Confronting the enemy...

I built this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up. I built this shit from the ground up I built this shit from the ground up

I built this shit from the ground up

I'm just a team player

while every man for self

you stand for nothing

probably can't stand yourself

fuck a hand dog running around

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 I was stash and get it only with cash is

given you be so mad that niggins jealous and bitter go get some money bummy dummy get a

dweller my nigger please remember not distressed to watching all your pictures that

just screams you ain't used to have injuring scrella this winter shit i might just get another chichilla

full lymph why not shit i'm no longer a dealer i be minding my business and running it too i turn one

in the two went from a bus to a coup five thousand dollar

fit and it ain't nothing to do but there's nothing to a bus but probably something to you

i built this shit from the ground up back and pounds up moving brown dust used to chase

bitches not them same bitches hound us you ain't't for the cars, niggas, get the fuck around us.

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

Just to chase bitches, not them same bitches hound us.

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

I'm in a G-w a miry jean sagging

whole sleeve dancing niggas can't stand it next day a five series with the roof

vanished and he started with a eight ball how the dude managed actually a half track i can't

give you half facts that would be a whole lot

Chain cross a whole pot

Used to be a little nigga

Hanging with the old guy

Soaking up game

I was studying the whole time

Niggas be off herself

To their money low

Then everything is gang gang

And bro bro

Real leaders show their people where

they got it going this how we gonna do it if you

with it come on let's roll

moving in silence less announcements

used to slice ounces now I got a

complex next crib coming with a gate

in the fountain the reason why you broke

is because you're grown.

That's a loud.

I built this shit from the ground up.

Back in pounds up.

Moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches.

Not 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 and pounds up moving brown dust

with the chase bitches not the same bitches hound us you ain't for the cause nigger get the fuck from round us The The I build this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I'm just a team player while up. I built this shit from the ground up. I built this shit from the ground up.

I'm just a team player while every man for self. You stand for nothing. Probably can't stand

yourself. Fuck a hand dog running around demand the 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 I was stash

and get it only with cash is given you be

so mad that niggins jealous and bitter

go get some money bummy dummy get a dweller

my nigger please remember not distressed

to watching all your pictures that just screams

you ain't used to have injuring scrella

this winter shit i might just get another chichilla full limp why not shit i'm no longer a dealer

i be minding my business and running it too i turn one in the two went from a bus to a coup

five thousand dollar fit and it ain't nothing to do.

But there's nothing to a boss

and probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up,

back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

You should chase bitches,

now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars,

niggie, get the fucking round us.

I built this shit from the ground up back in pounds up moving brown dust wish to chase bitches not the same bitches hound us you ain't for the

cars niggins get the fuck from round us i'm in a g wagging with a-sacking. Whole sleeve dancing. Niggas can't stand it.

Next day a five series with the roof vanished and he started with an eight boy.

How'd the dude manage?

Actually a half track. I can't give you half-fax. That would be a whole lot. Chain costs a whole pot.

Used to be a little nigga hanging with the old guy soaking up game i was studying the whole time niggas be off herself to their money low then everything is gang gang and bro bro real leaders show their people where they got it going this how we gonna do it if you with it come on let's roll

Moving in silence less announcements use to slice ounces now I gotta count this next crib coming with a gate in the fountain

The reason why you broke is cuz you're grown that's a loud in

I built this shit from the ground up

Back in pounds up moving brown dust

We should chase bitches not them same bitches hound us

You ain't for the cause, nigga get the fucking round us

I built this shit from the ground up

Back and pounds up Moving brown dust

With the chase bitches

Not the same bitches hound us

You ain't put the cause, nigga

Get the fuck from round us

Round us The I build this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I'm just a team player while every man for self. You stand for nothing. Polly can't stand yourself.

Fuck a hand dog running around demand the help. Used to be the help now. I'm the man myself.

I went from rags to riches. Now the new S classclasses. Tented work out with stash and get it.

Only with cash is given.

You'd be so mad that niggins jealous and bitter.

Go get some money for me, dummy.

Get a dweller, my nigga.

Please remember not distressed to watching all your pictures.

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

This winter shit, I might just get another chichilla full lymph why not shit i'm no longer a dealer i be minding my business and running it two i turn one in the two we're from a bus to a coup five thousand dollar fit and it ain't nothing to do but there's nothing to a boss for probably something to you.

