

um that's what i mean it's like we can see demand as like an in a form of social planning it's not a

form of planning that's directed by that's directed centrally by like, you know, uh, uh, uh, bureaucrats or something, but it is a plan. Production is being planned on the basis of, uh, some kind of social um social goal right

well i agree with that

100%

so uh is there anyone else

requesting or

yeah there's, we got Psychonaut, Zolo, the guy who uses gas stations.

You want to do Psycho Not?

I guess if they're a hater, yeah.

Hopefully they are.

Uh, this other person looks like a gorilla, so it's Psychonaut.

All right, Psychonaut.

Tell us why you hate us.

You're muted.

I can't even see them, so maybe I haven't blocked.

So I go not

go ahead and speak up.

Oh, you muted yourself again.

We can't hear you. There must, maybe there's something wrong with your mic. Alright. Well all right well

doesn't seem to be working

alright

I can't even see them

also but bring on someone else

yeah

all right the guy on someone else. Yeah.

All right.

The guy who uses gas station toilets.

First after.

Actually a huge fan. I love you guys.

I just wanted to critique one thing

that I was just curious about

like reaching the average dude

I'm a giant oaf

I am stupid as hell

try to read as much as I can

but how are you gonna reach these people

and this is all about ACP right

this is about you guys specifically.

Yeah, we're looking for criticisms of ACP.

I just think it's mainly hard for, like, the average dude to get past the word

communism.

I know that sounds stupid, but, like, especially in the United States, like, that, and then

just, like, you guys are doing great stuff, too.

It's awesome to see.

But, like, getting past that and, like, the educationism hates communism.

Like, every class you take, they're like, oh, killed millions of people.

Everyone hates Stalin.

And it's like, people barely read

as it is. They watch the news.

I mean, hell, half the people I work with

and I'm an EMT, they're all

watching Fox News. Like, I don't know how you get.

Like, yeah, I don't know.

Eddie, I can go, but do you want to go you can go first yeah all right so what i'd say is uh

i don't think the goal i don't think we have a reasonable. We're just going to convert people in mass numbers on the basis of our words.

But I think what we want to do is initiate a process where people can just see what it means based on what we're doing.

And so that's the first thing.

And I think the second thing is more or less, I mean, there's a lot.

But more or less, I think the only reason communists disdain to conceal their aims and use that word and understand how shocking or whatever is because we have a reasonable expectation that big shocks are in store for society itself, that it's not going to be able to explain

conventionally. And in those circumstances, communism is going to be the least scary thing, frankly. It's going to be less scary than reality itself. I think communism is used as like the worst thing ever in America, a word for that.

But what happens when the worst thing ever actually comes to pass?

You know, I think communism is a very scary ideology,

but what happens when times themselves become scary? And I think that's

when, you know, I look, I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself, Eddie, you can give your

thoughts in terms of this observation I'm about to make. But I even feel like this has already happened in a lot of ways.

Like when we were in Carbondale, for example, it wasn't just homeless people that were coming up to us.

It was working class people.

And we had a hammer and sickle.

And we were telling them we were the american communist party and nobody was freaking out

it's almost like reality has become so shocking and bizarre for them they're just like open to

anything now like they're like all right interesting absolutely i agree. And as the

capitalist, imperialist system

continues to decay, I think that's only going to get worse. And I think we're only

shooting ourselves in the foot by hiding our aims and hiding what we are and hiding our theory like we have to have to sow the seeds now get people more familiarized with communism so that as things deteriorate and get worse which they have been for 40, 50 years, at least in America now,

they know what the solution is, or they're more open to solutions like communism.

And no, you know, it's not going to be, it's going to be a process.

Like, that's kind of been the theme

of this space is there's nothing that happens

overnight.

But if we conceal

our aims and conceal what communism is

now, you know, we're not

sowing the seeds for it

to spread and become more popular later. And, you know, we're not sowing the seeds for it to spread and become more popular later.

And, you know, the communism wasn't that popular in 1905 Russia.

