COMMUNISM WINNING | ACP RISING

Mm-hmm.

Danny 21 hours ago.

Bro, thank you.

21 hours ago.

Wow.

Thank you, bro.

Appreciate you with the five.

What's up, y'all?

I drink sprite now.

Kuzaz, what's up?

What's up, y'all?

Thanks for sending me money.

I'm using it to buy Sprite.

Thank you Tom, what's up man, appreciate you.

Sprite Zero with Zero Anything.

Zero sugar.

So basically, drinking this does nothing negative at all.

It just tastes good, and there's zero repercussions, zero calories, there's no issue.

What's up y'all?

How y'all doing?

Midnight Warrior, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

Appreciate you, man.

Just gotta quench my thirst after a long day on the yacht.

CJ, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

Just gotta quench my thirst.

Been a long day on the yacht, guys.

You're wondering why I'm late to the stream.

I just been on my yacht all day, you know?

And it's so funny, there was actually an accident.

You see, the yacht wasn't able to park right, and we ended up in yacht traffic.

Okay, can you believe it?

There's something called yacht traffic.

'Cause in this economy everyone's doing so well.

There's so many yachts.

I was stuck in yacht traffic for like an hour, you know?

So that's why the stream is late.

But I've been spending all day on my yacht.

By the way, guys, I gotta fuel my yacht, so thank you for the donation so I can refuel my yacht.

You know, gotta take it to the yacht gas station.

Uh what's going on, everybody?

How are we doing today?

So we have a lot to talk about.

We're another day into this incredibly amusing, extremely low effort, low energy attack by the federal government on our ACP, our American Communist Party.

It's kind of like it's still going, but I think people are getting tired of it now.

They're like, okay, okay, okay, we get it.

What way to beat a dead horse?

It's like if ACP is dead, if you've made your point, like you got to do it every single day, ah.

Well, guys, I think I uh some things are in order actually.

I want to talk about some stuff that's going on.

We're in the midst of Woke Two.

This is the rise of Woke Two.

And Woke Two is going to be more intense than Woke One.

So we had Woke One.

Woke One lasted until just about

Like 'til Charlie Kirk died, I guess.

And then after Charlie Kirk, Woke One is like completely dead forever.

Like Woke One is gone, right?

Philfo, what's up?

So after Charlie Kirk, we've been witnessing the rise of Woke Two.

Woke Two is just.

If you understand what Woke is, I sound like fucking Matt Walsh right now.

You can just vaguely distill it in this kind of way, right?

Moral, morality, moral authority.

The United States is losing all moral authority, right?

The U.S.

does this teeter-totter thing.

It goes from two extremes, right?

You have, on the one hand, an extreme puritanical, moral intensity of just like puritanical, like freak, morally absolute moral universalism, righteousness, superiority.

You have that one.

Sorry, I'm 30 years old.

You have that one.

And then the pendulum also then it swings to the other one.

The opposite end of the pendulum is usually like, oh, we're just gonna fucking kill and rape everyone because we don't care because the world is depraved.

Like, if you think about it, the 1960s was like, you know, the moral part where the hippies are like, the earth is crying.

And then in the 80s, it was like, you know, Patrick Bateman, you know, rapist cocaine on a yacht with an Uzi gun or some shit.

And then in the 1990s, say the song, say the night for the better time.

Time to wait, man.

That was the 90s.

And then in the 2000s, the 2000s, you had like the mean girl, I don't know, like Backstreet Boys, like Britney Spears type of thing.

Like the early 2000s was like, like women were like, if you're not skinny, kill yourself, bitch.

And it was like, just like extremely, you know, glamorous.

And then, you know, that lasted until Obama.

And Obama was another moral period in time.

And then, you know, we had Kim K.

And then we slid.

And then when Trump got elected in 2016, that's when Woke basically became a thing.

Then that's basically when we had Woke.

And Woke was, well, Woke was what it was.

You know, George Floyd, Black Lives Matter protest in 2020, the whole thing.

You guys are familiar with it, you know?

And then after woke one, we had the whole anti-woke backlash.

So this is Matt Walsh, this is Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson was at the avant-garde, Nick Fuentes is one of the people, I guess.

You also had Andrew Tate.

That was the backlash against Woke.

Backlash against Woke was mainly like the opposite end of the pendulum.

And now the pendulum is swinging back to the intensity of moral, you know, the moral feeling that is missing in this country, right?

So you need to understand that this isn't woke two.

This is like woke 50 in the history of this country.

It's a pendulum.

It's like a bipolar country.

You know, it swings back and forth between these two extremes across U.S.

history.

I mean, you can go very far and you can find this pattern across history.

Okay.

You can find this across every period of U.S.

history.

You basically have this pendulum swinging back and forth between the two extremes.

And the pendulum is swinging back just as extremely, like as much as the pendulum swung in an extreme direction toward like the Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes kind of thing.

Pendulum is now going to swing back in the exact opposite extreme with like the same intensity.

It's going to.

That's how pendulums work.

You know, they keep getting more and more extreme and extreme.

Right?

Now, what are we anticipating?

This is not a pendulum between left and right.

This is a pendulum between.

Let's call call it uh moral conviction and material realism.

Let's call it that.

Moral conviction and material realism, right?

And if you're a Marxist in America, then eschatologically, what you want, the thing that's going to be finally causing a revolution in this country, is when the pendulum swings high enough

That it actually starts becoming a circle, and that that's how you get a logos, right?

Because part of the logos of a nation, the fundamental essence of like what makes a nation a nation, is how it combines and reconciles into a pattern, a discernible pattern, a relationship between moral order and our intuitive, unconscious understanding of our material relationships.

How, you know, what is real, not just what should be, but what is.

How do you balance an understanding of our view of what the objective is and the subjective, in other words, right?

The moral.

But also the material, how those things acquire harmonious synthesis, that only happens when the pendulum swings all the way up.

So in a sense, I'm a I'm I'm a in in some sense, I'm a woke accelerationist.

Just like I was an anti woke accelerationist.

I don't care, I don't know where it's gonna finally break and and do a full three sixty.

You know, during the anti-woke period, I was very intensely anti-woke, 'cause I'm trying to push the pendulum up.

But if the pendulum is gonna go up in the opposite direction, hey, I'll happily be infra-woke.

I'll happily be woke.

Because our goal is to get the pendulum up.

The goal is to get the pendulum up.

That's it.

The pendulum is only down right now.

The pendulum is swinging like this.

Right?

Whichever ex it's getting more and more extreme as it swings with intensity, right?

We were just like here was like Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, whatever.

Now it's gonna swing in the opposite direction, right here, right?

I want the pendulum to go up.

Moral, you know, moral uh convi uh moral conviction and material realism, whatever you want to call it, right?

So, we want the pendulum up.

We want to combine moral conviction with the comprehension of the material.

And that's how you get cosmological moral authority.

That's moral authority finally given substance.

Because morality in America, since the time of the Puritans, has been the morality of pure spirit, the morality of pure conceit, a morality that.

Sticks its nose up into the air and says, I'm superior, I know better.

That's the mor the morality that doesn't want to dirty its hands in the material filth of the world, right?

That's the American.

Spirit of morality.

It's a morality that only goes up toward the clouds and doesn't ever dig its feet in the dirt, right?

And then on the other hand, you have this amoralism or this anti-moralism, which is only focussing on the dirt and has no sense of the spiritual, the moral at all, and it actually becomes depraved and degenerate, right?

So

As the pendulum swings in the direction of a new woke,

Uh I just want to think about guys.

I'm gonna be maybe I'm aging, maybe I'm getting old.

When you're on Twitter,

Being edgy and shit.

It's just like, I'm not moralizing.

I'm just saying, like, guys.

It's not really the vibe anymore.

You could just be like, shut up, bitch.

I don't know.

It's kinda like.

Whenever I see edgy shit on Twitter, I'm just kinda like, mm, it's just kinda not int

It's kind of like the only things that work and are effective are what intensity, the pen, the intensity of the pendulum, so to speak, right?

And it's like, we need a moral code.

I've been thinking about this a lot.

We need a moral code.

Some people tell me in the ACP, they're like, Haz, does the ACP need a social media guidelines?

No, I think we just need a moral code in general.

I just think we need moral guidance.

You guys need moral guidance.

We are a great cult.

You want to know what the problem with you guys is?

I'm going to do a very humble self-criticism right now, and also a criticism of you.

My humble self-criticism is that you guys just don't look for me to guidance enough.

You don't listen to me enough.

That's the problem.

You should listen to the cult leader more.

And then everything would be fine if you just listen to me more, right?

Because when I tell you things, it just people rush past me.

Hey, I'm telling you something.

Don't just fucking ignore what I'm telling you.

What am I speaking in vain for no reason?

If that's the case, if I'm speaking in vain, just send me my $5,000 check per month and you'll never see my face again.

I guess, right?

If you just need me as your symbolic authority to just sit here and be your symbol for you, then give me your five give me five thousand a month and I'll fuck off.

Otherwise, I'm here to give you leadership and guidance.

You should look to me for guidance.

You should actually fucking listen to me.

You should take it into consideration, take it into heart what I say.

I'm not here to speak in vain.

I'm here to talk to you guys about shit that matters.

If I'm telling you something, there's a reason I'm telling you.

I'm not just talking to talk, okay?

I'm not just doing this shit for money.

I'm not turning on my stream.

At 11 p.m.

Because I'm hungry for money, I'm turning on my stream at 11 p.m.

because I have something to tell you.

Things I've told you before, but I'm going to have to repeat myself, which I will, okay?

You know how you, you know, when you guys hit the hardest, when you hit the enemy the hardest?

Like, don't be petty.

Don't be petty and personal.

Don't be weak, but also don't be petty.

Be like Volk Vulture.

You know, if you want to make fun of people for being cringe, just do that.

But why?

The more times you have to use slurs against someone, the weaker it lands.

I'm just going to be frank.

The more slurs you use.

It doesn't land well in terms of like how much you're actually crushing the enemy.

The goal is to defeat and destroy the enemy.

If you want to destroy the enemy, don't just spam slurs.

That doesn't work.

It's really fucking ineffective.

When you guys are spamming slurs at people, you know what it sounds like?

It sounds like a little bitch being like, eh, like.

You know what's really hard-hitting and effective?

Being stone cold like Volk Vulture, just hitting them with the hammer.

Hitting them with the fucking hammer.

You keep your cool, you hit him with a bro.

Keep your chill.

This is.

We're gonna go over the seven laws of the guerrilla moral code, okay?

And I'm gonna walk you through why each and every one of them are important.

But before I get into these laws,

Okay, actually, I can break this.

This is part of law one.

Okay, the seven laws of the infra-woke guerrilla moral code, because we're entering a new woke era, and we're going to be ahead of it by being infra-woke.

We're going to be at the avant-garde of the new woke, which I've already been since Allah Cosmo Xi Jinping I've been.

I've been focusing on the moral dimension, moral authority, the ironic moral dimension, right?

I believe in moral authority.

I've been on this before.

People can say I follow trends.

That's not true.

Before Woke 2 even came out, I was on this extremely powerful cosmological, astrological.

Moral

Orientation, right?

But I explain how the morality is actually material and cosmological.

Anyway, we're going to go over the seven loss, okay?

And why the number seven?

Because seven's a lucky number.

Okay, so

Here's the thing.

Law One.

You must be moral and righteous to the utmost without being pretentious.

Do you know what that means?

That means be moral without enjoying being moral in the sense of like, oh, I'm so moral.

Just be right versus wrong.

Righteousness.

Righteousness.

Conduct yourself with righteousness.

You are in the right.

You are in the right.

You have to tell yourself, you have to know you're in the right.

Don't just look shoulder to shoulder and be like, uh, am I getting approved by my pierce?

No, you have to internally.

Do everything you do with the conviction that it is correct.

Okay.

But you can't be pretentious about it.

No, no, no, you're not getting anything in return.

I get to be bragging and pretentious.

No, you don't.

You can't look down on anyone either.

You have to just be moral.

Be in alignment with the moral, alignment with the cosmos, okay?

Now, part of this thing about not being pretentious, never rise above humility.

You need to be humble and maintain a sense of humor.

Okay?

You cannot abandon humor.

You cannot abandon comedy.

Maintain your sense of humor.

Jesus Christ, maintain your sense of humor.

One of the most disastrous things y'all could be doing out here in the trenches is not having a sense of humor.

Have a sense of humor.

Okay?

But be righteous.

Okay, second part of the moral code.

But part of number one.

Part of number one.

Part of number one of this moral code.

Okay.

Keep your chill.

Even if you're gonna, you don't know how you ratio someone.

Nick, can I ask you a question?

Has there ever been a single angry person who's ever ratioed someone?

Has that ever happened?

It's never happened in history.

You want to be effective in exposing how stupid and disgusting our enemies are?

Just be chill.

Yes, reply to them, but be chill about it.

Be like.

If you see something fucking stupid, just

Just fucking like mock them.

Just be like chill about it though.

Don't don't lose your chill.

Don't type with your fingers with anger, gay?

It's in vain.

Uh that's important, okay?

And don't be policing.

Jesus Christ, like

Don't be on some stupid ass shit.

I'm just gonna say some shit.

Don't police women at all for anything.

I don't give a fuck what it is.

Even if a bitch has an OnlyFans, just fucking ignore her.

Let's say a woman has an OnlyFans but is friendly toward our community.

Just leave her the fuck alone.

Don't even bring up her fucking OnlyFans.

Just be like, we welcome your support.

We welcome your support.

That's it.

That's the only.

Don't do this fucking thing.

You're not the Sharia.

You're not police.

Stop the fucking cringe, okay?

It's none of your fucking business.

Do we approve of it?

No, we don't.

But is it our fucking business?

It's not.

It's just the truth.

It's just the fucking truth.

Like, I

It's none of our fucking business.

Who gives a fuck?

It's the fucking internet, gay?

Uh okay, number two, law number two, okay?

You must reject wickedness, depravity, and oppose it wherever you see it, without hypocrisy.

Oh boy, this one's important.

Don't follow social trends.

Don't just don't don't outsource your moral center to to the social realm.

If you see evil shit, you need to fucking

Oppose it.

What am I actually talking about?

You wanna know what our disgusting enemies do?

And they're doing probably now, they always do this.

They will make fake alts, then they'll make a splinter discord, and then they'll invite you guys to your little split.

By the way, if I find out anyone's in a splinter discord, you're getting fucking exiled for the community forever.

And actually, I'll make sure that you're banned from the party too.

All these fucking splinter discords, right?

They'll set up a splinter discord.

This is literally what they do, the anti-ACP cult.

It's like four to five people that do this for their full-time job.

They'll split up, set up a splinter Discord.

They'll invite all these people from IGG, from the community, and then they will start slowly and slowly making you comfortable with depravity and evil ass shit.

And maybe they'll try to use humor, they'll try to use something.

But they themselves will be very depraved.

These are our moral enemies, by the way, who who morally moralize about us.

This is what they do on their spare time.

And they openly talk about how they do this, right?

So we have the intel to know they're doing this all the time.

And they'll invite you guys to be in these Discords with them where none of us can see you.

So you're hidden from me, you're hidden from the mods, you're hidden from Amirio.

And then they'll proceed to try to trap you into saying some highness ass shit.

You know, some shit about women or something.

Some disgusting shit.

You know?

And then their goal is to say this is the ACP, this is infrared.

Meanwhile, y'all are basically like children getting groomed in a social context.

Well, what's the fucking problem from square one?

You guys tu you rely too much on the social to to for your moral compass.

You can't tell right from wrong.

You don't have an internal compass, so you just go with the fucking flow.

You allow yourselves to be tricked.

And put into social environments where something is acceptable.

A lot of this is human nature, but the guerrilla army has to be fucking different.

It has to be fucking different.

So, if they do these psyops and infiltrate the community to make y'all look bad, ultimately the fault lies with you.

Because these people are fucking losers, they're feds.

What do you expect from them?

But putting yourself in a position

Where you allow yourselves to be infiltrated by people who don't have our principles and our morals, you need to fucking.

Reject wickedness, depravity, oppose it wherever you fucking see it.

Even if it appears to be among your peers, you should need to risk losing your social standing.

You need to risk losing your social position.

People are doing wicked, evil shit.

Call it the fuck out.

And bring it to the attention of the mods, bring it to my attention, and if it's related to the party, of course you bring it to the attention of the party.

Don't let people trick you into losing your moral compass.

Because a lot of you don't have one beyond the social thing online and you need guidance.

I understand people are human, but that's very fucking important.

Don't lose your moral compass.

Third thing, extend good faith to strangers.

You only oppose them in self defense.

What does that fucking mean by the way?

It means be chill by default.

Your default attitude is to just be chill.

If it's you don't know strangers, the stranger.

You know, it's not a job for a stranger to present themselves to you in a way that is familiar to you.

It's your job to extend good faith to everyone, regardless.

This is that idea about the law of the stranger that I talked about yesterday, right?

There's a stranger within, there's a stranger from without.

You have to be good faith to strangers.

You have to give people the benefit of the doubt.

That's what that means.

Give people the benefit of the doubt.

Even if it's naively so, just give them the benefit of the doubt.

Only when they cross the line.

They slander, they attack, they say bullshit.

Okay, then it's self-defense.

But by default you have to have good faith to strangers.

Uh, four, you see, you have to be patient with people straight up.

Four, you have to be ferocious without sadism.

Okay, when you defeat an enemy, just fucking leave them on the corner and fucking go.

Don't keep poking and torturing a defeated enemy, just fucking move on.

We don't want to spend our energy tearing people down, but if we have to fucking do it, you better be fucking ready to do it like a fucking lion pounces on their prey.

I mean, I'm talking about the fucking internet, but in any case, be ferocious.

Don't be this, don't do this fucking chungus thing where they're like, Well, sir, my lady, I apologize.

I am here to extend my, or you just like see someone random and you're like, Good sire, let me no, they're gonna step on you.

Don't fucking be a bitch.

Just be chill.

Okay.

Some kind people overdo shit.

They overdo shit in either way, and it's like, no, find the balance.

This is called dialectics.

Find the fucking balance.

Strike the balance.

You must be ferocious.

You can't be sadistic about it.

We don't like to torture.

You know why torture is disgusting and retarded?

Because torture basically means you are

Weak, like you need to continuously uh cause harm and pain to someone.

What's the goal?

You're just you're like you know, it's like a s that songs

Wake me up inside!