I built this shit from the ground up, back at pounds up, moving brown dust. You should chase

bitches, not them same bitches hound us. You ain't for the cars, nigga, get the fucking round

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

used to chase bitches not the same bitches hound us you ain't for the cars nigger get the fuck from round us

I'm in a g wagon with a miry g sagging whole sleeve dancing niggas can't stand it next day a five series with the roof

vanish and he started with a eight boy how they do 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 little nigger hanging

with the old guy soaking up game I was studying the whole time

Niggas be off of self to their money low then everything is gang gang and bro bro real leaders show their people where they got it going this how we gonna do it if you with it come on let's roll

got it going. This how we gonna do it. If you're 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 in the fountain. The reason why you broke is because you're grown.

That's a loud. I built this shit from the ground up, back in pounds up, moving brown dust.

We should chase bitches, not them same bitches hound us.

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

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

Mr. Chase, bitches, not them not the same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cause, nigga.

Get the fuck from the ground up. I built this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I built this shit from the ground up.

I'm just a team player While every man for self

You stand for nothing

Probably can't stand yourself

Fuck a hand dog

Run around demand and help

Used to be the help now

I'm the man myself

I went from rags to riches

Now the new S class is tinted

Work out with stash and get it

Only with cash is giving

You'd be so mad that niggins jealous and bitter go get some money bummy dummy get a dweller my nigger

Please remember not distressed to watching all your pictures that just screams you ain't used to having jury and scrella

This winter shit I might just get another chichilla Full lymph, why not shit I'm no longer a dealer

I be minding my business and running it too

I turn one in the two

Went from a bus to a coup

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

But there's nothing to a buffing probably something to you

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

We should chase bitches, now them same bitches hound us.

You ain't for the cars, niggins get the fucking round dust.

I built this shit from the ground up Back in pounds up Moving brown dust

With the chase bitches

Not them saying bitches hound us

You ain't for the cars,

nigga get the fuck from round us

I'm in a G wagging

With a miry g-sacking

Hoselead dancing

Niggas can't stand it

Next day of five series

With the roof

Vanish and he started with an eight ball

How'd the 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 little nigga

Hanging with the old guy

Soaking up game

I was studying the whole time.

Niggas be off of self to their money low.

Then everything is gang gang, and bro.

Real leaders show their people where they got it going.

This how we gonna do it.

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

Moving in silence, less announcements.

Use to slice ounces.

Now I got a compass.

Next crib coming with a gate in the fountain.

The reason why you broke is because you're grown that's a loud.

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

Moving brown dust.

Used to chase bitches bitches not the same

bitches hound us you ain't for the cause nigger get the fuck from round us

i built this shit from the ground up back and pounds up moving brown dust

with the chase bitches not them same bitches hound us you ain ain't for the cause, nigga, get the fuck from round us.

Round us. Brack Trying to run a hut

Winter time

I'll get my money up

Winter time

Gras

trying to eat

put a tired

girl Dickie fit with the T Just trying to eat Run it to that.

Dickie fit with the Tims on fell off but I'm still on

chasing all these bitches

ain't gonna hell when the bills come

Back and cheese up for four months

That's a real run

Slap a bitch with a 50 bar maker

feel dumb

I'm trying to run it up I put the roly up i got the chains took i put the frames up i ain't really trying to get low but i got to i just want a boy but right lie it ain't time to i'll see you boys in the summer again i'm coming out the career with a hundred again.

Broke niggins thinking shit funny again.

I'm gonna 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 have bought the Gucci I just threw on the tea

I'm starving myself just so I can eat

Niggin' wintertime grand

Hustle heard when it's cold out

I'm on the wintertime grab

Stack the money kick the holes out I'm on the wintertime ground. Stack the money, kick the holes out.

I'm on the wintertime ground.

Stand out of the club.

I'm on the wintertime ground.

I'm just trying to run it up.

Like you go to a mic on for putting my ice on.

I run through the bag, bro, then I'm going right home.

I pray before bed because I'm living life wrong.

These rap bids, a nagatown to fuck with my whitehows.

It's browning the white house.

It's brown in the white slow.

Lean for the whole year.

I never put my cup down.

I've been leaning since OT in my conversation. Money

even cut off my old friends. These rap

niggas' line talking work never sold

nans. Grown on whole hands. Want something

get your own bends. How you a roadrunner, dogs

if you never rode ran? I rock with my

white boys heavy. I'm cold playing.

Fuck, rap break. Get get wrecks my soul's

sand if you have man you'll cut off your own hands trying to have eels on my stash is an

old man if you got a plug how the fuck is you broke then i called up peasy now listen what bro

sinned wintertime grab hustle hard when it's Peeze, now listen what bro saying?

Wintertime grand.

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 ground.

Staying out of the club. I'm on the wintertime ground Staying out of the club I'm on the wintertime ground

I'm just trying to run it up

Digger I got family depending on me

So what the fuck I look like not getting money

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

Plus I got a little brother bigger than

me. I gotta be there for him when

he really need me. If I don't bring the bread

home, then who else gonna feed us?

