🔴 RED NEWS | DEBATING NEON*ZI | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

I got guns in my head and they won't go Spirits in my head and they won't go I got guns in my head and they won't go Spirits in my head and they won't

I got guns in my head and they won't go Spirits in my head and they won't go I got guns in my head and they won't go Spirits in my head and they won't go

In my head, and they won't go.

In my head, and they won't go.

Somehow.

What's going on, brother?

So, we are kinda just gonna start right from the outset.

So, I have to I'm gonna say this again in the space, just so everyone knows.

I am doing a politics Discord AMA.

I'm gonna be doing that at 8 p.m.

Eastern.

So be on the lookout for that.

Uh but otherwise, uh you know, got a haircut.

Um that's an important announcement, I guess.

No, seriously an important announcement is that I'm going to Venezuela um this week.

if everything goes according to plan, which I think it is, right?

But I'm set to go this week to Venezuela.

It's going to be exciting.

And yeah, so today I made, I decided to push back against Ana Louise's surgery, Frankenstein disaster, and all these other disgusting scumbags on X who are lying about the Bulls.

So I decided to push back against that.

And now they're, you know, they're going out, they're spurging out.

They're spurging out.

And one person in particular was boosted by a bunch of groipers, people that we are decimating and destroying and beating into the dirt.

Jackson ratioed Nick Fuentes.

Nick Fuentes failed to ratio Jackson's original post.

I don't know if you guys saw that whole encounter.

We are going on the offensive against everyone right now.

And now they're boosting some fucking retard who's saying that they're going to debate me on Twitter.

So that's why I came back from the gym, if you can believe it, showered, got ready, and I'm doing this now.

Because they're claiming that I won't accept this.

This is what they always do.

This it's either they won't debate me or they'll say, I'll debate you.

And then they bitch out.

And then they said, I bitched out, right?

So that's what these disgusting right-wing rats and vermin do.

And we're going to chase them.

We're going to chase them.

And we're going on the offensive.

And it's that simple.

I have zero tolerance policy when it comes to slander of the heroic Bolsheviks.

I've stated many times that I will take bullets for the legacy and memory of Lenin.

That's not even a joke, by the way.

My whole existence is devoted to defending communism.

So every breath that I take is for that purpose.

And if I was in power, this kind of slander, people would have to be held accountable for it.

You know, you'd have to be pressed in public.

Well, where are you getting...

See, liars should be exposed.

Liars should be exposed.

And if you think this is an overreaction, I'm just going to go ahead and start it now.

If you think this is an overreaction, by the way, I want you to understand the situation we're in.

Our cause is more lied about than any cause in the history of humanity.

These disgusting neo-Nazi pieces of shit are playing seesaw with Liptards who secretly believe the neo-Nazis are correct, but repress it for because they just find it inconvenient at the level of subjective feeling.

But the liberals and the Nazis are allied with each other.

All these neo-Nazi pieces of shit are openly pushing NATO propaganda because they're a bunch of shills of the actual establishment.

Read between the lines.

They're JQing.

And this makes them seem subversive.

Well, all the JQing amounts to is Jonathan Greenblatt and other Zionists crying and whining.

And that's all it ever amounts to in the modern era.

It doesn't mean anything else.

But what's the slippery slope?

Where is it actually leading to?

It's leading to them pushing NATO propaganda.

These are NATO propagandists.

These are regime shills.

These are CIA shills.

And I am here to crush them and eat them for breakfast.

I will expose them until my last dying breath.

And I will root out and stomp them out.

Whatever the penalty, whatever the cost has to be incurred as far as I am personally, I'll fucking do it.

I am here to expose and destroy these scum who are trying to lie about the most beautiful, glorious history, the most glorious and beautiful lineage in the history of mankind, which is the lineage, the revolutionary lineage that culminates in Marxism, Marxism, Leninism, communism, the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Mao.

These are the things I take bullets for.

So when people lie about them in public, I'm going to slap them in the face upside down and have them smacked into the dirt and have them eat that dirt.

So one of these neo-Nazi pieces of shit, whose name is Waffen Education, has actually decided that they said, okay, I'll debate you.

I'll do it here on Twitter.

They were boosted by a bunch of groiper pussies, and that's what they are.

They're a bunch of pussies eating chicken nuggies and chalky milk sitting behind their desks who won't stand on business for a fucking thing, by the way.

And then they were all saying in the replies, oh, Haas won't debate.

Haas won't debate.

Well, here we are.

We're gonna do the debate right now.

And I suspect this person's gonna bitch out and they're not gonna show up.

That's what I think.

I'm gonna make Rev co-host in case he can see requests that I can't.

But where are they?

Because here we are.

Anyone who wants to see these tweets that I see about the Bolsheviks saying that they were Jewish and they're this and they're that and they were killing Christians.

I see them getting, you know, sometimes around 100,000 likes.

So at least one of you that are boosting these posts should stand on business and come and defend it.

See, when you see a picture on X that says the Jewish Bolsheviks and Yogoda, and then yeah, you're going to click it because I guess you find it convincing.

But is it actually true?

Have you used critical thinking to actually discern whether this is a lie, whether this is NATO propaganda meant to demonize Russia and spread pro-Azov, pro-Ukraine propaganda when it seems like we're on the cusp of potentially a deal or Zelensky's getting nervous maybe about Trump.

So we're seeing a push of this pro-NATO propaganda and I'm here to crush it.

That fat pussy whose name is Orthodox Canonist has me blocked and has had me blocked.

He is one of the people responsible for spreading this lies and slander about the Bolsheviks.

That is a man who lives in Australia LARPing as a Russian.

If he lived in Russia, he would be curb stomped on the street for spreading pro-Ukraine propaganda in the middle of a war.

So that's how we know he lives in Australia because he's a fat pussy.

Because in Russia, they don't have GMOs.

So you actually can't become as fat as he is if you live in Russia because you always have to take the Moscow Metro and you have to walk around a lot.

But this fat ass living in Australia eats as many GMO Doritos and fries as he wants while sitting with his disgusting fat Cheeto stained fingers typing and spreading lies about the Bolsheviks while LARPing as a holy man on the internet, even though he's actually a fucking degenerate slob who's LARPing.

He's a Roblox Orthodox Christian.

He's a fucking religious internet religious LARPer.

He's an internet clergyman, right?

And so that's what's going on here.

And he's actually responsible for a lot of these lies.

But so are all these other right-wing bird brains who have shit for brains.

That would be acknowledging they have brains.

So I think it's extremely generous.

But I can't tell if these people are bots or their brains are made of pigeon shit.

I make a tweet saying none of them will debate me, right?

None of them will debate me.

A fucking retard schizo named Truth Teller, who has the brain less than the brain of a pigeon, he's actually a fucking retarded Spurg bot, right?

This guy replies with another one of his JPEG fake news porn nonsense.

And it's like there's no self-awareness.

I understand the photos that you're sharing.

I understand the emojis that the Jewish emoji you're spamming and all these emojis because you're a fucking pigeon shit brain fucking low IQ retard incapable of critical thinking.

So you fucking spam emojis and stupid memes as if that's fact.

But what I'm here to actually do is hold you to account so that live you are pressed to actually defend these claims as fact.

So we get the primary sources that you're getting these things from.

So that everyone can be sure that you're not just making it up.

But no, what do they do?

They just keep spamming the same thing.

This is the behavior of bots and pigeons.

This is not the behavior of human beings.

It's the behavior of bots.

People who literally, it goes right past their head what I'm saying.

And they're back at it again spreading Ana Louise Lopez, whatever the fuck her name is.

She is a disgusting, she doesn't look human.

Her surgery has made her disfigured beyond the pale.

And I guess she has a problem with the Bolsheviks.

She's blaming the Bolsheviks because she looks like a fucking disaster.

And that's the crew we're dealing with.

A bunch of freaks.

Ana Louise, the disgusting freak, and all of these retards spreading low IQ, false nonsense, pro-NATO lies about the glorious Bolsheviks.

And they're doing it with impunity.

And you have to ask who's boosting them.

I just got community noted, by the way.

Oh, I'm so boosting NATO propaganda.

I just got community noted.

These people are doing CIA NATO.

You think community notes isn't rigged?

Of course it is.

So, you can community note me all you want.

You can do all, you can type whatever the fuck you want.

Pussy, get up here, request, and defend these claims you're making about the Bolsheviks.

Defend the claim that there was a holodomor, meaning a deliberate genocide.

They're claiming there was a genocide to kill 500 trillion Russian Christians, or come up here and defend that claim.

I'm going to press you, and I'm going to ask you, where's your primary source?

Where are you getting that from?

And watch these people squirm like the worms they are, the fucking trash that they are, the vermin that they are.

Watch them squirm as I press them on basic follow-up questions about where they're getting these claims from.

And if you want to know where the claims are coming from, the holodomor lie originates with Ukrainian neo-Nazis that were sponsored by the CIA that took refuge in Canada and the United States in the aftermath of World War II.

And during the Cold War, the CIA boosted all of this bullshit, fake news, Nazi propaganda against the Soviet Union, claiming that there was a genocide against Ukrainians.

And this has been part of NATO's propaganda arsenal to this day.

And now that we have the Russian special military operation, NATO's agents have saw to it that these lies are proliferating on X, but with a JQ bent, so that fucking low IQ schizo retards find it authentic and convincing.

So that's exactly what's going on here.

It's NATO propaganda.

It's Zionist propaganda, by the way, because these same Ukrainian expats were allies with the Zionists and the Zionist diaspora.

And they were both pushing the Holodomor myth, actually.

So one where are these right wing retards that are always in my replies?

Rev, do you see them requesting at all?

Guys, check if they're requesting.

I can't see.

No, they're not.

It says three requests to speak, but I can't see who's requesting.

Let me see if they are uh asking to be brought up, if if anything is going on that evinces any kind of sapience on their part, because I am really convinced that they're bots.

Look, and I have one of them in my replies.

Sorry, bud, you're either a moron or a lying filthy Jew, which is it?

Again, come up here and actually stand on business.

You're claiming that I'm not only the Bolsheviks Jews, you're claiming I'm a Jew now.

So, this is how I know your delusions are just full of falsehood.

If you're going so far as to claim I'm a Jew, you're not living in reality.

The same way you call me a Jew is the same way you call Stalin a Jew.

You're a fucking retard.

Anyway, where are the retards?

Because they were so aggressive in my replies with the pushback.

Why don't you keep that same energy and actually defend it in a debate?

Where are these pussies?

I can't find any of them.

I'm going to have Sarah be a co-host.

Maybe she can see them request and I can't.

But one person come and debate this because there's a pussy in my replies who claimed he'll debate me live on Twitter.

Well, here I am live on Twitter.

Where is he?

Let's check his profile.

He just posted something 30 minutes ago, which is CIA-sponsored Ukrainian Youth League cartoons about Holodomor.

Totally not boosted by the CIA, by the way.

Anyway, where is this guy?

There's one in the request, actually.

He's a fan of Dr.

Lupas.

Bring up the Dr.

Lupas monstrosity abomination fans.

Please bring up these disgusting abominations.

Voyage.

Just want to say, before we listen to this Nazi, I'm really proud of you guys.

And while we were in Russia, like people were like goo-goo gaga over ACP.

It was like, yeah, yeah, sorry.

We could talk about it later, but let's get down to it.

Yeah, just look.

That was my nice thing.

Unless we get to the Nazis.

Don't rush me.

Okay, my bad.

My bad.

But Voyage, how does it feel to have a brain that's the same as a pigeon?

Go ahead.

Um hey, hey, um you have evidence that the Jews were not Bolsheviks?

Yes, we have evidence that the overwhelming majority of the Jews in Russia at the time of the October Revolution were against the Bolshevik Party, did not vote for the Bolsheviks in any proportions, in any significant portions in the Constituent Assembly elections.

They were overwhelmingly for the cadets, which were the liberal party that joined the white counter-revolution.

We have evidence that at no point in the history of Soviet history was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party in the majority comprised of Jews.

By the late 1920s, the number of Soviet elites who were Jewish was a meager 6%.

The high points of Jewish overrepresentation in the NKVD saw them as about one-third during the mid-1930s.

By 1939, after the Great Purges, that number plummeted to about 4%, which was more or less representational to their numbers within the Soviet Union.

So at no point did Jews dominate the Bolshevik Party.

The only thing you could say is for a few months before the existence of the Soviet Union, two or three guys, and these are individuals by the way, Zinoviev and Kamenev, one of whom was not even fully Jewish, were there in the Politburo and they got shot.

So how could these Jews be running things if they're always getting shot?

That's beyond my comprehension.

So go ahead.

That's my evidence.

What about yours?

I don't have any.

I just want to say.

Right, I know you don't.

You just listen to Ana Louise because you don't have critical thinking skills.

So there's somebody thumbs downing and I can see them.

Go ahead, thumbs down.

Would you like to push back on the actual facts I just gave everyone?

Oh, absolutely.

Not only the Bolshevik Revolution, but Jack the Ripper was writing his letters in Yiddish.

Hold on, hold on.

We can get into things one at a time.

I don't give a shit about Jack the fucking Ripper.

I don't care about any of this other schizo nonsense.

I'm a Bolshevik and I'm here to defend my Bolsheviks because I'm a Bolshevik too.

So you're going to have to provide some evidence and account for the fact that if the Bolshevik Revolution was Jewish, why did the majority of Jews go against it during the time in which it happened?

I'll unmute you.

Go ahead.

You're unmuted.

Go ahead.

