Confronting the enemy...

Mm.

I'm just a team player while every man for self.

You stand for nothing, probably can't stand yourself.

Fuck a hand out, running round demanding help.

Used to be the help, now I'm the man myself.

I went from rags to riches, not a new S-Class as tenant.

Work out with stash and get it only when cash is given.

You be so mad at niggas, jealous and bitter.

Go get some money, bummy dummy, get a dweller, my nigga.

Please remember not to stress to watching all of your pictures.

That just screams, you ain't used to having jury and scriller.

This winter, shit, I might just get another chichilla.

Full length, why not?

Shit, I'm no longer a dealer.

I be minding my business and running it too.

I turned one into two, went from a bus to a coupe.

$5,000 fit, and it ain't nothing to do.

But it's nothing to a boss, but probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck around us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches.

For the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I'm in a G-Wagon with a Mary G saggin'.

Whole sleeve dancing, niggas can't stand it.

Next day, a five-series with the roof vanish.

And he started with an eight-ball.

How did dude manage?

Actually, a half-track, I can't give you half-facts, that would be a whole lot.

Chain costs a whole pot.

Used to be a lil' nigga, hanging with the old guy.

Soaking up game, I was studying the whole time.

Niggas be off of self till they money low.

Then everything is gang, gang, and bro, bro.

Real leaders show their people where they got it going.

This how we gon' do it.

If you with it, come on, let's roll.

Moving in silence, less announcements.

Used to slice ounces, now I got a compass.

Next crib coming with a gate and a fountain.

The reason why you broke is cause you're grown, that's allowed it.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cause, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches.

Cause nigga, get the fuck.

A team player, while every man for self, you stand for nothing, probably can't stand yourself.

Fuck a handout, running round demanding help.

Used to be the help, now I'm the man myself.

I went from rags to riches, not a new S-Class is tenant.

Work out with stash and get it only when cash is given.

You be so mad at niggas, jealous and bitter.

Go get some money, bummy dummy, get a dweller, my nigga.

Please remember not to stress to watching all of your pictures.

That just screams, you ain't used to having jury and scriller.

This winter shit, I might just get another chachilla.

Full of lymph, why not?

Shit, I'm no longer a dealer.

I be minding my business and running it too.

I turned one into two, went from a bus to a coupe.

$5,000 fit, and it ain't nothing to do.

But it's nothing to a bustle, probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I'm in a G-Wagon with a Mary G saggin'.

Whole sleeve dancing, niggas can't stand it.

Next day, a five-series with the roof vanish.

And he started with an eight-ball.

How did dude manage?

Actually, a half-track.

I can't give you half-facts, that would be a whole lot.

Chain costs a whole pot.

Used to be a lil' nigga, hanging with the old guy.

Soaking up game, I was studying the whole time.

Niggas be off of self till they money low.

Then everything is gang, gang, and bro, bro.

Real leaders show they people where they gotta go.

And this how we gon' do it.

If you with it, come on, let's roll.

Moving in silence, less announcements.

Used to slice ounces, now I got a compass.

Next crib coming with a gate and a fountain.

The reason why you buck is cause you're grown, that's allowed it.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I'm just a team player while every man for self.

You stand for nothing, probably can't stand yourself.

Fuck a handout, running round demanding help.

Used to be the help, now I'm the man myself.

I went from rags to riches, not a new S-Class is tenant.

Work out with stash and get it, only when cash is given.

You be so mad at niggas, jealous and bitter.

Go get some money, bummy dummy, get a dweller, my nigga.

Please remember not to stress to watching all of your pictures.

That just screams, you ain't used to having jury and scriller.

This winter, shit, I might just get another chichilla.

Full of length, why not?

Shit, I'm no longer a dealer.

I be minding my business and running it too.

I turn one into two, work from a bus to a coupe.

$5,000 fit, and it ain't nothing to do.

But it's nothing to a boss, but probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I'm in a G-Wagon with a Mary G saggin'.

Whole sleeve dancing, niggas can't stand it.

Next day, a five-series with the roof vanish.

And he started with an eight-ball.

How did dude manage?

Actually, a half-track.

I can't give you half-facts, that would be a whole lot.

Chain costs a whole pot.

Used to be a lil' nigga, hanging with the old guy.

Soaking up game, I was studying the whole time.

Niggas be off of self till they money low.

Then everything is gang, gang.

And bro, bro.

Real leaders show they people where they got it going.

This how we gon' do it.

If you with it, come on, let's roll.

Moving in silence, less announcements.

Used to slice ounces, now I got a compass.

Next crib coming with a gate and a fountain.

The reason why you broke is cause you're grown, that's allowed it.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga.

Get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound.

Nigga, get the fuck on round up.

I'm just a team player while every man for self.

You stand for nothing, probably can't stand yourself.

Fuck a hand out, running round demanding help.

Used to be the help, now I'm the man myself.

I went from rags to riches, not a new S-Class is tenant.

Work out with stash and get it, only when cash is given.

You be so mad at niggas, jealous and bitter.

Go get some money, bummy dummy, get a dweller, my nigga.

Please remember not to stress to watching all of your pictures.

That just screams, you ain't used to having jury and skrilla.

This winter, shit, I might just get another chichilla.

Full length, why not?

Shit, I'm no longer a dealer.

I be minding my business and running it too.

I turned one into two, went from a bus to a coupe.

$5,000 fit, and it ain't nothing to do.

But it's nothing to a boss, but probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I'm in a G-Wagon with a Miri G sagging.

Whole sleeve dancing, niggas can't stand it.

Next day, a five-series with the roof vanish.

And he started with an eight-ball.

How did dude manage?

Actually, a half-track.

I can't give you half-facts, that would be a whole lot.

Chain costs a whole pot.

Used to be a lil' nigga, hanging with the old guy, soaking up gas.

Off of self till they money low, then everything is gang, gang, and bro, bro.

Real leaders show they people where they gotta go.

And this how we gon' do it.

If you with it, come on, let's roll.

Moving in silence, less announcements.

Used to slice ounces, now I got a conference.

Next crib coming with a gate and a fountain.

The reason why you broke is cause you're grown, that's allowed it.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

I built this shit from the ground up, back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

Round us.

Yeah.

The Tim zone fell off, but I'm still on.

Chasing all these bitches ain't gonna help when the bills come.

Stacking cheese up for four months, that's a real run.

Slap a bitch with a 50 bar, make her feel dumb.

I'm tryna run it up, I put the roly up.

I got the chains tuck, I put the frames up.

I ain't really tryna get low, but I got to.

I just wanna bar, but right now, it ain't time to.

I'll see you boys in the summer again.

I'm coming out the crib with a hundred again.

Broke niggas thinking shit funny again.

I'ma stack it up and get some money again.

I've been up for days, I ain't been getting no sleep.

Don't even want no pussy, ain't been hitting no freaks.

I could've bought the Gucci, I just threw on the T.

I'm starving myself just so I can eat.

Wintertime grind Hustle hard when it's cold out I'm on the wintertime ground Stack the money, kick the holes out I'm on the wintertime ground

like this club.

On the wintertime grind.

I'm just running yo do a mic zone for putting my ice on.

I run through the bag, bro.

Then I'm going.

Cause I'm living life long.

These rap bitches nigga time to fuck with my white hoes.

Just brown in the white slow, lean for the whole year.

I never put my cup down, been leaning since OT in my conversation.

Money even cut off my old friends.

These rap niggas lying talking work, never sold men.

Grown on hold hands, want some get your own bands.

How you a road runner, dog, if you never roll ran?

I rock with my white boys, heavy, I'm cold playing.

Fuck rap, rack, get racks with my soul sand.

If you had mine, you'll cut off your own hands.

Tryna have ends on my stash as an old man.

If you got a plug, how the fuck is you broke then?

I called up PC, now listen what bro sent.

Wintertime grind.

Hustle hard when it's cold out.

I'm on the wintertime grind.

Stack the money, kick the holes out.

I'm on the wintertime ground.

Staying out the club.

I'm on the wintertime grind.

I'm just tryna run it up.

Nigga, I got family depending on me.

So what the fuck I look like not getting money.

I do it so my son ain't gotta be in the streets.

Plus, I got a little brother bigger than me.

I gotta be there for him when he really needs me.

If I don't bring the bread home, then who else gon' feed us?

Yeah, it's good to pray cause we all need Jesus.

But these niggas gotta give me 5K for a feature.

Remember, bitches used to say niggas smell funny.

Now they all on my dick cause they can smell money.

I ain't fucking with these niggas, they might tell on me.

Stacked enough to buy a bell, call it bail money.

Stay on your grind, my nigga, let them have fun.

Stay consistent, and I promise you, your time's gon' come.

Night joggies for the winter, stayin' out the mall.

Counting up a hundred bands while I'm saying fuck them all.

Nigga, hey, wintertime grind.

Hustle hard when it's cold out.

I'm on the wintertime grind.

Stack the money, kick the hoes out.

I'm on the wintertime grind.

Yeah, not the club.

Just trying to run it up.

Right.

God broke

Dickie fit with the Tim zone, fell off, but I'm still on.

Chasing all these bitches, ain't gon' help when the bills come.

Stackin' cheese up for four months, that's a real run.

Slap a bitch with a 50 bar, make her feel dumb.

I'm tryna run it up, I put the roly up.

I got the chains tough, I put the frames up.

I ain't really tryna get low, but I got to.

I just wanna bar, but right now it ain't time to.

I'll see you boys in the summer again.

I'm coming out the crib with a hundred again.

Broke niggas thinking shit funny again.

I'ma stack it up to get some money again.

I've been up for days, I ain't been getting no sleep.

Don't even want no pussy, ain't been hitting no freaks.

I could've bought the Gucci, I just threw on the T.

I'm starving myself just so I can eat, nigga.

Wintertime grind Hustle hard when it's cold out I'm on the wintertime grind Stack the money, kick the holes out I'm on the wintertime grind

I'm on the wintertime grind.

I'm just running.

I run through the back, bro.

Then I'm going right home.

I pray before bed, cause I'm living life wrong.

These rap bitches nigga time to fuck with my white hoes.

Round in the white slow, lean for the whole year.

I never put my cup down, been leaning since OT.

My conversation money even come from my old friends.

These rap niggas lying talking work, never sold names.

Grown on hold hands, want something get your own bands.