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

But these niggas gotta give me five cake

for a feature. Remember bitches used to say a nigger smell funny.

Now they're all on my dick, cause they can smell money.

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

Stact enough to buy a bill, call it bill money.

Still your grandma, nigger, let them have fun.

Stay consistent and I promise

you your time gonna come

night joggies for the winter

staying out the mall

calling up a hundred bands

why I'm saying fuck them all

nigga hey

Wintertime grand

Hustle heard when it's cold out

I'm on the wintertime grand

stack the money kick the holes out

I'm on the wintertime ground

staying out the club

I'm on the wintertime ground

I'm just trying to run it up

I'm just trying to run it up.

Yeah. trying to eat wintertime

I don't get my money out

Wintertime grab

She's trying to eat

Redder Ty grub

Dickie fit with the Tim's on.

Fettloff, 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.

Slapp a bitch with a 50,

boy, make her feel dumb.

I'm trying to run it up.

I put the roly up.

I got the chains tough. I put the frames up. I ain't really trying to get low, but I got to. I just want a barbber right now. It ain't time to. I'll see you boys in the summer again. I'm coming off the career with a hundred again. Broke niggas thinking shit funny again.

I'm gonna 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 have bought the Gucci I just threw on the tee.

I'm starving myself just so I can

eat, nigga.

Wintertime grand.

Hustle heard when it's cold out.

I'm on the wintertime

grab. Stack the money,

kick the holes out.

I'm on the wintertime ground.

Stand out the club.

I'm on the wintertime ground.

I'm just trying to run it up.

Like you go to a mic song for putting my ice on.

I run through the bag, bro.

Then I'm going right home.

I pray before bed

because I'm living life.

We're on these rap bitches

and I can't town to fuck

with my white holes.

It's browning in the white slope

lean for the whole year.

I never put my cup down

and lean it since OT

and my conversation.

Money even cut off my old friends.

These rap niggins' niggins' all home hands

Want something get your own bands

How you a roll runner dog if you never row ran

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

Fuck rap break get wrecks my soul sent

If you had mad you'll cut off your own hands

Trying to have ends on my stats is an old man

If you gotta plug

How the fuck is you broke then

I called up P'sy

Now listen with brocin'

Wintertime grand

Hustle heard when it's cold out

I'm on the wintertime grand

stack the money kick the holes out

I'm on the club I'm going to I'm gonna be. Oh!

And I don't know. and the other people and the other my

and

I'm I'm I'm gonna do you my

and the

I'm a certain

and a I'm I'm not I'm gonna

and I'm gonna

and I'm I'm I'm not I'm gonna say

I'm gonna say

I'm I'm going to and the other people and a lot of

and the other and

I'm not

a lot of

I'm and

I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm

a

and

I'm

I'm and I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm not

I'm not

the I'm not I'm not Welcome cult members. Welcome, gather round. In any any case we are going to be starting our shall or confront

the chairman thing in about 15 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 totally, 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 long 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 and 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, and we're, 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 ultrass, 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, 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, didn't that happen with the whole Pat Sock 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?

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 forming a pan leftist coalition against me and the ACP it's very simple what's going on william with the 31 it's very simple

uh what's going on i'm your dad i am your father i am your father i am your dad and it's okay

but all you pan left is you know i'm the big boogeyman and the big villain and I'm the zeitgeist.

You've got to, 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 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.

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 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 where I am the father. I am the father for these people.

You know, Daniel Tut, he's like, oh, you're the father for these gorillas. No, I'm not. The guerrillas actually have fathers, right? The guerrillas actually have real fathers. The guerrillas actually have fathers, right? The guerrillas actually have real fathers.

The guerrillas 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, 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. F-R-S-O 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 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.

I am your father and, you know, 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

given as the darts v Vader of leftism.

I am the Darth Vader.

Ah, 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 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

and these discourses but in 2025 they have made me darth vader you know they made me darth vader

and uh 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 i it was a little depressing how much i was ignored by these people in

twenty twenty four it was a little depressing because

the aura

was not there, you know?

The aura was missing.

Now that's back.

And

feels pretty good.

Feels pretty good. pretty good speaking of aura we don't have much time we 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 20 25 it's like it feels like 20-21 again Like holy shit

I'm back in this bitch

I mean we're back

We're fucking back

All right

And uh

Yeah

This is gonna be a fun year

That's exactly it This is gonna be a very very fun year This is gonna be be a fun year. That's exactly it.

This is going to 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 like shit I'm just saying I'm just saying you know

people got to 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 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

crushed 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 them 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, So 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 the leadership you guys want?