You just came out the bat babbling, making claims with no evidence, and then roped in Jack the fucking ripper because you're a schizo pigeon shit brain.

Go ahead and defend what you just claimed.

What I just said was a fact, and you're afraid of facts, so you get that.

Where's the evidence?

Give me one primary source.

One fucking primary source.

Go ahead.

Oh, no.

You have it all compiled, my friend.

We have it all compiled.

You cite it.

Cite it right now.

Then cite it right now.

I'll compile it all right now for you.

And give me five minutes, and I'm going to go through all of it for you.

No, no, no.

What you're going to do, you babbling metrosexual schizo fuck is link it.

You're going to link it to me right now, and we're going to go through it together.

We're not going to have you read off of it because nobody likes your disgusting metrosexual voice.

I'm going to read it, and we're going to scrutinize your sources.

So go ahead and let's get your sources on the claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was Jewish.

Let's go ahead and send it, and my people will link it to me, and we'll go over it live, and I'll read all of it.

And one by one, we will see if they stand to fact.

Go ahead.

You said you wanted five minutes, right?

I'll unmute you right now.

Yeah, I'll break it all down.

Give me five minutes.

Yeah, yeah, break it all down.

Break it all down.

Go ahead.

I get it.

You're upset.

Give me a sec.

We'll have it all.

You're right.

I am upset.

I'm upset at these fucking liars like you, pigeon shit brains that are slandering and lying about the heroes of humanity and mankind who emancipated the entire world from the fucking bloodsuckers and exploiters who you shill for because you're a fucking pussy who can't think for themselves and are too afraid to actually stand up for something that is too fringe and too marginal and ostracized, which is the Bolsheviks, which is the history of communism.

It's easy to be a fucking Nazi because you're just an edge lord and everyone finds it funny.

But who's here defending communism?

Who has the courage to stand up for the exploited, for the persecuted, for the maligned, when it's not convenient to, when it's not edgy to, when it's not spicy to?

It's just the plain banal truth that everyone's neglecting and leaving on the side of the fucking street to neglect and shit on and step on because they think they can, because they worship power.

Well, if you worship power, we'll show you power, just like Lenin showed it to you in 1917, just like Mao showed it to you in 1949.

Well you are showing us power, right?

You're you're you've done you just devastated the Middle East not only five five decades.

You devastated the Middle East you fucking retard.

My parents are literally from the Middle East you dipshit.

The United States devastated the Middle East.

Yes or no?

Okay, so now you're blaming me for the US government's actions.

You fucking.

No, I'm not.

No I'm not.

And then the United States passed the baton to Israel and now Israel is destroying the Middle East.

Yes or no?

Hey, you fucking idiot.

My grandpa literally shot and I can't, I don't know if he can say this.

He literally fought the fucking Zionists with guns, you dipshit.

It's communists in Palestine and Lebanon that are also fighting the Zionists right now.

You know how many martyrs from the Palestinian cause that were killed by Zionists were communists, you idiot?

Do you have any idea of history whatsoever?

Do you have any idea of the fact that the Palestinian militants of the 70s and 80s were trained in Moscow, were trained by the Soviets and the KGB?

Do you have any idea what you're fucking talking about, you babbling idiot?

Uh yes, yes, I actually do.

Everything I've said so far is a fact.

No, it's not.

You're accusing me of being a Zionist, which is so stupid.

It's beyond fucking reproach.

I haven't said one thing about you.

So why are you blaming me for the problems in the Middle East?

My grandparents, my grandpa was literally on the fucking kill list of Zionists.

Your grandparents are irrelevant to the discussion.

Okay, so what does it have to do with me, you idiot?

We Bolsheviks have always been anti-Zionist.

You are also irrelevant to the discussion?

No, I'm not irrelevant because I'm a modern-day Bolshevik.

I'm an American Bolshevik.

The Bolsheviks rounded up to the Bolshevik Cheka rounded up and shot Zionists in the Ukraine, by the way, during the Civil War.

Whereas prominent rich Zionists bankrolled the white counter-revolution during that same time.

Are you aware of that, sir?

You're unmuted, and we're also waiting for you to compile your source.

Let's bring Elias while this guy compiles his beautiful sources, which are totally not going to be schizo JPEG nonsense that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Go ahead, Elias.

Ah he left.

Sarah, is there anyone else requesting?

There's a lot, but I don't think any of them are oppositional.

That's what I'm looking for.

Ah, yeah, we want the right-wing opposition who's going to defend the claim.

Okay, I think that this one is kind of like a JQer, so it might work.

Here we go.

Sure, bring them up.

Go ahead and bring them up.

Go ahead.

Can you defend what no one else has been able to so far?

Who me?

Check?

Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right.

So, where do you want to start?

Let's start at the beginning.

Like you said, at the beginning, most of the Bolsheviks were not sympathetic.

You know, like the Jews were not a part of that shit.

Yeah.

It ended up being that way.

But as events transpired, you know, the communist regime perpetuated like anti-Semitism.

And, you know, at the same time, there were bankers in Russia who initially supported the revolution.

Which revolution and which bankers?

The Bolshevik bankers who happen to be Jews that live in the U.S.

The Bolshevik bankers in Russia supported the revolution.

Name one.

Let's see.

They're the czars.

Remember the czars?

I forget his name.

I'm not.

There's a czar.

The czar was not a banker.

He was.

Yeah, Lewis Marshall.

Then even our own FBI has documents regarding this, what we're talking about right now, because that's what it's like.

You think about the arm and hammer guy?

It was financial aid bankers who were all part of the name all of them.

Name one.

I'm asking you to name one.

Can you name one?

I'll help you out, brother.

Jacob Schiff is one of our best friends.

Jacob Schiff, there is absolutely no.

Not only is there no evidence he supported the Bolsheviks, Jacob Schiff funded the white counter-revolution.

Nobody takes you seriously.

Jacob Schiff, and I can provide receipts for this right now if you want.

I can provide factual evidence, primary sources.

He actually supported the white counter-revolution and denounced the Bolsheviks immediately upon them seizing power.

What you're actually referring to is the February Revolution, which wasn't the Bolshevik Revolution.

That happened in February, and that's exactly the provisional government that the Bolsheviks started in an armed uprising to overthrow.

That's who Jacob Schiff and these bankers you're talking about supported.

And as soon as the Bolsheviks toppled them, they had every major power on planet Earth, they call it the Allied intervention into Russia, invade Russia at the time to depose the Bolsheviks, and they bankrolled the white counter-revolution.

All of their weapons, all of their aid, everything, all their propaganda, it was all funded by these same bankers, and we have receipts and proof of that fact.

This is why nobody takes you serious, man.

You ask me.

How many did Jacob Schiff fund it in 1917?

We have the data.

Okay.

Give me one primary source.

Right now, give me one primary source confirming that Jacob Schiff gave even a cent to the Bolsheviks.

One cent.

Then link it and signal it.

You are making it up.

It's right out of your own asshole.

It doesn't exist.

No, okay, just made it up.

There's nobody else.

Link the primary source that Jacob Schiff gave one cent.

They don't know what primary.

You dip shit.

Give me one source.

Link one source showing that Jacob Schiff gave even a penny to the Bolsheviks.

One penny.

One penny from Jacob Schiff.

Give me one source.

One actual primary source.

Not a scheduler meme.

One primary source.

Not a JPEG, not a PNG meme that's unverified, that's made up, that anyone can make up.

One primary source that shows this.

Go ahead.

The US State Department has it on their website, man.

I don't even think you're going to be able to do it.

Listen, if the US State Department has it on their website, it should be incredibly easy for you to link it and so we could all go over it together and see exactly what the source of Anna Louise disaster surgery face is talking about.

So go ahead.

No, I'm not.

I'd rather just point and laugh at how stupid you are.

Because on Han, this is beautiful.

Instead of producing any evidence, you're pointing and laughing because you're coping.

Because I called you out.

Because you're a pigeon shit NPC who eats up whatever diarrhea slop NATO's agents on X throw in your face.

You can't even fucking stand on business and defend any of it.

You see these retarded JPEGs and PNGs that Ana Louise, the surgery disaster face, shares.

And without any critical thinking whatsoever, you fucking eat it up and you buy into it.

But when Haas asked you to give me the link and actually give me the evidence, you don't produce a fucking thing.

You say, I'm going to sit and laugh.

You're not laughing, bitch.

I just humiliated you.

And look, I'm going to do to anybody who slanders the Bolsheviks going forward.

You're fucking retarded as shit, dude.

I'm just laughing at how dumb you are.

MAGA communism?

Like, mega communism?

But where are the sources?

Where's the sources, though?

Can you give me the evidence, though?

I'm not interested in your emotional state.

I don't care if you're laughing.

I don't care if you're crying.

I don't care if you're angry.

I don't care if you're happy.

I don't care if you feel nothing at all.

I don't care if you're dead inside.

What do you want to sing a song?

The tears don't grow on my mom inside.

Cause I'm not.

Well, I don't give a fuck what your emotions are right now, you dip shit.

I'm looking for you to substantiate your claims with evidence so that everyone can know whether you're just pulling it out of your asshole or not.

And you've just proven to everybody that all these claims you make about the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks came straight out of your asshole.

They have nothing to do with reality.

They have nothing to do with facts.

You made all of them up because when you were asked to actually provide receipts, you gave us nothing.

You're an actual pussy.

All you said, one of you said, What about Trotsky?

The guy who was exiled and later killed by the same Soviet government?

Even if it was true that Trotsky was an agent of all these bankers or whatever, Trotsky wasn't even a Bolshevik.

He jumped on the board the revolution at the last minute.

He had no organizational history inside the Bolshevik Party.

Lenin, Stalin, all of them said as much.

And by the mid-late 1920s, he's fucking exiled.

So to say that Trotsky is the epitome of what a Bolshevik is is nonsense.

Did Trotsky oversee the collectivization?

Did Trotsky industrialize the Soviet Union?

Did Trotsky organize the resistance against the Nazi invasion?

Did Trotsky bring the Soviet Union to glory?

Did Trotsky send the first fucking man into outer space?

Did Trotsky build the Red Empire?

That is the very only fucking reason we even talk about communism.

Did Trotsky create the world's greatest superpower of the oppressed and the exploited that required CIA and MI6 fucks to spread the propaganda that you're now repeating to slander and defame them on the world stage?

Was that all Trotsky?

No, it wasn't Trotsky.

It was the Bolsheviks.

It was Stalin.

So you have nothing.

Okay, so we actually do, and I'm going to share it with you.

If you if you finally take okay, if you can take the he's just so stupid, but like look how he acts, man.

Leon Trotsky played a six-year-old.

All right, I want to I want to debate the guy who's actually debating, not the one menstruating.

Who's the menstruator between the two?

Sarah, who's menstruating?

The guy who's ready to give me receipts, we're going to proceed with him.

Are you like CIA?

What is wrong?

Who's Sarah?

Which one is menstruating and not giving any arguments?

I think that 99, 9999 repeating is menstruating.

Okay.

It's just kind of spurging because I don't think they know what a primary I don't think they know what a primary source is.

Right, we need to remove the menstruation.

I also think that this weird theory about Jacob Schiff comes from the fact that he financed the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese War.

Maybe that's where it comes from.

It was also because Jacob Schiff didn't like the czar, but these illiterate retards don't even know that the Bolsheviks weren't even the ones who deposed the Tsar.

That was in the February Revolution, which the Bolsheviks were not leading or in charge of.

Because they don't know the difference.

They don't know that there's more than 100%.

They probably don't even know where Russia or Ukraine is on a fucking map.

They'll probably point at Kazakhstan if I ask them.

Well, I'm actually bringing receipts.

Are you?

I want you to announce who you are and tell me what's your username and where's the receipt?

I'm not going to let you go talk, man.

He's the other guy is okay.

I want to address the other guy for a second.

You are a menstruating bitch.

I took your manhood.

Now go cry in the corner for the rest of your life.

All you did was talk about your feelings.

Now, 999, since you're actually willing to play ball here and provide the receipts, where are these receipts?

Where can I find them?

Okay, so the top of Yandex, every single article.

Can you link it to me right now?

I want a link.

Any link.

Type in how did Jesus.

So you don't have a source.

999.

I want a single link that we could go through to.

Why do we have to teach them what sources and how to provide it?

We need a link to that.

Go read the MLA Bible.

So 999.

999.

You were Jack the Ripper.

You're a Jew.

You are a Jew, and you were the Jewish Jack the Ripper.

That's you.

999.

Do you agree with that or no?

Typical Jew behavior.

You just have to.

Come on, Sarah.

Let me.

999.

Are you?

Are you the Jewish Jack the Ripper?

Yes or no?

Hilarious.

You're not even willing to listen to it.

Yes or no?

Well, I just made a claim that you are the Jewish Jack the Ripper.

And I'm going to open a website and a blog and I'm going to share photos and I'm going to have big colored letters and I'm going to link and I'm going to say type and I'm going to search index it on Yandex so it's on the front page.

Would that be an acceptable source if I just make the claim?

Or do I have to back it up with some kind of evidence?

What do you think?

Well, I was about to give you all the evidence, but you don't want to hear any evidence.

I want to get a single piece of evidence suggesting what you're claiming.

Single piece of evidence there's the the entire front page of Yandex has it, but which is every article.

Give me one of them.

Give me one of them that we can scrutinize and go through together.

Go ahead.

Let's start with do you want to do chat GPT?

No, I want something that can be scrutinized.

I don't want some.

See, 999, do you not know you have a mental illness?

I ask you for a source.