And a lot of the, you know, communist movements have been crushed by the Tsar and the monarchy.

And, but when times got extremely bad when you know world war one

was breaking out and there were people were being sent to die in these senseless wars for

capital expansion um that's when the communists were there to to offer people theory and offer

people an alternative and that's when they

ran with the bolsheviks and you know part of that is people respect actions more than words

especially americans i think um and so another part of our strategy is proving to people what we're all about through our

actions.

And like Haas was saying, you know, if you have working class people who are starving and

struggling to make ends meet and the communists are there meeting their material needs, you know, that's the way to change their mind.

And we've already seen that, you know, a lot of the members of our party, none of them were born

communists.

There's some red diaper babies, but most of them are people who have had their worldview transformed through our

educational programs and in our outreach um and i think as conditions decay that's going to happen

on a larger and larger scale.

Thanks.

I appreciate it.

It was a good answer.

Yeah, thanks.

Also, Eddie,

it was good to seeing me with that tournament in Chicago.

If you come out to Rochester, hit me up.

Oh, hell yeah, man.

I didn't know that was you.

Yeah, I'm the guy who used a gas station toilet's brother.

Oh, yeah.

Good to talk to you, bro.

That guy's another division three wrestler, so solidarity.

Hell yeah, brother.

You bet.

And to the point, I know for a fact that our gas station toilets comrade here was radicalized by his time in the military.

And that's, you know, kind of like what the point I'm making as, you know, these imperialist wars continue and as conditions decay,

more and more people, I think, will open their eyes to what's going on. But we have to put out the,

we have to make the education available for them. And we have to be there to offer them an alternative which i think is the reason i mean there's all sorts of reasons but it's one of the reasons that

communism isn't popular in the in america right now because there hasn't been a strong

communist party you you know,

showing what communism's all about through our actions and offering that theoretical education.

But if we're there to meet the crisis, if we're there to meet the problems of our time,

that's, I think think where we reach people

a trip over go ahead and I think this will be

the last person for the space

hi I guess this is less of a

criticism as it is a question.

I'm speaking as someone associated with the Cyclone Network, I'm sure you're aware what that is, in Britain.

And I'm interested in your response to a tweet by Jayhu about wage slavery.

I'm wondering what the ACP's response to this and the thread is it reads,

the last thing you ever want to do is romanticise, wage slaves, they will break your fucking heart.

Ain't no creature easier to buy off with a 2% raise and a promise of a clean bed in a nursing home to die in.

And it basically goes on to say, this is the reality of the working class

nothing makes sense no one can be trusted

everybody is the enemy

the government politicians unions company

and co-workers

how do you not believe in conspiracy theories

how do you not believe the media is lying?

I myself

am a minimum wage worker

in London

and I've been trying to speak to

people in my workplace about what they're

you know, where they're interested

in unionising and a lot of them are being exploited,

even people who are being paid a little bit more than me.

And I'm wondering, what do you think the response is to a working class which doesn't even define itself as working class anymore which doesn't even have a word for that

a lot of the situation in London and I imagine it's the same it's even worse in America is obviously the internalization of the bourgeois ideology and the sense that, you know, you can just hustle to become richer.

You completely internalize it to the point where you even deny the fact that you are working class,

you deny the fact that you even have a class identity.

What do you think the metaphysical response to this might be? the fact that you even have a class identity.

What do you think the metaphysical response to this might be?

Well, I think it's an interesting question.

And to respond to Jehu's question,

because I think the second question is a little more difficult

in terms of labor strategies and stuff.

I think Kyle is much better to talk to about that because he has more experience unionizing

workplaces.

But I can respond to the metaphysical quote-unquote side of things.

Yeah, I'm very interested in that.

Go ahead.

So I'll respond with an actual interesting um paradox of a certain

literary figure in u.s history because it's a very american mindset which was jack london right

if you read jack london's call of the wild yeah i read Jack London's Call of the Wild,

it is the epitome of what they called social Darwinism,

which I don't think it's like that.