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.

Because New York City...

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.

The USA 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. Frawen.

Frawen. Frowen 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 Fraulen. Okay. But she is Hitler reincarnated. This is a Mussolini socialist.

I mean, this guy, he 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.

This is 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.

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.

Ah, yeah yeah just so much talking shit what do you got to we're back in 2021 guys all right we're gonna 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 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 pan leftist unity with Naifo!

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-risted

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, it's very simple, you know, it's very, you know it's very very simple you talking about pan leftism the unity of various

nebulous individuals who share similar views 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, nonstop, 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 out, 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... 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 ACP

at all or towards you personally.

I disagree

with a lot of, I'm sure your

ideas about how social will come about in the

U.S.

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.

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 if that's you had me in the first half i can only commit to what is you know i we follow the law so i don't know what you're asking

no no i don't try to set you up right i'm not trying to like this is this is an honest

doctrinal question because obviously this is an honest doctrinal question.

Because obviously this is very, this is what, in my view...

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 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,

will endanger

revolutionary circumstances.

But we do not

think it is possible. Let me just be full

disclosure. I'm not even just

saying this for legal reasons. I'm saying because I genuinely

think it is not possible

to overthrow voluntarily the united states um through any means whether it's peaceful or armed

it's simply not possible it cannot happen um 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, I mean,

it's, it may be 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, know and the 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

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

lackluster parties that speak about

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 the ACP.

I like a lot of what you guys say.

I think that's not necessarily too fair because, for example, there was the CP USA during its golden

era, I think, did fairly well in the USA, you know.

So there are other periods as well. There is the Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party were not terrible, you know.

So what do you, so what do you think about, 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 and the People's Temple?

Because I don't know if you know,

but Jim Jones was a Marcus Leninist.

And he and his people were Marks Slatern.

He was a

he was 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 his especially in the West Coast where he was.

Have you read his sermons?

He spoke about Oxalism in his sermons.

He was an actual, like, he preached about Stalin.

I don't know if you know, but he was.

So, I mean, and this. the the he was the 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 lumping derangement and insanity.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Jim Jones at all. And also, yes, he was, for all, we know he was an operative of the CIA and an

MK Ultra victim. And that's cool. I mean, I'm not, I'm not going to harp you on,

harp you guys on that opinion. That's cool. That's a minor issue.

I'm really happy to answer my first question,

though,

because I think that sets you guys

apart from the other

bullshit communist parties.

Yeah, well,

we have no intention

of taking up

armed struggle or breaking the law

at all, so I want to be clear

about that.

Yeah, 100%. And I'm not trying to sit law at all. So I want to be clear about that.

Yeah, I'm not trying to sit you guys up or anything.

You know, just a question, because a lot of so-called real, like 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 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 okay thank you for inviting me

has Okay, thank you for inviting me on, Has.

Yeah, sure, no problem.

A couple questions I have.

What are your thoughts on Lyndon LaRouche?

Oh, Lyndon LaRouche, huh?

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, that you know that is worth you know taking very seriously i'm not a big fan of

lorouche i think that um you know i think that years ago what the fuck is going on in your background okay you wanted me to

ask that other questions i didn't what are you talking about?

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

Um...

Okay. Go ahead.

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 kind of... No, no, no, no, no. Answer the question. Answer the fucking question has. How many holes do women have below the boat?

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

No, no, no, no, no, no, 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 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, 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 I wanted to introduce everybody to our average, you know, Hitlerite, pseudo-leftist 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. They are manic and they're

mentally unstable and unwell. And you saw the passion in his voice about that subject.

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. Uh, Mr. Rahaz.

I have a question to ask you about if the Communist

P.

In the USA and establish say socialism state capitalism um

um

will the party

worked towards a communist state

where um

you know um

the state after

um

state socialism is completed

uh see socialism is completed if a communist

takes power

it's

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

let's comms for example we have the left

communists for them

those people are just

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 of the

Capitalist is always referred to, Marxist

Leninist parties.

There's people who run around calling themselves Trotskyists, but those people have never amounted to anything politically.

So they just don't, that's just a strange, you know, subculture or phenomena. phenomena now the thing you're talking about let 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

there's differences sir has for example Maoism relies heavily

on the peasantry

over the part heart because

Leninism

has always relied on the peasantry

I mean

I mean for example

Mao's China

I mean Mao before it before it took power,

99% of the party was presently.

Well, basically, there wasn't been in any political,

but because, you know, you have to go industrialization,

the equal to order.

Yeah.

So, there's a lot. It's a to it. Yeah. So, there's a lot.

It's a 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 mate, like the bulwark of revolutionary energy.