Oh, it's just out there.

It's just like there.

Well, give me a link to it so we could actually screw it.

I want it to be scrutinized.

You know what scrutinized means?

It means we can test it.

It has to be testable.

You understand?

What you're saying, the front page of Yandex is not testable because which one, which one in particular are you willing to defend upon which your claims hinge?

What can we test?

What can we scrutinize?

Give me one thing that we can actually subject to some kind of test that would confirm or deny the claim that either the Bolsheviks were Jewish, that there was a Holodomor genocide, whatever you want, that the Jews did the Bolshevik Revolution, that Jacob Schiff financed the Bolsheviks.

All these claims you're making, I want the sources so we can scrutinize them.

Go ahead.

Archive.org.

Yeah?

And I'm going to link it, right?

Send me the link to what you are talking about.

I'm going to send you the entire front page of Yandex with all of you.

Only one in particular.

Okay.

No, no, no, no.

You're going to commit to just one for now and say, I 99 swear upon my whole honor that this is correct and we're going to scrutinize it.

I want something you can have some skin in the game with respect to so that if it's proven false, you can admit to the world that you were wrong.

Or if it's proven correct, I can admit that I'm wrong.

But we have to actually have something we can test that's concrete.

So give me at least one thing you're willing to defend as credible and we're going to go through it together.

And I'm waiting, and I'm waiting for one thing.

Just one.

I just sent it.

It's in the uh it's in the nest.

And I'm gonna I'm gonna see I'm gonna see where is it?

Where is it?

In the nest.

I sent it in the chat.

You should see it.

Uh which chat?

The one that's uh Just check both.

I'm gonna click your profile and look for it there.

Well, I didn't s it's not in my profile.

I sent it in your chat.

Should be in on kick.

You sent it no, you did you sent it right here.

Here it is.

So we're going to

Alright.

Yeah.

This archive.org copy link.

So let's go through this.

So if you allow me to read this for everyone, also kick.com/slash infrared.

I'm streaming this right now and I'll display it for everyone to see as well.

So let's go ahead and let's go ahead and look at this.

Finally, we got something.

Something we can use to evaluate whether or not this is a complete lie or not.

So let's see what we're looking at here.

Are you guys ready?

Again, I recommend kick.com/slash infrared if you want to read it yourselves.

I have it pulled up.

Can we start with the writer?

No, hold on.

Let me let me um.

Let me deal with this for now.

So, why did Jacob H.

Schiff decide to financially sponsor the Russian Revolution of 1917?

So, this is the paste bin, and let's see what the source is before we even get into it.

Before we even get into it, let's see what the source is.

Let's look at this.

Delphine Slotten 1B extended essay candidate number.

Oh, and then the date is 10th of September 2010.

So, what are we actually looking at here?

It seems like they have all of these sources that they're going to use to try and defend it.

So let's see what it says.

In March 1917, it became known that banker Schiff funded Russia's revolution and overthrew its Tsarist regime.

But which revolution?

Are we talking about the Bolshevik Revolution or the February Revolution of 1917?

Well, it says in March of 1917.

So the only revolution that happened prior to March 1917 is the February Revolution.

Whereas the Bolshevik Revolution, if we're using our calendar, happened on November 7th of 1917, which was many, many months after March 1917.

So right off the fucking bat, this has nothing to do with the Bolsheviks.

Now let's see what they say.

Following the November 1917 revolution, similar reports emerged.

Okay, so where are these sources?

Where are the footnotes?

I have no footnote, just saying similar reports.

That's all we have right now.

The real reason why he sponsored the March 1917 reason, why he extended his sponsorship to the orchestrators of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

Again, there's no footnotes.

What's the source for this specific claim?

This is a woman, Delphine Slaughton, who in 2010 wrote this paragraph with nothing to back it up.

Again, kick.com/slash infrared.

You can read the same thing that I'm reading, just so you know that I'm reading it faithfully.

I researched the various different motivations.

So let's just search November.

Just to get to the actual thing that matters when it comes to the Bolsheviks.

Okay, so this is what she says.

This is your source, which already is shoddy and unreliable, right?

Furthermore, regarding the November 1917 revolution, limited and contradictory sources lead to similarly inconclusive results.

These results include the possibility that Schiff may not have even funded the second revolution as he was so described.

So even she is admitting that there are.

That there are inconclusive results, that the sources that are making this claim are limited and contradictory, and that, according to her, he may not even have had funded the second revolution.

So, this source is not even making the claim that you want it to.

Let's see.

As for the Bolshevik Revolution of 17, French sources in the 20s claimed that Schiff had bankrolled communists to the tune of 12 million.

Where was their source?

There's none.

16th, February 1949, issue of the New York Journal American, the following was said of Schiff's contribution.

Today, it is estimated by Jacob's grandson John Schiff that the old man sank about 20 million.

Where is the primary source?

Nothing.

United States National Archives.

So, let's continue.

Perhaps the most incriminating evidence

regarding the uh alleged Jewish conspiracy is the U.

S.

Department of State's decimal file number eight sixty one compiled between nineteen ten and nineteen twenty nine.

The central document entitled Bolshevism and Judaism dated nineteen eighteen describes the U.S.

Antarmes Intelligence Bureau's belief that

Nothing.

There's literally nothing you can look at kick.com slash infrared and there's nothing.

Hold wait, maybe right here.

Planning for the Bolshevik Revolution first began in February 1916.

Investigators explained that among the four listed Jewish banking parties they discovered Jacob Schiff was the primary perpetrator in his enterprise of destruction.

The government document continued explicitly stating that there is scarcely any doubt that the Russian Revolution was worked up and launched by Jewish influences.

In the spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff began to commission Trotsky to bring about social revolution.

The American government appears to have sought to make its case credible by referencing several Jewish individuals and firms in the US and Europe who had allegedly participating.

Trotsky and Company, the Rhinish Westphalian Syndicate, Jewish Multi-Millionaires, Brothers Lazard, whatever, Speyer.

The investigators concluded that if we remark further that the Jewish firms mentioned are in close relations with the Jewish Bank of So we first of all, this is the source.

No American government document following decimal file 861 for 4016-325 established these close relations as having existed.

And because of this lack of document, it can be interpreted as a lack of further interest in the part of the government.

So if this document exists, which is alleging this conspiracy that involves Schiff, the following conclusions can be drawn from it based on your source.

That only Trotsky was apparently involved, because no one else is listed.

And furthermore, there's no actual evidence.

There's no primary sources actually justifying this.

This is something that was documented by U.S.

intelligence, but never elaborated on or pursued.

So the credibility in the first place is dubious.

American government was not thoroughly invested in the idea.

And this indifference was most likely derived from the absurdity of such an accusation and of Schiff's own innocence.

So, Sutton, this is Anthony Sutton, who most of these people get this from.

By the way, we haven't even confirmed the documents.

We're going to check up on that in a second.

Extensively reviewed the primary sources, and his research largely indicated that both the American and British governments and politicians were misinformed in terms of the knowledge they presented.

Sutton specifically evaluated Winston Churchill's Zionism versus Bolshevism.

And according to Sutton, Churchill had, contrary to fact, asserted that with the exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures were Jewish.

And that, contrary to fact, Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were exempted, which is not true.

The inaccuracy of these assertions, as made evident by Sutton,

Indicates the extent to which both the American and British governments believed in the conspiracy.

Both camps were prepared either to uncritically believe false information or to intentionally fabricate and disseminate it through such public forms as newspapers.

So, why did the American and British government disseminate this propaganda?

How do we explain that fact?

Well, it's very simple.

The white counter-revolution that was fighting the Bolsheviks at the time, which the bankers of the capitalist Anglo-Saxon, British, and American empires were the ones bankrolling and funding the white counter-revolutionaries, their primary propaganda tactic against the Bolsheviks was to depict the Bolsheviks as Jewish.

Now, why was that?

Because as we know, Russian peasants at the time were not big fans of Jews for various different kinds of reasons.

We can get into, but they weren't fans of Jews among the Russian peasantry.

The Russian peasantry was the decisive element in the civil war, and the Bolsheviks would not have won without having won over the Russian peasantry.

Now, here's the problem: the only way to fight against the Bolshevik revol uh the Bolsheviks' propaganda of land reform and empowering the peasants and all this kind of stuff, the most effective tool was just saying, Oh, they're all Jews.

So, of course, the British and American government were reproducing this propaganda.

But was any invest was Schiff actually found guilty of any of these crimes?

Was it even investigated?

Was anything actually concretely produced in terms of evidence?

No.

No, and Anthony Sutton, by the way, who wrote the book But Wall Street Funded the Bolshevik Revolution, which is full of a bunch of crazy leaps and inaccuracies in and of itself, even he admits that Jacob Schiff didn't even give a dime to the Bolsheviks.

So.

Hold on, let's uh, there's something else about this source we need to draw our attention to, because it gets even better.

In 2011, Delphine Slaughton, one of our team volunteers, wrote her extended essay for international bachelorette program about Jacob Schiff, the philanthropist whose wife donated the money for the original tract of land that eventually became the Schiff Natural Lands Trust.

She was kind enough to allow us to post it here on Schiff Nature Preserve website.

So it's total nonsense to begin with.

It's a 1B complete gibber.

Even she says it's contradictory and inconclusive.

I'll go ahead and unmute you.

So can you defend this primary source that you've given me as evidence?

Because reading it seems like it's complete, it doesn't justify any of the claims you're making that Schiff funded the Bolshevik Revolution.

Because this very source calls into doubt the strongest piece of evidence that it can provide.

The strongest one was supposedly, and I'll read it, supposedly Department of State decimal file number 861.4016 slash 325.

That is the strongest, strongest thing it cites.

And she herself calls it into question because it was never actually followed up with in any kind of way and it was completely discarded because there was no actual evidence behind the various claims made in it.

It was a bunch of hearsay.

You're just going to keep talking.

Why are you skipping over this part entirely, though?

In front of all your people.

The role of Leon Trotsky.

Trotsky, who played a key role in the Bolsheviks' rise to power, had close ties with Zionists and was influenced by their ideology.

In 1917, he traveled to Palestine where he met with Zionist leaders.

They were saying he involved him.

I need a primary source.

What source says Trotsky met with Zionists?

Were we about the Rothschild family involvement or no?

I want sources.

I want sources that Trotsky...

Hold on, you're screaming and spurging out.

This is about sources.

I want sources that Trotsky went to Palestine, and I also want sources that the Rothschilds were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution.

You tried to maintain the claim that Schiff was, and it fell flat on its face in the very same source that you linked to me.

Okay.

Schiff was involved in the February Revolution, which was in March, but he was completely against and openly denounced the Bolsheviks later in November.

So that's so much for Schiff's involvement.

Now you want to make claims about the Rothschilds.

I'd like to see evidence for that.

You claim that Trotsky went to Palestine in 1917.

That could be true.

I don't know if it's true, actually.

So let me see the source on that.

But regarding Trotsky, I have to make the claim again.

One, Trotsky wasn't a Bolshevik.

He was an opportunist.

Two, if all these claims about Trotsky's ties to foreign bankers and all this stuff is true, which it could be, who knows?

The Bolsheviks didn't know about it.

Trotsky would have had to lie to them.

By the way, these are conclusions the NKVD would draw in the 1930s that Trotsky was a traitor from the very beginning.

Why do you even think the Great Purges happened in the late 30s?

Because it's true that there were a lot of foreign intelligence that got agents in places in the Bolshevik government.

But the Bolsheviks overwhelmingly, that didn't represent who they were.

They got purged from the Bolshevik government.

If these people were in control of the Bolsheviks, how is it that they were shot in the back of the head or stabbed with an ice pick in the head in the case of Trotsky?

If they were so in control of the Bolsheviks, why were the Bolsheviks able to shoot them?

So I'll go ahead and unmute you, but we need the sources, 999, and we'll go through them just the same way.

I just sent you three more.orgs.

Three more in the chat.

I actually sent you five.

But you have three more to peruse.

And I'm curious why you're skipping involvement of the Rothschild family.

You're just skipping over that.

If you're skipping anything, there's just no fucking evidence for it.

Where is the evidence you're talking about for Rothschild's involvement in the Bolsheviks?

I'm not skipping it.

You haven't shown me anything to believe I should even entertain that.

Why do you keep muting me while I'm actively because you're a Spurg.

Because you're a Spurg who constantly interrupts me.

And rather than provide evidence, you're just Sperging out about Rothschilds and all this kind of stuff.

We need to concretely.

You're providing evidence and everyone's listening to you.

We're trying to go through the evidence.

You're actually not listening to the evidence that you're skipping.

So I'm not skipping anything, you fucking retard.

I'm clicking your profile now to see what you want me to look at.

So what, what, where should I start?

So this was the first source.

We knocked that one down.

You shared a JPEG with no, or this is not, this is a WordPress.

Here's countercurrents.

Let's start.

Where should we start?

Should we start with the WordPress?

We'll start with that one.

Because we're going to do this one at a time.

I'm not going to let you spurg out and bombard us with 12 different sources without us being able to scrutinize them.

We're going to scrutinize them one by one and see if your claims stand to record.

By the way, I want to tell you guys something that's very curious.

I looked up the Department of State's decimal file from 1910 to 1929, a number 861-416-325, and I can't find it.

I actually can't find it.

So I don't know what's going on.

I also want to make a note of the author of that essay as an environmental scientist.

So I'm not sure why they're doing it.

I'm not sure.

And I can't even find the most smoking, it's not even smoking gun, but the most substantive thing in that entire thing that could, which is that, okay, U.S.