How you a road runner, dog, if you never roll ran.

I rock with my white boys, heavy, I'm cold playing.

Fuck rap rate, get racks from my soul sand.

If you had mine, you'll cut off your own hands.

Tryna have ends on my stats.

Got a plug, how the fuck is you broke then?

I called up PC, now listen what bro saying Wintertime grab.

Hustle hard when it's cold out.

I'm on the wintertime grab.

Stack the money, kick the holes out.

I'm on the wintertime grab.

Welcome cult members.

Welcome.

Gather round.

In any case, we are going to be starting our channel or Confront the Chairman thing in about fifteen minutes or so.

But before then, I wanted to talk about a few things and get up to speed on a few things.

And basically,

Full disclosure, talk about what's going on when it comes to the pan-leftist regrouping COPE bullshit session.

So, very sad, as you guys can understand, because of Trump's election in 2024 and his inauguration, they are bankrupt.

I'm going to show you some more stuff too, by the way.

But they're completely bankrupt and they're dead in the water.

And at this point, they would otherwise be in the stage of just total, they are kind of in total depression, demoralized, sitting on their couch crying, and then, you know, they're going to go to their neo-Nazi pipeline that they're destined for.

Lawn guy, what's up, right?

But because there is a strong, vibrant, and promising communist party that's up and coming, that's our party, the American Communist Party, these people have basically decided that their motivation in life, the thing that's going to keep them going, is not going to be a rediscovery of left-wing politics in a new age, the formation of a new party, a new vision, a new initiative to reach the working class, to build a movement.

No, no, no, no.

It's, we all are kind of like bitching about ACP.

So they're trying to form pan-leftist unity just purely on the basis of being against our party.

Mind you, not even against the existing administration right now.

Our party.

So you have anarchists, you have NATO, you have Zionists, you have Trotskyites, you have all manner of weird ultras.

You even have people on the right, if you can believe it.

And all of these people are uniting against and Red Libs, you know?

People that are anti-China, people that are pro-China, people that are pro-U.S.

imperialism, people that critique U.S.

imperialism, Zionists, people that say Free Palestine.

This is the left unity that they're talking about, that they want to mobilize just to go against our party.

And I'll say a few things.

First of all,

Uh, didn't that happen with the whole Patsock thing?

Didn't that already happen?

What happened to that?

How did that work out?

Or the MAGA communist LaRouche threat?

Remember, they were gibbering about LaRouche for so long.

I think they still are.

But I want to actually just throw a bone to these people because I genuinely feel bad for them.

I feel sorry for them.

Guys, you've been trying to avoid this fatal conclusion for a very long time.

Okay.

Um.

I'm going to communicate this in the softest and most polite possible terms that I can, and it's very simple, you know.

You're if you're forming a pan-leftist coalition against me and the ACP, it's very simple what's going on.

William with the thirty-one!

It's very simple uh what's going on.

I'm your dad.

I am your father.

I am your dad.

And it's okay.

But all you pan-leftists, you know, I'm the big boogeyman and the big villain, and I'm the zeitgeist.

That's you gotta, you're, you're in vain, you're staging this rebellion against.

I am your father, and that's okay.

I'm glad you acknowledge who the authority is.

Finally, after so many years of snarkiness and whatever, beating around the bush, you now understand who the authority is.

And you're submitting to that authority, whether you realize it or not.

By making your only politics and the only basis in which you associate with others, the fact that you're against the ACP, you are confessing something.

You're confessing that I'm your father.

You're confessing a lot of things.

I'm seeing uh some some women, you know, leftist women, they're like going through my Instagram, sharing photos of me that they save on their phone of me with a sword.

And it couldn't be more obvious what's going on.

They I'm not saying this is an accomplishment.

I'm just saying this is a fact.

I am their father.

They see me in this way.

There's so much of an infatuation and fascination, you know, which I didn't sign up for, but it is the fact.

It is a fact of what's going on.

And I don't, either way, we're fine.

I'm a little bit flattered, but if they just ignored us and ignored me, I wouldn't be so flattered.

I'd be like, oh, they genuinely, you know, don't care about.

But now I'm being put in this position where I am the father.

I am the father for these people.

You know, Daniel Tutt, he's like, oh, you're the father for these gorillas.

No, I'm not.

The gorillas actually have fathers, right?

The gorillas actually have real fathers.

The gorillas are here fighting for the same authority that I am, which is not reducible to me personally, and they know that.

But our haters they have this fascination, this infatuation with me personally.

And I am their father.

I am the face for them.

So I am their father.

Instead of taking meaningful steps to challenge the system or build a movement or change politics or something really?

I I'm really just causing so much

conflicting feelings in these people, let's say, you know?

Especially the few women that are among them.

It seems like

They're so conflicted about me.

There there's something about my face, my image, my existence.

It's it's stirring inside of them these very wild emotions, these very um

Very troubling and just so much conflict going on, you know?

And look.

I think they should just submit to the authority.

All of them, every single one of these people, need to just accept the fact that our party is the authority.

And I'm not even saying that in jest.

Just submit to the authority of the Communist Party.

Because we are the only organization, by the way.

We're the only organization.

The DSA is not a party.

It doesn't have discipline.

It's not an organization.

The PSL, for its part, is not.

I would say if anyone is an organization, it's probably them.

But the way that they work is not on the basis of organization.

It's on the basis of association.

Very different thing there, right?

FRSO or something, nobody knows who that is, right?

So we are the authority.

And for them, for these people, that's my face.

My face is their authority, right?

To them.

For you guys, especially you guys in the party, you understand the party is the authority.

But they are making me the face of authority.

And.

They need to accept that this rebellion against your dad that you're staging, it's really silly and ridiculous.

You know, if you don't want me to be your dad, just fuck off and do your own thing.

But for as long as I keep seeing people say that, oh, we're all uniting against ACP, yeah, I'm your dad.

I am your father.

All right, very, very simple.

Um

I am your father and you know you need to

You need to come to terms with psychologically the position that you are putting me in, in your own head.

Right?

Why don't they rebel against their real dads?

They are, but they see me as the revenge of their own fathers in the very safe space, radical leftism, that they've cultivated to escape their real fathers.

So they escaped their real fathers in radical leftist spaces, and here he comes back.

With my visage.

You know.

I accept the role I've been um given as the Darth Vader.

of leftism.

I am the Darth Vader,

Ah, it's uh it's fun to be evil, you know, it's fun to be a villain.

Darth Vader.

No, I just find it funny because these people were kind of ignoring me in 2024.

And they were even, you know, they just, I kind of felt a little overlooked last year.

I'm not going to lie.

You know, everyone was just thinking Jackson was behind everything by himself, and I was just kind of irrelevant or in the background.

And nobody thought much of me in 2024, I don't think.

I'm talking in these spaces, in these discourses.

But in 2025, they have made me Darth Vader, you know?

They have made me Darth Vader.

And, well, the subjectivistic and egoistic side of me, which everyone has, by the way, finds this a little bit flattering.

It's like I'm that guy, really.

Okay.

I accept it.

I mean, it makes sense.

No one else has anything going for them.

And it was a little depressing how much I was ignored by these people in 2024.

It was a little depressing.

Because.

The aura was not there, you know?

The aura was missing.

Now that's back.

And um

Feels pretty good.

Feels pretty good.

Speaking of Aura, we don't have much time.

Sorry, I don't want to spoil that.

It feels like 2021 again.

That's what it really feels like.

I'm liking how this year is shaping up to be.

I'm not gonna lie.

I'm liking how it's shaping up to be 2025.

It's like it feels like 2021 again.

Like, holy shit, I'm back in this bitch.

I mean, we're back.

We're fucking back.

All right, and um.

Yeah.

This is gonna be a fun year, that's exactly it.

This is gonna be a very, very fun year.

But damn, it feels good to be a gangster.

You know what I mean?

Damn, it feels good to be Darth Vader.

You know what I'm saying?

I'm just like, shit.

I'm just like shit, I'm just saying.

I'm just saying, you know, people gotta chill.

Anyway, speaking of Aura.

Let's talk about Aura.

So, for all the people that critique the ACP and talk shit about ACP, is this is this where they're is this what they're saying is the alternative?

We are facing a grim political crisis, and New York City DSA will not stand idly by while Democratic Party leadership fails to meet this moment.

Oh no, not the New York City DSA!

Oh my god!

Oh no!

Sorry, I'm not going to say shit.

Hi, I'm Grace.

I'm Gustavo, and we're the co-chairs of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America.

In just a few days since taking office, Trump has launched a flurry of illegal measures designed to empower billionaires like Musk and Bezos and blindside and crush the rest of us.

Trump is so in chaos as are these people making fun of us and calling us cringe?

Hold on.

Just let him talk.

The cover for an authoritarian power grab.

Meanwhile, Democratic Party leadership has failed to meet the moment.

But we know that what is needed now is an all-out.

So, this is what this is what having a normal one looks like.

We're freaks, we're a cult, we're crazy, but this is this guy is definitely having a normal one.

This is what normal looks like.

Is this is this the leadership you guys want?

Is this does this evoke authority to you?

Will you follow this guy into the trenches in battle?

Is this inspiring anything in you?

Oh, it's just an aesthetic criticism.

No, no, no.

This guy talks a lot of shit about me.

I know it for a fact.

And he would never say it with his chest.

That's not aesthetic, it's a judgment of character.

Political fight to shut down Trump's agenda.

No appointments, no Senate sessions, no votes.

Do these people not realize that they're outflanked and they have no supporters?

Nobody gives a fuck what they have to say.

I'm not even we're a small party, but it's like we have potential.

We have the ability to initiate a dialogue.

We're reaching people that were never thought possible to reach before.

These people are done.

They're bankrupt.

Everyone's heard your message.

You had your chance.

Nobody fucking wants you.

Nobody cares about what you have to say anymore.

ESA doesn't answer to Wall Street or Silicon Valley.

We're prepared to fight Trumpist authoritarianism head on.

We're taking on Trump.

This is the modern day Hitler and Mussolini.

This is Hitler Youth.

Frauen.

Frauen Hitler Youth.

Blue eye blonde hair Hitler youth.

And then this is the Mussolini fascist.

This is Mussolini fascism and Hitler fascism.

Hitler and Mussolini.

I mean what is this?

She is Frau Len, okay.