And that he wanted a leading role for the industrial factory proletary, it 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 um to prioritize the factory proletary because they're already proletarian tendencies,

the early factory proletary, there are already proletarian tendencies among the Chinese peasantry,

and those should just be brought out as a role.

So that was basically the difference, but it was the direction of the evolution of Marxism since Marx. It 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

as you see,

back the Middle World War, the USSR accused

the Maoist 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 all about out? What's your opinion on this? Because according to

Marxism, the dictatorship

from poetry is basically oppressing the bourgeois

or other classes,

basically, and making

the power of that.

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

Yeah, I know. It's not really class. It's not really class collaboration.

Because... not really class collaboration because but you need the national

and the natural and the political element of the bourgeois

to build the economy isn't this

surprise

yes

but that is under the leadership of the proletariat.

Yes, quite true.

It's not a relationship of equality.

So what's, so another question, there's this, what's your opinion on the which one is better

communist

communism or syndicalist

consulism or syndicals

well which one is real

and which one is just some made up nonsense

well I see.

Council of communism was theoretically

tried to by their Social

Republic.

All right.

You know what?

Go ahead and create the

syndicals, the

councils in Saudi Arabia and I I hope it works all right I hope

everything's fine but I don't really consider that a serious question go ahead Nathan Nathan.

How's it being? Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay, I hope you and your family are doing well.

So I just have a question.

You have a very interesting essay.

You know, why Marxism isn't woke.

Can you make the argument that, you know why Marxism isn't well Kree 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, I read it.

So what do you think?

Sorry,

this was a while ago.

So I'm just curious

I think you're kind of just focusing on the

first tweet but not

what I actually said

okay

sorry but would you mind

just the specific

fourth political theory.

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

Well, I actually wrote on that in the text I wrote Brahmins of Democracy,

where I argue that the rational colon in Dugent's fourth political theory

is specifically about the stagnation

of Soviet Marxism-Leninism

which was overcome by Mao and Mao Zaitong thought,

and that Dugan didn't really engage Mao Say Tong 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 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 on contradiction.

The introduction of primary and secondary contradictions, I think there's an indirect proximity with Dugan there because

Dugan, in his comprehension of different logos or different, you know, 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, you know, the contradictions between China and Japanese imperialism, that underlies and creates the context for the, you know, 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 well i I don't want to gibber too much.

Sorry. What do you mean by that?

I 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, allows class struggle to be presented in a way that is more dynamically in tune with that kind of

meta, I hate the word, metaphysical background, which goes deeper than the terms of categorization and differentiation.

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

That is not necessarily the most interesting thing, I though that comes from dougain what's more

interesting for me when it comes to dougain is his other not well-known project called the numachia

where he deals with this kind of from Heidegger. He tries to put Heidst, 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, you know, he's, he's, he's 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 as the most fundamental disclosure of being to being to beings that you know to da sign 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.

He's 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...

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, not necessarily subjects or objects, but collective beings.

So, obviously, you know... 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,'s not it's not reducible to this kind of superficial

political labels and and political associations that people try to reduce it to and that you know he

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 could

lead to a very profound rediscovery of Marxism.

Right.

So could I just ask one question?

Would you consider Dugan an idealist?

Like, like he said...

Yeah, I think...

Well, look, superficially, yes, 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 colonel within dougan 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 dougainin 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... in a phenomenological sense, you could say that.

Because Dugan is really, because specifically this was in political platonism,

that I was introduced to his kind of comprehension of chaos.

And his comprehension of chaos shares a great deal of pro deal of proximity to a kind of substance of metaphysical materialism it's

just this kind of underlying substrate I this is not a very good way of presenting it, but 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 write about that in the

the thread you're talking about.

I think that to introduce dialectics into the equation

um

basically requires a

um

from Dugin a from

Dugan basically to introduce dialectics

would basically

it would be

it's going to 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 da sign

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 a 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 I guess.

Okay, well, thank you.

Well, God bless and talk to night.

Yep, see you later.

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, Haas.

What's good, man?

What's up?

Good, how are you doing?

I'm good, man.

Listen, I met with Spiroz.

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 felt like I was in my water.

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

You know, keep doing the spaces.

Keep reaching out to us.

You know, blue color 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 guys are doing a great job. Appreciate it, brother. Thank you so much. You're doing well.

All right.

So I'm going to need somebody to co-host.

I don't know if Rev is here or if anyone can co-host. I'm going to, if Jesus can

co-host. I don't know if you don't have to if you're busy or something. Um, but um but this is just so i could see people that because i no one is requesting to speak on my end right now

but it's saying that 14r 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 let me

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

Let me invite you. Go host.

Hopefully this will work. All right. So can you see anyone requesting?