Army intelligence, but where's the primary source?

It's nowhere to be found.

And even if it was, it was not accurate because it was never followed up on, and it was repudiated later because Schiff's innocence.

According to the same source, at least, right?

So let's see.

And such a claim makes sense, by the way, because Schiff was clearly involved in the February Revolution.

So it makes sense that they would leapfrog and just assume that, oh, maybe he's.

But again, no evidence.

We don't have any actual evidence to suggest this.

Was there a perception among the white counter-revolutionaries at the time?

Was this conspiracy widespread?

Yeah, but there was no evidence for it.

Nothing was backing it up.

So rumors is not evidence, you know.

Anyway, yeah, maybe Jack the Ripper stole it.

So anyway, let's go into this WordPress where apparently we're going to find the Holy Grail.

Uh, here it is right here.

So, here's the WordPress, and we're gonna go we're gonna again kick.com/slash infrared, where we're gonna go through the evidence together that this gentleman is providing us and scrutinize it.

New World Order broadcast score: The Wall Street Jews behind the Bolshevik Revolution!

All right, here, here's a here's a picture: Paul Wahlberg, Trotsky, JP Morgan, funded Lenin, and then all the okay, heritage history.

That's the source they're giving for this image.

So, there's sources within the sources.

So, let's see what heritage history is.

Ah, bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution.

Uh

The is okay.

This is just another schizo thing that's just making claims.

Where are the sources?

Quingley, since he and financiers talked about it earlier.

Page, this doesn't even say anything.

Kick.com says, Jen Fred, you can read what I'm reading.

And see, this is the smoking.

So I'm I'm looking for this.

I'm looking for this.

This is supposedly the original source that's the source of this JPEG.

But this okay, here it is.

This is where it's from.

According to Dig Golovich.

According to him.

So this is this is where the uh image is coming from.

But th there's no evidence behind this.

It's just another fucking website making claims with no footnotes, no primary sources.

It's almost like this is all bullshit.

It's almost like anyone can do this and make these claims without providing or substantiating any evidence.

So here's the WordPress.

Here we are with this uh uh again, this claim that the 1949 issue of the New York Journal American.

But where is it actually being linked?

Can we find it anywhere?

Seems like it's just another fucking meme, actually.

This is something about the Federal Reserve.

In their program of aiding the Communists wait, where's the proof that they were aiding the Communists?

I can't find any.

The Rockefellers is sometimes called the first family of the Soviet Union.

Why is it called that?

By who?

It's true.

I just got back from Russia and there are statues of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers everywhere.

So a lot of claims are being made in here with no sources.

So it just depends on whether we should trust this WordPress.

Is Sutton going to be the one who's uh referred?

mister Schiff.

Source, this says what does this have to do with uh Bolsheviks?

He's claiming that Sutton was writing propaganda.

Ah, no sources.

So I came to the end of it and there's no sources.

There's no footnotes.

There's nothing.

But they they did highlight this.

It's it is highli it's underlined.

This is definitely underlined.

All right.

So that must mean it's true that they underlined it.

They underline it.

The Jewish high finance have been planning and working on destroying Tsardom and the Romanovs.

They're street rabble, Bolshevik, co-religionists.

But where are the factual claims?

Where are the factual pieces of evidence and primary sources backing up sentences like this?

So much for the great Gentile fortunes.

This is bolded, and it's an all-cap.

So that must mean it's true, right?

By the way, it must mean it's true.

Now, this is one of the sources.

Apparently, you had four more, right?

So we're going to go through the other ones as well.

Uh so much for that though.

That was uh probably the even worse than the other one.

Uh let's see.

Outer currents.

Wall Street and the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

Let's get the link here.

Surely, surely this one will be the smoking gun evidence that we're looking for.

That the bull that the Bolshevik Revolution was in any way financed by Schiff, the Rothschilds, and all these bankers like you're trying to claim.

Uh let me see.

Alright.

All right.

Again, kick.com slash infrared.

We're going to be looking through this together.

By the way, this is the the this is what uh has been given to us.

Uh so let's uh let's look through this together.

My last article documented the funding of the March 1917 revolution.

This article deals with the funding and subsequent Bolshevik coup eight months later.

Okay.

So

Uh w so there this is a whole paragraph without a single uh footnote, by the way.

So, this is a claim being made based on what?

Look at what I'm looking at.

Alright, here the footnotes begin.

Let's see.

The German government arranged for the safe passage of Lenin f across Germany to Russia.

So this is uh two.

I'm not interested in disputing that claim right now, although it's uh the details surrounding Lenin's involvement with the Germans is actually something that's contested, but it has not no relevance with respect to the claim.

That we're that we care about right now, so I'm going to ignore that for now.

A partner of Jacob Schiff.

Uh at Wall Street, looked after the family interests in New York.

The primary factor was behind the bankers report, whether from London.

Okay, so let's look at these are footnotes being cited.

So let's see where they what they cite.

Paul Warburg had been decorated by the Kaiser in 1912.

That's not evidence of anything.

Colonel William Wiseman, head of the British Secret Service, was the British equivalent of uh the America's presidential advisor.

He became partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.

From May 1st, 1918, Wiseman cabled House that the Allies should intervene at the invitation of the Bolsheviks.

and help organize the Bolshevik army, then fighting the whites in a bloody civil war.

You know what's hilarious is there is an allied intervention against the Bolsheviks to help the white army.

At a time when the Bolshevik hold in Russia was doubtful, so the source for this claim that Wiseman, the head of British Secret Service, said the Allies should side with the Bolsheviks.

By the way, it makes no sense.

On day one, the Bolsheviks canceled all debt and seized all of the properties owned by British capital, by American capital, by European capital.

They repudiated all of the foreign debts immediately and seized all of the property of these foreign powers.

So according to the according to them, the intimate papers of Co C uh Colonel House

Volume three, page four twenty one.

Let's actually see if we can access that in some kind of way.

So uh let's uh let's see.

Let's see if we can actually pull that up.

Alright, I'm going to use a completely legitimate means to access this.

I'm just going to pay $5 trillion to.

I'm totally not going to just.

Alright, hold on.

Page I might actually act be able to access it for free.

What page do they say 421?

Alright, so this is the source in question, and this is page 421.

I'm going to check page 422 just in case.

Uh it's there, but here's page 421.

All right, you guys ready?

I'm gonna read it to you.

I'm gonna read to you page 421, which is being cited as evidence for the claim that Wiseman asked for an intervention on behalf of the Bolsheviks.

He visited France without result.

He solidified personal relations.

He renewed his intimacy with British friends.

May 5th, 1913.

Okay, this is many years earlier.

Maybe it's page 420.

Maybe 423.

Okay, this is nineteen fifteen.

Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing?

Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing?

It sounds like this bullshit source just falsely cited this book.

Uh based on nothing.

So this is the extent of the credibility of the sources you're giving me.

I literally found the fucking book.

I looked at the fucking page and it's not even about Russia, let alone the the time period.

So there we go.

There we go.

So that would be enough, to be honest, to dismiss the source completely, uh outright.

Because they're putting in their footnotes bullshit which doesn't uh line up with the the claims being attributed to the source.

Let's see.

Again, this is the Colonel Thompson guy.

Guys, keep in mind that the US had sent they were called what the Polar Bear Battalion or some shit had actually sent they were in Russia at the time as part of the Allied intervention, literally exchanging fire with Bolsheviks and they were killing each other.

So keep all that in mind as this source attempts to claim there was one rich guy who was sympathetic with the Bolsheviks who was named Thompson in the early 1920s.

Again, there's no reason I should trust anything this source is claiming because I went to the primary source, it was even related to this guy, and there was nothing.

But even if it was true, it has nothing to do with the idea that the revolution was funded uh by bankers, by Wall Street or any of these other claims.

So so far this is going to make claims about

Later, after they seized power in the twenties, they're going to make claims about the NEP when the Bolsheviks actually had to allow capitalism back because the whole country had been devastated and they didn't have the infrastructure.

Timberland Socialism, which only lasted for a few years, about four years and precisely to be precise, by the way.

Um

Again, so this has nothing.

This has nothing on the actual Bolshevik revolution.

It's just making claims about Armin Hammer, who everyone knows about.

Arm and Hammer was the guy who's uh who was a uh radical kind of uh pro-worker guy who owned a business.

The h the symbol of Arm and Hammer is literally an arm with a hammer, to show you the radical labor roots of that.

That enterprise.

It's it's not news to anyone.

Alright, uh so nothing.

Let's see.

Um let's see what else you have.

So sixteen minutes ago, educate yourself.org.

Uh let's see.

Educateyourself.org.

Let's see uh what this one has to say.

Again, I'm going through all of your sources just like you wanted.

Alright guys, kick.com slash infrared.

If you'd like to see me walk through these sources, here we go.

Millionaire, let's see.

Millionaire.

So, four chapter four.

What is this?

Louis Marshcallo, the World Conquerors.

Published nineteen fifty eight.

Millionaire bankers back Bolsheviks.

The Czar's murderers were Sverdlov.

These are demonstrably false or at least unproven claims.

The Russian government themselves conducted an investigation absolving the Soviet government of responsibility for the murder of the Tsar and his family.

There's no proof for it.

So we're already off to a great start.

Just claims being made.

All of those who schemed to bring about the discineration and subjugation of Russia were Jews.

But how could that be when only six percent of Bolshevik leadership was Jewish?

50% of the members of the first Social Democratic Party of Russia were Jews.

Where is the source for this claim?

Because we have claimed to the contrary.

Uh I don't even think the Mensheviks reached this proportion in terms of Jewish uh membership.

Russia had its own revolutionary tradition even before the Social Democrats.

Kerensky Why are you talking about Kerensky, who wasn't the Bolshevik, with the Bolsheviks overthrew?

So, this source has a lot of bold text, but no actual primary sources to justify any of the claims being made.

I looked at the bottom.

There's nothing.

There's no scholarly work.

There's no citations.

There's nothing.

Just a bunch of fucking claims and propaganda.

So, why should I believe this is anything but propaganda?

What if I made this same kind of format and said that you were the Jewish Jack the Ripper yourself?

Because in terms of a standard of evidence, it would be equal.

I'm going to unmute you.

So, I walked through every single one of your claims, and absolutely none of them stand to scrutiny.

None of them.

Every single one of the links you gave me, none of them stand to minimal scrutiny.

Why is it that you mute your opposition?

Like you silence and censor your opposition?

Because I need to be able to read it aloud without your spurging so we could actually evaluate the verifier.

Well, everyone read what you read, by the way.

Yeah.

Your viewers are actually intelligent.

Do you understand that you just got dissected, by the way?

Because we've done the research.

The Rothschilds have to wait.

But I just showed you comprehensively how every single claim of substance toward what you're trying to say could not be backed by a single primary source.

Listen, nine, I went into the footnotes of one of your sources, found this ancient book that it was citing making the claim that the head of British intelligence was trying to help the Bolsheviks on page 421.

I plugged it in.

Everyone saw it.

It was on my stream.

And on that very same page, nothing showed up that even remotely suggested that.

So your sources are just pulling things out of their ass and falsely misattributing, falsely misattributing claims to ancient sources in the hopes that no one's actually going to scrutinize them.

But I did just scrutinize it and I showed how it was bullshit.

Yeah, and here's what you skipped over.

The Bank of England, which was heavily financed by the Rothschilds, provided significant financial support to both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks during the Russian Revolution.

All right, I want you to know.

I need to know where the source for that is.

Which source are you citing?

On the first link.

You're skipping over.

You skipped over all on purpose on which block.

Which link?

The first one you read.

Financial support in 1917.

The one from the environmentalist.

Is this the environmentalist lady?

Are you letting me speak at all?

I'm trying to find your source.

She's giving us an environmental science.

In 1917, the Rothschild Family Bank and Paris.

Just say that.

I'm looking for the source.

What are you reading?

What are you reading?

This is why a revolution.

All right.

You fucking wild animal.

I'm asking you what source you're reading off of so I can read the same thing you're reading.

So what source are you getting that from so I can pull it up on stream for everyone to see and we can read it together and see if it's bullshit or not?

Where are you getting that?

What link is it?

Is the archive link?

Go ahead.

Is it the archive link?

Which link?

It is the archive link and it keeps going about that Baron Edmund de Rothschild and how he was a key figure in the Rothschild banking dynasty provided significant financial role in the Bolsheviks during their rise to power.

I mean, brother, the evidence is stacked to the ceiling.

And everybody's hey, 999, before you decide to start sucking your own cock and going on a victory parade of how you've proven something, we're actually going to scrutinize the claim and read it ourselves so we can see if it's complete and utter bullshit, just like every other claim you've made thus far in relation to the so-called evidence you've provided has been.

So let's go and control that Rothschild.

Am I spelling Roth's child wrong?

Archive.org by

Delphine Slaughton.

R R O

Am I spelling Rothschild wrong?

Let me see.

No, I'm not spelling it wrong.

So I'm control Fing, and there's nothing about Rothschilds in this source.

So you're going to need to actually give me the source you're reading off of that we can scrutinize before we entertain this.

Dude, it's so serious!

Before you draw a conclusion and start dancing around and parading in your own feces like a fucking chicken shit you are, like a chicken who bathes in their own shit, you need to actually give me the source.

So I'll unmute you.

Which source are you coming from?

Because it's not the archive.org one.

Archive.org forward slash details forward slash the slash Rothschilds archive.

Have you linked this?

Where is the link?

No, I haven't linked it.