But she is Hitler reincarnated.

This is a Mussolini socialist.

I mean, this guy was doing, you know, Elon Musk did the Nazi salute.

He was doing a Mussolini gesture right here.

This is literally Mussolini dog whistling.

Let me show you the truth.

Um.

This is uh very disturbing.

What the fuck is this?

Look at this guy.

I mean, this is exactly what he's channeling right here.

What the fuck?

He's it's like the same impotence combined with a thirst for power that characterized Italian fascism.

It's the same thing right here.

Anyway, I just wanted to show you guys that, to check in on our actual leftist, pan-leftist coalition that's against us, to give you guys an idea of what the alternative to the ACP is.

If you don't like ACP, go and be with those people and have fun.

Have fun.

Go be with those people.

Uh and I'm sure you know we're going to make socialism guys.

Socialism is just like when like everything's for free.

Anyway.

I'm opening up the Twitter space now.

Oh, yeah, just so much talking shit.

What do you got to?

We're back in 2021, guys.

All right, we're going to be having some fun this year.

A little bit.

Because.

Notice how I never make fun of nobody, and they take it for weakness, and I'm holding back a lot all the time.

Okay, and you know, we're gonna look if they took look, they took down ACP if they succeeded.

Well, first of all, I would have to be dead, they'd never succeed.

But it's like somebody needs to audit these people and start doing inspections.

Like, what kind of shit are y'all doing?

You know, we need to start patrolling these people's shit.

Like, what are you doing?

When these people show their face and speak, you know, they're calling us cringe this when they show skin in the game, what do they fucking look like?

Is anyone holding them accountable for how cringe and retarded they look?

Or is it just us because we have the courage and the audacity to stand for a specific principle, Marxism-Leninism, rather than this nebulous bam leftist unity with NAFO?

We're communists and Stalinists.

And Trotsky was killed with an ice pick by.

A communist.

And anarchists shot they tried to kill Lenin and failed.

Okay?

There's no pan-leftist unity.

The crypto fascist anarchists in Spain literally sold out the Republic.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats opened the fucking door for Franco.

Don't sit here and talk to me about leftist unity.

There's never been such a thing.

There never will be such a thing.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is a literal Fed.

You choose a specific line, a specific principle, and you commit to it.

You want to make alliances with others, you do so on the basis of a collective foundation.

Even if you wanted to have left unity, it would have to be the unity of collective organizations, not a bunch of fucking nebulous individualists coming together around the fucking fact that they're all too fucking weak and limp-wristed to actually have the fucking discipline to commit to organization.

Sorry for raising my tone of voice.

Anyway.

Let's get right to it and start the space.

So, um

It's very simple, you know?

It's very, very simple.

You talking about pan leftism, uh uh the unity of various nebulous individuals who share similar views, uh online without any without making any commitments at the level of collective organization.

What the fuck is that if not some petty bourgeois nonsense, right?

Anyway, we are starting the space now.

I hope all the people talking shit about our party for the past week, non-stop, by the way.

I hope some of them plan on showing up and confronting me about whatever it is they have to say.

By the way, I'm not necessarily going to be hostile to everyone.

You know, I will match your energy, so to speak.

So you come to me with some hostile stuff, whatever, I'm going to make fun of you.

But you come in good faith and share your criticism.

You want to confront me?

You have questions, whatever, we'll do it.

You know, I can be civilized.

I can be civilized.

But in any case,.

It's just a matter of correct by the way, I need a co-host.

So

So, Jim Jones thought.

Let's go ahead and start with this guy.

Yes, go ahead, Jim Jones.

Hi, I'm sorry.

Can you hear me?

I apologize.

I'm not really good with this stuff.

I don't know how to use Twitter space like that.

You can hear me, though, right?

Yeah.

Perfect.

No, so listen.

So, you said matching energy.

I'm not hostile towards the ACP at all or towards you personally.

I disagree with a lot of, I'm sure, your ideas about how socialism will come about in the U.S.

And that's perfectly fine.

I did want to ask you two questions, though, that I think are important.

That, to my knowledge, I've had a lot of people from the ACP not really address in what I think is the best way.

So, if I can just ask these two questions, that's really it.

Yeah.

One is.

And this to me is the central point of socialist politics in the U.S.

Do you and the ACP realize and have a policy that socialism will come about only through the means of class conflict run by the working class aiming to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat through armed struggle?

Is that the ACP?

Yikes.

Yikes.

That is kind of a glowy question, buddy.

I'm sorry if that's the first half.

I can only commit to what is, you know, we follow the law, so I don't know what you're asking.

No, I'm not trying to set you up, right?

I'm not trying to like, this is an honest doctrinal question because obviously this is very, this is what, in my opinion.

I will answer that question directly, all right?

So basically, we have no intention of breaking the law or violating any kind of laws.

We do anticipate that revolutionary situations do arise and come about from circumstances in which the state collapses and we're in a kind of Hobbesian state of civil war where, you know, survival means participating in, you know, self-defense, so to speak.

That's just like a warlord era.

We do anticipate that the chaos that comes with the collapse of the state, which we do think is inevitable in the United States.

Arm will endanger revolutionary circumstances.

Mean, but we do not think it is possible.

Let me just be full disclosure.

I'm not even just saying this for legal reasons, saying because I genuinely think it is not possible to overthrow voluntarily the United States through any means, whether it's peaceful or arms.

It's simply not possible.

It cannot happen.

Overthrowing states is not easy to do, period.

If you look at successful revolutions in history, it's very rare that a band of people voluntarily overthrow the state from scratch.

Instead, there's a collapse of the state and there's a crisis, and you have to take advantage of the right opportunity.

And then that's when you move.

But.

It is really not possible for uh I I mean, it's it maybe it's possible, but it's just never happened before.

In the case of the Bolshevik Revolution, there was the February Revolution first, right?

In the case of Mao, there was already a warlord era and a civil war.

Um

In general, toppling big states is just in the French Revolution, you know, I mean, we're talking about a gradual, well, it's not gradual, it was very rapid, but it did not begin with beheading the king.

It began with the third estate demanding reforms.

And then, you know, it got brought to a point where the machinery of the state simply collapsed.

And then that's when Robespierre, you know, and the Jacobins really seized the moment.

But not first.

It wasn't that Robespierre was demanding the Republic of Virtue first and then voluntarily stormed the Bastille and toppled the state.

It's not really how it happens.

Um, hypothetically, there is nothing in principle that

Is wrong with that idea of toppling a grand and big state.

But I don't think it's feasible.

I think that their contradictions underlying the state will inevitably lead it past the point of having any constitutional legitimacy.

And that is when revolutionaries need to seize the moment.

I completely agree with you.

And I think that's what that idea.

What you just said, in my opinion, puts you completely apart from the other, really, to be kind about it, lackluster parties that speak about the people.

Well, look, we are political realists, and I'll just tell you that.

We're political realists.

We don't have illusions about what politics is.

Now, please, with your second question.

So, second question, this is one for me, right?

So, in my opinion, I think that most socialist history in the U.S.

has been a complete disaster, utter disaster.

They've fallen into revisionism.

They've become sellouts.

Every Communist Party, except maybe you guys, I'm still researching ACP.

I like a lot of what you guys say.

Again, some of them.

It's not necessarily too fair because, for example, there was the CPUSA during its golden era, I think, did fairly well in the USA, you know.

So there were other periods as well.

There was the Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party were not terrible, you know.

So what do you think about Jim Jones of the People's Temple?

Because in my opinion.

Is this a joke?

No, not at all.

This is an actual opinion.

This is an actual question.

What do you guys think about Jim Jones of the People's Temple?

Because I don't know if you know, but Jim Jones was a Marxist-Leninist.

And he and his people were a mentally ill guy who basically was taking advantage of the zeitgeist of the new left, especially in the West Coast where he was.

Um but um have you read it have you read his sermons?

He spoke of Boxes Let him in his sermons like he he was an actual like he preached about Stalin.

I don't know if you get if you know but he was so I mean and and this the he was a new left hippie freak who was basically um using the exotic

nature of, you know, foreign communist states as a way to channel his own kind of drug addled lumpin derangement and insanity.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Jim Jones at all.

And also, yes, he was uh for all we know he was a operative of the CIA and an MK Ultra victim.

And that's cool.

I mean I'm I'm not gonna harp you on harp you guys on that opinion.

That's cool.

That's a minor issue.

Um I'm I'm I'm really happy you answered my first question though, because I think that sets you guys apart from the other bullshit Communist party.

Yeah, well we have no intention of ar taking up armed struggle or breaking the law at all, so I want to be clear about that.

Yeah, no, a hundred percent.

And um I'm not trying to set you guys up or anything, you know, just a question 'cause m a lot of so-called a lot of so-called really glows bright.

What the fuck is this guy talking about?

Yeah, that's like some Fed energy.

What the fuck is that?

He's like talking about Jim Jones?

Like what?

Fuck.

So weird.

Like, our enemies are so, like, creepy and f they're such freaks.

They're always projecting such sick, disgusting shit on us.

And they have no idea that by doing that, they're just revealing their hand and showing everyone what's really going on in their own head, you know?

Anyway, let's bring on Rambly.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you for inviting me on, Haz.

Yeah, sure, no problem.

A couple questions I have.

Um what are your thoughts on uh Lyndon LaRouche?

Oh uh Lyndon LaRouche.

I actually don't really have many thoughts on Lyndon LaRouche because I think that he kind of stole everything from Michael Hudson that was worthwhile, and that Michael Hudson is actually the real genius.

I don't think there's anything in LaRouche that is not in Hudson that you know that is worth taking very seriously.

I'm not a big fan of LaRouche.

I think that years ago is going on in your background.

Okay, you wanted me to ask that other question?

I didn't s what are you talking about?

Oh, uh I said I had a couple questions I wanted to ask.

Um

Okay.

How many holes do women have below the belt, bitch?

I lived.

Are you done yet?

No, answer the question dude.

How many holes?

How many holes?

Are you manic right now because you just watched a lot of pornography and that it's kinda- No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Answer the question.

Answer the fucking question, Haz.

How many holes do women have below the belt?

Do you have any self-awareness about how like creepy and weird you sound asking that question?

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

Didn't you say there were two holes?

Didn't you say there were two holes?

Aren't you a furry?

I don't know why these people have no self-awareness about like how cringe and creepy that is.