Yeah, there's some people.

Alright, bring the, um, this guy seems like he's like a, uh, um, parody of us.

True, true ACP Patriot. Let me bring this guy on.

Go ahead, Patriot. Let me bring this guy on. Go ahead.

Patriot.

Hello. I am

very new to this party, and I just

want to ask because I have been...

Oh yeah, you're totally not a troll.

I'm not. I. I'm not.

I swear I'm not. I just want to get the party's perspective on Mao.

Okay.

Because 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.

Mao Zedong thought is

official within our party so 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.

Anna, go ahead.

Hi, Haas.

It's nice to talk to you again.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Cool.

So I don't know if it got onto your radar the little struggle that i had with logo datalus

on here which adds to fall out i just want to say that um logo isn't here and i don't want to

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...

He's not here, so, I mean, you know, it's just...

All right, I won't talk about Loco then. Don't worry.

But I wanted to, uh, so, I wanted to run by you. Um, I put a lot of work

into crafting, um, uh, 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

about some philosophical issues

that I've been thinking about in terms of...

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.

All right. Okay, so Anna, we can do it, but it can't be too long.

Okay, that's fine. Yeah.

I'm going to try to read this post that I made, 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.

Okay.

Just like St. John McCross,

who was viciously persecuted

by members of his own faith

for 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

radias, which posed 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 John

Paul Sart's Marxist Humanism, as well

as Heidegger's concept of authenticity and being in time

on which Sartrean Marxist humanism is based.

The quotation Kakito is actually the expression and 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 start reading of Heidegger, with the more Schillingian-Higalian return to Heidegger, developed by Alexander Duggan.

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 Manuel Kant, who insisted on the irreducibility of phenomenal substance, which he explicitly called matter to the pure mind of the

Gagito. 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 that theological structure of our mariology,

that it is an entirely different matter with Protestantism

and Gnosticism, which tend far

more towards a kind of potonic empirical idealism,

which barren out and sort of absurd

being as nothingness statements,

we find it as essentialist like

Heidegger and Sart, which fit fully in the

Lutheran line of completely and idiotically

misreading the Akardian mystical tradition

and its concept of the coincidence of the

nothing with God.

In the Higuan Igra manifesto, I argued

that Haas was a Kantian.

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

It's unfortunate that Haas does not seem to realize this,

because de minimis 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 Kodgian Karatani, and his double reading of Kant and Marx in Transpatic,

a book which forms the foundation of Zhuge's standpoint and the parallax view, a title which is a direct

Kant reference, then I believe she would be able to develop its ideas

in a more Hegelian direction

that's from proving the scientific foundation

of the American Communist Party.

I know many ACP guerrillas will not believe me

because they do not love themselves

and not 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, 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

Kodgen Karatani or Zijak's reading of Kant.

I would say

that

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, you know, with the Kantian, the contradictions at the heart of the

transcendental aesthetic. And, you know, basically, though, I don't know if i would accept the designation of kantian unless

we're speaking about an acceptance of um 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 and so on building this kind of elaborate total well that's in an argument that's haigle 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 with respect to Descartes, I think that there are two Descartes, actually.

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

And I like, I think that the Mongolian Descartes principal achievement consists in the same way that Lacan regarded his subject, the subject of psychoanalysis to be the Cartesian subject,

this notion of the self-related negativity of the subject, actually, um, how should I say, drawn out concretely and accepted for what it is.

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

substanceless, self-related nothingness

is kind of a scandal and an embarrassment.

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

drawing out ontological conclusions from Descartes' kind of seminal gesture, the kind of reduction he began with.

But on the other hand this nothingness that is in Descartes can also be understood as a nothingness of a nothingness of metaphysics, a nothingness of thought, right?

Not necessarily a nothingness of being. And the whole problem begins with Plato maybe 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 criticize 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 colonel 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, because, you know, any given determination within thought where, you know, 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 allows and permits a deeper kind of ability to, sorry, a deeper sensibility, I think, with respect to the material being, which is precisely, but not in the vein of a kind of Kantian, how should I say, blindness, where, you know, the

material is just

something that thought cannot

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

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 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 Heidegger or Dugan or so on and so on.

So I don't know.

I don't think that answers your question directly because the notion of, for example, you talked about the irreducibility of phenomena to thought. I don't think that places me 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 Lacanian and in most respect, Jacquesian.

And so I agreed with almost everything there.

But if I'm allowed one more question.

So I think probably our biggest philosophical difference is that you're a lot more Heidegarian 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're

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 Higel.

He was a really big fan

of Shelling's On Humphreveedom.

And people

don't talk about this enough. But

the main thing that separates

Kant and Hegel ontologically from Heger

is that their ontology is logical.