Wake me up inside!

Like, that's you internally screaming with hatred toward God and a sense of like confusion and befuddlement, and internal like confusion.

And you need to torture and hurt people over and over again because there's something within you that you're not at peace with, right?

So I hate torture.

I hate people who torture.

It's like look, defeat an enemy, destroy an enemy and be done with it.

Have a goal in mind.

Causing people pain and being getting pleasure from that is disgusting, okay?

That can't be who we are.

None of I don't want anyone in our ranks to be sadistic about anything, you know?

Be ferocious with a goal in mind.

Okay, focus on the goal, lock the fuck in.

You must be merciful without weakness.

Okay, that's law of five.

What does that mean?

What it means that you show mercy from a position of strength.

Don't go, don't rush and go out of your way to be merciful to people who are not at your mercy.

It's as simple as that.

But when they're at your mercy and the threat is gone, show mercy.

When they're at your mercy and they're no longer a threat, then it's time to show mercy.

Okay.

Forgive even.

If every single one of our enemies, every single one of these people

Especially, I'm talking mainly on the left.

If they decided tomorrow to just be like, you know what?

I'm done with this twisted, sick life I'm leading, I apologize.

I'm sorry.

Would I forgive them?

Yeah, because I don't fucking know these people.

Why wouldn't I forgive them?

Yes, I would.

I don't hold grudges, I really don't.

And it makes me sad that I don't hold grudges for these people because they must hold grudges.

You know, having some bitch ass person just stop being a bitch ass person, that's that's great to me.

It's just like less less of my time wasted.

I just don't like my time wasted.

The thing that I don't like is having my time wasted.

Do I hold grudges?

No, because I'm at peace with myself.

That's why.

If you're at peace with yourself, you don't hold grudges.

Move the fuck on.

You move the fuck on.

You know what a grudge means?

It's like, you took everything from me.

I'll never forgive you.

That's what our haters are like.

They're like, ha, you took everything from me.

I'm like, I don't even know who you are.

Yeah.

You're not at peace with yourself.

You need to be at peace with yourself.

Put that in the law.

You need to be at peace with yourself, you can't be holding rudges.

Never forget, but you should forgive, but never forget.

Um but when an enemy needs to be destroyed, they need to be destroyed for sure.

Okay, six, you must not tell lies, but you must rightly discern the content and not just form of truth.

What does that mean?

You can't be in this autism Anglo box.

You need to understand context means something.

Ultimately, what is be what is the content of what is being communicated?

Ultimately, you have to think in these kind of ways.

So don't tell lies.

Takia is not a form of lying, by the way.

Many people are not ready for this wisdom.

Okay, seventh law.

I love this one.

This is my favorite one.

Do not gossip.

The Alevis, part of their like pillars, their laws.

It's like, no, they say you, you, well, they have three that they say.

They say you control your hand.

Don't use your hand to steal.

And don't do, don't cause harm.

Don't attack people.

Don't kill people.

And then they say control your tongue, don't gossip, don't speak evil, and don't lie in this world.

And then the third one is actually really funny.

It's don't control your loins.

So it's about adultery.

Like, don't go in

Um, you know, don't go and have a bunch of extramarital affairs or something.

I don't know.

Um

So these are the three laws that the Olavis have, the three more the moral code of the Olavis.

But my favorite one is the one about gossiping.

Control your tongue.

Don't gossip.

Don't gossip.

Because of what you know what the def you know what my definition of gossip means?

I'll tell you my definition of gossiping.

Speaking about other people's private business to no end.

That's the definition of gossip.

If there's an end, if this is critical information that has practical significance, okay.

For example, if you're informing on someone, if you're saying that this person has, okay, there's we need to know this information.

If the information has relevance, if the information has importance or significance.

Then it's not gossip.

Okay.

Conversations you wouldn't have, and that's not true.

Okay, sometimes people.

Need to be informed on, okay?

But that's not gossip.

Gossip is to no end.

You're talking about people's private business because you enjoy doing it.

Especially if you're a man and you're gossiping.

You have low, critically low testosterone levels.

I'm just gonna be fucking honest.

If you're a man and you enjoy gossiping about people, you have extremely critically low testosterone.

Like you just sit there and you're like, oh, did you hear?

Did you hear about the high elves in the Somerset Isles?

Like if you're sitting there just like, you know what a bitch ass person you sound like?

You know how like little, you know what a little bitch you sound like?

How low your testosterone has to be?

If this is what you spend your time doing, like a little bitch?

Like you have no idea what you look like.

You're literally like those fucking bitch ass people from Oblivion.

Like, I had the story of the thing.

Did you know?

It's so fucking like you're literally have man titties if this is the type of shit you're doing your spare time.

So I hate gossipers, I hate gossip.

You just you turn just if if it's no one's being harmed and it doesn't matter, excuse yourself, excuse yourself from the room.

You know, in Islam, stories of Islam.

Angels will not enter your room.

While you have sex, so when you're with your wife and you have sex, the angels will not, they'll leave.

Why?

Because the angels are good.

Because they have piety.

They say, This is not my business.

I'm leaving.

I'm not going to be here.

Because respect.

It's like they understand the boundary.

And it has to be the same when it comes to gossip.

Like, if it doesn't harm anyone and it has nothing to do with you, and it is of no practical significance.

You turn and excuse yourself.

And try to forget about it, actually.

You try to forget about it and excuse yourself.

That's the correct way to be things like, you know?

Someone who's, you know, gossip, it's like for peeping toms.

It's like a degenerate, disgusting thing, you know?

Something that doesn't concern you, but simultaneously is of no practical significance, harms no one.

If when you're witnessing someone suffering,

When you witness someone suffering, you know, it's like it could be anything.

You know what a good example would be?

Like, if I walked into a room and I saw someone, one of you shit their pants.

I walk in, you shit your pants.

Okay, what you know what I'm gonna do?

I'm gonna walk out of that room and pretend I never saw that.

Now if you keep doing it over and over again, I you're gonna you know you're gonna have a I'm gonna have to talk to you and tell you that you need to get it under control or you're gone.

Wanderers, because that's disgusting.

But let's say you walk let's say you're with a friend and they shit their pants, okay.

Excuse yourself and pretend you never saw it.

And literally wipe it from your mind.

Because why would you want to?

That's the angelic way to behave, you know?

The demonic way to be to run to the group chat and be like, He'll just shit who's bad.

He'll just shit who's bad That's demonic.

Because all you're doing is humiliating and torturing someone.

It has nothing to do with anyone.

Be angelic and excuse yourself.

Excuse yourself from such things, you know?

But at the same time, what does it mean to cause harm?

Does it mean only cause harm to you?

If you see people doing things that cause harm,

To the movement, potentially they're causing harm to themselves.

Inform on them to proper authority, inform on them to us, inform on them.

If they're doing something, if they're wrecking, if they're doing something immoral and evil and wicked.

If their you know their conduct is not up to the standards of what we would consider acceptable for us, you better inform on them.

You better inform on them.

That's not gossip.

That's critical information we need to root out people who are may not fit up and live up to the standards of what it takes to be a member of this party, this organization, this movement, this infrared movement, whatever it is, right?

These are the seven moral codes of the guerrilla army.

And, you know, guys, I want you to take them seriously.

And every time you're online, every time you're on social media, I want you to think about the seven laws.

Am I violating the seven laws?

Am I violating the seven infra-woke laws?

Think about it.

None of these laws.

You can be formalistic about you.

You have to think about these laws.

You have to think about these laws, right?

So, when you're on social media, when you're interacting with people, you need to think of these laws.

I'm not telling you to be weak and back off from our enemies.

I'm telling you that you need to observe the seven laws whenever and read them again.

The seven laws are right there.

You read the seven laws, okay?

The seven laws of the guerrilla army, right?

We should make a song that, like, the eight PLA, they had the eight rules.

Of attention.

What was it called again?

Your laws sound like stoicism and No, it's not stoicism.

Hey, hey oh, hey oh hey oh hey oh I have to sing to to uh lower my anger levels.

No, I'm not telling you to be stoic at all.

I'm telling you to actually ha be emotional about what matters.

I'm telling you not to have no emotions, I'm just telling you to understand what emotions are.

I'm telling you to

All of this, okay, you want to know the truth?

All of this is about love.

Just like Che Guevara said.

You observe seven laws like these.

You conduct yourself with righteousness.

You are moral because you love the revolution, because you love.

The communist empire in the making because you love 2036, because you love the glory, the greatness of what's to come, because you love.

The object.

What you know, the objective.

This is why.

I mean, it's out of devotion to something that you have a moral code.

You only, because you're devoted to something, you don't want to let it down.

You're part of history.

Do you want to let down?

The place in the story that you occupy?

Do you want to like let that down?

You know, be inconsistent with it.

Um, I don't give a fuck about this Greek fuck who said he was a stoic and he had devotion.

The stoics were disgusting and filthy.

I'll never tell you to be a fucking stoic.

Don't be a stoic.

It's stupid.

Stoicism.

It's stupid.

Stoicism.

It's fucking stupid.

It's not stoicism, 'cause I also want you to me you want you gotta be like the Shia.

You need to be like this intense devotion.

That's not Stoicism.

That's not stoicism.

You just need to.

There needs to be a proper place.

Like, we need to have rituals where we have this intense Allah cause more sheep.

By the way, when we have the National Congress, I will, I will begin a chant.

We're all going to sing together.

Allah Kazmoshi Jinping.

It's going to be like a Sufi thing.

It's going to be like one of these.

You know, when Sufis are in the room and they're circling, they're like, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.

We're going to be doing the same shit.

Allah cause more sheep.

We're going to be doing that.

See, the Sufi way is not Stoic.

There's room for the emotion, but there needs to be a clarity.

What do you care about?

What matters?

What has significance?

What is actually real?

What takes you beyond the threshold of your rational faculties?

Of course, there's a sublime threshold that must take you beyond the faculties of any kind of stoic temperament.

You need to actually have a passionate devotion to the cause, to the truth, to God, or whatever you want to call it, cosmos, whatever you want to call it.

Revolution, right?

But if you're a man, just don't cry ever, honestly.

Just

Unless someone dies, or you have conquered a city like Tamerlane when he sacked Delhi and then he cries and he goes to the crown.

Thanks God.

Finally.

You know, when we reach the end goal, you can cry.

It's ears of joy, you know.

Actually I believe men should not cry.

Unless someone dies?

Or unless it's tears of joy for a great, something really great, right?

My opinion.

If you're watching a sad movie, do not cry, buddy.

That's the let your girlfriend cry.

Don't cry if you watch this.

Oh, I'm sorry, we're in woke too.

I never went.

No, in woke two, we are the moral authority.

In woke two, we are in for woke.

We're taking over woke two.

We're hijacking this shit.

Woke 2 is in for woke!

Hey

Hey.

How do you guys not love that song?

You guys didn't fuck with that Thomas Munster song, huh?

I fuck with that song.

I was fucking getting my steps into that song.

I'm gonna go to the gym to that song.

Hey, hey-oh, hey-oh, hey-oh, hey-yo.

The song, if you, I can't believe you guys call yourself Christians.

You're not real Christians.

I'm the Christian.

I'm the real Christian because

I think about

The song, it's saying the lyrics are so nice.

They're saying these fuckers in this castle, they stole, there's a theft of the Holy Scripture.

They've stolen the Holy Scripture, they've corrupted it, they've corrupted Christianity.

And this is exactly, and I, you know what I think about the song in America, this evangelical country with all these mega churches?

You know, I.

I think.

I don't like this Latin stuff.

I'm going to be honest.

I have two.

Shia extremism, Gulat, Kizilba Shia extremism, Thomas Munzer, Florian Geyer, Peasants' War of Germany.

These are the this is the main spiritual polarity for me because the truth is

Jesus needs to be reclaimed.

Before it's possible for Islam to be revealed again or to acquire reality on earth again, you know, like Jesus has been stolen.

And I love the Protestant Reformation a lot.

I love Thomas Munzer and Florian Geyer and the Peasants' War.

I love that so much.

It's like that happened at the exact same time as the Kizilbash and the Safavid Empire was rising, by the way.

Literally the same exact time.

It was happening exactly like together, the same time, right?

And the reason why that was happening was because before then, there was the auspicious conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.

And so Sahib Qiran appears on Earth in this form of Christianity being reborn, which is part of the Islamic eschatology.

The Protestant Reformation is part of Islamic eschatology.

When Christianity is in.

The first the first articulation of Islam was falsehood.

After the prophet, why because they betrayed the prophet's family, so Islam was forgotten for a long time, the Shia kept fighting and fighting, but there's something foundational to Islam that was totally wiped and forgotten from the beginning, right?

And so, the key to unraveling the secret of the messenger's revelation in Islam is we have to go back to Christianity, we have to pass through the stage that the Sufis called the stage of luminous black in the heart, which is associated with the Jesus of your being, okay.

Until Jesus is properly remembered, until we properly return to Jesus, we cannot reach the Emerald Mountain.

We cannot actually reach the Prophet Muhammad's revelation until we actually pass through the Jesus within, right?

Which is the luminous black, the deepest part of the heart, right?

And that's what the Protestant, that's what the German Peasants' War was.

It was an awakening to the fact that the message of Christ and Christ had been corrupted.

Memory of Christ was corrupted, okay, fully.

And they woke up.

It was this profound awakening that there's something about Jesus that's been forgotten, and it's a return to Jesus.

And the stage of luminous black that the Sufis talk about.

Of the Ishrak school, right?

Specifically, that stage is about Jesus is associated.

I mean, I'm not to be cringe, but it's like the utmost sense of compassion, the utmost sense of the complete annihilation of the ego for the stranger, for the other, for the meek, for the poor, for the downtrodden.

So there's an immediate kind of communistic significance to that: of these German peasants fighting for each other, fighting for their dignity, you know, fighting for their humanity.

And like that's part of the eschato eschatology that I believe in, right?

Um, so and we in America we have to reclaim Jesus, you know.

So, I fully am in line with that tradition, that lineage.

Um anyway.

Hey, well, how did I even get to this?

Well, I was singing.

Yeah, guys, look.

I'm not talking about stoicism.

Was it all?

Yeah, when I say someone dies, you can cry.

I said you can cry when someone dies, okay?

Jesus Christ.

So, the seven laws of the guerrilla moral code, and whoever it's not stoicism, because you want to know why I'm really against this interpretation that it's stoicism.

I'll tell you exactly what my problem with the interpretation that it's stoicism is.

I don't want you guys to repress your humanity, don't repress your individuality and your humanity.

As cringe as that sounds, every person has a level of human dignity.

If someone hurts your feelings, you have a right to confront them about that.

But just keep things in their proper place.

Okay, let's say you're sitting at a Coney Island or a diner with your comrades, and one of them lets out a massive fart and it's disgusting.

Okay?

What they did, it was like a disrespectful bomb.

It was like an affront to your entire meal.

So you have two options.

You could say, well, I'm stoic, so I don't care.

So then you just hold it in like you're stoic.

Oh, I'm not going to do anything.

Then you get in the car, you go home, you're in the car, or you don't go home.

You get in the car, you go to the party event.

They're in the car.

You're just not saying anything because you don't want to.

Well, there's resentment is building up.

Okay, you have option two, which is what the immature millennial man children do.

They fart, and then you immediately go on Twitter and you go, The ACB has a bad millennialism and I cannot believe this.

This is the most

UNPRINCIABLED!

UNCOMRAT!

Like

You become like the Martin Luther of rebelling against the Catholic Church, and you have to nail your foot.

Or you can be mature and just tell the person, hey, man.

It's presupposed, yes, we're comrades.

Yes, we're in alignment, we have the same principles, we're fighting for the same thing, but it's not okay for you to fart like this.

It's not okay, like you can't do that when we're having dinner.

It was what you did felt disrespectful to me.

I felt it was disrespectful.

And now, if you're the guilty one, you have two ways of responding: you can just get defensive.

You have to balance.

There need we need a sense of justice is what I'm saying.

And it goes to saying, by the way, our party doesn't deal with like people in relationships and shit.

But there's also justice at that level.

Like, don't

Don't sleep with your comrade's wife.

God forbid.

Even if she's not even in the party, it well, she's not in the party, it doesn't matter.

No, because there's something called right and wrong.

There's a moral code.

It's called morality.

We have a moral code that should be implicit.

Okay?

And it's just like things like that.

You know?

It's like, well, what matter?

So don't be stoic.

You know, a stoic person would say, well, it's okay, because no, it's not okay.

Your dignity is very important.

You know, we are human.

Your humanity is very important.

But at the same time,

You need to not confuse, you need to understand, just have a clarity, have a clarity, you're not upset.

Like

If your feelings get hurt, let's say you're in the party, and let's say you propose an idea, and your idea gets shot down from space.

And you genuinely get hurt.

Your feelings get hurt.

At that point, you need to reflect.

You need to not take such things personally.

You are wrong in having that feeling actually because you're displacing something.

You're turning the party into an intersubjective, interpersonal relationship.

But the party is not a person.

The party is not a subject.

You cannot turn the party.

You cannot grow resentment.

You cannot grow resentment over such things.

Don't displace and project your personal relationships to the party.

You need to have, and that goes for the infrared community too.

Like, you need to have a solid distinction where here's my private human dignity, this is my private human dignity, and then here is the objective reality of the collective struggle.

But it's like,

Do not confuse those two things.

I'm not telling you to suppress and deny one of those things.

I'm not telling you to destroy your individuality for the collective.

I'm telling you to know where the individual begins.

Where the individual ends and where the collective begins.

That's what I'm telling you to understand.

Wanderers, what's up?

I'm not telling you to suppress your feelings and your individuality for the party.

I'm just telling you to respect the party enough to know where these things begin and end.

Because you can be wrong.

You can be wrong in your feeling.

It's not simply wrong that you have feelings.

It reveals a wrong attitude to the party.

If you submit...

a proposal and it gets shot down and you take it personally your relationship to the party is on a wrong basis it's a wrong premise because you're not respecting the party as something objective you're using the party as a receptacle of interpersonal recognition and and validation

An ego.

You're letting your ego bounce and reflect from the party.

That's a big fucking mistake.

Everything I'm saying applies to the infrared movement, too, by the way, right?

What's up, Wanderers?

So it's like

I'm not telling you to have no individuality, I'm telling you to know where these things begin and end.

Simple as that.

Also online on the internet.