So you so so so so so what are we talking about if you haven't linked it you fucking moron?

Was I supposed to just fucking astrally project the source?

I don't just pull things out of my ass like you fucking link it you dipshit you fucking NPC you actual pigeon brain birdshit retard give me the fucking link this whole time you hadn't linked it and I was siphoning through your retarded schizo links and it and it wasn't even there to begin with.

Give me the fucking link and let's scrutinize it and see where this claim is coming from.

Link it.

I'm gonna unmute you.

Yes or no, will you link it?

Yes or no?

Yeah, I have stacks of evidence behind archive.org that I can link.

I have gone through every single one of your sources thus far.

I'm going to send 10 of them.

This time I'm going to send 10.

I sent five before.

I'm going to send 10.

Now I'm going to only go through.

I'm only going to go through one because I already went through five.

You're going to have to find one that you can bet is reliable and that you're willing to commit to.

Only one.

So you choose the one that I'm going to open up on stream and we're going to go through it together.

You choose one and you bet your entire credibility and honor on this.

And then we're going to be debating someone else.

Either I'm going to take the L or you're going to take the L.

And that's how it's going to fucking work.

So go ahead and give me the one source that I can look through that you can vouch for that according to your word is reliable.

Go ahead.

One source.

Where's the source?

Where is it we're waiting?

Or do you need time to deliberate and think about it?

Is there nothing?

Is there literally nothing?

Is there literally nothing?

No, he started to troll towards the end when he knew he had nothing.

Well, I want one s 'cause he said I have stacks of sources.

What are you talking about?

Give me one source you're willing to commit to and put your word on.

He just wants to waste my time.

Exactly.

Give me one source.

You're not muted.

Are you willing to link one source?

He always has to feel like in his head because he has a mental illness that he's got five trillion sources on hand to justify his retarded untouched.

No, no, give me a controller.

I'm dying.

You're gonna give me that you're willing to commit to, that I can pin you down on.

One that I'm gonna pin you down on and that you're willing to vouch for.

Because I'm not gonna fucking fuck your skull on one of these and have you go and run to another one or run to a third one or run to a fourth one.

One fucking source that you're willing to fucking commit to.

One.

Give me one fucking source.

Can someone make sure that's clipped?

Thank you.

Truth Teller would absolutely run a train on both of them.

Bring him that new debate.

No, now you get muted by me.

He's been offered this debate three times.

This is now the third time he's ran from it.

Miss me with the bullshit about Truth Teller.

Let's talk to Jacob Frank.

If he can actually argue the point, sure.

But this guy's a schizo retard who just makes claims about fucking what that that that uh Joe Biden is fighting the Zog worldwide or something.

I think this is the same guy.

Anyway, Jacob Frank, justify the lies against the Bolsheviks.

Go ahead.

Um, I was wondering if you could just entertain the idea that they are funded by the Zionist.

If the if you can give me evidence, sure.

Where's the evidence?

If it's true, it's uh some of the most hidden information you could possibly find.

How do you know if it's true or not then?

Oh, because everything that happened in World War One before that, during that, and after that, and what's happening right now, retard.

What are you even talking about?

Why?

What am I talking about?

It doesn't even make sense.

No, if you're not.

Does anybody here know what a primary thought is?

Sarah, it's got to be 1v1 or else they're going to claim we teamed up on him.

Listen, Jacob.

You have no sources.

You claim it's hidden information.

So you're claiming we can logically infer this.

How could we logically infer it?

The Bolsheviks canceled all debt on day one.

They took over all the resources, all the enterprises, all of the actual wealth.

It was seized from all the international bankers.

It was put into the hands of the state.

They fought off all of the greatest powers in the entire world, which invaded Russia to depose them.

And then, even moreover, after that, there was an embargo against them.

And then there wasn't a fucking day that went by that these world powers were attempting to sabotage and thwart the rule of the Bolsheviks to the point where Stalin himself knew in 1930 that in 10 years they planned on invading the Soviet Union and stealing everything and destroying it.

So no, by logical inference, it makes no fucking sense that it would be Zionists.

It makes no sense.

Why would it be Zionists?

The Bolsheviks were against Zionism.

They fought hard.

They made Zionism illegal.

They shot Zionists.

The Cheka shot Zionists during the Civil War.

Prominent Zionists literally bankrolled the white counter-revolution.

The NKVD arrested people for being Zionist agents.

So, how does it make sense by logical inference if there's no evidence?

You're saying it's so hidden.

Then, how do you know?

Why would you believe it?

Go ahead.

If the Bolsheviks weren't Zionists, then why were there so many to shoot?

Who did they shoot?

Trotsky?

Was Lenin a Zionist?

No, he wasn't a Zionist.

No, they weren't Zionists.

Was Lenin's wife a Rothschild?

No.

No?

Okay, what?

No, she wasn't.

Do you even know who Lenin's wife is?

Name his wife.

I can't name his wife.

But you don't even know what her name is, but you're claiming she's a Rothschild?

Yes.

You realize you have a fucking mental illness, right?

Like, are you retarded?

Is there shit in your brain?

What is wrong with you?

How have you gotten to this point where you're actually like a retarded NPC?

Like, some kind of strange pigeon that's just chirping.

A retarded NPC?

Who is my leader?

Who who am I following?

Fucking Hitler, who shot himself.

You're a retard.

I think Hitler was a Rothschild as well.

So, who isn't a Rothschild in your eyes?

Who isn't a Rothschild?

A lot of people.

You're a Rothschild.

You're a fucking Rothschild.

99% of the people.

You are.

You're a Rothschild.

That that's great.

Uh are you a a Mustafa Kamal supporter?

Are you a Rothschild?

Because I think you are.

No.

What's your source?

Give me a prime source.

Everything that has happened before World War I, after World War I, and during World War I proves it.

All right.

No, it's one of the most hidden pieces of information in the world, but you are a Rothschild, Jacob Frank.

Stop denying it.

Go ahead.

Yeah, that's hilarious, but you won't.

No, it's not funny.

Am I laughing right now?

Am I laughing?

Am I laughing right now?

You're a Rothschild.

Am I laughing right now?

Uh you have uh a voice inflection which suggests you're ma producing comedic stylings for the moment.

No, you just produced you just produced comedic stylings.

You just let out a laugh.

You're a Rothschild.

This isn't funny.

This is what you do.

You're a wild child.

It's not funny because people like you are why your name is literally Jacob Frank, and you have an Israel emoji in your name.

You're a Rothschild.

Coincidence.

Oh, so so for noticing this way, am I wrong for noticing?

Hold on.

Your name is literally Jacob Frank, and you have an Israel flag in your name.

Am I wrong for noticing patterns, Jacob Frank?

You are a Zionist Rothschild.

Yeah, it's so funny.

No, it's not funny.

There's nothing funny about this.

You're a Rothschild.

Yeah, I also said I had sex with my own daughter, Eva Frank, uh, but I don't have a daughter and I'm not Jewish.

My real name's not Jacob.

What?

I don't know if you understand what I'm doing.

What are you fucking talking about?

What the fuck was that?

Now we know you're a Ross child.

What the fuck was that?

Yeah, exactly.

You can't debate you can't debate someone like me because you think I'm a Nazi.

You that's what you do.

You paint everyone out of the body.

Jacob, the truth is, I don't give a fuck what you are or who your leader is.

I care about defending the Bolsheviks.

It's literally what my life's purpose is.

That's awesome.

So so yeah, I'll go read Anthony Sutton's book and I'll try to find prime sources for this.

Please, because even Anthony Sutton had to admit that there's no Jewish Bolshevism and that Jacob Schiff didn't find the Bolsheviks.

I don't get why you can't entertain the idea.

Like w would you spiral with the- Because there's no evidence, it's that there's no evidence for it.

It's such a widespread claim that's being made everywhere, but there's no evidence for it.

Noted that

Concludes that you can't entertain it.

Why can't you entertain the concept of the money?

Well, why can't I entertain the concept?

Why can't I entertain you being a Rothschild?

I can entertain you being a Rothschild.

Why can't I entertain that?

It's like, yeah, it's so funny.

No, no, no.

Why is it funny when I apply it to you, but it's serious when you attempt to apply the speculation to the Bolsheviks?

Why is it funny if I apply it to you by the same standard you're using?

Yeah, I'm entertaining that you're a Rothschild.

Can you entertain it?

Just entertain it.

We're just entertaining it.

It wouldn't make any sense that a random individual making an account called Jacob Frank would be a Rothschild.

I could actually provide a way to make sense of it.

The Rothschilds were anti-communist.

They had a lot to lose from the communist revolutions that seized all their assets, stole all of their wealth.

I didn't steal it.

They gave it back to the people.

And something a Rothschild would like to do is actually muddy the waters and attempt to defame the Bolsheviks however they can, defame communists however they can, because they clearly fear their financial capital and assets being seized by workers in a revolution.

So I can actually attribute a motive to this fact.

And, you know, Rothschilds are capitalists.

All capitalists want to suppress communism.

It just makes sense.

It's logical.

It's literally superficial, right?

So, yeah, I could definitely rationalize it if I wanted to.

So why does that have to be funny?

Well you're rationaling your opinion, not my opinion.

I'm th what makes my opinion less credible or worse than yours?

Because the Jews that wanted to take over the world were secular, and everywhere that I look that pushed secularism, especially in World War I, whether it's the Bolsheviks or the young Turks.

Uh they pushed secularism.

All right, so what was what's wh what does where does secularism come from?

Where does secularism come from?

I don't know.

The the non-belief in God?

I would say Lorian Kabbalism and the Frankists.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Oh, it didn't.

It didn't come from the war between the Catholics and the Protestants that ravaged Europe.

I w what side would have been secular?

What are you talking about?

Both at the conclusion of the war because they realized how much they've killed each other.

And that's literally the origin of secularism.

You idiot.

W was the American Revolution Jewish too?

Uh, I, yeah, the more I learn about all this, yeah, I don't trust the American Revolution.

No, so everything is well, what isn't Jewish?

Um Christianity.

Monarchy.

Justice, law and order.

Okay, so according to you, monarchy is the only non-Jewish thing.

No, I'm no.

You mean think of other things that are non-non or uh non-secular?

Because I don't know if you know this, but it's actually monarchs throughout Europe's history that protected Jews and actually hired them to be usurers to in order to bypass the Roman church's interest rates.

Hold on a second.

So this is where you're getting it wrong.

When you say Jew, my concept of the Jews that took over is different from yours.

When you're saying monarchists use Jews, I'm not...

That means nothing to me.

I'm saying the Armenian genocide was the first Holocaust led by Sabbataean Frankists who murdered Christians because it's a mitzvah for Sabbateans to kill non-Sabbataian people or just religious people.

That was the first Holocaust.

And then the second Holocaust happened.

Let me ask you this.

You do think there are prime sources why Hitler was funded by the Zionist bankers.

You do agree with that?

I mean, I wouldn't say they were all Jewish, but yeah, they were Zionists.

Okay, and why why was that?

Why did they prop up Hitler to destroy the Soviet Union and to loot Europe?

Yeah, you guys keep saying that, and then they and then they destroyed the Nazis, and that's what we're telling you.

We can't talk about the money.

And where did all and who transferred who transferred all the check gold into the Nazi bank accounts?

I dunno who did.

The Bank of England.

Okay.

What what does this mean?

Why are you telling me this?

It means they funded Hitler so he could carry out a fucking bank heist and loot all of Central Europe, which the British weren't able to after World War One.

Okay, and how w why are you telling me this again?

I don't know why because you asked.

You asked me why did bankers fund Hitler and I told you.

Okay, so it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

The Zionists didn't benefit from anti-Semitism?

You know, it may shock you, but Zionism was not the most important thing in the world in the 1930s or 40s.

It's the most important thing in the Middle East.

It's very important for the U.S.

foreign policy, but it was not the driving factor of the 30s and the 40s.

Sorry, it's just the Middle East is not that important compared to the entire world.

Dude, you're talking about the 1930s and 40s.

I'm talking about like Wilhelm Maher being a Jew.

You know who Wilhelm Maher is, right?

So what do you, I don't want to talk to you in terms of speculation and storytelling.

I want to actually get some evidence.

I know.

So I'm here to defend the Bolsheviks.

What do you have to offer?

Exactly.

That's what you do.

You compartmentalize things.

That's why you have to distance yourself from Trotsky.

Trotsky, in his autobiography, said the Illuminati was responsible for most revolutions.

I don't care.

He's not a Bolshevik.

I doubt he said that, but even if he did, I don't care because we know Trotsky was a traitor.

So why are you pinning Trotsky on me, you fucking idiot?

He's only a traitor because the Zionist Kabbalah Jews saw Stalin as a Napoleon-type person in that they funded him originally, but he didn't push for communism.

But this is just a story you're telling over the campfire with no evidence.

So why should anyone believe you?

Uh, because my worldview makes so much more sense regarding the world.

Yeah, but there's there's plenty of ways all right, all right, I yeah, but it's not testable.

I can make it make sense that fucking space aliens did everything, and it could make sense.

I could say that space aliens uh funded uh Jacob Frank to come into space because the harmonic frequencies that he's producing are uh that promote the aliens' um you know mental energy harvesting.

I could make up anything I fucking want.

Where's the evidence?

Why should anyone believe it?

Uh no, it would not be as much evidence as I could bring up given what's going on right now as as far as degeneracy.

Like what do the what do what do the Bolsheviks have to do with degeneracy though?