I think social Darwinism

is looking at society from above

and making a conclusion.

But Jack London, he's kind of giving us the epitome of this literal dog-eat-dog mindset with respect to absolutely what Jayhu said.

Everyone will just fuck you over

don't trust anyone everyone's

a monster everyone's a beast

you can't trust anyone you can only

trust yourself if even that

and that is very much

a working class mindset in this country it's a very like gritty

realism uh that people hold to and it's like it's truly also that movie the joker the first one

it's like that's where it's really showing, you know, but people are so mean and awful. But how does this paradoxically so often in history within the history of literature and stuff, why does this correspond to a seemingly like socialist and revolutionary position?

That's something that's very, very strange that people should think about. Like Jack London was a socialist.

He was actually someone who believed in the cause of the proletariat

and yet he had such a grim view

about the nature of

people and just he didn't love he

he wasn't you know lovey

dovy like oh everyone's so great no everyone

is a fucking monster everyone's a

fucking beast.

Yeah.

What is our solution?

And, um, sorry, I don't mean to be rude or whatever, but, uh, I'm just kind of losing thought if you interrupt.

So please, just let me, uh, finish this.

Sorry about that.

Uh, anyway, um, so please just let me finish this sorry about that uh anyway um sorry i just lose my train of thought easily uh but what i'm trying to say is um what's basically uh what i would basically say is that

i think the key is that when we go from

bourgeois consciousness to proletarian consciousness, when we transition from individualism to

collectivism, we actually have to pass through individualism and bring it to its logical extreme in a sense.

And when I mean by individualism is not individual desire and self-indulgence, because as you can

understand, every narcissistic fantasy that's individualistic

involves some kind of false assumption about how other individuals are roped in

that's why it's paradoxical i'm going to say something eddie will shoot me for

einrand was maybe a few steps away paradoxical. I'm going to say something Eddie will shoot me for.

Einrand was maybe a few steps away from proletarian consciousness, possibly. I mean, that's a huge exaggeration

and it's not true. But the stereotype of Einrand, I want

to say, is a few steps away from proletarian class consciousness.

And I don't mean hedonism. I don't mean self-indulgence. I don't mean narcissism. I mean such an acute degree of schizoid paranoia where everyone around you cannot be trusted and everyone around you is a monster and even your sense of self is becoming a little you're just purely reduced to like fight or flight type of mentality there's something to that where you know it's like um

why how could that possibly be conducive to a collectivistic consciousness how could that possibly be conducive to a collectivistic consciousness? How could that

possibly be conducive to

prolete? Please mute yourself, please. I'm sorry.

All right, hold on.

How could that possibly be

conducive to a proletarian

consciousness?

Well, I could explain.

Basically, when we call schizoid consciousness, which is the logical, it involves the splitting of the individual.

All the kind of conspiracies about MK.

Oh, they're not conspiracies.

It's true.

MK Ultra and LSD and stuff.

That is actually how mind control happens.

That's how federal agencies control people.

They split the self, the sense of self, right? But this splitting of the sense of self is also what happens at the high point of alienation, individualistic alienation. Because what we come to realize is that a fundamental part of our selfhood does not actually belong to us, but is actually

based in how we are recognized by others, by this big other, so to speak, by this collective

being, right, by the others, by the crowds. And the Joker in that movie, when he has his

extreme kind of alienation from society, that is the schizoid kind of individualism.

Jack London in the Call of the Wild, you can make a case.

He is projecting very real human feelings and subjectivities on animals.

What is that, if not proof, of a kind kind of split a kind of schizoid break if the

call of the wild was about human beings that human being would be a fucking crazy guy right but for some

reason we sympathize with it and it works because it's an animal

so what but what is going on in that case the alienation in question is between the individual consciousness and an

inability to trust sorry the individual self and subject, and what we call the other of society.