They believe in a logical ont logical. They believe in a logical

ontology. They believe in a rational ontology.

They believe that the world can be understood

through the concept. Linen lives.

Where the Schelling was against

that function of the concept. He thought that ontology was

non-conceptual. And it's the same for Hedeker.

And also, Hidegger 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 like

So I think that

Heidegger has to be, there's two things. One is that Heidegger needs to be given credit for opening the dimension of this kind of, well, 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 posed the, 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. So Lacan was a Heidegarian very directly a hiding i mean

lacan when heidegger was like uh like having dementia or something or he was bedridden

lecon 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 and fleshing out.

succeed in fleshing out succeeding where

Heidegger failed basically.

You know, Georgia Batai and Kojev

and so on. They are all students of Heidegger.

So,

in a, in a, um, people think that I'm a dogmatic Heidegarian 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 cogev we're talking about you have to accept heidegger's critique

of metaphysics you have to accept his phenomenological turn and his um 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 even rationalism and so on and so on.

But even that had to take as a foundation.

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 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 there's going to 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 historic 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 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, that I would say with respect to the necessity of Heidegger

or to what extent I consider Heidegger an important thinker, is, I think that, um um i think that i think that philosophy really did culminate and end with Hegel.

And that everything else that begins from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche

and the so-called irrationalist tradition that Lukox 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 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, more romantic orientation of wanting to resist that, I think that He hideger is important for marxism leninism specifically in the west

because i don't think dialectical materialism and marxism leninism 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

knows thinking there are baked 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 an absurdity. We turn it into a dogma.

We turn it into a kind of a dogma of thought, right?

And I think Heidegger's rejection of or or calling into question and making a problem

of this givenness of being that is that inheres with thoughtgger 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 is a kind of purity for him which is 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 necessary conclusion of Heidegger.

He did draw that conclusion himself, but he opens the door to

the possibility

of for

example

comprehending

Marxism

as

for example

not

a

a pure

kind of

um

a

uh possible a pure kind of 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 the best, but that's all really.

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

Lecon was really influenced by Heidegger.

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

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

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're 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 LaConne did reject ontology, but he thought that psychoanalysis was the solution to the original question posed by Heidegger.

Because Le Xizek said this and it's true.

The secret of early Lacan is Sartre.

And Sart is the one who interprets heidegger's turn in in an existential way so then it becomes a question 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 Da Seine is a subject, if it's a individual.

He rejects the notion that it's reducible to a subject, but isn't an individual,

is it a collective?

We don't know.

It's a thinking presence,

um,

has Dugan corrected me pointing out,

but,

um,

but SART definitely does kind of regard da sign i think as a problem as a problem

related to the you know existence of an individual or of a subject.

And that's where LaConne 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 the khan also shows us a way forward for how to um 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 like I think the key actually is the logic of

sexuation from Seminar 20.

But 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 Zuponchik'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 trying to move beyond Heidegger at all, right?

It's actually a given that you have to. I mean, that's what He 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,

Dugan 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 dwell in this kind of more romantic

again purity of the pure stillness of

thought and being so

I guess that's all I would say

you know

can I leave you just one book recommendation

yeah sure um Can I leave you just one book recommendation?

Yeah, sure.

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

He's really influenced also by Al Ducera. He's not quite a Marxist.

He's like into like Simone Vei like I am.

But he has this really interesting book called

Theology and the Spaces of Apocalyptic

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 um in pleromatic kinematic and metaxic and like reads like 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 Beneman.

He talks about Marxist eschatology.

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

So I'll leave me that.

This was a wonderful conversation.

Thank you for having you. Thank you, M.V.

Appreciate you, MV.

Yeah, thank you, Anna.

Appreciate it.

Okay, so, um, uh, Rev, who else is, uh, we have any, like, ops?

Uh, I don't know who people are.

I'll just pick one at random.

Yeah, just pick some random people.

All right, this guy was here last time. All right, we're going to have to make it quick. One question.

Go ahead.

Five, four, three, two, one. One. five four three two one we're done you know and un mute there's a guy name i don't know what this guy's name is yo yeah what's up

go ahead name is yo yeah what's up good

so hello if my question was actually i guess i am kind of an enemy because i mean since i mean i'm I'm I'm American

I'm just getting

late to the

Comcast

and

What the fuck? Rev, can you just bring up like

just bring people up, please I I can't see anyone else.

I am so flooded.

That guy was below the ocean.

Okay, Z, go ahead.

Hello, man. I was gonna, Z, go ahead. Yeah, man.

I just want to know, like, the ACP stance on the Hamas and, like, all these quote-unquote terror organizations.