Um

It's fine to just tell people to get a job.

It's fine to tell people, like, really, this is your life.

But don't let people get to you.

And make you crash out.

And

Visceral nastiness.

We don't need to do that.

You don't need to be viscerally nasty, you know?

When you're viscerally nasty with people, it's kind of intimate.

I'm going to be honest.

Visceral nastiness is a category of intimacy.

And you have to consider to what extent do you even want

To be related to a person, even if it's intense hatred and frustration, it's like, well, how much do you actually want to think about that person or be related to them?

You know?

Um

So this so this is the moral code of the guerrilla army.

This is our moral code.

This is our moral code.

It's very simple.

Actually, it's the simplest moral code in the entire world.

It's so simple.

You have to be retarded not to understand.

But a lot of people are in their head they're children, they're mentally children.

They don't they're immature.

They have no understanding.

Everything I would say would fall fly past their head.

Prakthe to Masmunsa Middim Hamma.

Um

You know, I got that from a song.

I stole it from a song.

And.

It was a good song, actually.

So, guys, this is our moral code.

You have to be infra-woke.

You have to be infra-woke.

You have to have moral clarity.

You have to have a sense of moral compass.

But without, and most of you aren't going to get it, by the way.

I want to be.

I hope you guys get it.

But I know some of you are not going to get it.

And you're going to go straight.

You know what it is.

You know how sometimes I'm made to feel.

I feel like I'm opening Best Buy on Black Friday.

Y'all are all waiting in line.

Best buy on Black Friday.

Y'all are all waiting in line.

Okay?

Ones if you can hear me, I know the audio will get disrupted.

Best Buy on Black Friday, okay?

So I'm standing in front of Best Buy before it opens on Black Friday.

Y'all are lined up, ready to get in.

Okay, I'm standing in front of it.

Y'all are lined up, ready to rush in.

Okay, my audio is going to get fucked up.

One sec.

Give me a second.

Yeah, how's it now?

Ones if we're good?

'Kay.

So

I'm I'm I'm in front of the best buy.

And I'm giving y'all very precise instructions.

I feel like I'm in the geek squad.

I'm like, okay, guys.

Be sure to remember.

Before you cross this line into the Best Buy, you need to be safe, you need to not trample each other over.

It's very y'all are like wild fucking animals sometimes.

You're you're like salivating, you're tuning what I'm saying out, and you're just thinking about the Xbox.

And so ding!

When it's midnight or whatever, and the doors to Best Buy open, y'all rush past me.

You rush past me.

Stop and fucking think!

Like, are you retarded?

Are you a retarded wild animal?

Fucking think!

I'm not the fucking Geek Squad!

I'm not gonna be.

I'm not a Best Buy employee in front of the fucking Best Buy.

I am your Kumanda.

Your Kumanda.

Y'all trying to rush?

You need to lock the fuck in.

You need to be like Haidar.

Y'all have dog energy.

You need to have lion energy.

I'm going to explain the difference between dog energy and lion energy.

Dog energy is a stupid, retarded dog with floppy ears and its tongue and it's fucking running to chase something.

But the dog is weak.

Did you know that?

The dog is weak and kind of stupid, actually.

I love dogs, but they're not good hunters, okay?

Than the lion.

You think the lion doesn't enjoy and take pleasure in the rush, in the thrill, in the hunt?

Of course they do.

But the lion is locked in.

The lion is locked in.

The lion.

Soon as the geek squad bell opens, the lion begins.

They begin to walk toward the door strategically, as a strategist.

They think strategically.

And they fucking pounce for the Xbox if this is Best Buy on Black Friday, right?

But then the dog is retarded.

And it's: you need to be like the lion and not the dog.

You understand?

Uh debate bully, get on TikTok, buddy.

Okay, get on the fucking Discord.

Get in the Discord or get on TikTok.

I'm on TikTok now.

I have to stop swearing 'cause I'm on uh TikTok now.

Sheesh.

Hey, hey oh hey oh get on X shut the fuck up, you dumb bitch Get on X Who the fuck are you to give me orders?

Shut your fucking mouth talking about get on X Shut the fuck up you fucking retard

You get on TikTok.

Or you get on the Discord.

I'm breaking the seven rules, no I'm not.

That's y'all pr you know what y'all problem is.

You think you get to act like me.

That's your problem.

You don't get to act like how I act.

Unless you're, you don't, you guys, some of y'all are overly confident sometimes.

You want to act like me, you better have a plan like me.

You want to act like me, you better be locked in like I am.

You want to act like me, you better be locked in like I am.

You want to act like me, you better have a plan like me.

You want to act like me, you better be seeing the infrared vision the way I am.

You can act like me if you take burden off of me and you have the clarity, the vision that I have, and you render a lot of what I say superfluous.

Then do that.

Nobody succeeded so far.

You want to act like me, be as ferocious and angry as me, be intelligent.

'Cause when you're dumb and you do this, it doesn't work.

Who said the rules?

That's why I said it's not stoic.

The rules of Infra Woke is to be.

To never get angry ever, that's not true.

Never get frustrated, that's not true.

Chris, what's up?

I'm allowed to be frustrated.

This is my stomping ground.

It's the good thing you got to understand.

This is my stomping ground.

Somebody wants to come to this chat and mess with me.

You just came to my stomping ground.

You just came to my domain.

You think I actually once if you actually think this guy debate bully, I'm upset about him.

Like, you think when the stream is over I go to bed like upset about this guy?

This is play for me.

This is play.

You understand?

I get to be frustrated because it's cathartic.

I control, it's a controlled environment of catharsis.

You need to not act like me because you don't know what you're doing.

If you have a controlled environment for catharsis, you know what you're doing, then do it.

But you're not like me, you don't know how to do it most of the time.

I'm sorry.

Hey hey oh hey oh hey oh hey oh Jesus but how many times have I unbanned you buddy get in the discord right now get in the discord right now

Get in the Discord right now.

It's the same guy.

It's the same guy.

How many times have banned?

You probably banned yourself.

He was banned from mega TOS.

So you're banned from the Discord then because you did TOS.

So you need to go in the Tic Tac.

How about that?

Go into the Tic Tac.

Hey, hey oh, hey oh hey oh hey oh

Explain the barista.

Don't you get bored of these topics about baristas?

Like why what what are you talking about?

Don't you get bored of this topic about baristas?

How about as part of Infra Oak?

I'm a barista now.

How about that?

Will that calm y'all down?

I'm a barista now.

Here, here's your coffee.

Here, I'm making the coffee.

Here's your coffee.

You want the cappuccino matcha latte?

Here you go.

I'll be the barista now.

Look at me, look at me, look at me, I am the barista now.

As infrared w t woke two, infra woke, I'm the barista now.

Since you're so passionate about it, I'm the king of baristas.

All baristas from this point forward are in a

Religious organization, and I am the sheikh.

They all look to me for authority.

I'm the king.

I'm the king of the baristas, I'm the shah of the baristas.

At any moment like this, all baristas anywhere in the nation are under my command.

Like, this debate is so dumb.

Like, the whole point was that you need to, like, actually reach out to more segments of the working class besides the ones that you're personally familiar with and not be self-serving.

You need to actually get out of your comfort zone and talk to people who are diametrically opposed to you.

Like, that was the point of the barista debate.

But, no, people think it's a okay, fine, I'm the barista now.

How about that?

Hey hey yo hey yo hey oh Hello mathematician hello

Hello.

Wondering if you think Cuba will attack the United States.

What?

Do you think Cuba will attack the United States?

Okay, look at me.

Do you think do I look like Zoltar?

No.

You know Zoltar, right?

Do I look like him?

Mm.

So have you mistaken me for Zoltar?

I mean

You kind of are a little bit of a Zoltar.

Okay, so you've mistaken me f for Zoltar, right?

I look like Zoltar?

I mean yeah.

I do.

Well so so it's a simple misunderstanding.

So you thought I was Zoltar, but actually I'm not.

So how can I answer your question?

Purist Reborn, go ahead.

Yo, what's going on, man?

Just wanted to say that the Active Club Network uh completely mogs the ACP.

You you have a metrosexual twang in your voice.

You're talking about the active club.

What about the active metrosexual twang in your voice?

Active club network.

No, you have a very estrogenic metrosexual twang in your voice.

Nope, I'm uh no masculine.

No, you don't sound like it.

Buddy, buddy, you're you're so unprincipled.

Your life, you know, the root cause of it why you have low T levels because you don't live with principles.

Because you live a false, defective, wrong life.

You lack moral authority.

The whole thing comes from moral authority, clarity, potency.

You don't have it.

By the way, if you don't know what active clubs are, these are neo-Yahtzis.

These are neo-Yahtzis.

And they say Oi, we mog you You can't even speak from your chest with your voice You can't even speak with your chest with your voice.

You speak not from the chest, the Jesus of your being, the deepest heart of your deepest part of your heart, right?

You speak from here only, which means you're a chicken neck.

Who's afraid of the truth, the depths.

You go, Man, this is something I've done about in isolation.

You're not even thinking from here.

You think from here.

You're a chicken.

So

There's so much wisdom and stuff people don't understand.

Hey, hey, yo, hey, oh, hey, yo, hey.

You s you think w when you speak with your chest, it's like Haidar.

You're a warrior, you speak with your chest

Your voice booms!

Because you're channeling the luminous black within the deepest, most sacred part of your heart booms and echoes like an RPG.

You can't speak that way cause you have nothing to stand on.

You are disaligned with the cosmos.

You have no cosmological mandate.

You have no moral authority.

You are not the Khan.

You are not Genghis.

You are not Tamerlane.

You are Tyler from Minnesota.

No offense to Minnesota.

Uh go ahead, Foischka.

Hello?

What's up?

Yo, what's up?

Um, I would just say Mark's his whole thing was that there's a sorry, there's an echo.

Go ahead.

So, um his whole thing

Still an echo.

Well we have to deal with the echo.

What's going on?

So, okay.

His whole thing was that there's like a two class system, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Um I agree, I'm an anarchist personally.

But um my issue is that whenever you do these uh whenever you do his uh socialist two communist uh process, you're you're just changing the the class names.

It's no longer uh huh?

Are you white?

Yeah.

This is what your voice is much less.

Go ahead.

I mean, you have a Fred Hampton picture, so I just don't understand why you're an anarchist and you have a photo of a Marxist-Leninist.

No, I'm not going to be petty.

Go ahead.

You you so you agree with no, just just finish your statement.

It doesn't matter.

Go ahead.

Yeah, um, so

My issue with that is you're just replacing like uh the class system.

It's no longer bourgeoisie and proletariat, it's like government proletariat.

So like there still is a two class system.

Okay, I mean, look, it's not the meaning of class.

So, government is about.

So human beings

Are understood in our societies as only individuals, right?

But there's a collective reality of the human, and the collective reality has to take the form.

There has to be an authority.

Which represents this collective reality that is its own authority, right?

That's just the nature of we are one society, right?

That singularness has to find concrete determination somewhere.

We're not just a bunch of individuals running around, but at the same time, we need one leader of some kind, whether it's a government or something else, to reflect back onto us what we are.

So when you look in the mirror, you see your entire body, right?

Yeah.

Yes?

When the society looks in the mirror, what does it see?

It sees government.

What else could it see besides a government?

Like, it's the same thing.

There's a body of the society.

They call it the body politic or whatever.

Well, that also has to look in the mirror and see something.

You people's wills are not just gonna magically um come together and and and be the same thing harmoniously unless there's clarity about what actually connects us.

You know, because we are connected by something more than just our individual relationships and the sum total of those relations.

So what actually holds us together and connects us?

Well, the the job of government is to represent that to us.

Classes are a consequence of private property.

If there's no more private property and the purpose of government is just to

correctly reflect us like correctly, then now there can be mistakes and there can be all sorts of problems that arise from that, but those will not take the form of class antagonisms because the the the the institution of private property doesn't exist and therefore there's no way for this antagonism to actually acquire a leg to stand on.

Uh um yeah, actually I think that's a really good answer for uh for uh

What I asked actually, I really like that.

Um, yeah, that's that's all I came up here to say.

Um, you have a good night, okay?

So, the woke bloke, what is exactly I said you have a problem with?

Why don't you request and explain what was faulty about the reasoning about what I said?

Go ahead, let you up for sure.

Go ahead and request, go ahead and request.

You can't request yes you can.

You can for sure request

You're not blocked.

You can request.

You're just you haven't found the button.

Someone explained to him how he can get the request button.

It's next to chat.

Perfect.

Okay, so in the meantime we'll bring up this Virginian.

Go ahead, Virginian.

Hello?

Yeah.

Yeah, what's up?

The sky

Oh, no, no, no.

I wanted to say, like, does Marxism work for like a nigger-based society?

That's really funny.

That's what I mean about woke to happen.

It's like, wow, you're just gonna get me um.

Restricted on TikTok.

Oh So what?

I have the power to do this, I guess.

No, I'm gonna have you censored.

I am powerful because I can snitch on you.

I guess you can.

I guess you can.

Like, what can I you think I you think it upsets me?

I'm gonna go to bed crying about this.

Like, I care.

Go ahead, uh, Kuaisha.

Uh

You're not gonna lie, bro.

Communists are like the biggest T and D advocates, let's be honest though.

Damn, that's crazy.

That's not even a white guy who said that.

Okay, so these active people, they just uh they they're brigading it and they found it and they're crying.

Go ahead, the woke bloke.

That other guy had a metrosexual twang in his voice too.

It's crazy.

Yeah, I wanted to ask you about that.

So, you have an issue with metrosexual tone.

What's your issue with women?

What are you talking about?

I told the neo-Yahtzi that they have a metrosexual twang in their voice.

Why do you defend that?

You said a couple of people.

Why do you defend neo-Yahtzi?

You didn't like his metrosexual tones.

Why do you defend Neo-Yazi?

You don't like the fact that they say that you're aware of that.

Are you left-wing?

Are you left-wing and you're here defending neo-Yahtzis?

What's your problem with women?

Who said anything about women, buddy?

You don't like metrosexual tones because they sound feminine.

I'm asking you, what's your problem with women?

You want me to break down the logic of a neo-Yahtzi who's pretending to be high in mind?

No, stop.

You've been saying this about multiple people.

Don't try and tie it to me.

No, I only said it about a neo-Yazi.

Who did I say this about?

Defend your attack or let it go.

I'm going to defend my attack, but you're interrupting me, buddy.

Okay, so tell me, tell me how is a metrosexual accent tied to being a Nazi?

You can't say that on TikTok, by the way, but the whole point is that they're hypocrites and they're talking about mogging people and they're talking about don't need Nazis.

Don't they advocate?

You're not willing to defend it.

This is what I mean about.

You're just interrupting me.

You're just interrupting me.

So when the KPD and when even the SPD in Germany pointed out the hypocrisy of the Yazis who claim that they're conservative and whatever and they pointed their hypocrisy out and made fun of them for it, you defend the Yazis now?

Is that what you're doing now?

You're defending Yahtzee?

You literally came on my live to defend a Yazi and you call yourself an anti-fascist?

Anything which serves to bring down the neo Yahtzee is good.

Period.

Like if it's World War Two and it's the USSR, they're literally doing much worse than talking about a metrosexual accent.

You're gonna be the referee who goes on the field and tells the Red Army to stop fighting, stop fighting so dirty,

Why did you come on my life to defend a Neo-Yahtsy?

Because I made fun of their accent and their voice.

This is incredible.

These people call us fascists.

He came on my life to defend a fascist.

Of course, to demoralize the Yazis is good.

They attach a special significance to things like that, by the way, buddy.

So it demoralizes them.

So, what's the problem with demoralizing Yahtzis?

Go ahead.

You're acting like you haven't said that about multiple people.

And what is demoralizing?

Name these multiple people.

Name these multiple people.

I let you talk.

You need to let me talk.

Why is the dignity of women?

What is demoralizing about calling somebody metrosexual?

What is demoralizing to a neo-Yahtzi that they have a metrosexual voice?

I don't think that's demoralizing at all.

You think it wouldn't bother them.

You're saying that somebody has a feminine trait and you're using that to attack them.

What is your problem with women?

What is your problem with that?

The problem is not women.

It's weak men.

Why are you hiding behind the skirt of women when you're a weak man?

You're a weak man hiding behind women.

Women are strong.

You're just a weak man.

Don't hide behind women to defend your weakness.

Don't hide behind women to defend your weakness.

You sound so strong right now.

You sound like such a strong man right now.

You're impressing everybody right now.

Look at how tough you are.

You want to make sure that you're not defending a neo-Yahtzi voice.

You came on my live to defend a neo-Yahtzi.

Is my voice masculine enough for you?

You came on my live.

I want to make sure.

You're running cover for a neo-Yahtzi.

Well, then you should probably make fun of my voice if that's really what you think, right?

Do I sound feminine to you?

I don't care how you sound.

I'm very confident right now.

I don't care how you sound.

This guy literally saw me attack a neo-Yahtzi and said, I took that personally.

I took that personally.

You look like you're having a really bad time.

You look like you're not.

I'm baffled at your hypocrisy.

You're a disgusting hypocrite.

I'm morally baffled at you.

What if somebody started attacking you for the way that you talk?

And started characterizing all the time.

When have you not attacked me?

And do you think that's a legitimate way to argue?

First of all, if a neo-Yahtzi comes and tells you, I mog you, what are you going to say to them?

Go ahead.

Tell me what you would say to them.

You're an effective anti-fascist.

I tell you what, I'm not going to use my ape brain to say, okay, you have a voice.

Okay, what will you say?

I'm going to talk to them about their ideology.

I'm going to talk to them about their voice.

Okay, what if they don't?

And the way that they attack people.

You're such an effective anti-fascist, dude.

Someone comes on and tells you.

Yeah, because I'm anti-you because I'm anti-you.

No, you're pro-fascist.

You're pro-fascist.

You think you can talk to these people who come to you and disrespect you and say, oh, let me coddle your ball sack.

You think that's how you deal with fascists?

You think it's how you deal with fascists?

You think this is how you deal with the way you deal with fascists is that they come to you disrespecting you and you give them flowers and you tell them, Oh, let me talk to you about your ideology.

When they're disrespecting you, they're telling you that if they see you in real life and get an opportunity, they're going to cause you and the people you care about harm.

If you're not willing to stand up for your people against these people who are coming to disrespect what you stand for, hey guys, hey guys, when a Nazi talks to you, make fun of their feminine voice.