And here's the thing. In bourgeois society, we must mistrust the other, because the other is is what i'll just break it down simply the other is

cnn the other is the academic institutions the other is the bullshit we're being spued

fed which we have every right to be cynical about. The other

is the bourgeois institutions.

The other is the false and

hypocritical institutions of capitalism.

The ruling ideas of society are

the ideas of the ruling class.

But the ruling others of society, so to speak, is also the

others of the ruling class, meaning the most popular chit-chat is the chit-chat of the ruling class.

The most viral likes on X are the likes of the ruling class in some sense. There has to be this

profound distrust, even hatred for the falseness of the other. That's a precondition to any other kind of consciousness and that first paradoxically takes the form of an extreme jack london like kind of rugged individualism of total mistrust and repudiation and rejection of others. Now, how does that transition to proletarian

and collectivistic consciousness? This is what I mean to say. Well, you begin to understand the other,

not as a person, but as a collective being once you understand social existence as

impersonal you're no longer heartbroken and disappointed by it like Jayhu is you understand

it in terms of objective historical laws you understand it in terms of objective historical laws. You understand it in terms of objective material realities and relations of production, not the moral inclinations or character of individuals. And in this sense, there's something very beautiful about that. Even if we're all evil, dirty, rotten bastards,

we have a chance at redemption

just by being honest and authentic

about the reality we share in common,

inadvertently, that we've inadvertently managed to produce.

And once we take responsibility for that reality, do we acquire a collective consciousness

or sorry, a collectivistic consciousness and a proletarian consciousness?

When the object, the social object, so to speak, is no longer personal. It's what we've all produced as a consequence of our relationships and our existence. It's the thing that we sit and await judgment with respect to, so to speak, right? The real consequence of our existence.

It's not personal.

It's not good or it's not bad.

It's just there.

And the minute we start recognizing it, the minute we take responsibility for it, we think

collectively.

We think like proletarians think. Sorry, we think collectively. We think like proletarians think. We think, sorry, we think in a way that is befitting of the interests and the existence even of the proletarian class. So there's no illusions about proletarians being good people personally and individually. Rather, the point of proletarian consciousness is to shift our, let's call it, political subjectivity, away from

normative judgments about the character of individuals or even the existence of individuals as

subjects and toward impersonal collective realities and once we accomplish that transition we can now

change our standard of individual morality. He who is moral is he who places themselves in the service of the very reality they depend upon. He who is cowardly and spineless and immoral is, for example, in trade union consciousness, the scab, the traitor, the one who's betraying the movement, the one who's selling out, the one, see in the face of this.

So that's not to say judgments of individual character disappear with the rise of proletarian consciousness.

They are finally given a proper basis.

No longer can we universally prescribe everyone as evil and sinners equally as we do from the perspective of bourgeois consciousness

now we can actually reacquire a sense of real morality to hold individuals to the standard of

so i'm going to unmute sorry i'm I'm sorry I muted, but I just,

I need to have my line of thought completely uninterrupted, but I'll go ahead

unmute.

No, that was very, that was very helpful.

Thank you.

I think one of the, one of the problems with this for me, I guess, I mean, I'm, I'm, I read a lot of like Nietzsche and I've kind of understood this through a nuchin um i guess i've been aware of the same process unfolding in fascist consciousness as well even though that's obviously completely

misdirected but i guess where that position comes from is the sense that, you know, you have to look into the abyss, you have to look into the eye of the storm and anyone who's a critic of, you know, mass consumer society will say that it's becoming impossible to do so.

It's becoming impossible to, you know, critique this morality, as it were, because of the sheer

anesthesia of consumerism,

how even in, you know,

acceleratingly declining circumstances,

it's becoming almost impossible to avoid

this anesthetic quality simply by having access to short-form media like

TikTok simply by having access to things like junk food things like very cheap, very reproducible form of entertainment.

And I think the concern, and I think a lot of this concern is also what, in some ways,

drives the self-appointed aristocratic right wing, is the sense that most people are too stupid, and myself included, are too stupid to approach an understanding of this eye of the storm because they, even on a physiological level, are anaesthetised

and are too well

placated even when the world around

them is apparently

and really

collapsing

on material

basis and ideological basis as well.