Super glowy question

um

let me

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?

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 bullshit and I'm just genuinely curious.

Why you think that they were satanic?

Well, I think that they were the epitome of the degeneration um 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 elevated itself

above all kind of norms

of morality and

civilization and, uh, 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

within a civilization, which leads people down the path of nihilism. So I think there is something

fundamentally nihilistic about them, which I think also the satanic aspect is because I think that the Nazis were

secretly and in some ways openly, that'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 did kind of sympathize openly with paganism and which in the Abrahamic tradition is associated with Satan.

What's wrong with that? Would you prefer Abrahamism instead?

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

as far as the trajectory of world civilization is concerned. That was a real historical achievement of mankind. 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. Why do you... Sorry, do you respect Christianity?

Yeah.

Why? You familiar with the Epicurean paradox?

Which... why? You're familiar with the Epicurean paradox? Uh, which, which one and which, what are you talking about?

Basically about the presence of evil and God's inability.

Oh, okay.

That, that one.

So given that, basically, I don't like, 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 this struggle to concretely confront and struggle against

evil, you know? 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, you could go.

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 basically avoiding confrontation with the concrete reality of 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 that what you're saying pretty much

by getting it wrong yes i think so because um we don't we are not ontologically um

one moment sorry what's the point in testing us if God is all-knowing?

Well, doesn't he only know the outcome?

All for the same reason that there's a beauty of creation and of life, and there's a purpose, and that purpose has beauty and it has grace 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

all right well

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 simply the answer.

That's the best rebuke that I get when I throw this line of question.

But, all right, I don't want to take out so much time time i'll let someone else go up thank you all sure uh klaus go ahead

hi uh it's nice to speak with you yep uh. 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, because of Trump's comments.

Yeah.

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

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 this fear of the accountability of, I mean, our republic, our constitutional republic does not, when you think about it, I mean, there have has 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 Canada could, but I find it unlikely.

You know, I think that 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, the previous hegemonic

forces that are now being overthrown and replaced with a new hegemony.

So basically, it is not a blank check.

We don't automatically 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 they 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 commons 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 legal. 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, the class divisions that are implied within this kind of conflict.

You know, 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.

Yeah.

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 Polly 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 parties

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 those circumstances.

Okay, okay. Thank you for clarifying, my friend. It's great to speak with you.

Yep, thank you. So, JP, go ahead.

Hey, I'm not an op.

I just had two good faith questions.

Are there any updates on the ACP position of cooperation with the PSL leadership and vice versa? Like like as in has the ACP been rebuffed?

And my second question is, if the ACP had the financial clout of, you know, Roy Singham,

what kind of projects would the ACP executive pursue?

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.

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 DSA? The second thing is that they are making moves against us internationally and that this is not online on social media it's offline where they're trying to so they're trying to move in in the shadows to destroy our reputation and the best way that they can they 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 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 PSO. All right, thanks.

All right, let's bring on the next person. Rev, is there anyone else?

They all look like your fans.

So not a single op came in here.

There's Charville. That counts.

No, it a single op. That's crazy.

I mean, well... Thank you. 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 tried 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

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.

But for some reason you're going to see on X, they're attacking ACP so relentlessly

all the time.

But when you actually ask them what the

problem is, I mean, 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

ask 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

in the cult now. Like, this guy's like an

op.

Far from it being in... They're like, how could you ask...

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 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 and now these so-called leftists they're now post posturing. This is my favorite thing. The way they posture, even Hassan Piker's getting in on this, how they're starting to posture that because of their inability to make contact with any real segment of the U.S. population, they're larping as if they're third-worldness.

Yeah, you're going to 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 worldists.

Oh, we're going to destroy the crackers.

The KKK crackers with three Ks.

The settlers.

All the settlers. They're settlers, it's like they're, they're, 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 you're

successful, by

the way, you're part of the laptop

class, and

you are part of the most

privileged segment

of

the employed population, so to speak. If there is a labor aristocracy today you are part of it

and yet these people 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 if you read the writings of Clara Zetkin, for example,

in 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 seed even an inch to the

fascists.

You can't seed anything.

You can't seed them patriotism.

You can cede them nothing.

But these fascist collaborating Trotskyites, and that's what they are, are seeding 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 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 core that could challenge the policies of imperialism and genocide and that requires winning the majority and that's a response to 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 ac what's your step

two you always have to ask them the question what is all of it going to amount to what are you

actually going to 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 to you to demonstrate. 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 agree 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 coinel 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?

No, they're all your fans.

All right.

All right, we're going gonna wrap it up then all right guys see you next thursday because we do these weekly on thursdays all right all right guys that was a good space. We're going to 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 you know the enemy is not resting