Like you're you're talking about like a really

You're talking about something so um

Like sexual, that it's like it's just not a like, would you say that in front of children?

It's just fucking weird, you know?

Um

I just think it's really creepy.

Like, you're clearly a fucking porn addict.

If this is what's on your mind, like this is this of all things, this is what's on your mind.

This is what you can't get out of your head.

And it's like, well, it's because you're a porn addict and a degenerate.

But um but I wanted to introduce everybody to our average, you know

Hitlerite pseudo leftist um enemies, this is their psychology.

They're screaming with excitement.

They have so much excitement and they're getting so much of a thrill out of perversion, you know, they are manic and they're mentally unstable and unwell.

And um

You saw his pa you saw the passion in his voice about that subject.

Um, is that someone you want around your daughters?

Is that somebody who's safe around women in general?

You know, think about it.

It's really, really disturbing.

Mustafa, go ahead.

Hello.

Yeah.

Ah, hello, Missahaz.

Um I have a question to ask you about uh if uh the Commun SDP takes power in the USA and establish uh say socialism, say capitalism, um will the party work towards a communist state where um you know um the state after um say socialism is completed?

Um

If a communist party takes power, it's it's uh constructing a proletarian dictatorship and therefore a communist state.

So I don't know what you're asking.

Yeah, but no, no, it's just left comms, for example, we have the left communists for them.

Those people are just um Nazis, they're just Hitlerites.

There's only one kind of communist, the only kind of communist are Marxist-Leninists.

That's what the word communist with the capital C has always referred to, Marxist-Leninist parties.

Now, there's people there's people who run around calling themselves uh Trotskyists, but those people have never amounted to anything politically, so they just don't that's just a strange um you know subculture of phenomena.

Now, the thing you're talking about, le quote-unquote left comms, those were just Nazi collaborationists who used left-sounding language to justify their position.

Um, and that's it, you know.

There's only one kind of communist, and it's Marxism-Leninism.

The one that actually that's a form of Marxism-Leninism.

Um, there's differences, uh, Sir Haz.

For example, Maoism relies heavily on the peasantry over the poet, because uh, um, Leninism has always relied on the peasantry.

Um, I mean, yeah, I mean, for example, in Maoist China, I mean, Mao, before it takes power, uh, 99% of the party was peasantry.

Well, basically, there wasn't many poets, but because you know, you have to go industrialization, the incredible proletariat.

Yeah, yeah.

So, um, there's a lot of logical evolution of Leninism because Lenin broke with social democracy in part, and the rest of the Russian social democrats, including the Trotsky himself, because he believed that the Russian peasantry would be the main, like the bulwark of revolutionary energy, and that he wanted a leading role for the industrial factory proletariat, still as much as was possible.

But the decisive thing from Lenin was that he believed in an alliance with the peasantry, who were the overwhelming majority in Russia, and the majority of the soldiers that fought in the Civil War and served as the foundation of the communist state.

Mao just took that to its logical conclusion by understanding that you know you um

You don't necessarily need to prioritize the factory proletariat because there are already proletarian tendencies, the urban factory proletariat, there are already proletarian tendencies among the Chinese peasantry, and those should just be brought out as a rule.

So that was basically the difference, but it was the direction of the evolution of Marxism since Marx was always going in one direction.

And then Lenin was remaining faithful to that direction, and Mao was also remaining faithful to that direction.

It was always going in.

So that would be my answer.

Thank you for asking the question.

Another question about SEC.

Back during the Cold War, the USSR accused Baoist China of being a fascist state because of class collaboration with it.

What's your opinion, the class collaboration under the leadership of the dictatorship of the Parthat?

What's your opinion on this?

Because according to Max Leninism, dictatorship is basically oppressing the bourgeois or other classes basically and making the Parthati.

Mao was just applying the strategy of the Popular Front, which originated with the Commenter, and he took that to its logical conclusion.

And it was it was nothing out of the ordinary for people's democracies in general, actually.

What you're calling class collaboration was just people's democracy.

It was the leading role of the proletariat, and it was um.

But it was not, you know, politically seeking to exterminate other classes.

But it but it was not allowing them to have hegemony when it came to political power.

Yeah, I know.

It's not really class collaboration.

Yeah.

Because but you need the n in a natural and patriotic element of the bourgeois to build the economy is in the straz, mister Haz.

Yes, but that is under the leadership of the proletariat.

Yes, it's not a relationship of equality.

Mm.

So what's uh so another question.

Uh there's this um what's your opinion on the uh which one is better?

Um s communist co cons communism or syndicalist councils?

Well, which one is real and which one is just some made up nonsense?

Well, I see.

Uh Council Communism was theoretically tried to interview Social Republic, but you know what?

Try go ahead and create the syndicals, synd the councils in Saudi Arabia, and I hope it works.

All right.

I hope everything's fine.

But

I don't really consider that a serious question.

Go ahead, Nathan.

Oh, hey, how's it being?

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay, hope you and your family are doing well.

Sorry, I just have a question.

You have a very interesting essay, you know, why Marxism isn't woke where you make the argument that, you know, like Marxism is kind of meaningless without Dugan and Heidegger.

I was just curious on what do you agree with Dugan on and what do you disagree with him on?

Did you read it or did you just see the first tweet?

No, no, no, I read it.

So what do you think?

Sorry, um this was this was a while ago.

So I I'm just curious because I think you're kind of just focusing on the first tweet, but not what I actually said.

Okay, s okay, sorry, but would would you mind um just the specific fourth political theory?

I'm just curious on what your thoughts on that specific thing is.

Um well, I actually wrote on that in the text I wrote, Brahmins of Democracy, where I argue that

The kernel, the rational kernel in Dugan's fourth political theory is specifically about the stagnation of Soviet Marxism-Leninism, which was overcome by Mao and Mao Zedong thought, and that Dugan didn't really engage Mao Zedong thought and comprehend how, beyond the threshold of the dogmatic ideology of Marxism-Leninism, Mao was actually able to rediscover it in a way that was capable of.

Of

Giving it a substantive historical foundation that was novel, right?

Rather than this kind of pure formalism, which is what Soviet revisionism ended up becoming.

And Mao introduced a dynamism into Marxism-Leninism because of his revolutionizing of, you know, of the comprehension of the dialectic, which was in on contradiction.

The introduction of primary and secondary contradictions, I think there's an indirect proximity with Dugin there, because Dugan, in his comprehension of different logoses or different civilizations and civilizational spaces, he regards this as a domain that is not reducible to ideology.

And he also agrees with Heidegger in kind of attempting to overcome the metaphysical straitjacketing of Western modernity.

And I think that Mao's on contradiction, and specifically the notion of primary and secondary contradictions, also introduces a perspective which accomplishes something similar.

It allows there to be an understanding that there is a more fundamental

A more fundamental kind of sphere of

Becoming in the form of a contradiction, let's say, with respect to the contradiction between China and Japanese imperialism, that underlies and creates the context for the secondary contradiction, the class struggle, right?

And this notion that every kind of, let's call it, metaphysical postulate, that's a really heavy term I'm using here.

I don't want to gibber too much.

Sorry, just don't interrupt me.

I'm using that term not to say that class struggle is inherently a metaphysical notion, but it can, understood dogmatically, rely on a lot of metaphysical assumptions.

And what Mao does is actually.

give that a more um uh uh allows class struggle to be presented in a way that is more dynamically in tune with that kind of metaf I hate the word metaphysical background, um which is which goes deeper than the terms of categorization and d differentiation.

So I think there's a that's what I talked about in Brahmins of Democracy with fourth political theory.

That is not necessarily the most interesting thing, I think, though, that comes from Dugan.

What's more interesting for me when it comes to Dugin is his other not well-known project called the Pneumachia, where he deals with this kind of from Heidegger, he tries to put Heidegger to work productively.

Heidegger is kind of someone who tries to take refuge in the stillness of thought.

Toward the end of his life, he's kind of dealing with Zen Buddhism, and he's just kind of tapping out.

It's really boring, and he's.

He is not producing anything really.

He's not putting his.

He's not drawing concrete conclusions from that original kind of attempt to reintroduce the question of being that comes from being in time.

But Dugan takes that up and tries to actually concretely draw out specific ways in which, you know,

the notion of logos as the

As the um

As the most fundamental disclosure of being to being, to beings that, you know, to Dasein basically, he particularizes that.

And

I think that if properly understood, if the rational kernel is drawn out the right way.

What Dugan is really opening up is a new way of thinking about.

Historical materialism and the kind of Marxist analysis of modes of production.

So the step from Dugan, which is kind of trying to comprehend the different patterns of different kinds of logos across different civilizations, is really talking about deeper patterns underlying a civilization's existence that are historical and suspended in time.

I don't think the step from that to something like a um

I think that is a mystified presentation of what can really be turned into something scientific, which is a new way of comprehending historical materialism and the analysis of modes of production.

Where the subject is no longer the individual.

Now the methodological individualism can be left behind fully that Western and classical Marxism in many ways took for granted.

And we can begin trying to think about collective kinds of um

Not necessarily subjects or objects, but collective beings.

So obviously, you know.

You don't fully understand what I'm saying here, and I get that, but

I think people don't appreciate the depth behind Dugan's thinking and that it's not it's not reducible to this kind of superficial political labels and and and political associations that people try to reduce it to and that you know he really he really does um take Heidegger's thinking to a level that

I think if developed sufficiently and if the rational kernel is drawn out sufficiently, it could lead to a very profound rediscovery of Marxism.

Right, so could I could I just ask one question.

Would you consider Dugan an idealist?

Like like you said you said that I think I thi well look superficially yes, and and he is openly he self identifies as an idealist.

I think he's an idealist in the sense that he remains committed to metaphysics in the strict sense that, you know, he is

See, I think there is a materialist rational kernel within Dugan that he himself is not drawing out himself.

Right, and you could just like bring that further, is what you're saying.

Yeah, but on the other hand, I also think that Dugan, um,

He is an idealist, but he can also, if we comprehend his thinking in a purely phenomenological way, he can also be regarded as a kind of vulgar or one undialectical materialist, even in the vein of like Spinoza and so on and so on.

He's not a vulgar materialist in the philosophical sense, but in a phenomenological sense, you could say that, because Dugan is really because specifically, this was in political platinism that I was introduced to his kind of comprehension of chaos.