That's how we own fascism.

Anything that demoralizes these people who disrespect you, who are fascist and neo-Yahtis, is acceptable.

Why is that demoralizing to make fun of a feminine voice?

Why?

I want to break down the logic.

Would you like to fire being such a coward?

Stop being such a coward.

I'll walk you through the logic if you stop crying and soying out over it.

See, soy, there it is.

There it is.

You're soying out.

You're definitely talking like right-wingers and they refuse to be.

Stop crying and just hear logic.

Why are you so scared of logic?

I'll walk you through the logic.

Neo-Yahtsis attach a lot of significance to how manly they are or something, right?

Like a lot, like way more than an average person.

If an average person, for example, for example, someone who sounds like you, I don't have a problem with you.

You come to me and talk to me how you sound.

I don't care.

Like, that's your business.

But for them, that really would bother them if it was known to them that they sound like a metrosexual with a metrosexual voice.

Like that would bother them a lot.

Okay.

So for me to reflect upon them that this is how you sound.

That demoralizes them and bothers them a lot.

Do you think so?

It sounds like you don't have a problem with feminine voices then.

Is that what you're saying?

You don't actually.

Of course I don't.

Why would I care?

Okay, good.

That's good to know.

It's good to know that you were just making up an argument and you don't really have a problem with women.

That's right.

That's good to know.

I appreciate you.

Even if I did have a problem with women's affirming that.

Even if I had a problem with men speaking a certain way, women have nothing to do with this.

Stop hiding behind women.

They have nothing to do with this.

You're invoking feminine traits.

Women have everything to do with that.

Okay, so let me ask you a question.

Let's say there's an elderly woman who is or a woman, you know, because you know, men are physically stronger than women, right?

This is going to be so stupid.

Let's say there's a woman who's not going to be a person.

This is going to be so stupid.

Let's say there's a woman.

Everybody's strapping.

No, no, no.

Let's say there's a woman who's in danger.

Okay.

Let's say she's being assaulted by some man.

Okay, you're also a man.

Okay, and there's a woman with you.

Now, the woman you're with, she's terrified.

She's absolutely scared.

So she runs into a corner.

She's terrified.

Okay.

You, on the other hand, also go and run into the corner.

Is what you did just as cowardly as that woman?

I don't think the woman's being a coward.

See, there we go.

Okay, so you as a man who doesn't step in to protect a woman from another man is not a coward.

This is incredible.

No, is that what you're saying?

Putting your cowardly.

Is the man a coward?

Do you think if you act like a woman, you're being a coward?

This is a coward.

I don't think the woman is a coward at all.

I think she's doing something very reasonable.

Okay, so then am I doing something reasonable by joining you?

Answer the question yes or no.

Is the man in that situation a coward?

Yes or no?

Is the man in the situation while he runs into a corner?

And he's trying to be like the woman who also runs.

And he won't stand up to defend the woman who's being assaulted by another man.

Is he a coward, yes or no?

Well, if you agree, the woman's not a coward.

No, she's not.

I don't think that's a good idea.

The man is a coward.

Okay, so the man would make them.

There we go.

You don't want to protect women.

That's what your real thing is.

There we go.

Like you just said it to me.

You don't think a man.

So when a man is assaulting a woman and you, as a man, do not step in to protect the woman, you don't find that to be cowardly.

You think, oh, it's just, I'm just scared.

No, it is cowardly.

That's the difference.

It is cowardly if a man doesn't step in.

And a woman doesn't have to step in, by the way, because women physically are not as strong as men.

It's unreasonable to expect a woman can take on would have to.

Now, some can, some can fight, but I'm talking about on average.

It's like this is the entire problem.

You're hiding behind women to justify your mediocrity and weakness as a man.

I don't think anybody believes your argument.

I think you look like a fool.

Okay, let's talk about weight loss.

Okay.

Is it easier?

Let's change the topic.

Is it easier?

No, no, it's the same thing.

Infrared's got a new hypo.

Everybody's stratified.

It's the same thing.

When a woman loses weight, is that the same level of discipline as commitment as if a man loses weight?

I don't even, I don't care.

How's that?

It's about a hundred times more disciplined because it's so much easier for men to lose weight than it is for women.

So much easier.

The way your brain works should be so much easier.

It's so much easier, actually, for men to lose weight versus women, right?

That's just a natural thing, right?

So when you compare these two people who went on the same journey, you say, well, they're equally as disciplined.

That's not true.

The woman is more disciplined.

Okay?

Do you disagree?

I think you're making things up as you go.

Okay, you disagree with what I said, that it's harder.

Do I disagree with nonsense?

It's nonsense.

What about it is nonsense?

Explain it.

It's like your diarrhea of the mouth.

Hey, do you disagree with my diarrhea of the mouth?

Well, what?

I don't know.

I think it's pretty disturbing.

Are you incapable of rationally engaging with it?

What's the problem?

You know, I think that ACP, their favorite thing to do is to say other guys are feminine and to use the R word.

I think that's your idea.

What about what I said is unrealistic?

Do you use the R word on a regular basis?

Why are you pivoting?

Do you use the R word at all?

Why are you such a coward you can't even respond to it?

Why don't you answer the question?

You're not saying respond to it.

You're just taking what I say and saying it.

No, you fundamentally think that men in all circumstances should have the right, despite having some advantages physically and biologically over women, like being able to lose more weight, men should get just as much credit as women and be considered just as well.

Oh, dom.

Yeah, there are plenty of privileges and advantages that men have that women do not have.

And what you're saying is that men who have these natural advantages get to hide behind women to justify their mediocrity and weakness.

That's not true.

Women have their own issues.

Okay.

You as a man, if you're being called out by your fellow man for being lazy and not being active and not being disciplined, and you go, oh, that's just a feminine trait.

I'm going to go hide behind these women.

We're not talking about women, buddy.

Nobody's attacking women.

I don't know.

I was expecting that.

Nobody is attacking women at all.

You are using women to justify your weakness and mediocrity as a man.

Women are not even in this conversation right now.

Are you just going to filibuster?

Are you going to let me respond?

Respond, please, because you were just saying diarrhea.

I thought that you were going to be better at this.

I didn't think that you were going to crumble within 20 seconds.

Is that a response?

I didn't, like, I honestly think you were going to go to the house.

I didn't think that you were going to go to that right away.

And can you answer my question?

How often do you use the R word?

Every day.

Yeah, and that's what I mean.

That's what you guys are proud of.

That is your ideology.

So, you lost on the I want you to know.

I want you to know that's what sets you up.

So, you lost on the debate about weak men and stuff, right?

So, you want to pivot to I think weak men use the R word.

That's what I think.

That's your opinion.

That's my opinion.

That's a fact.

Your opinion is noted.

That's a fact.

And it's the only thing that makes you special is that you use the R word.

That's the only thing that makes you special.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why do you think I even think about things like this?

I don't know.

I really don't.

Do you think I care about a stupid word?

I think you should.

Why?

No, no, that's what that's what I want you to be able to argue.

Why?

Why should I care?

Because it's ableist, it dehumanizes people.

It ignores how the ruling class splits us up by disability.

And I don't, I don't, if you don't care about that, that says everything about you as a person.

Where does the line end?

For example, dumb.

Dumb has its origins also in such words.

So should we stop saying dumb?

Would you say the F word to a gay person?

No.

I also wouldn't use the R word to someone.

Well, okay, what's off limits?

I thought you didn't care about words.

No, but I it's not like I'm saying the R word to someone with Down syndrome.

You're saying unilaterally in no context is it acceptable.

Okay, so you think it's acceptable to use the F word?

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Do you think it's okay to say that word?

In every context, is it unacceptable?

I mean.

I don't think so much about words in this way.

Okay, so the N-word, you think you can go ahead and use that?

I don't.

You don't?

Why not?

I have no interest in using it.

Why not?

Well, why do I need a reason to not use it?

Listen to yourself.

No, listen.

Really expected more.

To use a word, you need to.

To use the burden of rationality, like a rational purpose.

I don't really think about using the N-word.

I just don't think about it.

I don't.

I've never had a reason to use it.

So if I'm clear, what you're implying is that you always want to say the N-word, but you repress yourself from saying it.

Is that what it is?

Because I've never had the desire to say it.

You, on the other hand, want to say it all the time, but have to actively tell yourself not to out of morality.

Correct, right?

Are you, Chad, the people that support him, are you really down with this?

Why are you really responding?

Why are you responding?

Are you really down with it?

Why do you love saying the N-word?

See, this is he just makes things.

He just makes things embarrassing.

You're embarrassing.

Well, you keep interrupting me, so I'm going to just, what do you want?

Man.

You asked me if I say R word.

Why would I say the N-word?

Okay.

Well, we've established that you don't think about words.

That's why you say the R-word.

I don't think about such trifling things.

Clearly, when someone says a word like R-word, they're trying to, in an exaggerated form, refer to something as stupid.

Now, is stupid a problematic word for you?

'Cause if you use the n-word, you're basically referring to a word that solely, basically could only possibly mean dehumanizing black people.

Yeah.

So, when I say a word like stupid, am I dehumanizing people born with extra chromosomes?

Or can we have the ability, even if you're Einstein, for example, you're born with whatever, even if intelligence was innate, whatever it is, even if you're an extremely intelligent person, you can also do very stupid things and be very stupid.

And the word, the R-word, is just an exaggeration of that fact.

So, it's not referring to people with inborn disabilities necessarily.

It is a hyperbolic way of referring to stupidity.

In a really, really visceral way.

A way with a lot of weight and passion and exaggeration.

You want me to explain literature to you?

I don't believe in this dishonesty when it comes to semantics and words.

Why?

Because I use a problematic word?

That means I use all problematic words?

No, there's different reasons for why you use words.

Why is it a problematic word?

They have different literary words.

Can you explain why it's a problematic word?

You just described it as a problem.

Why is it problematic?

What word?

You just said I beat just because I use a problematic word.

Yeah.

Why is it problematic?

Because I'll tell you exactly why.

It is a bad word.

It's a bad word.

Just like the F-U-C-K word or whatever, right?

That's a bad word as well.

Do you all do you uh is that a b by the way, is that an evil word?

Is FUC is fuck a bad word?

You can't say it on TikTok, by the way, but is that a bad word to you?

Like, is that a slur to you?

Nobody recognizes that word.

Do you think that's a slur?

But isn't it a problematic word?

Like, is it acceptable in all contexts?

Wait, do you think that it's a slur?

I'm asking you.

No, you just said.

I don't think it's a slur, but I think it's fair to say it's a good idea.

Why did you ask me if I think it's a slur?

Because it's clearly not a word that's acceptable to use in all contexts.

Look, man, you're not.

Here's what I'll say.

Here's what I'll say: your fans believe you.

I asked, hey, do you like this?

Please stop talking about this.

They do.

Stop talking about my family.

They do.

They believe you.

I don't get fans.

I'm talking to you.

And I'm asking your chat, why do you like this?

Why are you talking to chat?

I'm talking to you.

Because I can't take you seriously.

You don't have to take me seriously, but in terms of the content of what I'm saying, what about it Elias You?

Can you articulate that logically and rationally?

Go ahead.

Because you're arguing in bad faith.

Why, how?

When I when I brought up okay, well the the way that this started was I s I asked you what what do you have what's your problem with feminine qualities?

What's your problem with women?

And then you immediately went to you're defending a Do you think that there's an equivocation between

Um you know qualities in men

And that automatically means you're talking about women.

Do you mean an equivocation?

What do you mean by that?

Is there an equivocation between, like, does it automatically imply that you have a problem with women if men are engaging in behaviors which I think it's your I think if you're using if I think if you're using me like why are you I think if you're I think if you're attacking somebody based on feminine traits I'm gonna I just want to quickly break down the logic and give the floor to you I just want to you have to give me a sentence okay before you interrupt me I'm just gonna very be be very quick about it right okay if there are certain behaviors which I would consider unacceptable in men but acceptable in women is that possible just because there are behaviors men might exhibit that women engage in does that mean I have a problem with women doing them not necessarily there's things as we've established that men could be doing that maybe are unacceptable that women could do and would be acceptable now in that context I don't have a problem with people's voices like I had no problem with that but for the purposes of logical conciseness for the purposes of being like logically correct you're wrong you a priori like you came out swinging on a wrong premise do you understand that or no

Look, I'm going to be real with you.

Okay, you set the table here.

The table looks like shit.

Because what you said doesn't make any sense.

But I do want to season on one word that you used.

Okay.

To break down the logic, you came in and you said, why do you have a problem with women?

Because I told a neo-Yahtzi they had a metro-sexual accent.

And the logic behind your argument, if I'm correct, is that, well, women sound feminine.

So if a man sounds feminine, that means you have a problem with women.

Because a man is sounding in a way that is not characteristic usually of men, right?

First of all, I don't.

The context was completely different.

We've established that.

But for the purposes of logical consistency and clarity, your premise was wrong.

You can find things acceptable in women, but unacceptable in men, even if women do those same things.

Why?

Why?

I've established the example of cowardice.

When a woman flees from a fight in defense of another woman, that's not cowardly.

But when a man flees from it, it is cowardly.

Because the man has this privilege or this advantage of his strength, and he's not using it to defend a woman.

He's not putting himself on the line to defend a woman, right?

That is cowardice.

What if it's Rhonda Rousey?

Is she a coward if she flees?

Maybe she is.

If she has the ability to intervene and do something about it and she just doesn't, maybe she is.

Well, that then has to be or if you want to be feminists, it has everything to do with ability.

If you want to be feminist about it, not necessarily.

Because if we say in our society, are you a feminist?

Are you a feminist?

For the purposes of logical consistency.

Are you a feminist?

Yeah, for the purposes of logical consistency, let's run with it.

Okay.

So you could say that because of the way we're socialized, men have a privilege because they're given more confidence when it comes to fighting.

The way women were socialized.

As a consequence of how women were socialized, for example, if you want to use a feminist structuralistic argument, you could say, well, the way women are brought up is that they're not given the same level of confidence to fight that men are.

So even if Ronda Rousey flees, actually, it wouldn't be considered cowardly necessarily because men, if men have privilege in our society, then some of those privileges include having more confidence to do things like fight.

If you're not using those privileges to your advantage, hey, I'm following you.

I'm following you.

Okay.

I think I'm not sure what you're saying.

What problem do you have with that argument?

Go ahead.

Do you think cowardice is a feminine trait?

No, that's what I'm trying to tell you.

That's what I'm saying.

Like, we were talking about you.

When we're talking about how men are doing things.

But wait, you think cowardice is feminine?

No, I don't.

No, I don't.

I just, we know this.

This whole conversation started with.

Hey, why?

What is your favorite feminine trait?

You know what?

You're not tracking the logic.

You're not tracking the logic.

Just because it's excusable for women to do, but not excusable for men to do, doesn't make the thing inherently feminine.

Okay.

Like, if we call men doing it cowardly, but the same thing, if a woman does it and it's not cowardly, we're not saying that women are cowards or that, you know, cowardice is feminine or something.

We're saying if men are doing this thing that it's okay for women to do.

Then it would be cowardly in that context, right?

This is basic logic that you're not tracking.

You can knock me off.

I don't think that you feel confident in your argument at all.

You know what I think?

Since I'm on this woke bend, I think if I was a white man, you would like follow the logic and track the logic and take it seriously.

I honestly think it's because I'm like brown and that I'm Arab that you're just like dismissing everything I'm saying as nonsense.

Like if I was a white man with glasses, you would actually understand the logical precision of what I'm saying and it would be very abundantly clear to you, right?

But because I'm a brown Arab man, you have to dismiss it as a bunch of like nonsense and meaningless diarrhea or whatever you say, right?

What about being a brown Arab man?

I just have to assume that your behavior toward me is racist because you're not engaging rationally.

I genuinely don't understand what difference that would make.

You being an Arab man, I don't understand.

For you, it probably would because you associate Arabs with low intelligence and low IQ.

You don't think we Arabs can be just as smart as white people with glasses.

That's you saying that.

That's how you're treating me and making me feel.

Okay, so you feel like I'm treating you less.

I didn't feel your name was Arabic toward me because I'm a brown Arab man.

I really do.

I didn't even know you were Arab.

So how would that feel?

Yes, you do.

Yes, you did.

You know exactly.

How would I know that?

You know I'm Hazal Deen?

I don't.

I don't know who you are.

I see ACP in the corner.

Not everybody knows who you are, dude.

You don't know that I you know about ACP, but not that I'm the chairman?

Yes, exactly.

So who do you know?

Carlos?

He's also a brown man.

I don't know Carlos.

You only know Eddie.

Is that Midwestern Marks?

Yeah, he's white.

And you you see Eddie because we brown people are invisible to you.

Okay, so he's an ACP.

Eddie?

Yeah.

Yeah, the guy that you only recognize and the g the yes, I'm brown and invisible to you because I'm not white, you know.

But Eddie is an ACP.

This is really bad, dude.

It is bad for you because it's pretty racist how you're moving right now.

Like, I'm being very logically crystal clear.

There's just, it's almost like you can break it down into math and you're refusing to engage and you're dismissing it because I'm a person of color and I'm not white.

If I was white with glasses, you would track the logic so far in the debate.

But you're refusing to rationally engage with me because you see me as subhuman, because you see me as a low IQ Arab brown man.

Yeah, well, okay.

You know, again, I thought that you were going to bring more to the table, but you did crumble within half a minute.

You did crumble within human.

Break down the play for us.

Because, like, anytime I challenged you, you just changed, you just, you just changed the argument.

Isn't that what I mean?

And if I, if I cornered you, if I cornered you, then you said, well, actually, you're racist.

After you established that you're okay with saying the after after you okay that you're after you established that you're okay with saying the r word you see no special problem with the n word you see no special problem with i actually did say see a problem in the n word it could only possibly be used to dehumanize black people so that's the problem but in any case what where did i fumble please explain like where did i fumble look hey man hey man the record speaks for itself okay it really doesn't it really doesn't because what you did is just say that what i said was diarrhea but you didn't engage with what i said

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you don't actually have to respond to the argument in contention.

I responded to every one of your arguments, but you don't have to.

When it's diarrhea, it's very obviously diarrhea.

Break down how anybody that's looking at it.

Break down how me talking about logic is diarrhea.

Because I'm brown and I'm Arab.

That's why.

I can only assume that's the reason.

I don't know how you made that leap.