There's obviously this witness to destruction, this kind of babel-like destruction,

and yet there is this desire to simply recoil and numb the pain, which seems impossible to broach.

Well, I think my response to that would be to focus and fixate on what you just said, the witnessing of the eye of the storm, which is happening on a mass scale.

Because what's really going on when we're talking about the eye of the storm is that the more people are placated and, um, and satiated on a short-term basis, right, for immediate gratification, the more in the realm of long-term experience,

some kind of fundamental tension is being built up, where, yes, there's a total numbing and stupidity,

and yeah, there's a total amnesia but this is building up very long-term

symptoms that are returning to people in ways that they cannot avoid and causing a fundamental

disturbance at the level of their subjectivity that's equally unavoidable.

And it's manifesting in terms of an extremely unhappy consciousness in both literal and philosophic sense.

People, yes, the more accelerated the rapid it's it's kind of the opposite of what we would assume

actually when people are placating themselves in large but uh let's say um infrequent

doses

they have a lot of time to just kind of

fall into this

cycle of stupidity and

cattle-like consumption

but now that it has accelerated

to such a degree of constant immediacy, the indirect consequences of mass consumption and immediate constant consumption are being felt far more intensely and far more aggressively. And what's basically going on is that people are experiencing the destruction of individual subjectivity on a mass scale. The rise of the far right is a mass

phenomena. It's not, they think of themselves as aristocrats, but they are really extremely

quiche mass phenomena that's just happening to everyone seamlessly

who's being roped into it

and the exception among the youth is actually

the kind of naive Harry Sisson Liptard that is the kind of naive

Harry Sisson Liptard. That is a kind of robotic.

Nobody, that's only the extremely privileged few, and those people

are monsters behind the scenes anyway.

Everyone else is going down this spiral of grappling with the eye of the storm, and even Nietzsche himself is becoming a tool for people to cope with it and stuff.

And so that's important to bear in mind.

It's like all of this consumption consumption which you're calling junk with

people are however stupid they are there's this deep numbness they're increasingly beginning to feel

which is why their appetites are becoming far more intense, because it's just at a certain

point becomes sensory overload for them. It's just one meaningless stream of consumption that is

without distinction. They're getting bored of TikTok. They keep scrolling and scrolling and

scrolling, and it becomes increasingly more obscure and nonsensical and meaningless.

And that is building up as a kind of sensory overload within which lies the destruction of subjectivity, individual subjectivity itself.

So I would say out of that destruction arises the possibility for a new kind of subjectivity,

which is not an individual subjectivity, but the subjectivity

befitting of the socialist mode of production, right?

The class consciousness, proletarian consciousness.

How to tap into that precisely has a lot to do

with understanding

what's going on in the first place

in terms of changing modes of production

and as naive and stupid as that sounds.

What the right wing is thriving off of is a kind of immediate false consciousness, which in many roundabout ways is trying to salvage individual subjectivity. So that aristocratism that you're talking about is one such way.

Ah, it's just that everyone else is dumb and I am smart and I am enlightened.

So this is still really all about the subject.

The individual subject remains intact.

They just have to abstract themselves from the experience of reality itself in order to be preserved. But that is a kind of psychosis. It's, again, a schizoid consciousness that I talked about earlier.

The other kind of responses and reactions of dehumanizing other races, the JQ obsession, all of these reflect attempts at salvaging the pretense and integrity of individual subjectivity in the face of its objective destruction.

And so all communism should be in this era of TikTok and unhappy consciousness and so on and black pills and whatever is just

an acceptance. Yes, the individual subject is gone. Now we're in an era of the objective.

Now we're in an imperson of the objective. Now we're in an impersonal objective, era of impersonal objective realities, where our desires are not the center of reality, the center of the universe, and the center of society even.

We can just have acceptance now of this new reality and even see in it the possibility of a, of a redemption of humanity itself.