And his comprehension of chaos shares a great deal of proximity to a kind of

Substance of metaphysical materialism.

It's just this kind of underlying substrate.

Uh I this is not a very good way of presenting it, but um

That underlies all specific determinations and ideas and so on and so on.

So there's also a way that you could look at him as a metaphysical materialist, but he would not agree with that.

Right.

So apologies, maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but like, how would you make this dialectical?

Like you say he's undialectical materialist.

Yeah, I I I um write about that in the

the the thread you're talking about.

Um

I think that to introduce dialectics into the equation

Um

Basically requires

A um

From Dugan, basically, to introduce dialectics would basically, um.

It would be it's really it's gonna be really hard for me to explain, but Dugan's kind of chaotic metaphysical materialism, so to speak, is really the truth behind.

The notion of the plurality of dosine and multipolarity and so on and so on.

And to really sum it up shortly, as shortly as I can without rambling because we have more people with questions, there needs to be a reintroduction of the dialectic of the universal.

Which does not come from

Western metaphysics

but presupposes Dugan's correct criticisms of Western metaphysics.

but simultaneously is able to derive um

Derive a new kind of comprehension of the universal.

And that I think is what will reintroduce that is what can introduce dialectics to Dugan's thinking, because it will create an ability to comprehend the relationship between an active and working relationship between the universal and particular, which I think is in many ways lacking within Dugan.

Anyway, that's the best idea.

Okay, well, thank you.

Well, God bless and have good night.

Yep.

See you later.

Uh okay, Spanish.

I think we had this guy on before.

Wait, did we?

Oh, you were the trucker guy.

Hey, what's up, man?

Hey Haz, what's good, man?

What's up?

Good.

How are you doing?

I'm good, man.

Listen, I met with Spiros.

I met with Kyle and Ian.

Yeah, I heard all about that.

The chapter, yeah, the chapter of New York, New Jersey.

Awesome people.

Great to talk to.

You know, I feel like I was in my water.

You know, these people are awesome, great people, dude.

You know, keep doing the spaces.

Keep reaching out to us.

You know, blue-collar workers.

You know, keep using hashtags.

You know, great conversation with these people, man.

Great conversation.

You guys are doing a great job.

Appreciate it, brother.

Thank you so much.

Um

You're doing well.

Alright, so I'm gonna need um

I'm gonna need somebody to co-host.

I don't know if Rev is here or if anyone can co-host.

I'm gonna.

If Jesus can co-host.

I don't know if you don't have to if you're busy or something.

Um

But this is just so I could see people that 'cause I no one is requesting to speak on my end right now.

But it's saying that fourteen are on this other page, which I can I can't see that.

So we're gonna need someone else to come up, preferably somebody who hasn't been blocked by everyone.

Uh let me see.

I've also blocked a lot of oh RTSG, yeah.

Let me invite you, co-host.

Hopefully this will work.

All right.

So can you see anyone requesting?

Uh yeah, I got some people.

Alright.

Bring the um this guy seems like he's like a a um parody of us.

True uh true A C P P P L me bring this guy on.

Go ahead, Patriot.

Uh hello, I am I'm very new to this party and I I just want to ask because I have been I'm not, I swear I'm not.

I just want to get the party's perspective on Mao.

Okay.

Bec because I have been I have been into Mao a lot and his idea of cultural revolution and I just want to know what you and what I guess the party thinks of him.

Oh, Mao Zedong thought is official within our party.

So we we accept the synthesis that Mao the way Mao synthesized Marxism-Leninism is part of our party.

That is good to hear.

That is good to hear.

Thank you so much for doing all the work you do.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Uh Anna, go ahead.

Hi, Haz.

Um, it's nice to talk to you again.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Cool.

Um, so I don't know if it got onto your radar, the little struggle that I had with Logo Daedalus on here, which had some problems.

I just wanna say that, um, logo isn't here and I don't wanna

I don't want to speak about any struggles you've had with him because he is my friend and I don't want to uh

He's not here, so I mean, you know, it's just Alright, I won't I won't talk about Logo then.

Sorry.

Um but I wanted to uh so

I wanted to remind you, um, I put a lot of work into crafting, um.

a a sort of careful reading of some of your ideas.

I wanted to try to have like if you're up for it, a relatively high level kind of theoretical discussion um about some philosophical issues that I've I've been thinking about in terms of um Yeah, we can but Rev, how many other people are requesting right now?

It says there's 14.

Some of them are your fans.

Some are like complete randoms.

Alright.

Okay.

So Anna, we can do it, but it it can't be too long.

Okay, that's fine.

Yeah.

Um I'm gonna try to re I'm gonna read this this post that I made.

Um and I'll try to be as fast as I can.

It's a little bit dense, but I think you can probably keep up.

So, right, let me do this.

Um

Okay.

Okay.

Um, just like St.

John on the Cross, who was viciously persecuted by members of his own faith before being fully vindicated by the church, I fully believe that intellectual modernity over the long haul has been is and will continue to be a struggle over the persecution from all sides of René Descartes for his true ideas, which pose a massive threat to Luciferian narcissists everywhere.

Far from being an assertion of fully autonomous secular subjectivity, which is in contrast precisely the program of Jean-Paul Sartre's Marxist humanism, as well as Heidegger's concept of authenticity and being in time, on which Sartrean Marxist humanism is based, the Cartesian Caquido is actually the expression of the most radical possible submission and obedience to God, down to the most basic and fundamental core of one's mind, and that is why it threatens Luciferians so much.

I'd like to speak a little bit to the critique of Descartes advanced by Haas, which in a certain sense synthesizes a broadly Sartrean reading of Heidegger, with the more Schlingian Hegelian return to Heidegger developed by Alexander Dugan.

Haas rightly critiques Descartes for his skeptical idealism, that is, his rejection of the authority of the senses.

This is in fact precisely the critique of Descartes advanced by Immanuel Kant, who insisted on the irreducibility of phenomenal substance, which he explicitly called matter, to the pure mind of the Cogido.

In this way, Kant is staging a sort of modern Aristotelian empirical realist correction to Descartes' modern platonic empirical idealism.

And I am an empirical realist in precisely this sense, just as any good Catholic is, as testified to in the theological structure of our Mariology, though it is an entirely different matter with Protestantism and Gnosticism, which tend far more towards a kind of platonic empirical idealism, and which bottom out in sort of absurd being-as-nothingness statements we find existentialists like Heidegger and Sartre, which fit fully in the Lutheran line of completely and idiotically misreading the Acadian mystical tradition and its concept of the coincidence of the nothing with God.

In the Hegelian Igra Manifesto, I argue that Haas was a Kantian.

I believe this is mostly attributable to the influence of Gijac and Lacan.

It's unfortunate that Haas does not seem to realize this, because to me, this is precisely what makes his ideas so true and vital.

If Haas was able to reckon more seriously with this Kantian paternity, an issue which is systematically scrutinized by Cochin Caratani and his double reading of Kant and Marx in Transcritique, a book which forms the foundation of Gijak's standpoint in the parallax view, a title which is a direct Kant reference, then I believe he would be able to develop his ideas in a more Hegelian direction, thus improving the scientific foundation of the American Communist Party.

I know many ACP guerrillas will not believe me because they do not love themselves enough to take critique, but I am 100% loyal to Haas on a political level, and I submit myself completely to the exigencies of the struggle for the dignity of the working class against capitalist abuses, which I believe Haas understands on a more profound strategic level than anyone else.

Okay, that's all.

I just wanted to know if you had any thoughts on the interpretation of your thinking, and if you would be interested in any kind of further engagement with Kant along these lines, or Cochin Karatani or Gijak's reading of Kant.

Um, I would say that, um

To be charitable, I do remember actually Nick Land making the argument that Heidegger was basically just rehashing Kant and that the object of Heidegger's thinking and the object of Kant's thinking are actually one and the same thing because of the way in which Heidegger, you know, his groundbreaking statement that being is not a being, you know, shares some kind of proximity with the Kantian contradictions at the heart of the transcendental aesthetic and you know

Basically though, um I don't know if I would accept the designation of Kantian unless we're speaking about

An acceptance of dialectics, which I think many attribute only to Hegel, but the dialectic I think begins in the beginning of German idealism.

It's just that Hegel draws out dialectics in the most refined and consistent way, right?

But the original kind of difference out of which dialectical contradictions, you know, the staging ground for dialectical contradiction, that was something introduced by Kant.

Whereas in the French tradition, both Descartes and Spinoza

Were metaphysicians, you know, I would argue, right?

They were interested in the kind of metaphysical project, rationalism, and so on and so on, building this kind of elaborate total, well, that's an argument that Hegel is accused of, but kind of attempting to give expression to this underlying structure of all being and reality and so on.

But in any case,

I would say that uh

With respect to Descartes, I think that

The

The c there are two Descartes actually.

There's a Mongolian Descartes and then there's a uh Western Descartes.

And I like I think that the Mongolian Descartes principal achievement

Um

Consists in this, uh, in the same way that Lacan regarded the subject, uh his subject, the subject of psychoanalysis, to be the Cartesian subject.

This notion of the um self-relating negativity of the subject.

actually, um how should I say drawn out concretely and and accepted for what it is.

In the Cartesian tradition, I think that that the conclusion that this implies that the real subject is just a pure substanceless, self relating nothingness

Is is kind of a scandal and an embarrassment.

I don't think that the rationalist or Descartes would would be interested in admitting that.

Drawing out ontological conclusions from Descartes' kind of seminal gesture.

uh the kind of reduction he he he uh began with.

But on the other hand

This nothingness uh that is in Descartes

Can also be understood as a nothingness of um

A nothingness of metaphysics, a nothingness of thought, right?

Not necessarily a nothingness of being.

And the whole problem begins with Plato maybe and and in the identity of thought with being.

Not even not Plato, the pre-Socratics.

In the identity of thought with being,

The conclusions that I criticise about Descartes.

are necessary to draw from him.

But on the other hand, if we reinterpret Descartes' I think therefore I am in the way that Lacan did, which was

I think where I am not, and I precisely am where I am not thinking.

I think this allows us to draw a radically materialist kernel from Descartes, that there may be a nothingness

With respect to the forms of our thought, but that is precisely where there is actually something, right?

And I think that that.

Um because, you know, any given um determination within thought where you know the the material acquires the form of a concept.

that is not actually what is material.