I don't know how you made that.

Because if I was a white man with glasses, you would treat this with the level of logical scrutiny that you would with someone you consider human.

So far as I could tell, you were a white man.

You're not scrutinying what I'm saying from the perspective of logic.

You're just making like ad hominem character evaluations and judgments because you think I'm a sub-human brown person.

If I was a white guy with glasses saying the same thing, you would judge what I'm saying in terms of the content, in terms of like the logical consistency, in terms of how correct or wrong it is.

Maybe if it's on a factual basis, I got something wrong.

But what you wouldn't do is just respond by attacking my, assassinating my character and basically saying that you're a brown Arab person.

Other than the fact that you like to attack people based on feminine traits.

That is part of your character and it speaks very much to you.

Using the R word speaks to your character, that's for sure.

In context, I was attacking a neo-Yahtzi for that trait, which would you were attacking multiple people based on that.

Why don't you tell the truth about that?

Why don't you tell the truth?

Why do you keep lying about that?

I want to play the devil's advocate and just do this logic-wise to show you your premise is wrong.

Are you willing to actually engage with this or no?

I think that you're going to take us on another trip that ends in like that ends in disaster.

Okay, at any point if you're confused, you can put me off.

Let's start very slowly.

Are you ready?

Yep, I get to cut you off.

Okay.

If you're confused, you want to start?

Okay.

Do you want me to start?

It's okay.

We're all waiting.

We're all waiting.

Let's say someone had a problem with feminine traits in men.

You do.

Let's say that you claim that means you have a problem with women.

Yes.

But if you're simultaneously okay with women having all of that, all those traits and only think it's a problem when men have them, the problem you have isn't actually.

Okay, I'm cutting you off.

I'm cutting you off.

The problem you have is with.

I'm cutting you off.

Okay, what about that?

You said I could cut you off.

I could cut you off.

What about that didn't make sense to you?

You're thinking that I have a problem with feminine traits in anybody, and I don't.

You're the one that has a problem with that.

This is a hypothetical one.

Let's say there is X person who has a problem with feminine traits in men, which you accused me of, right?

That was your premise.

You came in swinging saying, what is your problem with women?

Why was your premise that I had a problem with women?

Because you perceived that I have a problem with feminine traits in men, which I don't necessarily.

Well, not necessarily.

But let's say I don't.

No, don't.

For the purposes of argument, let's say.

Wait, no, I just want you to answer that question.

Do you have a problem with feminine traits in men?

Not always, no.

So anyway.

Okay, well, when do you and why?

If a man can use his privilege to protect a woman or strength to protect a woman, there we go.

It is a feminine trait to be cowardly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No, but thank you.

It's not a feminine trait.

It's not a feminine trait.

It's not the same thing if a man is doing something that's acceptable for women to do.

The problem is not womanhood.

The problem is the man emulating women.

Do you not understand how that's actually what's being said logically?

The issue isn't the woman.

It's the man hiding behind, oh, well, women do this so I can do this.

Well, no, it's okay for women.

The chat's telling me that I got you on that and they're right.

Because you're interrupting me.

Okay, what was my rebuttal to you?

Can you break it down to me?

Because I can explain your argument to you.

Can you explain my argument?

I don't think you could explain my argument to me.

I'm going to be honest.

Can you explain my argument?

I'm going to be honest.

I don't think you could do it.

Why don't you try?

And then I'll cut you off again.

So your argument appears to be that if I say.

I'm dog walking you, man.

You are like the little dog in my picture.

I'm dogwalking.

So you just challenged me to repeat your argument for you.

Would you like me to do that or no?

That's right, because you do what I say.

Okay.

So you just want it.

So when you came on here and had a problem with how I talked to a neo-Yahtzi who was being disrespectful to me, and you said you're not going to be able to do that.

Here we go again.

Here we go again.

So why is it acceptable for you to disrespect me this way?

You just told a brown Arab man that you dogwalk them.

Is that how you feel toward brown people and Arabs?

Is that, do you relate dogs to Arabs?

I don't.

That's how you made me feel, though, right?

Because is this all about how you feel?

Is this how about you?

Is this how about you feel?

That's what it's like.

Well, you talked about how all these bad words hurt people's feelings.

So what if things hurt my feelings?

I think this is about your feelings, infrared.

I do.

So our our bat is the R word about your feelings or was the metrosexual thing about your feelings?

The R word is about using ableist slurs.

Okay, and who's wh why is that a problem?

Using ableist slurs because you're dehumanizing people.

Because it hurts their feelings, correct?

No.

No, even if it didn't hurt their feelings, it would still be hard.

No, it's not all about their feelings.

It's about regarding them as humans with dignity.

Okay.

So, the floor is open.

Can you repeat my argument back to me to prove that you've actually tracked the logic in the argument so far?

Repeat it again.

Yeah, you know what?

You know what?

I think, yeah, I think I can.

So, again, we started with you calling multiple people, and you still haven't admitted this, calling multiple people not just a neo-Yahtzi.

No, call them multiple people.

Stop it.

No, no, now you're lying.

You have to name people.

You called out multiple people.

Name them.

Men.

Name them.

Seemingly men for having seemingly having feminine training.

No, no, name them.

Name them.

You're making a claim, name them.

You want me to remember the usernames of TikTok like of TikTok people like fifteen minutes ago?

That's that's your big checkmate?

Yeah.

It's all been Neo-Yahts.

It's all been Neo-Yahtsis tonight.

So go ahead and explain and recite these people.

Well, it says a lot about your chat that you attract.

No, it's all been Neo-Yahtsis that I've been making fun of for their accent in this way.

So name these people.

Every single one of them were active club.

If you're in the chat right now, Google Active Club, and this is what this guy's defending.

Someone who came on and insulted and disrespected me and I responded by saying they had a metrosexual twang in their voice because that's your an active club.

Neo-Yacho.

That's your form of insult.

Okay, so let's start from the beginning.

You already conceded how that would demoralize.

Because this is the last thing I'm going to do.

This is the last thing I'm going to do.

Because I've already wasted.

So you're running.

So you're running away.

No, you asked me to do something.

I'm about to do it.

No, you're running away.

The logic is very clear.

Just because you're saying that a man is doing something that's emulating women's behavior doesn't mean you have a problem with women's behavior.

The problem in this context would be the man emulating the behavior, which is acceptable for women because men are more privileged in our society.

If I make fun of you as a man, if women and men had the same privileges, okay.

But because women are at an unfair disadvantage a lot of the times, when men emulate women in some contexts, just because you're like, if you're saying that thing you're doing to emulate women is bad, the problem is not that you're saying what women do is bad or women are bad.

It's the man abandoning his responsibility to use his privilege in a way that actually helps women.

So that's my gotcha.

You want to talk about dog walk, buddy?

You're literally barking right now.

Go ahead.

Try to respond to that bomb.

You know what?

You totally try to respond to that.

Try to respond.

No, no, you totally.

No, no, you just got pinned down.

You're pinned down.

You are pinned down right now.

Break down why the logic is faulty.

Go ahead.

Your premise when you came out swinging saying, What's your problem with women?

was based on a false premise that because a man is emulating a woman's behavior means you have a problem with the woman's no infrared i'm telling you you sound very confident that you won you should feel very confident right now everybody clap for infrared in the chat everybody throw yes i agree clap throw you're not willing to actually argue we all agree we are why won't you actually argue with like what about what me praise you you won't just gonna be sarcastic why not engage

You won.

You totally know that.

Everybody's not even responding to the argument.

Because I'm too much of a brown Arab and I can't understand your superior intelligence.

I can't understand and detect your sarcasm because I also have autism.

I also have autism and I can't understand your sarcasm.

So you have to directly explain the logical inconsistencies.

Now we're bringing in autism.

Do you have a problem with autistic people?

No, I have autism.

I can't detect the sarcasm.

You need to actually explain what about...

Well, wait a second.

If you were autistic and you couldn't detect the sarcasm, then why are you saying I'm being sarcastic?

Well, because it's clear to me that you're being disingenuous, and I can only assume that that's what sarcasm is, but I don't know how to detect it.

I just can't believe this is what people take seriously.

Okay, look, this was horrible.

Breakdown experience.

What is your argument?

And I'm going to be leaving.

The floor is yours.

Well, you said something about the reflection being wrong.

Look, dude, I know this is.

When I said society.

Hold on.

I remember you were in chat and you were making fun of me because I said society reflects itself in government.

What about that did you consider wrong?

Since you're not willing to engage with literally any of the other things you came on to argue about, what about that?

Dude, I know this has been very fruitful for you.

And like you're just, you're just with a smug face, like looking down in superiority.

But like, what have you achieved?

What's your position?

Is it self-evident that your position is superior?

Please, like, explain for those of us who have lower IQ than you do.

What about you?

I agree.

I agree.

Woke, look, you're the teacher in this context.

Please teach us.

What am I getting wrong here?

Like, actually teach us.

The floor is yours.

I appreciate you admitting that.

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

But I do agree with people in the chat saying that this was not to be taken seriously.

The floor is yours.

Go ahead.

I'm talking.

I thought the floor was mine.

I'm talking right now.

I agree with everybody in the chat that's going to be a little bit different.

No, no, you can't.

No, no, no.

But you're not going to talk about the chat.

You're not going to talk about the chat.

We only want education from you about the argument and why my argument's wrong.

Go ahead.

We want to be taught about why it's wrong.

Okay, I would have to ask you what the hell you're talking about and I don't think I can do this.

But aren't you the teacher?

I thought you were the teacher.

What do you want me to teach you?

Why are my arguments wrong?

What argu I don't I don't think I want to hear it again.

That's the problem.

I don't think I'm gonna track the argument.

Your arguments?

Bro, that's not really something you should criticize people for.

That you're not willing to like engage and track the argument.

Okay.

Everybody have a good night.

How about it?

Confounds you.

Everybody have a good night, genuinely.

Have a good night.

Yep, I'm running away because you're a big one.

Are you running away confidently?

Is this you are such a big, strong, scary man, I can't handle you handling the argument.

You just won't argue.

No, exactly.

I'm running away from you.

I'm the higher IQ white person.

I'm the lower IQ, like, brown person or whatever in your world.

I don't know why you keep saying that about yourself.

Why do you think you're like, you literally dehumanize me and won't engage with the content of the argument?

You're just consulting me.

You're talking about how much smarter than you are than me.

Okay, but like, why am I wrong?

Can you teach me why I'm wrong?

Or the audience, teach the audience, rescue these people in the audience so that they understand why I'm wrong.

No, I think your audience loves you.

Well, you need to rescue some people.

You need to teach us what about my argument is wrong.

Oh, I'm not interested in rescuing you.

What about my argument was wrong?

Can you explain?

I'm not interested in teaching you.

I'm not interested in rescuing you.

If you weren't here to prove that you have a superior position, why are you here?

I really wanted to know what your problem with women was.

And you know what?

Yeah, but your premise was wrong.

And I proved it.

And you agreed, I guess I guess you kinda did tell me what you did.

But you conceded to me that your premise was wrong when you asked that question, didn't you?

You know, people are telling...

I have to take it as a concession and an admission through silence.

Silence is violence.

You said, what's your problem with women?

Well, your premise is wrong.

And I proved it to you and you agree with me.

Do you not?

You just said silence is violence.

Yeah, because it's a silence.

It's an admission through silence.

It's an implicit acknowledgement that you agree that your premise was wrong.

Yeah.

No, 100%.

Okay, so there we go.

When you came swinging with that question, it was based on a faulty question.

You won.

Tell everybody you won.

No, it's just you had a faulty.

Can you do that?

Can you say, hey, everybody, I won?

It's not about winning and losing.

It's a teachable moment that next time you talk to people and accuse them of things, think through it first if you're being logically coherent and consistent.

Because sometimes you're making assumptions that aren't justified by the use of reason, which I know you people invented.

And I'm just a low IQ whatever who doesn't understand.

You people invented.

No, because you heard yourself.

Arabs invented so much of the modern world.

But you consider me subhuman the way you interact with me, right?

So you who invented reason.

I'm just saying next time use some reason before you come out swinging with these accusations and the sense of smug superiority.

That's all.

There you go, you taught me.

And I'm going to leave with this lesson now.

Goodbye, everybody.

Okay, and I'm autistic.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so I just have to assume you're being genuous.

Genuinely, did I not give him an opportunity to like actually speak?

The floor is yours, like go ahead, teach me.

Did I not give him the floor?

He's like, what is your problem with women?

Nobody has a problem with women.

Okay.

But the problem you have with this man is that he's exhibiting feminine behavior.

First of all, I don't care about that at all.

Like, I don't care.

But for like, I love to be a logic lord.

For purposes of logical consistency, if you have a problem with a behavior in a man that is commonly exhibited in women, it doesn't mean you have a problem with women or their behaviors.

It's that you have a problem with the man emulating that behavior.

Now, I don't a priori, but I he said, well, there's some context in which you do.

And I mentioned the thing of: if a woman's in danger,

and a man runs away.

And like she's being assaulted by a man, right?

A man can step in and intervene to protect her, and he doesn't.

Instead, he runs away.

Yes, that's cowardly.

But if a woman were to run away,

That would be understandable and acceptable.

You would say, well, the way women are socialized is that they're taught not to fight.

Also, men are physically stronger than women.

You know, women may be socialized to be less confident.

We can be a structural feminist, whatever, to explain that.

So there there are contexts in which when a man justifies his behavior or tries to emulate women.

It is unacceptable, even if it's okay for women to do it.

That doesn't mean you have a problem with women, it means you have a problem with the man's behavior.

Like that, is his entire premise was wrong.

Just because you have a problem with male behaviors.

That are commonly exhibited in women, that doesn't mean you have a problem with women.

So the ape, when he's like, What's your problem with women?

Once again, it's weak, mediocre men hiding behind women.

From 2021 from the beginning, you know, I started as a feminist.

I had no problem, I've never had an issue with women.

From 2021, the problem was always weak, mediocre men justifying themselves by hiding behind women.

I have to verify my life before I bring on someone else.

That's always been the issue.

Alex, go ahead.

Alright, Alex is um connecting.

You gotta figure that out.

Uh let's bring on uh closure.

Go ahead, closure.

Yo, what's up?

Okay,

Can I d sh should I turn on the camera?

Okay, you have nothing to say.

It's like what?

No.

Like, you come on and you say, Do I should I like what is this philosophy?

Go ahead.

Yo, what's going on, Mega?

Yeah, you're just trying to get me restricted.

What's going on?

Not much, not much.

Just the what do you think of Hegel considering it?

I thought he was about to say something crazy.

Um anyway, uh

The problem with that person is they just they weren't calm, they wouldn't give me any time to explain anything.

They're like, Why do you have a problem with words?

You have a problem with bad words?

I and I would say one thing and you cut me up.

Oh, it's a you're not letting me explain it.

No, I don't care about bad words in principle.

I don't care about bad words.

That doesn't mean I will use any bad word for no reason.

I can't think of a reason why I would use the N word with a hard R ever.

Like I can't think of a reason why I would ever use that.

I just can't think of one.

He's like, well, then why not?

It's like, well, because I just don't have a reason.

He's like, oh, oh, so you need a reason now.

I'm like, yes, I do actually need a reason to say things.

And then they're like, well, what about these other words?

It's like everything is about context.

It's all that's how language works.

It's just based on context.

What are you trying to say?

This is about literature.

This is about like the language.

It's like, what are you trying to say?

Language is not mechanical.

That's my problem with Woke 1.0 and what we're going to change in Woke 2.0.

We're changing this mechanical Anglo-Saxon understanding of language.

Because language is also hyperbole.

Language is also all manner of different literary devices, rhetorical devices, things that have nothing to do with the direct Oxford dictionary definition attached to the word and have everything to do with accents of meaning, points of emphasis.

It's not about.

You know, if you're using the R-word, okay, technically the word might mean something in the Oxford Dictionary, but not every context in which that word is being used means to demean people with an extra chromosome or something.

Well, there's a bad history associated with the word, there's a bad history associated with your iPhone.

It comes from children in Africa in mines.

Okay, there's a bad history on the land you're probably on.

It was stolen, was it not?

So what are we talking about here?

But by cleansing ourselves of the words that we use, we're somehow addressing the fundamental material causes.

Uh we partake in every material injustice every single day.

What we do individually, you can't cleanse yourself.

Through this, through these contradictions, you have to find the moral high ground.

You don't begin a priori from a more position of moral superiority to then look at the material world and divest yourself from it.

Through this world, you discover the position of moral support.

And in Marxism, that's the material class struggle, the proletariat, right?

Something material.

It's not a conceit.

This is a dirty world.

You can't just cleanse yourself of this world by cleansing your vocabulary, and that makes you a good person.

It doesn't.

You have to face all of the intensity of all the contradictions of the world and embrace all of them.

And through them, you have to discover where actually is the moral, right?

That's the Hegelian understanding of morality.

And these people have a completely anti-Marxist, anti-communist view.

It's based in some bourgeois boutique liberalism.

This notion that a priori, if you use a word in a context where you do not, you're not demeaning anyone, can the widespread use of a word attest to the fact that a given group within society has a history of being demeaned or is currently being demeaned?

Yes.

But you're confusing the symptom for the disease.

Just because you're using that word doesn't mean you're perpetuating that condition.

You might be reflecting it, but by ceasing to reflect the condition, you do nothing except be dishonest about what that condition is.

Roll that up, pack that into your pipe, and smoke it.

We're doing Woke 2.0 in for Woke.

Uh James Lee, go ahead.

Hey, what's up?

The sky.

Alright, alright.

This is uh Haas, right?

Says infrared on here, I don't know.

Right?

Yes, correct.

All right.

Uh so you're the chairman of the ACP, right?

The American Communist Party?

Yeah.

I I'd just like to ask because I know the ACP split off from the Communist Party America, right?

We don't see it that way, but whatever.

All right, all right.

Well, that's how it described it.

I I researched it a bit.

Um I don't know if you've gotten this question, but I'd just like to ask what different do you bring to the table?

The H C P?

Yeah, the ACP.

I think we provide the most dynamic platform for people to actually engage in forms of praxis experimentally without the constraints of like bureaucracy and conceits that come from leadership.

Like I genuinely think that we have the most flexibility when it comes to experimentation of what we would consider a communist praxis today, whatever that looks like.