That's what you're not because that's where two plus two doesn't go doesn't add up this is what Okay, this is what you're not getting why is it that every time I ask you American Communist Party members whether Stalin was religious or Marx was religious and it's always like no, yeah, he was he was Stalin Stalin was Stalin was yeah, I'm I'm sure you say that he was everyone who knew him privately said that in private he was oh he yeah he was like a secret like religious yeah he was and I think that's extremely noble I think it's really noble to be religious privately because look at these Roblox religious clergymen such as Orthodox canonists who is a literal satanic serpent piece of shit liar knowing liar he knows he's he's a fat piece of shit living in Australia virtue signaling religion while being a fat ass glutton in Australia lying day in and day out knowingly by the way wearing the cloth of religious virtue to the whole fucking public like a whore I fucking think it's really good to be religious and virtuous in private because only God fucking judges you're not virtue signaling it to scam pigeon shit brain retards on the internet in Roblox

I don't know why it would have to be in private.

I mean, you're just trying to pedestal.

Yeah, because you're not going to because it's in private because you're not virtue signaling for the public so you can lie to them and make it seem like you're a holy man when you're not.

Stalin knew he wasn't a perfect person.

Only God is going to know.

But in private, yeah, he did believe.

And that's between him and God.

Yeah, but you can be a holy man and still trumpet it in public, could you not?

Yeah, but how is it that so many religious, forward-facing religious people are scamming the public and lying about what they are, including priests who have fucking trillions of dollars?

Well, it's an exaggeration, scamming their entire congregation while living lavishly and luxuriously.

The problem with in the modern world being a Roblox clergyman is that it's prone to corruption.

It can be easily corrupted and subverted, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

Uh yeah, the road is narrow.

What can I say?

I mean, none of us are perfect.

Well, what what can I say?

I think it's better to just follow the Bible in practice and not just in word.

That's what I think.

Follow the Bible.

You're not Christian, though, are you?

It y s yeah, I mean, uh, w what what does it matter if I'm Christian or not?

Uh, because it it shows me you can submit to God and you know mercy.

Are you a man of mercy?

Do you love mercy?

Do you love showing mercy?

Listen, you know, getting so much into religion, it's so private that it's almost kind of creepy and weird.

Like, what you want to you see, this is my private life.

You want to know my relationship to God and all these things.

You're just some random guy.

What do I, why am I, why do you want to have this relationship with me, Jacob?

Um I don't want to have a relationship with you as much as I want to have a relationship with everyone that's listening to me speak right now.

And really because I guarantee you ninety percent of the people ninety percent of the people listening to you s uh speak right now would literally um behead you for five million dollars.

Uh, could you reword that?

What does that even mean?

They would be heading to the mm-hmm.

It means nobody gives a sh none of these strangers that you're looking for validation from give a shit about you and they would literally sell you out for five pieces of silver.

Oh, this makes your movement look good.

How?

Talking about the people you're trying to talk to, which is your supporters.

My supporters, dude, I don't I these aren't my supporters, dude.

That's what I'm saying.

Jacob, Jacob, are your fellow right-wing schizos corrupt, yes or no?

Are they deeply corrupt who are open to bribery and all manner of fucking snaking each other all the time?

'Cause they have no notion of collectivism and they're all individualists?

Uh yeah, that's actually what I was just about to underscore.

All right, so you have no arguments about the Bolsheviks.

Got it.

Sarah, bring up some people who want to argue about Bolsheviks.

All right.

Joel.

Joa, go ahead.

All right.

We'll see.

You take me.

And then try to add this guy.

I don't know where Joel went, but

Martinez, are you there?

Yeah, I guess my question for you is, you know, you were saying earlier that the Western bankers funded Hitler to attack the Soviet Union, but Hitler made a deal with the Soviet Union called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which both of them invaded Poland together.

And during that time, the Soviets were providing resources to the Nazis.

They both go into Poland and they're celebrating their victory together.

You can see the videos of the Soviets and the Germans together in various marches.

And Goebbels at that time was praising the Soviet Union and he switched the whole propaganda of the Nazi regime to pro-Soviet and was emphasizing the similarities and saying we're both socialists, right?

And he said that before.

He praised Lenin back in 1925 and he says the greatest man next to Hitler is Lenin.

And he said Marx is right about capitalism.

Of course the Nazis are socialists themselves.

They had a ton in common with the Soviets.

So how the hell can you condemn supposed support for Hitler from Western countries, which I don't know if that happened or not, and then support the Soviets doing the exact same thing?

What's the argument?

Are you finished?

Yeah, what's the argument?

All right, so it sounds like you're condemning the Soviets for signing the non-aggression pact with Germany.

Uh how many times did the Soviet Union ask Britain and France for a common security pact against Nazi aggression before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Are you aware?

No, you tell me a few times.

Yeah, yeah, a lot of times, actually.

Who stood against the German invasion of Czechoslovakia?

Was it Britain under Chamberlain the appeaser?

Was it France which did nothing, or was it the Soviets who were outraged by this alone?

So because France...

The Soviets who also invaded Finland and the Soviets who invaded the Baltic states.

Yeah, what about that, man?

Yeah, what about that?

Well, you only care when Hitler invades countries, but not when Stalin invades countries and when they both invade Poland together and shake hands and make a decision.

Martinez, I don't want to mute you, so let me know when you're done.

Let me know when you're done, because it sounds like you like hearing this on your own voice.

You're not against invasions.

You're only guessing when...

Sounds like you're sucking your own cock right now and you love the sound of your own voice.

So let me actually respond to the claim about Finland.

The territory that the Soviets wanted from Finland actually belonged to the Soviet Union before the Treaty of Bretz-Litvosk, which was actually violated, null and void.

So they actually had every right to reclaim Karela from Finland.

Moreover, there was ample evidence that the Finnish were planning on allowing their territory to be used as a launching pad for an invasion against the Soviet Union by Germany.

And it was a security risk that the Soviets knew about.

They weren't invading Finland and invading any country for any other reason than to ensure their own security and self-defense.

Similar to why Russia right now is not willing to tolerate Ukraine as being a member of NATO, actually, because it poses an immediate threat to their security, because they're aware that the West, specifically in this case before World War II, Germany, had aggressive designs on the Soviet Union.

By the way, how did the Soviets know that?

Well, in addition to all of the intelligence reports from the GRU or the NKVD or whatever, it was openly being said by Hitler, his aggressive designs on the Soviet Union.

It was in Mein Kampf that he wanted to do this.

This was his whole dream.

So Soviets were well aware that the Germans were wanting to march eastward.

They took Czechoslovakia.

They want to even go more eastward.

And the Soviets needed security assurances with respect to that.

So the winter war to reclaim Karela was for Soviet A, it was justified because the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk was null and void.

And the territory that was taken, which was an extension of the civil war in Russia that spilled over to Finland, there was no justification for that whatsoever.

Finland refused to have non-aggression and security pacts with the Soviet Union leading up to that.

And moreover, the Finnish government was an extremely reactionary, pro-Nazi and anti-communist government, which the Soviets had every reason to believe was willing to collude with Hitler to destroy and invade the Soviet Union.

Now, with respect to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, of course, the Soviets needed to buy time in the lead up to this invasion.

France refused mutual security pact.

Britain refused it.

None of them wanted to come to the table and deal with Nazi aggression.

So the Soviets were isolated and left alone.

What could they have done?

Gone to war with Germany in 38 or 39?

How could they have afforded such a war at that time?

They couldn't have.

They needed to buy as much time as they could, and they did.

I'll unmute you.

So you're saying that Finland possibly could be a security threat because the Nazis could have used them to invade the Soviet Union, but then the Soviets make the deal with the Nazis and put their border right up to Germany in Poland?

Isn't that the security threat?

I mean, why would they do that?

Martinez, had they not agreed to the border right next to Germany and allow Hitler to have his forces right on the border with Germany in Poland.

Martinez, I want you to walk this through logically and think about it rationally for one second.

Do you just want to suck yourself off or do you want to actually hear my response?

Again, you're in love with your own voice and I get it, but you don't actually want to engage in a debate.

So I'll respond to what you said directly.

Had they not agreed to the um let's call it it's not even really borders, it's just the line in which the Germans would not cross in Poland, which was about half of Poland.

Hitler would have taken all of Poland, and guess what?

The Soviet Union would have still been on the border of German-occupied Poland.

So the Germans.

were pushed back more than they would have been because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Hitler's uh uh designs on invading Poland were there anyway, so what you're saying makes no sense.

Either give Hitler all of Poland or prevent the crossing of German troops past a certain line within Poland.

The logical choice was really clear.

No, Stalin wanted all of Poland just like Hitler wanted all of Poland.

They both wanted all of Poland after 1945 when they could have.

They installed a satellite state government that was loyal to Moscow.

It's the same fucking thing.

They created a lot of people.

But what does that actually mean?

Okay, yeah, the worst.

All of those governments in Eastern Europe are loyal to Moscow.

Martinez, if Stalin wanted Poland just like Hitler wanted it, why did Soviet troops leave Poland, let's say, after...

I'm just going to make up this date after 1949.

I'm not sure if that's the exact date.

But why did they Soviet troops eventually leave Poland?

Why didn't they annex it and just take it?

You're saying it was a satellite state, yada, yada, yada.

Yeah, but I mean, how many satellite states did the U.S.

have around and still have around the world?

It's not the same thing as wanting to directly conquer and take it, as you said, like Hitler.

Now, wanting to ensure you have a friendly government is not the same thing as taking all of it.

It may seem like the same thing because the maps you've seen is just a big red iron curtain, but the reality is much more complicated than that.

No, it's he took it through proxy, installed a puppet government loyal to Moscow.

Yeah, he didn't want to colonize it the same way that Hitler did.

He didn't want to direct.

He didn't want to remove the people of Poland and replace them with Russians as Hitler wanted to do, but he wanted to colonize it and Bolshevize it and communize it, and that's exactly what he did.

And so that's the same thing.

Why wouldn't the Soviet Union have a right to have some kind of say in the future of Poland, given that Poland collapsed amidst the Nazi invasion and was unable to prove that it can reliably defend its own security by itself?

How could Poland invaded them?

No, it was going to collapse either way.

The Soviets invaded.

Martinez, you're wrong.

The Soviets did not enter Poland until after the fleeing of the Polish government, which was the Polish government in exile, after the Germans invaded.

So you're getting your facts wrong.

Second, do you mean to suggest that the German army would not have been able to take all of Poland without the Soviet Union taking the eastern half?

It's complete fucking nonsense.

The Germans did not need any Soviet help in taking Poland.

Just like they didn't need Soviet help taking Czechoslovakia.

Yeah, and they both agreed to take it in their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

That's all the secret protocols and all that was all about.

Okay, what does that actually stop?

It was about cutting up the giant cake of Eastern Europe and splitting it between the two.

Hitler actually admired Stalin, dude.

Hitler admired see, this is the thing where you're doing this retard babble, this overenthusiastic, like sucking yourself off, going into tangents instead of committing to the actual line of argumentation.

Hitler loves Stalin.

One thing at a time, please.

So when you're talking about splitting up Europe, we're not talking about the same thing because Hitler wanted to march east, but there's no evidence the Soviets cared about marching west.

All of their motivations could easily be proven and logically inferred to be defensive in nature.

It was Hitler that had designs and aggressions to go east.

So you're the Soviet Union.

What are you going to do to defend yourself against this aggressive Nazi Germany that's coming your way?

Well, you're going to ensure the maximal extent that you can guarantee buffer zones, the maximal extent in which you can come to an agreement about what line the German army cannot cross so that you can better defend yourself.

But what proof is there that the Soviets were the one marching westward?

There's none.

As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for Germany already marching eastward after taking Czechoslovakia, while Britain and France did nothing, by the way, even though Britain had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, clearly the Soviets have to have assurances as far as their self-defense.

If the Soviets were trying to take Poland and all these other states before the German invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Then maybe there would be merit to your argument, but there is no such evidence of that.

Yeah, there is.

Didn't they attack Poland in 1920?

Wasn't there?

Wasn't there a war between Poland and the Soviets?

Yeah, there was.

There was.

In 1922, and who was the aggressor, you fucking moron, interrupting me?

Who fucking started that conflict in the middle of the Bolshevik Revolution when all of the fucking powers of Europe and the planet and America and Japan came and attacked Russia, revolutionary Russia at the time, to depose the Bolsheviks?

What did those fucking Poles do in that time?

Did they sit idly by and were they peaceful doing nothing?

No, they were engaging in aggression.

They were engaging in aggression against the revolutionary government.

They were the ones who cast the first fucking stone.

So you're wrong.

They didn't want to march westward whatsoever.

They were forced to because they were the ones being besieged and attacked.

Lenin himself signed the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk to end the war on the Western Front.

That was going on before they took power, by the way.

And guess what?

The Central Powers and Germany for that matter violated the treaty and pressed on anyway.

So you're completely fucking wrong about the facts.

So Lenin, who was waging an aggressive war himself, massacring civilians during the Russian Civil War, starving people to death by the millions, of course, he's not you're throwing a million things at the wall, seeing what's going to stick.

First, we said that Stalin was this aggressor who was marching westward.

There's no evidence for it.

Then he said, Well, in 1920, they were marching on Poland.

Then I explained how Poland was the aggressor.

Now you've gone on to another argument of how Lenin was such a bad guy.

You can't even commit to a single line of argumentation.

It's really pathetic.

No, what's pathetic is you defending the imperialism of the Soviet Union.

They attacked the Baltic states, they attacked Finland, none of that was defensive, all of that was aggression, Finland wasn't defensive.