That's just the material as it's reflected within thought, right?

So Descartes all allows and permits a deeper kind of ability to uh sorry, a deeper sensibility, I think, with respect to the material being.

Which is precisely but but not in the vein of a kind of um Kantian uh uh how should I say blindness where you know the the material is just something that thought cannot access or the r the real or whatever and it's just out there and it's a completely you know big mystery or something but more in the vein that um

that there is this dialectical relationship, that I I think precisely where I am not, right?

Um not that I am unable to think where I am through thought, but I think precisely

That thought occupies this ontological negativity that is inherent in the dialectic of becoming, right?

of universal becoming, that in the process of becoming, which is a development propelled by the internal tension of contradictions,

The moment of negativity is precisely what is given expression through thought.

And in order to have a proper comprehension of the positive determinations of being,

There needs to be an uh an ac an acceptance of how necessary thought is to really have a sense of the material and so on and so on, without reducing it to it, right?

So there's a way to salvage Descartes from the reductionism that he is so often accused of.

Whether it's um Heidegger or or Dugan or so on and so on.

So I don't know, I don't think that answers your question directly because um

Um the the notion of, for example, you talked about the irreducibility of phenomena to thought.

I don't think that places me uh as a Kantian because I don't just insist upon an irreducibility.

I also insist upon an active dialectical relationship where yes, it's irreducible, but simultaneously our only ability to have insight into real determinations is by comprehending the precise way that things are irreducible.

It's important that we come upon the temptation of trying to reduce phenomena to thinking or to our thoughts.

And precisely at the moment that we avoid that, we are capable of thinking dialectically.

So

That would be my answer, I guess.

Awesome.

If I could just say really fast, so I, as you know, I'm also a Lacanian and in most respects a Jacquian.

And so I agreed with almost everything you said there.

But if I'm allowed one more question.

So I think probably our biggest philosophical difference is that you're a lot more Heideggerian than I am.

And I would really like to challenge, I'm curious what you think of just this.

I really want to challenge Nick Land and his idea that Heidegger is Kantian.

Because again, like, I think one of the big things that Heidegger gets wrong, and I think also this is connected to Dugan's idealism that you were talking about earlier, is that the way that he does ontology, so he's drawing more from Schelling than he is from Kant and from Hegel.

He was a really big fan of Schelling's on human freedom.

And people don't talk about this enough.

But the main thing that separates Kant and Hegel ontologically from Heidegger is that their ontology is logical.

They believe in a logical ontology.

They believe in a rational ontology.

They believe that the world can be understood through the concept.

Lenin lives.

So Schelling was against that function of the concept.

He thought that ontology was non-conceptual.

And it's the same for Heidegger.

And also, Heidegger does not affirm contradiction.

He does not affirm dialectics.

He's very explicit.

He endorses the logical rule of non-contradiction against Hegel.

So I think that all of these things, Heidegger is really not, I guess, sort of not the ally of dialectical materialist thinking that he has sometimes been made out to be.

But I mean, I don't know.

So I think that Heidegger has to be given.

There's two things.

One is that Heidegger needs to be given credit for opening the dimension of.

Uh uh this kind of well, you you can't say that he invented ontology, so to speak, but

The phenomenological turn which allowed a new way of thinking about ontology was definitely something that was opened by Heidegger.

So even if Heidegger was completely wrong, which all of his students will say he's wrong, and they spent their whole lives trying to disprove him, which is true, he was obviously not correct.

But he was wrong in the right way.

He posed the right question.

And in the very way that he was corrected and overcome and whatever and responded to.

His achievement, which was opening the question of being in the first place, survives, right?

So, Lacan was a Heideggerian, very directly a Heidegger.

I mean, Lacan, when Heidegger was like having dementia or something, or he was bedridden, Lacan would come to his house and show him his scribbles of his different, what were they called?

His mathemes, his graphs, and so on and so on.

Because Lacan was trying to truly succeed in fleshing out.

succeeding where Heidegger failed basically.

You know, Georgia Bataille and Kojev and so on, they are all students of Heidegger.

So in a in a um people think that I'm a dogmatic Heideggerian.

Because I mention Heidegger a lot, but the reason I mention Heidegger is that in a environment which is like leftist politics, which is very alien to the French school and the French tradition,

Which is really where I'm coming from in a lot of ways, right?

The difference is Heidegger.

To make the leap and to be able to comprehend what the French school, beginning with, let's say, Kojev, were talking about, you have to accept Heidegger's critique of metaphysics.

You have to accept his phenomenological turn and his.

His reintroduction of the question of being.

And because um Western Marxism is still steeped in metaphysical thinking.

And

You know, drawing from Heidegger there have been attempts to reintroduce.

you know, logic and uh even rationalism and so on and so on.

But even that had to take

as a foundation.

I I think Heidegger is really the only way to avoid dogmatism when it comes to metaphysical thinking.

There are so many Marxists that are just dead set on this idea that they can just

somehow comprehend the meaning of German idealism and Marxism itself in a way that's freed from meta metaphysical commitments and so on and so on,

Which is just so fundamentally blind and lacks the rudiments of any kind of self-awareness about the kind of world we're living in today, which is, you know, not coincidentally a very phenomenologically charged world, right?

With mass media and social media and so on and so on.

And I think there's gonna be three things.

The second thing is that I talked about this with Kantbot.

And one of the things that I think the ways I try to historicize Heidegger as a materialist, which proves that I'm not a dogmatic

And Heidegger is not the secret behind my thinking, but because I historicize him, and I historicize him in the form of the rise of the increasingly phenomenological mediation of our comprehension and relationship to the real world.

So, our notion of what reality is could no longer be taken for granted following like the 1930s, right?

It was so mediated by mass media and auditory and visual stimuli that what was actually real and authentic was no longer given, right?

And in a lot of ways that historically it corresponds to Heidegger raising the question of you know, the the question of the givenness of being, you know.

And the ontological difference and the historicity of being, right?

So Heidegger is a thinker of the age of mass media, I think, principally.

And I said this before.

And Heidegger does not consider himself that.

Heidegger considers himself, you know, a thinker of all world history or Western history, right?

But I'm historicizing him.

So in a lot of ways, I am dethroning him from his pretensions.

So the third thing, finally.

Um that I would say with respect to the um

The necessity of hide a grower.

To what extent I consider Heidegger an important thinker is that um.

I think that um

I think that uh sorry, I forgot what I was

I was gonna say for a sec.

Um

I think that

Philosophy really did culminate and end with Hegel.

Um

And that everything else

That begins from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche and the so-called irrationalist tradition that Lucox talks about.

And Freud, right, that's an important one.

emerged precisely because philosophy was not exhaustive enough, because again, the thing that I like to prob to make a problem, to problematize, so to speak, is the fundamental assumption of all Western thinking, which is the first of all the identity of thought with being, and then second of all, the identity of logos with the idea, right?

And

The question of um thinking logically with logical order and Heidegger's kind of, I guess, romant more romantic orientation of of wanting to resist that.

I think that Heidegger is important for Marxism-Leninism, specifically in the West, because I don't think dialectical materialism and Marxism-Leninism is a philosophy.

It's clearly an order of thinking

It's clearly logical and has structure of some kind.

But

If we do not examine our metaphysical assumptions that are baked in Iron Outsneaky that are baked in in any kind of philosophical outlook.

Then we vulgarize Marxism-Leninism and we turn it into an absurdity.

We turn it into a dogma.

We turn it into a.

Mm, uh uh kind of, um

A uh uh a dogma of thought, right?

And I think Heidegger's rejection

of

O or calling into question and making a problem of this givenness of being that is that adheres with thought.

Heidegger did not draw concrete conclusions from that.

His conclusion was that he wanted to take refuge in this kind of purity of the stillness of being, which for him was simultaneously the stillness of thought.

And that that is a kind of purity for him, which is um which doesn't need to undergo this kind of

Ruthless dialectical process of differentiation and structure and logic and so on and so on.

Logical relationships.

So, um

But he does open the door, I think, in his rejection and in his critique of metaphysics.

To permit the possibility of a type of thinking that is beyond metaphysics.

and which has as its object no longer logical self consistency or the consistency of concepts and ideas, but praxis, right?

That is not a a n uh necessary conclusion of Heidegger.

Heidegger didn't draw that conclusion himself, but he opens the door to the possibility

of for example, comprehending Marxism as, for example, not a um

A pure kind of um

uh postulate of thinking and thought, but also a praxis that reflects a deeper kind of way in which thought and reality

Have come to participate in the determination of societies and history, right?

And that element of practice or real historical determinations, material determinations, classes, states, so on and so on, civilizations.

That

cannot be reduced to concepts and thoughts, right?

And yet they have the quality of determinateness.

So I apologize for not really on the spot being able to

explain it best, but

That's all really.

No, that was a perfectly satisfying answer for me.

I guess just one more thing I'd like to add.

So, once again, I found myself agreeing with almost everything you said.

I think the one thing that I would challenge is just that it's absolutely true that Lacan was really influenced by Heidegger.

And it's absolutely true, like you said, that the entire sort of French tradition that Lacan was situated in was very much post-Hideggian, and that's definitely something that Marxism should build on.

I do think, though, it's true that Lacan was, I would not call him a Heideggerian.

He was very, very critical of ontology in general, completely rejected it and associated it with the imaginary order.

Sorry, I have to interject, not because I am outraged by what you were saying, but just because I want to have this, I want us to speed this up because there's others waiting.

Okay.

But I would say that Lacan did reject ontology, but he thought that psychoanalysis was the solution to the original question posed by Heidegger.

Because Lizik said this, and it's true.

The secret of early Lacan is Sartre, right?

And Sartre is the one who interprets Heidegger's turn in an existential way.

So then it becomes an existential question of like, what am I?

What's my purpose?

Yada yada yada.

And that is not necessarily there in Heidegger.

It's very ambiguous with Heidegger because we don't know in Heidegger if Dasein is a subject, if it's a individual.

He rejects the notion that it's reducible to a subject, but is it an individual?

Is it a collective?

We don't know.

It's a thinking presence.

As Dugan corrected me, pointing out.

But but Sartre definitely does kind of regard Dasein, I think, as a problem, as a as a problem related to the you know uh existence of an individual or of a subject.

And that's where Lacan is coming from when it comes to his psychoanalytic project in the beginning with the mirror stage and so on and so on.