So we have a system in place that simultaneously permits a huge degree of experimentation while simultaneously having a system in place to make sure that these actions do not disalign with our mission and our principles.

'Kay.

All right, all right.

Uh I'd also like s to ask, like, you as a person, if you could change anything systematically within the United States, what would it be?

Like that, or at least within leftist forms, you know, like you as an individual.

I would the culture on the left wing to change.

I want people to reflect on their mental conditions and mental illnesses and not let that spill over and harm collective organizing.

I want people to have the maturity to be able to have collective discipline in an independent capacity, understanding how much of a struggle it is to really balance our individual selfhood with the realities, the objective realities of collective struggle.

I want people to be able to distinguish the objective reality of the country from our deeply psychological, subjective mental conditions.

And I think the left doesn't do that.

I think they just

Which is why they consider every small disagreement a pretext to go to war.

They don't have an understanding of primary versus secondary contradictions because they lack objectivity.

They lack a sense of the objective.

If your subjectivity is confused, your opinion is confused for the objective.

You're going to be alone in a room by yourself because only you recognize that reality, the one that's in your head.

There needs to be a way that we get out of our heads in a way.

We start respecting the dimension of the unconscious.

That's the actual space that we're glued together socially, is the unconscious, not that the conscious level.

When we project a vision of communism that's in our head,

We might temporarily align with other people, but it's temporary because we're not glued together fundamentally.

There's a temporary coincidence of opinion.

May I uh interject really quick?

Any time an organization forms, the subjective differences start to be drawn out and it's split, splits, splits, splits because there's no unconscious recognition of the objective.

So we the dimension of the unconscious needs to be opened up and understood.

So uh would that be sorry, I don't want to be like the last guy.

I understood some of what you said.

So are you describing uh the value of political diversity within a party?

That's part of it.

I mean, yeah, there needs to be a degree of understanding.

There is room to experiment.

There is room to have disagreement here because we don't fundamentally have all the answers.

Hmm.

So, uh, I also want to ask, uh, you are the second.

I looked this up too.

This isn't the most popular party, leftist party in the USA, but uh, you're the second chairman, right?

Or no, first, no, all right, yeah, I was just looking that up.

Yeah, I'm the only chairman that ever was.

All right.

Uh, I was wondering how you got in that position.

Uh so at the plenary committee, they decided I should be the chairman.

The plenary committee was a meeting of the people who were mostly involved in what was happening in the CPUSA and the preparatory work into the formation of the ACP.

And we had to start somewhere with some kind of structure, some kind of direction, and some kind of leadership.

So I was voted by the plenary committee.

So lead the point.

Yeah, yeah, it's nice.

I'd also like to ask: I mean, I've watched some of your speeches, I've watched people come up to what I would describe as conferences, you know, hosted by the ACP.

But I also want to ask, sorry, Zay is just writing a lot of things.

I want to ask, have you ever had any public speeches, like out in front of a public crowd?

That's the last question, and yes, many times.

Multiple times I've had public speeches.

All right.

Um

Who's next?

Abyss, go ahead.

Yes, hello?

What

Uh nothing I wanted to, like

If you

Would like some feedback on, you know, the chat you had with the smoke guy, like the guy uh what do you mean feedback?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

C I I'm I mean uh I think I have o some ideas, like, I guess.

Uh I I don't know, like I I'd like to say that uh

Yeah, like, uh I don't know, I'm I'm kinda nervous, sorry.

But what what I would say is that uh you should not give uh

You should be like more selective with who you fight with.

No, because those types of guys understand what you're going to say, but those types of people are so rare to actually get them to actually confront me with their voice.

And so, I just wanted to prove to everyone that these people have no excuse.

I'm not yelling over them.

I'm giving them the floor.

I'm giving them every opportunity to address the substance of what I'm talking about.

And I'm being good.

I'm being at least committed to the argument to the objective.

Right.

Like the logic.

No, yeah, like I agree that you were trying to be like logical and trying to run down the argument and whatnot.

But I would say that, well, at least I guess it's a personal thing, but I would try to be more non-chalant, I guess.

Like, not commit to people who don't.

No, it's just.

I need to understand what we need to.

There needs to be a way for people to communicate.

If people, there is a lot of problems people have with ACP.

Like, what is the problem?

They need this.

Is the opportunity for people to actually like, I don't consider it even for me the debate.

It's like more like, I want these people to confront internally, why do I have this position I have?

Have I ever thought about it?

Do I have any doubts about whether I'm right or I'm wrong?

And it's like they just won't do that.

They won't reflect.

They won't think about what their position is and why they have it.

And they make so I just want that confrontation.

That's all.

It's like, I understand it's a waste of time to win a person like that over, but it's like, will they ever actually think about these pretensions that are being used as the basis to completely wreck the possibility of organizing in this country?

Who should I bring up?

Ashie, go ahead.

Oh my God, finally Jesus Christ has.

It's the DOS!

It's the boss, the bait bully.

What's up, buddy?

Look at him, he's s stone cold.

How's uh how's uh Russia doing in this war?

This guy wants uh us all to be uh Putin to be daddy for us.

Why do you want why do you want Putin to be all of our daddies?

Just like the other guy you came in swinging with a false premise.

Y o he's your daddy.

Why do you want him to be all of our daddies?

Explain uh how Putin is my father.

He you bootleg.

Oh, so because I support Putin that's it How's the war going?

Is Ru is it is this good for the Russian people?

Are you glad Putin started this war?

Look at him, he's not saying nothing.

You want to talk about the war in Ukraine?

Yeah, let's talk about the war that Putin started, the unprovoked invasion.

And then and then he's going to support Palestine and say Israel shouldn't invade, but Russia can invade.

Do you think it was unprovoked?

Obviously it was unprovoked.

And don't talk about the Donbass and the fake genocide and the plants and the Russian ah.

What?

What are you gonna say?

What rises to the standard of a genocide in your view?

No, no, tell me what you're gonna say.

I don't wanna assume anything.

No, like who started the war?

Who started the war?

No, no.

Who started the war?

And why?

How?

Actually, let's do this.

Who started World War Two and how?

Tell me that.

Let's see if you know your history.

Everyone knows the Germans started World War Two.

How?

Because they invaded Poland.

Okay, so who started this war?

And it's not Russia who invaded Ukraine?

Was it not the Maidan Pushis who invaded the Dawn?

I'm pretty sure they already debated this in court in the Netherlands and was shown that it was...

Do you consider the Netherlands and Europe to be unbiased in this?

One of your buddies, one of your boys did.

And by the way, can I get unbanned?

Because I didn't show anything.

You guys, you banned me from everywhere.

You're running.

You need to, first of all, calm down.

I'm not going to engage with you if you're not calm.

You need to stop.

You need to stop yelling.

You need to be calm because I'm calm right now.

Okay, so your point is that the invasion was unprovoked and that it was unjustified.

I disagree.

The war started in 2014 during the Maidan coup.

If they're allowed to have a coup in Kiev and overthrow the elected leader unconstitutionally, then the people in Donbass also have the right to pursue their own form of sovereignty.

There's nothing gluing them or attaching them to the sovereignty of a state whose constitution is being torn up and overthrown.

They then have the right to create their own state.

So they did that, and then they were invaded, and then they were continuously attacked.

Well, the people of the Donbass have a historical relationship with Russia.

They had a dual visa or whatever system with Russia, right?

There's a porous border between Donbass and Russia.

For all intents and purposes, historically, these are considered one people.

Russia was not wrong to take it upon itself.

So you can invade anybody.

Anyone that has a coup?

Any country that has a coup, you can invade.

So then they can invade Syria.

We're not at the invasion yet.

Yeah, but the the premise is if if there's a coup you can invade.

Okay.

Go ahead, scream all you want if you don't want me to get a word in.

I just want you to get it off your chest.

Good.

No, we're not at the invasion yet.

We're at the Donbass.

Okay.

Do the people of Donbass have the right to secede?

No.

No, why not?

Explain that.

That's what I want to understand.

People don't have a right to secede from their country that they're in.

Which country?

You can't just.

Can you explain any country?

No, no.

Nobody can just say.

What was the country?

Ukraine.

And what structures Ukraine?

Like, what defines its border?

The treaty that the USSR Russia signed.

Oh, so the USSR is responsible for Ukraine.

Exactly.

Forever.

You know your history.

From this point, forever.

Um it was a treaty that was agreed on by all the parties involved.

And so you're gonna rip up that treaty and say, Oh, I don't care about this anymore and I'm just gonna invade?

So you're saying that a a a country in the past has the right to define the eternal borders and sovereignty of a nation forever.

That's your I'm saying if there's a treaty and there's a peacetime, we're not gonna have the right to talk about what happened on twenty two yet.

Stop screaming about February 2022.

We're just going to dial it back a little bit.

You're close to the peace treaty and there's a peacetime.

Okay, but that's the Russian Federation.

We're talking about the people of the Donbass.

You don't gotta mute me.

You're too emotional and you're screaming and you're yelling, and I'm totally calm.

You need to calm down.

So, when a country its constitution, what actually defines that as a sovereign country anymore?

Where does that exist?

The people, the culture, the people who live on the land.

I agree.

No, no, no.

You know what?

I agree with you.

I don't actually disagree with that.

But it just so happens to be that those who lived in the eastern part of Ukraine and the Donbass have a different history, different culture, and different language.

And as a thing that they can move, what?

They can move to Russia.

But why should they have to move?

That's the land.

They chose to live in Ukraine.

Let me ask you a question.

This is what elides me.

If they're living under this government that defines the territory of Ukraine, and then there's a coup that overthrows the person they elected, unconstitutional.

Populist uprising, unconstitutional overthrow of the person they elected.

Actually, the Congress voted and ratified it.

You're talking about things that happened after the coup.

The populist uprising, revolution.

It was popular.

Maybe it was revolution.

Okay, you want to talk about culture and history.

Maybe it was popular for Western Ukrainians.

Maybe it was popular for Western Ukrainians, but not for Eastern ones.

Okay, they have a different culture, just like you said.

So why are they not allowed to secede?

Let's not talk about Russia right now.

Forget about the Russian Federation.

What, in your mind, makes it an illegitimate act for them to declare their own sovereignty on the land that they live on?

We might let him talk?

Yes.

Okay, so like what entitles Kiev to that land?

Not versus a foreign invader, the people already living on it pursuing a different form of sovereignty.

Why is it okay for Western Ukrainians to have a coup, but it's not okay for people in the Donbass to declare their own sovereignty and separatism?

Explain.

You need to settle down.

I'm calm.

Can I ask a question?

I just asked you a question.

I live in Southern California.

In Texas and Southern California part of America, there's a lot of Mexican Americans.

If they all say, I want to secede, I'm not uh uh uh America conquered this land.

I wanna go this land to be back to Mexico.

Do they all have the right to then just up in arms and s make

Southern California and Texas secede from America just because that's what they want.

Was America founded on a contract between Mexicans and Americans that says we will conditionally have this sovereignty as long as your language is recognized, as long as you are respected, as long as you are allowed equal electoral participation in our system, and you are respected and acknowledged?

No, and neither was Ukraine.

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

It was a condition.

Part of the terms and conditions of Ukrainian independence.

I'm going to look it up right now.

Cite it.

Tell me.

You can look it up all you want.

Part of the terms and conditions of Ukrainian independence was that the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine would have equal rights and equal say, and Russia would be recognized as an official language.

Let me see.

And can you cite it?

No, look it up.

Well, I'm doing your homework for you now.

Yeah, you are actually.

That's kinda lazy.

If you don't believe it, if your entire position hinges on whether this is true or not, you've already lost the debate in my eyes.

If if there's a language, then that means that Russia is allowed to invade, is what you're saying.

We're not at Russia yet.

We're at Donbass.

You claimed it was illegitimate for them to secede.

I'm asking why.

Uh in 1991 Independent Acts contained no language condition.

We're talking about something different, okay?

What are you talking about?

The formation of the independent Ukrainian government.

Okay?

So

You claim it was illegitimate for the people of the Donbass to leave.

I want to know why that was illegitimate.

You don't just get to be a citizen of a country and just say, hey, I want to leave.

And then you're saying in Southern California, in Texas, they can just say, hey, we're going to make this be part of Mexico now because we're Mexican and we speak a no language.

We're not talking about Mexico yet.

What is the analogy that you're talking about?

In this analogy, we would be talking about...

Let's say there's a huge concentration of Mexicans in southern Texas and Southern California, like right on the border.

And they're the majority, like the overwhelming majority, right?

Like we're talking like 90% majority, right?

Let's say they, all of them, elected Trump, which of course they didn't.

But let's say they, maybe Trump's not an example, maybe Obama.

Let's say they elected.

By the way, in Donbass, Russia was a minority.

Let's say they all elected AOC.

No, they weren't a minority.

Yes, they were.

They're 46%.

They're a minority.

No, they weren't a minority.

Before the invasion, before the bombing, before all the Ukrainians fled.

No, that's not true.

Yes.

Not true.

It's true.

So 46%.

46% is a minority.

For your figure, that 46% of those people.

I'm looking at the Western Google.

Yeah.

Only 46% of people in Donbass are Russian speakers.

This BIA Google.

So you're saying only 40% of people in Donbass were Russian speakers?

I didn't say speakers.

But that's all that matters here in this case.

So just the language is the only thing that makes you Russian.

They have a cultural historical proximity to Russia.

Okay, so it's not just the language.

Yeah, it's many.

It's a confluence of many different things.

Okay, so forty six percent of those people were Russian that lived in the Donbass region.

So they're minority.

That's debatable of where Russia is not debatable.

Look at the census.

Do you go by the census or no?

You don't go by the data, that the third party data, the reports, the research?

What do you go by?

Just your feelings?

You are emotional right now.

Look at you.

You look buttered.

You're talking about people strictly defined as ethnic Russian being 46%, but the other people's identity was very fluid.

They had a very fluid understanding.

So, what's your point?

Because a lot of that census is about how you self-identify, not necessarily about what your blood or your ethnicity or your culture is.

They have the same blood.

They're brothers.

I agree.

They have the same blood, but people would be more willing to identify as Ukrainian before the coup when people in eastern Ukraine, most of them, have a dual sense like, yes, we're part of Russia, but we also are Ukrainian.

And it was a porous border and it was a very fluid, porous relationship.

Once a hard distinction was imposed by Maidan that said, we want to completely wipe out every trace of Russian, people who have Russian family, like it's more than 46% of people who have ties to Russia.

Way more.

Some tie, historical, familial, lingual, cultural.

That's a fundamental part of who they are.

And they're not willing to let that get destroyed and be exterminated, right?

Can we go back to your framing?

There's only one force that's a force of exclusion here.

Because even Russia isn't exclusionary toward Ukraine.

You're drifting.

The Maidan coup was exclusionary.

Okay.

You're drifting.

So in any case, let me continue.

The analogy in this case would be that if those Mexican people voted for AOC, and then there was just a coup, and then the person that they voted for, there was a coup, and then their social contract with the government expires.

At this point, there's no way for them to recognize themselves as citizens, no way for them to situate themselves lawfully within the sovereignty of the United States.

And plus, this coup was done by white supremacists who want to exterminate every trace of Mexican identity.

Every trace of Mexican identity.

So if these Mexicans then decide that they want to secede from the Union to protect themselves and their families, they have every right to do that.

Why wouldn't they?

All right, so let's go back to the right.

That was targeting Mexicans, wouldn't they have the right to secede?

You're very emotional.

Are you saying they would have to go to Mexico if they're going to be in Texas for uh centuries or southern California?

Why would they have to do that?

Why would they have to leave?

Can I could we can we talk about your framing of this Maidan clue?

So, Putin.

Is a mob boss.

He demands fealty.

So he put in this president's puppet, a fake election.

Yeah, obviously.

He was a guy who was a population.

He pulled it back from a popular populist joining of the EU.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Type down.

I'm talking.

He pulled back from a populist opinion majority of joining the EU to placate Putin, to make Putin daddy happy.

You're making it sound like Ukraine was always under Russian control.

They bust in voters.

They they put their army men, their little green Martians out front of the United States.

You're saying that Putin bust in voters to get the how do you think he gets 90% of the how do you think he gets 90 of the vote?

Do you really believe Ukraine before 2014 was elected because of Putin's bust-in voters?

Putin would never never violate the sanctity of borders.

On my fault, you're right.

Where are you getting this creation that Putin bust in voters to vote for the deposed Ukrainian president before 2014?

You've never seen it?

They pay him because they don't get any money.

They get all the bopshkas and all the graham.

So is this what you believe?

Yes or no?

Like, is this it?

Do you believe three fair elections result in 90%?

You just lost the argument.

You lost the debate.

You talk so much in my chat about how you're such a good debater.

Now we have to make AI of Putin bussing in Babushkaz to get Yanukovych or whatever elected, right?

So he's claiming that the president of Ukraine before the coup was only elected because Putin busted in voters of Babushkaz to get that guy elected, and that the coup was actually like a stop the steal thing to like r restore legitimacy.

So that's it.

And I gave him multiple opportunities, like explaining to him what he's saying, and he's committing to that.

He's committing to that.

Dawes, you're cooked, man.

No, no, you gotta deal with the Babushka thing.

Jonathan, go ahead.

Hello.

All right, thank you for having me on.

A few quick questions.

You can stop me whenever you're ready.

I am currently a member of the PSL Action Committee, and I'm aligned with them in a lot of their party lines.

I feel as though they kind of represent a lot of what I believe in.

Do you have any specific critiques of the PSL at this time?

Uh yeah, I uh a few actually.

I mean um

My main critique has to do with their model of organization.

I think it's not very effective.

I think that it's very much a top-down party with not enough of a dynamic relationship to the bottom.

And of course that's because they have a lot of money that comes from the top.

But the problem that's great, but the problem is that it it it locks in a specific vision for how things should be run and how things should be that is not open to feedback from the bottom.

Party can only get its strength from two directions from the top, which is money that's injected,

Or from your base, your your your grassroots, right?

And

I think the pressure that PSL feels from the bottom is mainly from stuff like cancel culture and and online stuff and people trying to and then I remember in twenty twenty that was like really happening.

But they don't do a lot to build material foundations on the bottom, right?

And that's, I think, the problem.

So that's one of the critiques.

The second critique I think is that

They um

Pursue a type of praxis which I think is about, it's always playing second fiddle to trends that are being defined outside the party.