And I think that's the communist response to the turmoil of the age, the alienation of

the age, so to speak. And so far, this force does not exist. So far, this specific response to the

problem is nowhere to be found because communists have not made because in order for it to be possible it's not going to emerge passively it's going to emerge by conscious historically conscious communists who make the connection

between the history of communism,

beginning with Marx and Engels, all the

way through the experience of the 20th century

up to this point, those

people who make that connection

and connect that with the present alienation

that's being felt by the masses,

and articulate communism through that,

that is what's going to succeed,

and that's what's going to prevail.

And that's what infrared has always wanted and aspired to be but

we know that for example

it's uh it's it's going to require

an intense an increased intensification of uh i mean we're're here, we're not going anywhere, we're

going to stay, but as far as this specific response to the problem spreading, it's going to

require more intensification for us to grow at least go ahead you can know me yourself go

ahead um yes on on the question of entering the objective era, accepting the destruction of individual subjectivity, do you think this potentially presents a conflict between a kind of

a cosmic model and an otherwise pro-human, if you like, you know, I guess Christian socialist kind of positive vision for collectivism and things like this.

Do you think that, you know, in this short life that we have and in these particular developments in the historical process which are being made,

do you think there's a risk of leaning into an acosmic theological framework

which suggests a kind of emptying out of the human, which denies as first principle,

I know you hate first principles, but which denies an individual subjectivity,

an individual and risks, I guess denying a soul.

I think this is an idea which has been articulated by, you know,

all the sort of critics of communism who say, oh, well, you know,

it's all about losing who you are and becoming part of a sort of mindless cult of personality

or, sorry, to be

also Nick Land

will be the opposite. He will critique communism

as precisely the Christian thing

and insist upon the inhumanism

that you're describing. But I think the trouble

lies in precisely the conflation

of the individual subject with the human for marks when it comes to humanism the human is not an

individual the human is not an individual.

The human is a collective being.

And the subject is labor, but labor is also social and collective.

Individual labor cannot be abstracted from the collective existence for Marx.

So also this also is with respect to, for example, the existence of a soul.

I think the conflation of the soul, if we're talking theologically, with individual subjectivity, is an assumption made, well, I'm a kind of Bruno Latour's schizo, so I'll give it to you like this.

Basically, a rogue strain of Gnosticism prevailed. or schizo, so I'll give it to you like this.

Basically, a rogue strain of Gnosticism prevailed in the development of Western European Christianity,

which disguised itself esoterically through the ages, more or less less culminates in the Enlightenment, where it kind of reveals itself almost brazenly and openly. And it comes to redefine the meaning of

religiosity itself in many ways. And we, you know, the individual subject is a being that is alienated from the objective existence.

And the impersonal objective reality is regarded as something devoid of meaning and devoid of humanity.

And so that dichotomy that you're talking about, which is between the human as the individual subject and soul slash soul, versus the impersonal and objective, which is regarded as nature and devoid of humanity and a cosmic and so on, that is an incorrect distinction in my view because the reality of humanity is it's a, it is a, the real reality of the human is an impersonal reality. It's not a personal reality. The reality of

personal existence, as a matter of fact, should be redefined and re-understood in light of this

revelation. We should rediscover our sense of individuality in light of the fact that the reality

we participate in is fundamentally a non-individual but rather collective reality.

And I think that is the Christian view, actually, if we read the New Testament and we read the Bible.

I think the centering of the individual subject is a strange Luciferianism which has somehow

wormed its way into religion

but the spirit of Christian

Christianity is about the kingdom of God

it's about you know the community

of the Holy Spirit it's about

a collective existence, which is regarded as a matter of fact as the subject of the Bible.

It's not an individual subject.

See, the word subject, it implies, that is what everything is for, right?

So the notion that everything is for an individual, I think that is in the realm of sinfulness and pride within Christianity.