Sorry.

Yeah, I guess just the one other thing I wanted to add is that I think Lacan also shows us a way forward for how to redeem a certain kind of concept of dialectical logic that wouldn't be, like you say, kind of part of this like Parmenidean, like being in thought identity kind of more like abstractly metaphysical tradition that Hegel also still fits within.

And I think the key actually is the logic of sectuation from someone out 20.

But like I think that's really kind of like a new version of the Hegelian subjective logic.

And that's something that I'm definitely going to be working on.

Yeah, I mean, Alenka Zupanchik's book is very fundamental for the infrared collective.

So that direction I agree with, or it was already a given that we already drew conclusions from that, basically.

But I will say, and then we have to kind of wrap this up, that I don't have a problem with.

With trying to move beyond Heidegger at all, right?

It's actually a given that you have to.

I mean, that's what Heidegger forces that upon his readers himself.

And it's irrelevant whether he would agree with whatever conclusion one draws.

But.

So I don't have any problem with that at all.

But what I will say is that I do think there is something irreversible about his critique of metaphysics and therefore his critique of Western philosophy in general.

And to me, the door that Heidegger opens again is the ability to have a relationship to being that is simultaneously structured and with order, and as you said, logical, but not reducible to the activity of thinking.

And actually, that brings us back maybe into proximity with Dugan, right?

Because for Dugan, Dugin doesn't reject the logical structure of being.

He goes so fundamental with respect to the commitment to drawing that out.

That for him, the Logos, right, which for Heidegger is the beginning of the end, Dugan actually gives that structure and order.

He in the form of eschatology as well, even, right?

Like for Heidegger, the end begins with Logos, right?

Then Dugan says, okay, yes, but there's a multiplicity of eschatologies.

So there's clearly a particularity and a structure and an order here.

And that far goes beyond the kind of laziness of Heidegger, I guess, who wanted to basically just.

Um

dwell in this kind of more romantic again, purity of the pure stillness of thought and being.

So, um, I guess that's all I would say, you know.

Can I leave you just one book recommendation?

Yeah, sure.

So there's this guy named Cyril Regan, who I feel like is kind of like almost like the Catholic Dugan.

He's really influenced also by Altisayer.

He's not quite a Marxist.

He's into Simone Vey, like I am.

But he has this really interesting book called Theology and the Spaces of Apocalypse, which similarly to Dugan is engaged in a project of categorizing different kinds of eschatologies and like looking at the multiplicity of eschatologies.

And he divides them up in plarimatic, kinematic, and metaxic, and like reads all of contemporary theology.

It's really amusing.

And I think really relevant for the engagement of Marxism also, because he does, he talks about Walter Benjamin.

He talks about Marxist eschatology.

And he wants to engage that with various forms of Christian and Jewish eschatologies.

So I'll leave you with that.

This was a wonderful conversation.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you, MV.

Appreciate you, MV.

Yeah, thank you, Ana.

Appreciate it.

Okay, so Rev, who else is?

We have any like.

Ops.

I don't know who these people are.

I'll just pick one of random.

Yeah, just pick some random people.

All right, this guy was here last time.

All right, we're gonna have to make it quick.

One question.

Go ahead.

Five, four, three, two, one.

We're done, you know?

Hand on mute.

There's a guy named I don't know what this guy's name is.

Yo, yeah, what's up?

Go ahead.

Uh hello.

That's uh my question was.

I guess I am kind of an enemy, but since I'm president on everyone.

So I'm just curious about computer and

What the fuck?

Rev, can you just bring up like um just bring people up, please.

I can't see anyone else.

I um I'm so flooded.

That guy was uh below the ocean.

Uh okay, Z, go ahead.

Yeah, man.

Um, I just wanna know like the ACP stance on the Hamas and like all these quote unquote terror organizations.

Super glowy question.

Um go ahead uh Joseph.

Can you hear me fine?

Yeah.

Okay, why don't you like the Nazis?

What what are you talking about?

Why don't you like the Nazis?

Why don't I like the Nazis?

Because they were satanic scum.

How?

Um, because I mean, do you really you know the answer to the question, but I why don't you I'm in full faith, like, I'm not bullshitting, just genuinely curious why you think that they were satanic.

Well, I think that they were the epitome of the degeneration.

Of civilization and of capitalism at the time.

And they represented this madness, this political madness and psychosis, which I think we're seeing signs of in today's society, which, you know, completely liquidated and and elevated itself above all kind of norms of morality and civilization and um

and uh sensibility with regard to human existence and so on and so on.

This notion of superior races and enslaving and exterminating others and whatever, I just think that this is the high point of a kind of sickness and madness

Um, within a civilization which leads people down the path of nihilism, so I think there's something fundamentally nihilistic about them, which I think also uh the satanic aspect is because I think that the Nazis were secretly and some ways openly, it's in their very symbol, a pagan kind of repudiation and rejection of the biblical and Christian foundations of the West.

You know, they really.

Um

Did kind of sympathize openly with uh paganism and uh

Which in the Abrahamic tradition is associated with Satan?

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that?

Would you prefer Abrahamism instead?

Yes, yes, I I think so, yes, because um I think there's something irreversible about Christianity.

Um as far as the trajectory of um

world civilization is concerned.

That was a real historical achievement of mankind.

Um to attempt to reverse it is vain, by the way.

Not successful, but it's kind of attempting to discard and liquidate and repress that's something fundamental to our existence as human beings right now, you know.

Yes, wh why why do you what's sorry, do you respect Christianity?

Yeah.

Why?

Are you familiar with the Epicurean paradox?

Uh which which one and which what what are you talking about?

Basically about the presence of evil and God's inability to create that that one.

So given that, I like Christianity, but I don't like metaphysics.

I don't like the question of why is there evil, I think, is a distraction from the struggle to concretely confront and struggle against evil.

Whether it will always exist for all time is not relevant.

If someone breaks into your house and poses an immediate danger to you, or if someone in your immediate vicinity is somehow posing a threat to your dignity and doing something wicked, you're going to stop them.

You're not going to pontificate upon the question of why or what's the point of it, and so on and so on.

The point of it is that humanity is suspended in a struggle.

It's suspended in a struggle which would ultimately culminate in a better comprehension and understanding of our existence and what we are in the first place.

Now, if you want to understand the directly biblical or metaphysical explanation for why there's evil, my interpretation is that it's something along the lines of the fact that.

There is a struggle that is suspended throughout the development of creation, which is necessary for human beings to develop and acquire a kind of awareness of what they actually are.

And evil takes the form of a test, it's a test for humanity to overcome.

And if it can prove its ability to overcome this, it can be brought closer in proximity with the purpose behind their creation, according to God, you know?

So that would.

Sorry, I mean, catch a lot of people.

Yeah, so that would be the biblical explanation, as far as I interpret it.

But my view, again, about the question of good and evil is that it's we are not in a position to be metaphysical about it because we are now suspended in the struggle and we can't turn our back on that struggle and take refuge somewhere and generalize it.

It takes a particular form.

Evil today has a particularity.

It has a particular reality.

When we generalize good and evil, we're just trying, we're basically avoiding confrontation with the concrete reality of good and evil today.

Okay, it was that is a long explanation saying that it's to test us.

Evil exists to test us.

Is that what you're saying pretty much?

Or am I getting it wrong?

Yes, I think so, because um we don't we are not ontologically um one mom one moment, sorry.

What what's the point in testing us if God is all-knowing?

What doesn't he already know the outcome?

for the same reason, right?

It it you if things were just ready made and there was no development in history or with human beings and we were just stuck in Eden forever, right, then the purpose of creation would be completely meaningless.

Interesting.

Alright, well, I guess I'll let someone else.

It would be synonymous with the existence of nothingness.

If there is just a purity of being that is the same as nothing, there has to be a contradiction and a conflict somehow in order for there to be determinations in the first place.

And in order for us to appreciate all of the things that we regard as good and beautiful and just.

And graceful, and so on, and so on, there have to be a multiplicity of determinations.

Otherwise, there's just nothing.

Yeah, that is typically the answer people that's the best rebuke that I get when I uh throw this lineup question.

But all right, I don't want to take up too much time, I'll let someone else go up.

Thank you, Alice.

Sure.

Uh Klaus, go ahead.

Hi, uh it's nice to speak with you.

Yep.

So I am a Canadian, to be honest with you.

I've been following the ACP since its inception.

I've been getting into your stuff for past three years or so.

The only thing I was wondering is the policy on Canada.

Now people are in a frenzy up here, as you can imagine, on on because of Trump's comments.

Yeah.

I I've had this question before, but I'll answer it again.

Okay.

We are interested in the consequences for sovereignty more than anything.

So we would like to s we would like a state that encompasses, obviously, Canada and the current United States.

I mean, that is our party's program.

We agree with that.

But in an attempt to annex Canada, that will inevitably reconstitute the United States itself, right?

Inevitably, it will.

Because it will have to resort to extra constitutional and extra sovereign means to take it, you know, that are not within the sphere of the accountability of I mean, our republic, our constitutional republic, does not

When you think about it, I mean, there have been precedent with respect to Hawaii, for example, and other territories that have been acquired before.

But Canada already is a modern state with its own, very limited, by the way, form of popular sovereignty in the form of a parliament and a constitution and so on and so on.

So they are already the subject of a potential future state, right?

But how, but at the same time, if they're annexed in a way that completely bypasses their sovereignty, how can they become part of the body politic?

How can they partake in any kind of shared popular sovereignty?

So we would speculate that there would have to be a kind of maybe colonial or extra democratic or extra constitutional way in which they are occupied or something, and we would reject that completely, just as we reject any kind of colonialism and so on and so on.

Now, on the other hand, if there is a clear majority, you know, if there's some kind of procedure.

within Canada where the majority vote to become part of the USA.

I think that's a perfectly legitimate form in which, you know, Canada could but I find it unlikely, you know.

I think that the contradictions within the United States and within Canada are such that it couldn't take that form.

Not because it'd be unpopular, but because of the struggle by, you know, um

lev the the previous hegemonic uh forces that are now being overthrown and replaced with a new hegemony.

So basically it would ha it d it i i it is not a blank check.

We don't automatically ag uh support

What Trump does with Canada.

It has to, we have to carefully examine the consequences for popular sovereignty for the American state.