And the PSL, I think, doesn't take seriously the fact that these trends that they're following are being initiated by leaders and that the goal of a party should be to compete for leadership, not to tail

Other leaders they treat as though every Democrat, like liberal thing is some spontaneous organic thing, but that's not true.

Like, for example, Mamdani, I know that PSL is trying to.

Trying to like um

Capitalize as much as they can off this hype from the DSA, but it's like, but that doesn't, that's not like a reflection of the objective realities of the masses, it's a reflection of a competing form of leadership that's doing it more effectively and competently than both PSL and HCP, by the way, right?

Because they have more advantages and all that kind of stuff.

So, the goal is to be at the avant-garde.

The goal is not to play second fiddle to anyone.

So, that'd be my second critique.

My third one is that their online influencers need to calm down.

Maddleton Pendleton and Chainsmoker or whatever, Chain Slayer, they need to just calm down and.

Stop jealously attacking us so much.

And when I say jealous, I mean like you can only assume it's just PSL just ta ordering them that oh suppress ACP.

It's like calm down.

You know, we're both kind of not all that.

happening right now because of uh the DSA.

That's really it.

So yeah, and that's uh that's a good segue into another question.

Um I I did want to ask you a little bit about some of the critiques of the the ACP at this time.

A lot of other organizations in the United States are accusing the ACP of participating in like red fascism and accu uh calling them national Bolsheviks.

Uh do you have any specific feelings about that sort of critique?

I think it's completely wrong.

And, you know, the secret about ACP, it's Huey Newton's inter-communalism theory.

We, first of all, there's orthodox Marxist-linedist socialist patriotism, which is actually what CPSA kind of has.

You know, not the Democrat politics specifically, but you know, they believe in the United States as historically progressive, and that's just standard socialist patriotism.

I think we actually take it in a heterodox direction in a lot of ways.

With the inter-communalism theory of nationhood and the national question that Newton developed.

So, Newton develops this idea that because of the age of globalism, the form of the nation state has basically been supplanted and that the premises of nationhood or the equivalent to it, something like that, is going to develop in a more local way.

There have there, you know, he talks about this idea of like liberated zones that organizations establish and they all link up to each other, and it's this kind of like

Much more um

Grasping with the material foundations of nationhood itself, like outside the institution of the nation, which is the sovereign form of the state.

I don't fully agree with Newton and the inter-communalistic idea, but we are searching for the premises of like the form of social existence, which is what a nation is, beyond the institution of the US Constitution and the enumerated USA.

Whereas the CPSA, for example, takes as the premise of communist organizing the USA and the Constitution and so on.

But

Uh th I think the reason why we are associated with like national Bolshevism or

The right wing is because of this lack of proximity to the institutions.

It it it it's i i if you just replace the word right wing or Nasbull with barbarian, everything makes starts to make sense.

We're being accused of being barbarians.

Well, in a way we are barbarians, you know?

But can something left wing emerge out of barbarism?

I think so.

I think the right wing has a wrong monopoly on the barbaric.

You know what I I believe in um

I believe again, we have proximity to the Black Panthers here, even among criminals.

You can find a spark of something progressive, right?

And you can be moralistic and hypocritical and say, no, you're condemned, you're a barbarian.

Because you don't talk like us and you're you're not whatever and it's like, Well,

Those tendencies exist that are right-wing for sure, but then there's also left-wing tendencies.

It's a sacred duty to draw out the correct tendencies.

Okay.

I've got a couple more questions, if I can have the time.

One is a little bit more theoretical.

I wanted to ask you about your perspective on commodity production.

And obviously this is a far and away question to be talking about right now, but there is sort of a recent fad online, at least that I've noticed, of about accusations of LaSalleism.

People calling the USSR a LaSalleist structure, being that they still participated in capitalist relations.

Do you have any feelings about commodity production and LaSalleism?

Yeah, it's just Lefcoms, um

Loudly projecting their illiteracy and confusion about Marxism.

So La Salle was a significant figure in the prehistory of modern-day communism, if we call it that, because he was seminal in the foundation of the movement we call social democracy.

Like even before Kotsky became its pope, its theoretician, LaSalle made it into a mass movement, basically.

And he did so in a kind of dirty way, very like real politic, pragmatic way.

He kind of had this mutual understanding with Bismarck.

So Bismarck was firmly in the pocket of certain sections of the landed aristocracy.

in Germany, who had industrial ambitions,

But La Salle thought there was t a tem temporary room for some kind of alliance with Bismarck, specifically against the mm like bourgeois, liberal democrat types.

So LaSalle basically established a popular socialist movement, but he did so on the basis of implicit.

Tolerance and alliance with Bismarck, right?

And that's why Marx and Engels were suspicious of him.

It was mainly because.

LaSelle did not have the

The balls, so to speak.

I mean, I guess we're changing our language.

He didn't, they didn't think he had what it took to actually muster proletarian independence when push came to shove.

Like Engels was anticipating World War One was going to happen, and he thought now the proletariat and World War One they're going to have to organize, they're going to have to take up arms and build their own power, their own sovereignty.

And LaSalle was creating all this wiggle room for the rise of a legal, like mass socialist movement.

But he could only do so on the basis of some kind of like relationship with Bismarck and an implicit understanding with him.

But it's absurd to refer to the USSR in that way because there's no Bismarck factor here.

All of the power was built from the ground up.

It's like Payroll Giovanni, he said, built this shit from the ground up.

Every single case of communism historically was the ground up.

There's no alliance with pre-existing status quo, with landowners, with industrialists, with the bourgeoisie whatsoever.

All the sovereignty and all the power is being built from war.

From the ground up.

Um so the decisive thing is not the persistence of commodity production or not.

That for Marx at least, that wasn't the issue.

Marx and Engels were wary of Lascelle because they thought his theoretical distortions

Or his theoretical innovations, or his way of phrasing things, like in the critique of the Gotha program.

Uh Marx basically thought that this was a

These were just expressions of opportunism that pertained to the increasing tendency of opportunism in the social democratic movement, which they were very, very vigilant about.

They're like, okay, I understand we need a legal dimension of struggle and we need to grow.

But they could see how these opportunistic tendencies were emerging that amounted to conformity with the actual state power, you know?

Rather than building an independent one.

And that was the that was the basis.

It wasn't about w how long commodity production will persist.

In the early stages of socialism.

That wasn't the decisive problem for Marx and Engels at all.

They they basically were safeguarding themselves against the possibility that in the future the social democratic movement would try to make itself compatible with the existing state machine and just be independent of the of the bourgeois state.

And explain this theoretically in terms of how there's not this decisive rupture with capitalist mode of production.

There's a degree of continuity, but we're just going to call it socialism.

That's what they were wary of.

Well, again, the Soviet Union had its revolution.

China had its revolution.

These revolutions uprooted all of the foundations.

Of what we call everyday life in civilization.

And so when those things began to

Um

Recover in a way, and there appeared things that were associated with the capitalist era.

We can only assume that these qualities that are characteristic of capitalism, like commodity production and others, are there because they have to be objectively.

Not because, like La Salle, they're opportunists who are selling out to some existing power or authority.

That would be my basic retort.

Okay.

And I will say this is my last question.

But before I ask it, I'd like to say thank you for having me on, and I appreciate having the conversation with you.

I'll cede my time after this one.

I heard from the last discussion that you had with Mr.

Hawes that you have some sympathetic views with Putin in regards to the what I agree with you isn't totally provoked war between Russia and Ukraine.

Do you have any specific sympathies for the Russian Federation as a nation outside of this Pacific war?

In a way, I do, because the Russian Federation is a testament, living testament.

To the fact that the CPSU failed.

Who betrayed the Soviet Union?

It was the CPSU.

Okay, but the Soviet Union did not die materially or historically speaking.

Institutionally, there was a failure.

And the Russians were left

They were faced with, like, how do we cope with this?

How do we deal with it?

So we had the 90s and the Wild West era of total Western colonization and total Western whatever.

Plundering, plundering by the oligarchs, all that kind of stuff.

And Russians are now existentially facing the question: what are we to do with this inheritance of the past?

Because the Soviet Union built literally everything that exists in Russia, basically.

How do we move on and how do we carve out an existence?

And I think that the problem the Russians are facing is the same as Marxism today.

We can't just refer to the past to carve out and chart our future.

The past failed.

The CPSU betrayed the Soviet Union.

We need a comprehensive examination of why that happened.

And anyone who thinks they have an easy answer to that is lying.

Like, we could just say, well, Russian Federation is tainted.

Only the USSR was legitimate.

In a way, of course, we know the USSR was better.

But why did the USSR collapse?

Is it simply possible to go back like this?

If only it was so easy.

No, there were serious contradictions within the USSR itself that made its dissolution.

Given those contradictions and the inability to respond to them, inevitable.

And so, my sympathy to Russia is really that, like, I feel like the Western left dehumanizes Russians because they're no longer ideological pawns, because they're no longer ideologically pure.

They have no human.

No, the humanity that persists amidst.

the contradictions within communism is the one that Marxists need to take especially seriously, because that is us.

We are Russia.

Like my lemma says, Putin is us, we are Putin in a way.

We don't have all the answers.

We have yet to comprehensively explain what went wrong.

Nobody, nobody on the left has this nailed down in an easy way.

Nobody.

But yet we persist and we live.

Should the entire Russian nation have disappeared because the Soviet Union failed them or the US the CPSU failed them?

No, these are living people.

These are living people whose lives matter to me.

The people who lived in the USSR, it's the same ones still living there.

They don't know how to make sense of their existence and their future, but their lives still matter to me.

And when I see

Everything about them being hated, like in Ukraine and elsewhere, when they're dealing with the contradictions after the USSR, they're blaming Russia.

They're blaming Russian-ness.

So these Babushkas and these elderly Russian grandmas and grandpas and people just living in their villages the same way they've been living under the USSR.

Are now suddenly finding themselves under siege and under attack for who they are, for being ordered.

Yeah, and it's like it's a survival thing at that point.

No, we don't know how to fully square what happened with the Soviet Union, but we're actual living people, and Russians beginning to stand up for their dignity and recognize that is more important to me than ideological purity.

Because it's still the same people.

The whole point of the Soviet Union was the human element.

Who are the human beings that the Soviet Union exists for?

Right?

The human should be first, not the ideal, the human, you know?

And that history didn't end.

You know, so that's my understanding.

It's like it's right and wrong.

Is Russia waving the flag of the USSR?

No.

They profess to be communist and Marxist?

No, they don't.

They're not led by Marxists.

But if we want to prove the superiority of Marxism to Russians, of all people, maybe we should prove first.

That we recognize and understand their humanity.

They're human beings first.

Marxism is about serving and working for humanity, you know?

I feel that's a very poignant argument to make, and I appreciate it.

I did say that was my last question.

I do have one more kind of a funny question.

I saw some pictures online that you were out in China speaking with some CCP members.

Some other organizations in the United States, some other Marxist organizations said that that was AI and that you had not been to China.

Have you been to China?

You said it was AI.

I've never heard that.

Some members of the PSL.

I they said it was a I mean, um

They are very adamant against you.

You know, on Chinese social media, I talk to a Chinese influencer who has millions of subscribers.

I think I can post it on my channel soon.

But uh maybe that would be proof for them if they just saw the f the footage of me talking to this Chinese famous Chinese influencer.

Or maybe they think he came to America.

Uh there's no telling what they'll say.

Um they're they're they're definitely s stringently adamant against uh the ACP and I think that's a very popular position to take right now in like modern uh American leftist circles.

Uh I'm a little bit more open to that, which is why I'm coming to talk to you.

And I am interested in what you have to say though.

Yeah, I mean I was in China.

I'm not sure it would matter if that was proven to them, but

Well, fair enough.

In any case, Haas, I thank you for your time.

I appreciate you so much for having a discussion with me.

And I do feel like I've learned a lot about your platform and you from this talk.

So it's been my pleasure.

I'll gladly cede my time to the next speaker.

For sure.

See you later, man.

Bye-bye.

Hmm.

IO Witzer Man

Hey hello?

Yeah, what's up?

Yeah, I just had one question.

Uh when is the World Revolution song coming to Spotify?

I'm releasing a huge album, but you guys aren't giving me good f feedback on like the Thomas Munzer song.

You guys don't like that song, so I don't know.

Uh, and you didn't also.

I have other songs.

I don't know, guys.

You guys are very selective about you.

Like, Dawson can come back on.

Dude, you're literally like your connection is broken.

Order of the right, go ahead.

Pressed negative seventies you're outta here.

Togi, go ahead.

Huz, uh just one quick question.

Do you think China moving towards tokenized currency and digital assets is like their way of solving the resource allocation issues that kill the Soviet economy uh with smart contracts that could control speculation and maybe hoarding?

Is that a possibility that's gonna happen any time in the future?

I don't understand the relation of of uh t between that and the

Resource allocation problem, so

You're talking about planning, central planning?

I don't know.

I haven't.

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

Okay, Dawson, go ahead.

This is your last chance.

All right, so let's just say it was a valid war, right?

Putin was justified.

So let's do the calculation.

We're going to sacrifice all of Russia's feature, tank the stock market.

One of these clowns in here said, oh, it's just the stock market.

That's people's lives, their futures, their livelihoods.

Hundreds of thousands of men.

I know you'll say, oh, it wasn't hundreds of thousands of men, but you give me the numbers.

There's gas lines everywhere.

Putin has been shown to be a paper tiger.

No respect.

They're a pariah.

Nobody wants to do business with them.

Everyone, no, that's not true.

Their neighbors, that's really not true.

Uh, Belarus doesn't want nothing to do with them.

He said he said, No, we're not gonna host any Russian troops.

No, it's not true.

You're just thinking like NAFO, only thinking in the short term.

All right, so was it worth invading and all these losses happening in the long term?

Yes.

All right, what are they winning?

What are the people of Russia winning for this war?

I could explain if you don't interrupt me and calm down.

Go ahead, guy.

You need to calm down.

Waiting.

The world is experiencing very, very rocky changes, and this became evident to everyone during COVID, but this has been right there.

You go.

So, you're just gonna interrupt me.

So, what do you want?

Go.

No, you're gonna interrupt me.

So, what do you want?

Get be concise, get to the point, say the word.

I'm gonna say it on my time.

So, I'm gonna say it, but I'm not gonna say it.

Grandstand.

Okay, I'll grant I'm gonna grandstand or I or nothing.

How about that?

If that helps you.

You're a track star.

Because I'm not going to give you a two-byte sound bite to explain.

Let's go then.

Go.

Hurry up.

I'm not gonna hurry, this is my time actually.

You gonna listen or you gonna leave?

So the world's undergoing tremendous changes that make it inevitable that the current world order is going to break down.

Supply chains are going to break down.

Blackouts are going to be inevitable.

Wars are going to increase.

And the U.S.

unipolar system is collapsing.

Now, Russia has been part of the U.S.

unipolar system for a long time, but it has been building its own alternative polarity without simultaneously building a direct political confrontation.

with the US-led world order.

So little by little it started, you know, in 2014, Crimea, whatever, little by little, and Georgia, maybe before.

22 had to happen because Russia had to prove it has the political, the political balls to break away from the U.S.-led world order that is condemning every single dependency on this world order to ruin.

You need to break away, stand your ground, and build and prepare for this very rocky future ahead where people who lack independence are not going to survive.

Well, Russia did prove its independence and it proved its ability to survive this as independent, supply chain-wise, terms of economic relationships, political relationships.

Russia is hunkering down and it's been surviving.

I know things have gotten rocky recently, but that was worth it.

Ultimately, it was to break from the West and not be reliant anymore on the U.S.-led unipolar world order was worth it.

Uh okay, that is it?

That's it.

Okay, um, number one, Russia's not leading this oh, this other poll that you're talking about.

That's China.

Russia's become a resource state for China now.

Um talk about all the terrible things.

They don't have any freedom of information, they're censored, and you can't even use the internet in Russia.

So this is terrible for the Russian people.

Do you want this war to end or you want it to keep going?

And and and uh what what does victory look like?

Just quickly define that.

Victory means two things, or can I only say one thing?

Their brothers dying, but what else?

Look at your butthurt.

Ukraine has to be prevented from ever joining NATO and the people in Donbass have to be secured and never threatened ever again and being able to speak Russian and not have to uh be culturally genocided.

So no NATO for Ukraine ever was was Ukraine joining NATO one of the pretexts to the war?

Yeah.

Okay, so Putin wanted to prevent the expa expansion of NATO on its borders, right?

For Ukraine specifically.

For Ukraine specifically.

Oh, he doesn't care about the other states, he doesn't care about Finland, Sweden?

Not as much as Ukraine.

Not as much as Ukraine.

Oh, that's that's that's fine.

Expanding NATO, but as long as it's not Ukraine, what the hell is the difference?

The Volgograd Gap.

Go on.

So, geographically, if Ukraine were in NATO, it would give a major advantage geographically to penetrate into Russia through a land question.

I don't wanna interrupt and get your butthurt.

Oh, it's called the Volgograd Gap.

You can look it up.

No, I have a question.

Yeah, what's your question?

Um

Do do th does Finland not have this same geographical compare the border Finland has to Russia with the one Ukraine has, okay?

Any other questions?

Finland's longer.

What?

Finland's is longer.

Finland has a longer border with Russia than Ukraine.

Yes.

In terms of the populations in neighbors, really?

You don't c count a border's length by the number of people in it.

No, you s you count the strategic significance for a war, okay?

Yeah.

Can my missiles hit you?

Are they next to you?

Can I invade?

What will so Finland i borders Ice, and you're saying that's longer than Ukraine, that borders Russia's major population centers and stuff?

Finland has a longer border with Russia than Ukraine has with Russia.

It has a border with ice if it does, if that's true.

What does that matter?

They have trucks and tanks and cars that can be.

That they're gonna go into the ice, into the North Pole with?

It's Finland.

You don't know you're the white war, you don't know your history?

The Winter War, it's what it's called.

The White Winter War.

Russia will deal with Finland.

It will deal with Finland in the future, by the way.

Another question will deal with that.

Is this a justified war, a moral war?

And if so, why don't you join to do something about it?

They have a signing bonus.

Because I'm not Russia.

Either are most of the people fighting, they're from Africa and North Korea.

Russia is so pathetic, they don't have their own people to fight.

They have to get prisoners and people from Nigeria and North Korea.

Can you believe it?

North Korea is there to train.

I don't need to go there to train.

I'll be prevented from ever returning to the United States.