Individuals exist, a great mercy is bestowed upon the individual by virtue of their existence and individuals should be regarded with

consideration and care but they are not the subject of reality the subject of reality is

radically uh collective and impersonal.

So that would be my view basically, is that the human itself should be understood in a different way.

Now, that opens the question.

If the human is not the individual subject, how can it be tangible and definite? Because a human being is a tangible organism. It's an animal, right? The body, the human. Well, I think that is another false assumption. We are not just animals. And even animals are not this way because even trying to explain an individual organism in terms of the definitiveness of their embodied existence neglects how that existence comes to be, how it is maintained, and how it is maintained and how it is uh how it changes for example even um in biology they

don't say this they say everything is the dna that's really the substance not the tangibility of the physical

body, but the

DNA coding inside.

So even they

concede on that front, that

there is some kind of virtual element

that is the object, and that

the physical organism is a kind of symptom of that fact, of that reality.

So the human is even more so irreducible, I would say, to individual tangibility of physical tangibility of the individual.

Because, by the way, when we say physical tangibility, we're referring to physical tangibility to the extent of a sensuous relationship, of a kind of I can see and feel and measure, keeping that in mind by another individual subject. So, but how does the, how does humanity acquire concreteness and tangibility if it's not just the individual?

Well, believe it or not, that's the object of inquiry of Marx.

How does humanity constitute a concrete totality?

That is why he embarked upon the critique of classical political economy.

That is what he said about to try and understand in the very writing of capital.

The concrete existence of mankind is in a mode of production. Where does that mode of production

begin and end?

It's the big question of Marxism.

How is the current one transitioning into a new one, right?

Yeah. Thank you. That's been very enlightening. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Eddie, I...

Please wake up.

Sorry.

I'm still alive.

I'm still alive.

I think that's a good place to end the space.

I don't know why you.

Yeah, yeah.

That was great.

That was great.

Thanks for coming on.

Thanks to everybody. Stop by by we'll do another one of these soon i'm sure um yeah good discussions today i thought yep i agree awesome all right everyone we'll see you next time any last words chairman Yep, I agree. Awesome.

All right, everyone.

We'll see you next time.

Any last words, Chairman?

Nope.

Nothing for me.

Cool.

Peace, everybody.

We'll see you on the next one. All right.

I want to say some final things before we end the stream.

I was going to talk about like, after Trump's victory in

2016 there was a huge rise in the left

but we need to be a little skeptical

because

fucking libtards love

larping as revolutionaries when the president is a Republican or the president is Trump.

But when the president is a fucking Democrat, they're regime-pilled.

So you're going to see a lot of people that claim to be regime maxers that loved Biden

and even memed about it, even if

they weren't serious, become the

resistance now when LARP is revolutionaries.

So that's just a bunch of fucking

nonsense. Sleep or sell?

A lot of people

became radicalized by

Trump and became

communists. Like, oh my God, Trump

is the president? I fucking hate

the government now. I hate America.

And it's like, no.

If you didn't hate America under

Obama and under Biden, you're a fucking larper and a liar.

Fuck you.

As a true hater of the real great Satan, the U.S. regime, it's fucking disgusting how these people

have this idea

that like, oh yeah, you're a, you're now an enemy of the regime

just because the president is Trump?

No, you're a fucking shill.

You know,

you're just a shill.

If you weren't like this under Biden,

fuck you, you had time to learn.

In 2016, I get it.

You know, people were woken up

and shocked by Trump's presidency

because it was unprecedented and knew

and it disrupted a lot of their assumptions about, you know, U.S. democracy and whatever, you know, human rights, whatever. But then you should have learned if you became radicalized. If there's going to be a new generation of radicals, no, there's going to be a new generation of radicals?

No, there's going to be a new generation of Nazis,

and we're already starting to see them.

Trump is going to radicalize fucking Nazis

who are going after

all the minority voters that voted for MAGA.

The disillusioned liberals this time around are going to

become as of Nazis. Mark my fuck. I told you about this two years ago. And it's happening.