Okay, because one thing that I've definitely acquired from your work over the past three years is the need to appeal to the sort of patriotic whims of the proletariat and sort of urge for a more popular sovereignty in the form of socialism.

One thing I can tell you, though, is really these comments from Trump have been a huge wake-up call in this country in terms of actually asserting our sovereignty.

It's maybe one of the few things that Canadians have been very united on in the past few years is being anti-American.

Of course, not anti-American people, but you know what I mean?

Well, I mean, look, there's also the fact that Canada's part of the Commonwealth, just like Australia.

And Australia had a prime minister that the Queen could just, or whatever the King or the Queen just overthrew, right?

And that was limited.

Right.

So Canada, I don't think has full popular sovereignty, but it has a limited form of that.

And we don't.

So we're very careful and we don't have a clear.

We also need to take into account the class divisions that are implied within this kind of conflict.

You know, are is the Canadian working class MAGA, so to speak?

You know, we don't know.

I mean, it's not very clear.

Right.

And I'm from Alberta, by the way.

That's where the majority of the truckers came from.

And one big strategy, I think, as a communist that I've sort of implemented is, you know, actually just genuinely approaching these people, right?

Because these people actually are quite patriotic.

And the nature of the working class is very similar to your country.

I mean, if anything, there's much more bureaucratic bloat in terms of public jobs, things like that.

Something that Polyev, of course, wants to really crack down on.

So basically, to answer the question, it depends on the class significance and it depends on the consequences for popular sovereignty.

Okay, okay.

But in the long term, our party's program regards the USA and Canada as one country.

But we think that in order for that to be possible, the USA needs to be reconstituted into a

United Republic, you know.

So, um, the reconstitution is inevitable, but that may happen in a way that does not preserve any kind of popular sovereignty.

And that we would be locked in a struggle against the regime that emerges and takes shape in in those circumstances.

Okay, okay.

Thank you for clarifying, my friend.

It's great to speak with you.

Yep, thank you.

So, uh JP, go ahead.

Uh hey, I'm not an op.

Uh I just had two good faith questions.

Um are there any updates uh on the ACP position of cooperation with the PSL leadership and vice versa?

Like as in has the ACP been rebuffed?

And my second question is, if the ACP had the financial clout of Roy Singham, what kind of projects would the ACP executive pursue?

Um so

We have not really reached out to PSL's leadership.

We're not inherently opposed to it.

I mean, we would be very surprised if they were willing to work with us in any way.

Um.

We we've taken note of a few things.

One is that they are increasing their cooperation with the DSA, which is

Pitiful really, because how can you call yourself a Leninist organization and work with

The D S A.

Um the second thing is that um

They are making moves against us internationally and that this is not online on social media, it's offline where they're trying to sow they're trying to move in in the shadows to destroy our reputation in the best way that they can.

They haven't been really successful, but they are definitely aggressively trying.

And they have been trying.

Almost everywhere we go, they're there bullshitting about us.

And we're get we get told about it, you know.

That's the thing.

They're not as well liked as they think they are.

So that is another thing, you know, but

It's basically the state of our non-existent relations with the PSL.

All right, thanks.

All right, let's bring on uh the next person.

Rev, is there anyone else?

They all they all look like your fans.

Uh so not a single op came in here.

There's charm that counts.

No, it doesn't count.

Fascinating.

Not a single op

That's crazy, I mean

Well

Yeah, I think that um

Whenever you ask these people what their problem with our party is, they really never have anything.

Some of them try to point out a mistake one of the chapters made, which was attending an event where Thanksgiving turkeys were being distributed to hungry families, and that was organized by a church, and the local police department also volunteered for it, right?

So they claim, oh, you guys are working with cops and whatever.

That chapter.

Did a self-criticism over that, you know?

And um

That was one thing out of that was the only time it happened.

And they immediately did a self-criticism.

So, they have nothing that we've done that they can criticize or attack us for.

Um but for some reason you're gonna see on X there's they're attacking

A C P so relentlessly all the time.

But when you actually ask them what the problem is, I mean, I I saw a really interesting case of this.

So there's this old op we have, his name is like Kyle or something.

And he just out of the blue kind of just asks like, hey, I mean, like what is really the problem with ACP?

Like what makes them fascist?

Like what what is the reason that they're under siege all the time and stuff?

And then they got swarmed in their replies by these freaks, basically saying, Oh my god, they took you, you're brainwashed, you're you're in the cult now.

Like, this guy's like an op.

Far from it being an

They're like, how could you ask you you're you're asking that question?

How can you?

And it's like they can't actually give an answer.

He goes, I mean, yeah, some of them have used bad words before, but he's like, bad words don't make you a fascist.

And they're like, that's like saying a siege hail doesn't make you a Nazi.

And it's like, what?

And you wonder why these people are losing the country because the whole country speaks in a politically incorrect way.

That's not a political statement.

You're going to call all of those people Nazis?

And now these so-called leftists, they're now posturing.

This is my favorite thing.

The way they posture, even Hassan Piker is getting in on this.

How they're starting to posture that because of their inability to make contact with any real segment of the US population, they're LARPing as if they're third worldess.

Yeah, you're gonna convince me that this laptop class of petty bourgeois professionals living in New York City or lost whatever the fuck they live in that those are third worldess.

Oh, we're gonna destroy the crackers, the KKK crackers with with three K's the the settlers all the settlers they're settlers, it's like

They've cornered themselves into such a fringe position that is politically has no viability whatsoever, right?

And they are somehow trying to project that position onto the subjectivity of extremely marginal oppressed groups like Native Americans.

Oh, we're in the same boat as Third Worlders and Native Americans.

No, you're not.

You work an office job if if you're successful, by the way.

You're part of the laptop class and you are part of the most privileged segment of you know the the the employed population, so to speak.

If there is a labor aristocracy today, you are part of it.

And yet these people pa because they're calling everyone fascist who just doesn't use the same words they do.

they're not being able to actually mount any kind of anti fascist resistance at all.

If there is a fascist danger, these people are not going to be able to confront it.

And I'll tell you exactly why.

Because

Because if you read the writings of Clara Zetkin, for example, in her her strategy for how to counter fascism as it emerged in Italy, if you read Dmitrov, all of them say that you need to win

The middle classes.

You need to win the you even need to win the majority of the petty bourgeoisie.

You can't cede even an inch to the fascists.

You can't seed anything, you can't seed them patriotism, you can seed them nothing.

But these fascist collaborating Trotskyites, and that's what they are, are ceding everything to the neo-Nazis and fascists.

And they're even calling the majority of the populations in the countries they live in settlers and crackers or whatever.

And they claim that they are supporters of Gaza and supporters of all these oppressed people around the world.

But they are acting as they are the biggest.

Um, allies of the imperialists, because what people in Gaza need from you is not this performative third worldism when you're a fucking laptop career professional living in New York City.

What they need from you is to actually build a political opposition in the Imperial Corps that could challenge the policies of imperialism and genocide.

And that requires winning the majority.

And that's a response.

So if you care so much about oppressed and third world people, that's what you would be doing.

But instead, what these people are doing is isolating themselves, not even forming organizations and submitting to their discipline.

And effectively, they're becoming fascist and imperialist collaborators because they're just engaging in wrecking, just destroying any existing organization like ours.

That's what they're committed to.

They have no positive project at all.

They claim that we're all uniting against the ACP.

They're uniting all the leftists.

That's what they're claiming, right?

But they're not even uniting in a collective way.

The unity that they're talking about is this vague willingness to associate with each other as individuals to agree to tear down and destroy collective organizations.

But when it comes to actually forming any kind of collective organization with binding commitments, they will never even make that step.

They won't even form an anti-ACP party because that would require binding commitments.

So these people are fundamentally petty bourgeois individualists and fascist collaborators.

And ask them, what is the concrete?

What is your step two?

Your step one is destroying ACP.

What's your step two?

You always have to ask them the question.

What is all of it gonna amount to?

What are you actually gonna fucking do?

If you had a plan, you wouldn't be preoccupied with us because we do have a plan.

It's just not the plan you want to see.

So you think you have the fucking right to tear it down and destroy it instead of proving that you actually have a fucking alternative.

The burden is on you to demonstrate an alternative.

If the American Communist Party is a bad party, the burden is on you to show us what a good party looks like.

You don't have the fucking right to tear a party down just because you individually don't like it or think it's bad.

Because you have yet to prove that you actually know how to distinguish and make qualitative judgments about parties.

Because in order to say a party's bad, you need to show us what a good party looks like.

If you can't do that, you have no right to make any qualitative judgment on any collective organization at all.

Because as an individual, you're just like any other individual.

You're a talker, not a walker.

If your views as an individual were worth anything, then square one would be that you would easily be able to prove your ability to put them into practice, not in terms of seizing power, not in terms of building a mass movement, but simply in terms of being able to come to an agreement with a minimum of five other individuals to have some kind of collective agreement to actually carry out some kind of act together.

In a way that's binding on all of you.

This is what we agreed to do, let's do it.

That step one these people can't even do.

They can't even do the step one of agreeing on doing anything positively.

All they can do is spread Cointel Pro libel on social media.

And that's very sad.

And these people know that everything I'm saying right now is completely correct.

They know that there is no fault in my reasoning whatsoever.

They know I'm right.

But you want to know what they say?

They say, well, I'm depressed and suicidal, so I can do whatever I want and nothing matters.

And that's literally how they think.

Because they're depressed and suicidal, they think it gives them the right to do whatever they want.

Because they're, I may as well be dead anyway.

Well, that's not how it fucking works.

You have to be responsible for what you do in this life for as long as you're living.

Just because you're depressed and unhappy and suicidal doesn't give you the fucking right.

To be free from the consequences of fucking up while you're living.

I rest my case.

In any case, Rev, there's no one else, right?

Nah, they're all your fans.

All right.

Alright we're gonna wrap it up then.

Alright guys, see you next Thursday 'cause we do these weekly on Thursdays.

Alright.

Alright guys, that was a good space.

We're gonna come back.

I'll see you guys Sunday for the next stream or tomorrow potentially because remember the enemy is still planning and doing shit.

You know, be on the lookout.

tomorrow, for Saturday, whatever.

Be ready.

But

You know.

Your orders are be on your toes, you know.

The enemy is not resting.

Alright guys, well I'll see you later.

Bye bye.