Finland wasn't defensive?

None of it was.

All of it was designed to spread the influence of the Soviet Union.

Where's your evidence?

Stalin's based on what I know you're making the claim.

I know you're making the claim.

I know you're making the claim.

You're making the claim.

Let's start with the Baltics.

Let's start one thing at a time because every single one of these lines of argumentation you're opening.

Every front you open up, you're going to get Martinez.

Martinez.

Every single front you open up, I'm going to fucking wreck you on.

Every single one.

Commit to one at a time.

You're throwing a million things at the wall, waiting for something to stick.

Commit to one thing at a time.

And we'll go one by one.

We can start with Baltics.

We can start with Finland.

We can start with Romania.

We can start with Georgia, the Georgian affair.

We can start with Iran.

Every single fucking one you want to do, we can go with.

But just commit to one instead of babbling and spraying your diarrhea splatter all over the fucking walls because you're too scared to actually commit to an argument that can be held to scrutiny.

Commit to one argument.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so the Bolsheviks are criminals, right?

So they tried to overthrow this government in Russia.

You support that, obviously, but they had the intention.

What government did the Bolsheviks overthrow?

What government did they overthrow?

What government did the Bolsheviks overthrow?

The Russian government.

What was the Russian government?

What was they killed the Tsar in his You fucking retard.

This is why we just threw you people in gulags because you're stupid and irrational.

You can't even fucking commit to an argument.

You're just babbling.

I asked you what government.

What government did they overthrow?

Answer the question.

The Russian government.

What was the Russian?

Okay, I just, yes or no?

The Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar, according to you.

Yes or no?

Yeah, they do, they killed him.

The Bolsheviks deposed the Tsar's government.

Well, they were.

Martinez, Martinez, do you belong in a gulag?

Yes or no?

Or being an idiot?

They were part of the revolution that overthrew the Tsar, and then they did a coup against Kerensky and took power.

Ah, so you Googled it.

Finally, you googled it.

You see what a retarded time waster you are?

You see what a retarded time waster you are?

You're telling me they're not.

You said they overthrew the Tsar, which they didn't.

That happened in the February Revolution.

They didn't overthrow the Tsar.

The government they deposed, which you're claiming was a criminal coup, was an unelected dictatorship called the Provisional Government, which had been promising that it would hold fucking elections for an entire year, but didn't.

It was an unelected bankster dictatorship that was holding everyone by the fucking gun, had no popular mandate, was deeply unpopular, and wanted to commit Russia to the war, to the Great War, World War I, at the expense of the wishes of the Russian people and on behalf of the interests of the British and American banks at Wall Street.

So you're completely fucking wrong about the facts of history, once again.

Kerensky, the guy who ran the Socialist Party in in Russia, he was a socialist.

Yeah, he was like AOC.

I was just a different faction of socialists.

Why would I give a fuck what he is?

I don't give a shit if he calls himself a furry.

He wasn't elected.

He was a dictator.

Point blank, period.

Yeah, and Lenin and Stalin were both dictators as well.

No, they took all their opposition and mass murder.

Yeah, you can claim that, but they both had a popular mandate, proven by the fact that their revolution set all power to the Soviets, proven by the fact that they won the civil war by winning over the popular majority, the peasantry, to the side of the Red Army, proven by the fact that all studies and evidence shows how deeply popular Stalin was among the Russian peasantry, even throughout collectivization and through the 1930s.

Stalin had a popular mandate.

Lenin had a popular mandate.

Kerensky never had any such thing.

And it's as simple as that.

A popular mandate, so why didn't they have any elections ever in the Soviet Union if there's a popular mandate?

There were no elections ever in the Soviet Union.

Why did they kill?

Was Stalin elected?

Sorry, he was elected?

By the way, by the way, you think the leader of an entire country should just be elected directly by the population?

What a retarded idea.

Name a single instance in which that's actually worked out as a functional and competent government.

You think the clown show we have in the United States where we directly elect the president works somehow?

Where everyone's just prone to lying to the population every who do you think has a better government in the world right now?

Xi Jinping, where there's a multi-layered democratic process in which delegates will elect people on top of them, on top of delegates, to finally ensure that there's a leader elected by people who actually know what they're fucking doing?

Or the U.S.

so-called democracy where every four years scam politicians make promises and lie to their population just to get the most amount of votes by people who are committing maybe 1% of their lives to giving a shit about the art of governance.

No leaders in communist states are directly elected in elections.

And if they are, they usually get 99% margins.

Why?

Because most people don't want to be involved in politics.

And if they do, it doesn't start at the election cycle level.

It starts at the actual local level, proving you're a competent local leader.

So you can be a delegate.

And that delegate can prove they're a good leader.

And that the person they delegate can prove they're a good leader.

It's a much better system than the so-called Western democracy, which is a fucking retarded clown show where the leader isn't even in charge anyway.

You think the president or prime ministers or parliaments are in charge of a fucking thing?

Go tell the Italians that after World War II had their whole fucking government chosen by the CIA.

Dumbass.

So you're against Kerensky because he supposedly wasn't elected, but you're for Stalin and Lenin, who were pure dictators who were pure dictators.

There's a difference between having no procedure whatsoever to validate your governance and not being directly by a popular.

Kerensky had no mandate at all.

There was nothing that validated his rule.

There was nothing, nothing that he could base his power in besides the fact that he was being bankrolled by foreign powers.

He had nothing else.

Literally nothing else.

Lenin, meanwhile, there was a democratic process within the Bolshevik party to ensure Lenin is a leader.

Then there's the Soviet government, which is a separate matter, which they were constructing and establishing in the first place.

Then there was the fact that their popular mandate was proven by the fact that they actually won the civil war, which was a civil war, while having no foreign backing whatsoever.

If you win a civil war with zero foreign backing, you are the popular side.

If you want me to provide primary evidence and dig up primary evidence where even the white counter-revolutionary émigrés would admit that the Bolsheviks became the popular will and became the popular majority, not in terms of membership, but in terms of support, I could provide that if you want.

Yeah, you're just babbling now.

So Kerensky doesn't have popular mandate, but Lenin the dictator does, Stalin the dictator does, and Hitler's bad for being a dictator, despite the fact that No, nobody said Hitler's bad for being a dictator.

Hitler's bagged because he was a prostitute and whore of the bankers and the German industrial monopoly capitalist class.

As for Lenin and Stalin being a dictator, even if they were, yeah, they were good and Kerensky was bad because they were dictators who had a popular mandate.

Kerensky was just a dictator who had no fucking support, no basis for his rule whatsoever.

Nothing that could authenticate or legitimate his rule.

Nothing, nothing except support by foreign capital.

Do you know what that means?

That means he was a figurehead of a fucking occupation, for all intents and purposes.

Yeah, the Lenin Lenin's popular mandate was the Cheka sending assassins to kill anyone who yeah you've you've read no historical literature on the Cheka.

The Cheka was overwhelmingly a grassroots phenomena and the majority of its cruelties were done at the grassroots level by peasants that were extremely fucking angry at kulaks and other Stolypin empowered bloodsuckers who oftentimes they were within physical vicinity of, who were counter-revolutionaries.

That was mob violence and street violence that was part of the Red Terror.

And the Cheka was led by a guy named Felix Zerzhinsky, who is an incredibly noble and morally upright individual.

There's no equivalent of which existing in the Nazi party ever at any point.

A bunch of fucking child rapists and scumbags.

Wait, didn't the Soviets rape millions of German women at the end of the war?

Of course they did.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't according to who was attracted to during the war.

Plenty of historians have written about the mass rape of German women by the Soviets.

Go look it up.

It's a fact.

Yeah, I understand that.

I understand it's a widespread claim.

It's just a widespread claim that has no basis in fact.

Right, right.

Nothing.

So those 20,000 Poles weren't shot in the head by Vasily Blokin and the Katin Forest signed by Beria and Stalin?

They didn't kill those people?

The jury is out as far as who was responsible for that, to be frank.

Right.

There's a signed document by Soviets.

And why were they fucking German people there?

Why were the bodies littered with German bullets?

Can you explain that?

It wasn't.

It was.

They lied about the Nebraska.

The Soviets lied about it and tried you fucking retard.

I know you don't know anything about the Katyn massacre, because if you did, you'd understand that even the anti-Soviet historians confessed that there were German bullets in the bodies because their claim is that the Soviets were trying to frame the Germans for it.

So the fact that you're denying that just proves you don't even know what you're talking about.

By the way, you already discredited yourself because you made the retarded claim that somehow the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar, proving you know nothing about the history you're trying to talk about.

Yeah, the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar, right?

Was it Sverdlov who ordered the massacre of the family of the Tsar, right?

Where's the program?

Where's the proof?

Sverdlov, it's all there.

It's all in history books, man.

Where Sverdlovlov ordered the assassination of the Tsar and his family, and they killed his children as well.

Where?

Killed his children as well.

Where?

Every history book of the Russian Revolution.

Show me the proof that the Soviet Union was shot him in the head, just like they shot.

They shot him in the head.

They shot him.

See, you know how I'm asking specific questions?

Like, hey, show me the evidence that the Bolsheviks were responsible.

They did.

They did it.

They shot him.

They shot him.

Hey, you're a fucking pigeon.

You're like a retarded pigeon.

It's like you're chirping, and I'm asking you a specific question.

Where is the evidence the Bolsheviks ordered the murder of the Tsar and his family?

I'm asking you a question.

I'm not asking you to repeat your claim.

I'm asking you for evidence for that claim.

You fucking retarded NPC with pigeon shit in your brain.

Go ahead.

Yeah, just read any history book of the Russian.

Give me one with primary sources.

You don't have it.

Give me one with primary sources.

So who killed the Tsar, sir?

Well, Lenin had.

We don't have any evidence that Lenin or Sverdlaw were responsible.

Who killed the Tsar?

Did they get shot?

So because you're a retard who doesn't know anything about history, you don't understand that local Soviets were not controlled by the Bolsheviks.

Local Soviets were spontaneous formations of government that emerged even prior to the Bolshevik takeover.

And the local Soviet in that region where the Tsar was being held, and that city specifically, was full of extreme radicals and anarchists who are really fed up with the Tsar and really fed up with the counter-revolution and things were getting intense.

So people speculate that they had a hand in doing that.

But that wasn't done on the orders of the actual central government.

Or there's no proof for it, at least.

The Russian government itself launched an investigation to see who was responsible, and they found no evidence implicating Lenin or the Bolshevik government.

And that's the post-Soviet Russian government, by the way.

The one that actually found no evidence that they killed

I know people are complaining I'm interrupting this guy.

But this is the post-Soviet Russian government, like I said.

Fucking idiot.

Yeah, so you can just go you can go to any major history site and it says here Yakov Yurovsky coordinated the killings, was personally recognized by Lenin for the murders.

All right, where's the evident wa what is it citing?

What's the source?

This is history.com.

All right, what is it citing?

What what primary source is it citing?

Because it's not a primary source.

I know about the primary sources, by the way, but I'm gonna wait for you to dig them up.

'Cause the only primary source is Trotsky's fucking diary, his memoir.

So that's a matter if you trust Trotsky, who Lenin and Stalin and no one else did, by the way, and who there's evidence implicating was a foreign agent.

But yeah, Trotsky tried to make the claim that Sverdlov told him personally, and that's the only evidence anyone can ever seem to refer to.

S so what do you think they would have done with the Tsar if if he wasn't killed?

They were planning on holding a trial for the Tsar.

Yeah, just like all those show trials that Stalin did, right?

Yeah, yeah, sure.

But that's what they were planning on doing.

So the so the Soviets did murder the twenty thousand Poles?

You admit that?

No, I don't.

The evidence is uh inconclusive in my view.

Doesn't the Russian government admit that now, today?

Yeah, but that's not the communist.

It's not the Bolshevik government, is it?

It's the post-Soviet Russian government.

Right.

The government that glorifies Stalin and puts you in jail if you criticize Stalin.

They don't put you in jail for criticizing Stalin.

People do it on TV all the time.

Second of all, the only reason Putin, or I don't know if that was under.

Um

If that was the time when Putin wasn't technically president.

But in any case, the only reason that happened was because Russian-Polish relations were not as bad as they are now, and Russia was doing everything it could to appease these post-Soviet countries and say, oh, yeah, we're on your side.

We also were victims of communism, yada, yada, yada.

You know, this was back in a different era.

And, you know, I doubt that they would have appeased the Poles like that if it was the same thing that happened now to litigate the Katsyan massacre.

But there's no conclusive evidence for it.

You can look at the primary sources supposedly from the Soviet archives.

You're not going to find anything.

Yeah, the Soviet are this okay, so the Soviets denied doing it, but the current the current Russian government admits they did it, they produced the documents.

They produced the letter that that Stalin, Beria, and the rest of the Central Committee signed it and ordered it.

They got the guy, Vasily Blokin, who did it.

All of that stuff, man.

I mean, ridiculous copes.

Ridiculous.

Yeah, again, there's no reason such letters couldn't be fabricated.

Again, that was an anti-communist government at the time.

Right, the Soviets won the war, so who fabricated it, man?

Someone in the Russian government.

The anti-communists who rule the Russian state at the time, you idiot.

So the current Russian government is pro-Stalin.

They're rehabilitating.

They are now.

They weren't under Medvedev, they weren't.

Under Yeltsin, they weren't.

Oh, wow.

Wasn't under...

So, okay, so under Yeltsin, they weren't.

So they fabricated these documents to make Stalin look bad, really?