And now they're saying we want to deport all the Muslims and and Mexicans and whatever and Latinos because they voted for Trump.

And that's what we're not going to fucking see.

We're in lip tards in after 2020.

There's no liptard to communist pipeline.

I'm sorry to tell you.

So these people are going to fucking become Naslibs.

Mark my words.

And they already are.

Look on Reddit.

They're already...

You know what?

Maybe human biodiversity has

validity because of the low IQ of all

these minorities who are voting for Trump.

It's going to be like creepy

shit like that. Mark

my fucking words.

But mark my words, though.

Write this down and mark my

fucking words

and we're gonna we have to prepare to go to war with these

fucking people

you know

guys I'm dropping gems on these streams

just like gems gems gems, gems.

So clip them and save them and, you know, we'll stream tomorrow, or if not tomorrow, we'll stream Tuesday.

And... stream Tuesday. And, uh,

yeah.

History is going to remember Richard Spencer as having been

like an early adopter of something that's going to become very Richard Spencer as having been like

an early adopter of something

that's going to become very widespread.

Like the Richard Spencer stance

stay what you want.

I mean, like

look, Richard Spencer is a fucking Nazi.

He's a fucking Nazi.

But, I mean, there's no but, but it's like he somehow was smart enough to foresee what all liberals are going to become, which is pretty crazy, you know?

Like, he was in terms of foreshadowing what all the Democrats and liberals are going to turn into, he was ahead of the curb.

You had white guys for Kamala and all this shit.

That's what's going to happen.

That's what's going to happen.

And I have been saying this for three years. I've been saying this for three years.

All right. And will I get credit for it?

I am, if these kind of fucking predictions I make, it's like they are so much more on the nose than

any person on the stock market and I don't fucking make any money from them if i could

capitalize off of my predictions like someone on the stock market i would be worth 500 million dollars

by now minimum minimum you should find my old predictions about this because it's

fucking crazy how I predicted this

all of it

anyway

uh

anyway I'm gonna

Sue is

there we go cashed in on the credit Suez! There we go.

Cashed in on the credit.

Suez just gave me credit.

That's right.

We're grifting it up.

We're grifting it up.

Anyway, guys, oh, also, also.

Now, let me tell you something.

Once, if you think

I should accept

crypto donations,

personally,

I'm not talking about the party,

just personally.

Like,

are there crypto whales in the community who are like fucking billionaires who just want me to like open a crypto wallet and will give me a fuck ton of money in crypto that they can just wipe their ass with?

Yeah. just wipe their ass with. I don't know.

One more broke as fuck.

All right.

Yeah, I don't know.

Plenty of people making

bags off of

Bitcoin.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Yeah.

No, we are actually...

We are crypto broke.

I'm broke and only afford one gift sup

you know what

that's

that's all the money

in the world

to me

poor

that's all the money

in the world

to me

all right

just by boosting

my shit

that's all the money in the world you don't even have to donate you

don't even have to subscribe i appreciate for i appreciate the support you understand

that's a you know Anyway Um

Look guys

I'll see you Tuesday

How do you survive?

I'm doing it

I've been surviving

The past

The past like fucking three streams

of me

grifting is how I survive.

Iron Rose.

Anyway,

guys,

thank you.

We're going to wrap it up.

Um,

anything I wanted to say

last?

Uh,

what does that fucking mean thinning out? What does that fucking mean thinning out? What does thinning out mean? Someone explain that to me. What does

thinning out

mean?

Getting thin.

I've actually

gained some weight.

Not a good

I've gained like

two pounds,

but it's still

not a good sign.

Uh, I've gained like two pounds, but it's still not a good sign. Okay, guys.

Well, I lost weight because I was broke.

Oh, that's not why I lost weight.

I lost weight because I stopped eating like a fat fuck.

It's not hard.

Now I also have to stop again because it's happening again.

But McDonald's sounds...

We're not doing that.

Anyway, no, no, my weight is including the fluctuation.

All right, guys, I'm ending the stream right now.