And Russia's like, oh, North Korea, you're our best friend.

Why are you so emotional?

I'm having a good time.

This is hilarious.

You're so emotional about this.

I'm smiling.

You look butter.

You look like your panties are in a bunch.

Because I'm hungry and I'm tired of this.

So whatever.

Yeah, I know.

You got your face all scrunched.

You're just boring.

I'm cheating.

You're just boring.

You got let the guy with the dog talk about nothing for an hour.

What are you talking about?

Yeah, the guy w we're talking about feminism in circles for an hour.

Yeah, because that guy was genuinely like No, because he just won the grandstand.

I'll tell you why because because that guy is gatekeeping the l me like from the left, people like that.

You're just like a NAFO retard, dude.

I don't even care about you.

That guy's actually gatekeeping the ACP.

He represents the archetype that gatekeeps the ACP.

Like, gatekeeps the ACP from having any ability to be like NATO.

We do a thought experiment.

You're like a NATO supporter, dude.

You your like opinion doesn't matter to me.

Fuck NATO.

I don't care about NATO.

No, you're a Ukraine supporter.

Like, I don't even consider you like.

I don't care.

No, I don't even care about Ukraine.

So why are you passionate about this topic if you don't care about Ukraine?

I don't care about Israel, I don't care about Palestine, but I'm not sure if you're not.

I didn't kick him out.

I got restricted 'cause of that guy.

Reason, harassment, and bullying.

So he was harha harassing and bullying me and then got kicked out.

Oh no.

Okay, we gotta end the live.

I didn't ban you, dude.

This is TikTok.

Check your notifications.

We gotta end the live.

I just got a violation, we gotta go.

Dude, I did try to join again.

I literally didn't do anything.

Okay, one last word: try to join again.

I did not ban you, dude.

TikTok banned you.

Jesus Christ.

TikTok banned you, I promise.

Dude, this guy's gonna like cry forever.

You can't say Arsler.

I don't know what I said.

I don't know what anyone said.

Okay?

Someone in Shokyu.

Jesus Christ.

Said gorilla, we'll talk later.

I gotta fking eat.

You're not live?

Alright.

Dude says I'm running.

He literally got banned by TikTok.

It's crazy.

Dude, why would I kick you after asking you a question?

I was like, Why do you care about Ukraine then if you don't care about it?

And then TikTok banned, you're like, I don't give a fuck.

Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.

What does that mean?

Do you know what that means?

Let up Doomernad, all right.

Last person.

Okay, hold on.

Peter Gibson has a hammer and sickle.

I gotta look them up.

Yo, Peter, what's up?

Go ahead, Peter.

Hello?

Yeah.

I did not mean to request the deal.

No problem.

No problem.

Okay, let's bring on Doomernath.

Yo, what's up?

What's up?

What's up, man?

Um Hey, what's going on, man?

I'm usually a big fan of your work, but I joined it.

I heard that guy arguing about Russia and Ukraine, so I just came up to ask would you mind arguing about uh any conflict or

Does it have to be specifically like a current one?

I guess any conflict Okay, cool.

I heard your opinions before about the American Civil War and it seems that you side much more with Lincoln and the Union.

I completely with Lincoln, yeah.

So why not with the Confederacy?

Well, besides the slavery elephant in the room, you know, you also have the fact you have two angles, I guess.

One of them from a Marxist perspective is about the development of the productive forces.

So the South would not be able to develop productive forces, industry, technology and so on.

It would have a permanently stalled, stunted state of development, right?

It's unable to actually

reduce its dependency on the planter economy.

And then the second thing has to do with geopolitics.

The United States

Had less than a century of a history of sovereignty, and part of that sovereignty would have been that they would have had to industrialize.

But

The South was being backed by Britain and France and all of Europe, basically all of the European powers.

And the goal was basically to destroy the American Republic.

My view.

Do you okay?

So, I would like to address the slavery question in the room and then answer the two objections that you've raised.

Is that cool?

Yeah.

Okay, so number one, the North also had slaves, right?

I mean, the whole point of the Emancipation Proclamation was to preserve slavery in the Northern occupied territories in the South, right?

So, even in occupied territories, like Union-occupied territories in the South, slavery was preserved under the Emancipation Proclamation.

But the material foundations of slavery were rooted in the South.

Sure, but don't you think that because of this is what I was going to mention with industrialization, don't you think that the war effort by the South and the little but rapid industrialization that happened due to that, don't you think that would eventually cause them to have an industrial economy?

And, you know, so you think it was always like bound and determined to be an agrarian economy?

Yeah, that was Marx's analysis, basically.

Like, the logic of the planter economy was such that it would never be able to move beyond this.

And the rise of wage labor would have never happened, and therefore capital would never be able to accumulate.

Why is I don't I don't understand why that's an inevitability though.

Because uh basically well, wage labor is a condition of capital, right?

For capital to be able to accumulate.

Because you need a flexibility in the division of labor of the labor force, basically.

And um

If labor is not free, quote unquote, then it is intrinsically bound with a specific form.

of accumulation and production, right?

And uh

There's no way wage laborers would have ever been able to compete.

The slaves, you know.

Well, I think we can agree that wage labor is

Would the word be more progressive than a slave-based system just for Marxist perspective?

We're just getting rid of all the morals and stuff.

We're just focusing on the material side of the system.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Okay.

I would argue, I mean, two things.

Number one, I think slavery was probably already on its way out.

I don't think it would have been this thing that just stayed the entire time.

There's no really good it to, it would have.

If they weren't able to expand, but the Civil War was about the expansion into the Western territories.

Because what Marx's analysis basically was, was that the same contradictions of capitalist crisis, in a way, you do see those in the planter economy.

But where capitalists can innovate through technology to get themselves out of the crisis, per se, you know, industry, the only solution for the planters was the expansion in terms of like geography of like the square mileage of the plantations.

That's how they get more profit.

Because at a certain point, when the profit starts to reach equilibrium with the costs of production or whatever.

And you're unable to accumulate anymore.

Well, if you're unable to accumulate anymore, you're unable to service the debts that were a condition of being able to I mean, these were all enterprises that were founded on debt, you know.

Yeah.

And so But because the South succeeded, I don't think there's any

There's no prospect of expanding slavery.

That that would just uh especially into the West, that's basically impossible.

That was their goal.

They had they wanted to expand in terms of more square mileage and territory.

Correct, but the union also wanted to expand and eventually did.

No, no, I know, but they d they wanted to expand in territory, but not the institution of slavery.

So they wanted to expand in territory, but they didn't want to expand the institution of slavery into that territory.

Exactly.

Okay.

This but even even so, with the South succeeding, it seems to just be an impossibility that they would be able to expand anywhere.

What do you mean?

Just by the capabil just by the military capabilities of the South, how would they be able to expand?

Oh, they planned on it.

There was an idea called the Golden Circle that Albert Pilot.

Right, but they were going to go south.

Yeah, but also west.

I mean, they wanted to go a lot of places.

So you think there would have been an eventual, even if things didn't play out the way they did, there would have been a military confrontation between the North and the South.

I think it was inevitable.

Okay.

You said something interesting earlier about the Republic.

Don't you think a very I mean, because we don't have to live in this universe with like the Union like we don't have to create a universe where the Union won, right?

That is the universe we live in.

Don't you think the Republic almost immediately died after the Civil War?

Um like come on like you can admit that Reconstruction was like an evil thing that happened.

I wouldn't be fully prepared to admit that.

I mean R you don't think like putting the south under military occupation enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment like that just

No, there were a lot of things about Reconstruction that had a lot of promise, actually.

It's just that the same foundations of Reconstruction were later exploited and abused.

Um.

Maybe, you know, to give the government this extraordinary power.

But there were a lot of things in the beginning of Reconstruction which could have actually.

would have been progressive more, you know.

Sure, but I mean, what ended up happening was the South didn't vote on the 14th Amendment, and the radical Republicans and the federal government, like, you know, split the South up into like five military districts and then basically put them under martial law.

And then with like the gun to the back of their head, they forced them to vote.

The point was to have disempowered the planter class, which had an absolute grip on Southern society.

But the problem is that they emboldened the industrial bourgeoisie, which is, you know, there was that.

And then this same power that was originally should have been just to disempower the planter class never actually ended up raising up the people, right?

It never ended up raising up the free laborers, the slaves, the former slaves, whatever, the white workers, whatever.

They were never raised up, you know?

So.

Correct.

The bankers, the financers, those were the people that were raised.

They took advantage of this, you know, occupation, this extraordinary power of the federal government to establish monopolies and so on.

Right, so that's that's kind of what I'm getting at when you mentioned that republic thing, right?

It seems like the republic eventually died almost immediately after the fact, right?

Well, no, in a way, the republic was always what it was.

What do you mean by that?

Like, I don't, I don't really, maybe you might agree, you might disagree.

Like, the American people, in a real sense, were never represented by the federal.

That's what I mean.

There was never that.

But if we're talking about why the Union was more progressive, because that would have been a premise, even if progressive forces were in command, they would have had to do the same thing in terms of undermine the planter class in the South.

But we agree, though, essentially, that there were two reactionary forces fighting against each other in the Civil War, right?

Or do you disagree?

No, I think that the North was more.

So, you know, when you think about dialectics, there's different tendencies.

And oftentimes, reactionary tendencies can immediately prevail, even within a more overall progressive tendency.

So it's always like relative in a way, right?

Um

Well, don't you think, though, that like reactionary, not with respect to something that actually exists, but reactionary with respect to a clear and evident possibility that was never pursued?

You know?

Like, there was possibility with Reconstruction and with the kind of direction Lincoln was taking the nation in.

There was a possibility that was there for that to have actually cemented a real republic by foreign of the people.

But because of capitalism, it was immediately shown to be impossible.

But we can still reflect on that kernel of possibility and be like, there was promise in that.

We should draw from that in terms of inspiration and stuff.

I just don't really see it.

I mean, I just see Reconstruction as essentially punishing the South, which is essentially what it was.

And that's even what Northerners saw it as.

That is what it was.

And also, Lincoln almost, I mean, he died very early on during Reconstruction.

So there's kind of I mean, he wasn't really around for Reconstruction.

But there's two tendencies.

It's always a double-edged sword.

Yes, part of it could have been that, unilaterally punishing the South.

Not just the planters, but everyone.

But then there's the other aspect of Reconstruction, which was this was a new opportunity to lay new foundations for a republic by, for, and of the people, right?

And get rid of the baggage that tainted the Republic in 1776, which prevented more popular sovereignty in the beginning.

All these compromises the Founding Fathers had to make, you know, to prevent.

I know the word is cringe, but when I say democracy, I mean it in the sense of.

The rule of popular sovereignty.

Yeah, authentic popular rule.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But I would say that that is essentially what the South was fighting for was authentic popular sovereignty.

That's why they succeeded, is because they didn't feel like they were there was true representation of the South in the federal government.

I mean, if we succeeded, succeeded, like succeeded from the Union, not succeeded.

Sorry.

Um that's why I feel like they left is because they simply just didn't want to be in the union anymore.

And it feels like that by an elite planter class.

They were like a majority of the but uh the the north was dominated by an elite industrial class.

Uh yes, but the northern industrial class was up and coming and the northern industrial class was historically more progressive because

It had not yet at that point in time.

It didn't become the imperialist bourgeoisie it later would.

You know, at that time But it seems like the Civil War was inevitable for it, though, was it not?

Like that is where like total war and unconditional surrender comes from and the war crimes from Sherman and what not, that laid the foundation for the way that the empire conducted itself up until today.

Uh

You're talking about the aftermath of the Civil War.

No, I'm talking about during no, I'm saying the Civil War laid the foundations of of unconditional surrender and, you know, war as hell, this idea that, you know, we can do anything we want in the war as long as we win.

That was that was kind of foreign until the Civil War happened.

The whole point of the Civil War was to destroy the Confederacy, right?

That was the whole point.

We're not going to accept any type of deal of peace, of cease nothing.

It will be nothing but total surrender.

And that's how America's operated since then.

I think that's it's interesting because in a way it's like America's internal contradictions are the reason why it is the way it is externally.

And I feel like the Civil War is like a huge foundational moment of the way the federal government operates, of the precedent that was set that eventually led to the Rockefellers, the Morgans, and all that.

But we can only say these are bad things in retrospect from a position of how it could have been done differently.

But the idea that the South would have been able to resist these kinds of evils or something, I think it's completely wrong.

The South was very clear that the Union cannot, right?

Well, in retrospect, we could see that with hindsight, for example, if we took a time machine, for example, it's like, well, no, there was a way out.

There would have been a way to actually build a powerful, sovereign, popular republic from that, you know?

But the contradictions of capitalism made it inevitable that things became what they were.

And you have to go through these contradictions.

You can't resist them.

You have to go through it, you know?

It's like it's very similar with feudalism, actually.

It's like, actually, on the left, there's a guy named Dominico Lesudro, right?

It's interesting because I've never actually heard anyone make this argument.

It would be extremely, it would be extremely, how would I put it?

Provocative.

I wouldn't make the argument, but if you, you know, if someone wanted to troll supporters of Lesoudro, they could.

He basically said that the Marxist idea that bourgeois revolutions are progressive is wrong.

He said that the bourgeois revolutions.

For example, 1776 and others.

Do you agree with this?

No, I don't actually.

But I'm saying, I think there's resonances between where you're coming from and that sentiment, actually, which is like, well, this unprecedented evil was actually unleashed by the bourgeois revolutions, like colonialism and genocide and all these kinds of things.

And he points out how, like, well, under feudalism and the absolute monarchies and stuff, there were like restraints and some kind of

You know who also kind of makes that point?

Yeah, who?

The anarcho-capitalist thinkers like Hoppe, like making arguments for monarchy and about how like democracy, you know, they kind of hint at something like that.

I guess, you know, Lesoudro is like basically pointing out that, like, well, no, actually, the bourgeois revolutions are not progressive.

They also actually led to more evil than before, in a way, right?

But I think that so if someone were to make that argument in the case of the Union.

Not, you know, I mean, it would be hard because slavery is pretty evidently whatever evil.

But, you know, if someone were to say, well, then unprecedented types of evil were opened up by the precedent of the Civil War, like the total war of annihilation or whatever, right?

Right.

Well, I would say that I don't think the Civil War was like a crusade against slavery, right?

I mean, the North was very honest about the fact that it wasn't.

You know, that didn't become a thing until like in the middle of it.

It wasn't materially.

That wasn't the material cause.

But in terms of the morale and the spiritual significance of the war for many people in the North and the way it was morally justified was, I think, about slavery.

But the material cause was not that Northerners just woke up one day and decided that they realized that this institution which they had tolerated for centuries is suddenly evil.

No, there is material causes for why, for sure.

But that was a moment where on a spiritual and moral level the country

Through abolitionism and, you know, I mean, I don't really think so.

I think, you know, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the fact that it is true that the North and the country at large was still very racist.

I don't think that they were down to go risk their lives for the fact about liberating black people.

Songs the Union soldiers would sing were about slavery, you know?

I'm pretty sure it was like Hail Columbia and shit like that.

John Brown's body.

That's where the very minority point of view.

But that's where the Marine anthem comes from, Battle Hymn of the Republic.

It comes from John Brown's body.

No, no.

Yeah.

I don't think that's true.

Wait.

Wait, Battle Hymn of the Republic post dates.

Okay, anyway.

You might have to fact check about this, but anyways.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I think remember John Brown's body was first.

It doesn't matter.

You could be right.

It doesn't matter.

There is something else I wanted to speak to you about besides the Civil War stuff.

I think we're kind of just.

You introduced a good idea, I think, with the Islam and Marxist stuff.

And I wanted to poke your brain about it for just a little bit.

Is that cool?

It's not going to take that long.

Sure, sure.

I connected that, because I believe, I think you're 100% correct that the actual revolutionary forces in the world today are the two H groups.

I don't think I can say them on TikTok, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

The Islamic Republic, Ansar Law, and Yemen.

And I connected this to I do really think that a big reason why the Soviet Union fell was because they lost this religious spirit during de-Stalinization, right?

And I think there is something unique about religion.

What'd you say?

I agree.

And I think there is something that was the loss of the morale, basically.

Yeah, and you see North Korea, they still have something like that, and they're still holding.

They're still standing strong.

And I think there is something inherently revolutionary about this kind of spiritual higher ideal that Islam offers that communists have lost.

Same with China.

I mean, I still support China, but I think China's kind of lost it.

I don't think China's a revolutionary state.

Um

Inadvertently, it's probably revolutionary on a global level, but yeah, I know it's politically not a revolutionary.

It's a conservative, though, kind of thing.

It's not like the Islamic Republic, right?

And I think you connect this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think you can connect this to, like I said, the fall of the Soviet Union, but also even like maybe Venezuela, dude, like after Hugo Chavez and this kind of rallying, you know.

No, it's the dimension of the moral, you know, the morale.

Yeah, that's what it all is.

And yeah, communists, Marxists have lost that for sure.

They've lost that.

100%.

Yeah.

And so, you know, when Islam, and also you can look in the Palestinian resistance, the secular forces did lose, right?

It lost to the H3.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, look, like, Baathism's dead.

Gaddafi's fallen.

Nasser's fallen.

And what's left?

It's the Islamic resistance.

You know, that's what's one.

I think it's something that I'm not a communist, but revolutionaries in general can kind of look at and be like, okay, this is something.

And communism itself has experimented with this more, you know, I don't want to say ideal because it's not like idealistic, but you said morale, right?

I think that's a good word to say, you know, this morality, higher than being kind of thing.

You know, that the Soviet Union had that, right?

You had the Bolshevik Revolution, you had the Great Patriotic War, you had Stalin.

And then with the Stalinization, it lost it.

And that's what's rooted in the fall of the Soviet Union.

And, you know, you've seen it.

You can see in the Middle East and whatnot, the secular forces have lost and the religious ones have won.

And I just think you were 100% right about that.

And a lot of people misinterpreted what you say, but there was a whole lot of truth into it.

Yeah, I plan on writing something, so watch out for that.

But thanks for coming on, man.

Yeah, man, of course.

See you later.

Um, all right.

Okay, we're ending the tic-tac.

Bro, Daws, go to sleep, dude.

You're like literally freaking out.

Can you join?

No.

We're ending it right now.

Alright guys, whoever's still here and

Wow, on the kick.

Don't say I don't give you guys content.

Bye bye.