You got to come up with this.

Do you know the date in which this evidence was produced?

The closed docket packet number one was in 1992 at the high point of anti-Soviet, anti-Bolshevik, anti-communist propaganda for fabricating and running amok.

Why would they try to exonerate the Nazis for the Katin massacre?

These historians.

Because they were trying to delegitimize the people.

They were happy to blame the Nazis for stuff, right?

Why the fuck would they care?

I need to explain history to you.

This is 1992, where the new Russian government is doing everything in its power to delegitimize and harm the credibility of the Soviet government to justify and legitimate itself.

That's why.

This is not under the Soviet Union, Martinez.

This is 1992.

Yeah, and the Soviets had control of the area where they where they captured all of these people.

The Nazis didn't at that time.

I mean, it's pretty obvious.

Evidence points to the Germans, actually.

Yeah, right.

Stalin, Stalin didn't kill anybody, right?

He didn't kill, uh, he didn't kill anyone at all, right?

Just all of his former officials, just all these guys in the Communist Party had them assassinated, right?

His buddy Trotsky had assassinated.

How was Trotsky his buddy?

Do you know what Trotsky was guilty of or no?

Yeah, well, they were friends, right, in the Bolshevik Party together.

They weren't friends.

Stalin actually never Trotsky.

Are you kidding?

He didn't like him from the beginning.

He was in the central committee.

Trotsky was in the central committee with Trotsky was an opportunity.

Trotsky Trotsky was hitched on at the last minute and was not a Bolshevik.

And Stalin was denouncing what we were.

He was a total Bolshevik.

No, he wasn't.

Who cares about whether they're men?

I hate the internet because it really empowers retards.

It empowers retards to just make claims without knowing what they're talking about.

And I guess people just listen to it because I guess they're just saying it.

It's all the information they're getting.

Throughout the entire history of the Bolshevik Party before the October Revolution, Trotsky was not a Bolshevik.

He was an opportunist who hitched on the revolutionary train at the last minute.

And his background is very shady, by the way.

And there's a lot of questions about who he was working for and stuff.

But in any case, he wasn't an OG Bolshevik.

And Stalin reminded him of that a lot in the years following the October Revolution.

These are the facts.

Yeah, they're both communists.

They both wanted the same exact thing to communize the country, to take over all private property.

Who gives a shit whether they're Bolsheviks, whatever label you want to use, same ideology, same fucking ideology, same initial government.

So why are you complaining that Stalin killed Trotsky?

I don't understand.

I'm just using that to prove you.

So hold you to the line of argumentation you committed to.

What you said.

Is that Stalin was a bad guy because, oh, he killed a bunch of people.

He killed all these people that he was friends with or whatever.

And then I told you he wasn't friends with them.

He said, Well, he was a communist.

So Stalin isn't allowed to kill criminals who call themselves communists.

Why not?

Why does that make him immoral?

Well, he's a criminal himself.

I mean, yeah, it's criminals killing criminals, but it's just proof that he's a criminal himself.

How is he going to kill his own party?

How is it proof his own party members?

How is he?

He's willing to kill his own party members.

Okay.

Is it impossible that people who wormed their way into the Bolshevik party or got themselves exiled in the late 20s could have been working for foreign governments and betraying the Soviet government?

Is that possible or no?

It's not possible to you.

That that's that's Stalin's delusion that he comes up with to kill anybody he wants.

Do you think it's that implausible that foreign powers could find agents in high places in the Bolshevik government and infiltrate it?

Is there any in do the is the British, for example, the British, have they ever infiltrated?

Are they known for having like no

No foreign intelligence that infiltrates and has agents anywhere?

Is that how the world works?

They were just leaving the Soviets alone, according to you.

They weren't trying to infiltrate it.

They didn't have these agents.

They just left it alone and they were just minding their own business.

Is that what you actually believe or no?

No, it's it's it's possible, but it's also possible that Stalin was infiltrating other governments too, and it's it's probably the case for the bottom of the corner.

He was a ringleader for subversion and for wrecking the Soviet Union internally.

Or he's just a rival that Stalin wants to kill, just like all the other people.

What meaningful sense is Leon Trotsky a rival?

This is just retarded communist inflighting.

Are you like what is what is this feminine like thing you have where you just don't you don't speak concretely.

You love mouthing off.

This is what communist nobody cares about these tangents that are irrelevant.

Why are you incapable of impulse control and just sticking to the line of argumentation?

It's baffling.

You just said.

that Stalin was killing his rivals by killing Trotsky.

In what meaningful sense was Trotsky a rival to Stalin by the mid nineteen thirties, let's say?

In what meaningful sense was he a rival?

Wasn't he leading the opposition to Stalin within the party?

Wasn't there an oppositional faction, Kamenev, Zenoviev and Trotsky?

Did you hear the date that I just gave?

So what what what's you you really think that there was no other reason other than

That's the limit of my patience, ladies and gentlemen.

I said mid-nineteen thirties.

He goes, Wasn't Trotsky the leader of the opposition in the Bolshevik party with Kamenev and Zinoviev?

And I said the mid-nineteen thirties.

After those two were shot.

After Trotsky had already been exiled for like a decade.

And wasn't in the Bolshevik party in any capacity, wasn't even in the country.

If you don't have a basic grasp of history, you're not even qualified to talk to me.

Fucking time-wasting retard.

Let's uh have uh is there any uh any big names here?

'Cause all I could see is a guy named Robert and Gat Dolph.

All right.

They ran away.

Let's bring up the this Hitler troll guy.

Oh five.

Hey, I ain't gonna sit here and fucking argue with you fucking commies.

We'll see you in the fucking streets, alright?

We're gonna bill all you fucking Jews into debt.

We'll see we mopped the entire continent of Europe and we'll do it again.

Yeah, you're a pussy and you're an internet keyboard warrior and you're a bitch and talk that same shit that Hitler talked himself, you're idol, and see what fucking happens to you, you fucking pussy.

You think fucking Antifa from twenty sixteen is what you're gonna deal with?

You have another thing coming for you, you fucking bitch.

Stupid pussy trying to threaten me, you fucking bitch.

You don't know what kind of psychopaths you're dealing with, you fuck.

Go ahead, Anton.

Alright, so my question is, what was Trotsky's crime when he was killed?

And then um what's your justification for him being killed?

Trotsky had spent well over a decade internally sabotaging the Soviet Union by being the ringleader of what was actually an international intelligence conspiracy to basically depose the Soviet government in collusion with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

And according to Trotsky, the justification for this was that there needs to be a permanent revolution and Stalin was compromising with the peasants and yada yada yada and that he had betrayed the revolution.

So Trotsky was doing everything in his power to sabotage and wreck and harm the Soviet Union from within.

That was the justification.

Alright, so I may reply now to that, right?

Yeah.

So was Trotsky actually then guilty of deviating the goals of communism?

Because according to the Communist Manifesto and the philosophy of Karl Marx, it is calling for a revolution, and a revolution across the world.

And allegedly that even when Stalin took over, Lenin had slight criticism of Stalin because he wasn't actually adhering to the full doctrine of Communism.

Yeah, I mean look you're confused about theory and it has nothing to do with the criminality of Trotsky's actions just because you think you're more theoretically correct doesn't give you the right to sabotage wreck and try to overthrow the Soviet government.

That is objectively collusion with fascism and imperialism.

First of all second of all communism isn't a doctrine.

The notion of permanent revolution is just some gibber he conjured up to himself to cobo out the fact that he was wrong about his appraisal and understanding of the situation in revolutionary Russia where yes, the revolutionary subject was the Russian peasant, whereas most of the Russian proletariat had died in the civil war.

Go ahead.

Alright.

When you say that it's not actually, though, a revolution at the end of the Communist Manifesto, they do actually do admit that their goal is to destroy all social structures across the world and do call for basically all workers of the world to unite in anarchy and overthrow the governments.

Where does it say that in the Communist Manifesto?

Let me give me a second, please.

Can you read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto which prescribe, which don't even prescribe, which just state if the Communists at the time in 1848 were to seize power, these are the ten policies they'll implement.

Can you read those off?

I can, but it'll take me a little bit to find it.

But I do actually have it.

Alright.

Well I'll wait for you to pull up the evidence that uh they wanted to destroy all social structures.

You might as well pull someone else up if you're waiting, 'cause I gotta scroll through some pages here.

Alright, so the pussy truth teller, um, rather than uh

Debate has opened up his own space.

He's running away from a debate from me.

He won't come in this space.

In thirty minutes, I have an AMA with the Politics Discord.

Once that's over, maybe I'll join his space and see what all that's about.

Or maybe I'll do it now.

Is there anyone else trying to join Sarah or no?

Yeah, there's a lot.

Right-wingers or what?

Yeah, there's a few.

Gotcha.

Either I could go to True Teller Space right now or I could do it after the API.

Go to Truth Teller Space.

Please, please, please, please, please.

Libra, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

I think one of my people is apparently one of my people is already debating truth teller, so just let them handle that now and deal with this.

And then after my AMA, I'll go.

Go ahead.

Can you hear me first?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Alright.

Do you base your uh understanding of the Caden Massacre off Grover Fur?

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh f all right.

Firstly, do you think the Soviet Union invaded Poland?

No.

No.

Okay.

Not according to international law.

Uh okay.

And yeah.

Do you know that the evidence that uh one of the evidence that Fur uses is the diary entries of uh uh Z uh Z Zhukov, which he himself states that they invaded Poland?

Well, I don't care what Zhukov thinks, 'cause under international law they didn't.

Okay.

Uh by the way, uh um about the banking stuff.

Uh the Rothschilds uh funded uh the uh October Revolution.

All right.

Can you provide a single piece of evidence to corroborate that claim?

Yeah, it's actually one that you brushed over and you said was bullshit.

It was the history.

Let me find it.

Yeah, which one, please?

'Cause I keep hearing this that I'm brushing over things.

And and you didn't even link the source.

Alright.

Heritage History, that's it.

It was the heritage history source.

You scrolled over it.

Let me find it.

It was inconvenience to you, yeah.

Well, I didn't see it, so I'm looking for it now.

Yeah.

Do you uh do you contend against that uh the NEP was funded by Rockefeller?

After the revolution, of course.

We're going to do this one at a time.

We're not going to do this thing of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall.

I just opened up your source, kick.com/slash infrared.

We're going to go through it together, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the heritage history, which had no primary sources.

This is the one where I found the primary source and looked to page 421, and there was nothing.

So let's look up.

Yeah, this is the one.

This is the one.

We can play back on my stream.

This is the one that had no fucking primary sources.

So.

Wait, it has primary sources.

No, it doesn't because it has no primary sources that corroborate the claims.

Ah, okay.

Yeah.

That's for you to come to the organizer and head of a secret organization called The Roundtable was backed by Rothschild.

Where's the evidence for that?

There's none.

What am I brushing over?

Is this what I'm brushing over?

Because there's no...

Where's the evidence for these claims being made?

Like, should I just trust this source or what?

This is not a source.

This is a guy typing this.

Where is he getting it from?

Can you point to me where he's getting this information from that he's talking about Rothschilds?

What am I brushing over?

Please tell me what I'm brushing over and I'll go to it.

Because I controlled F.

Rothschild.

And I see many claims for over 150 years.

The Rothschilds controlled both sides of every conflict.

Yeah, okay, but where's the evidence that they controlled the Bolsheviks?

Go down, go down.

Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalizing of Russia, the insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate, between $30 and $40 million.

And then it goes, and then it goes into the different...

Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia, the insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate.

Wow, for 30, 40 million.

Wow.

Wait, but where's the evidence, though?

Where's the evidence?

Can you give me evidence you're not h uh you you're a human being?

Yeah, I mean, I don't need I don't care if you think I'm a human being.

I want the evidence about the Rothschilds buying 30 to 40 million of mineral rights in Russia.

Where is the evidence that the Rothschilds had 30 to 40 million in mineral rights within Russia under the Bolsheviks?

Go ahead and give me the evidence for that beyond the fact.

See, do you know what evidence is?

It's not when someone makes a claim on the fucking blog without backing it or substantiating it with anything.

So where's the actual evidence for this claim?

I'll have to find it, I don't have it on me.

Yeah, I know you don't have it on here.

You don't have it anywhere.

You said I brushed it over 'cause it was inconvenient for me.

This is the thing that's inconvenient for me, a fucking nothing burger.

Okay.

Why do you support punishing?

Why do you support fucking NATO and Zelensky?

Okay.

Uh, because western liberalism is western liberalism sounds like a cuck.

Wait, do you support China having commercial relations with Israel?

Dude, you're totally the one being empowered by NATO's global homo.

You're the one in power, dude, because you have white skin, so you're in power.

Does that make you feel good?

Do you support Turkey allowing Azerbaijani oil to go into Israel?

Dude, you are literally the beneficiary of the global imperialist system because you have white skin.

That's what they're telling you now.

Please go live in the pod and eat the bugs.

At least you have white skin, right?

You're the one in power.

It's the European Empire.

It's Europe.

All Europeans are benefiting from it.

Go fucking sleep in the pod and eat the bugs, dude.

Okay.

Right-wing cuck supporting NATO.

That's what we're going to see under Trump.

The far right mobilizing.

The far right mobilizing for NATO, a bunch of cucks.

Why did Russia support, well, they didn't oppose in the UN the intervention in Libya?

Because that was under Medvedev when Libtards thought they had the upper hand.

The same person who Putin is allies with still to this day.

Medvedev is the one who fall in line, not the reverse.

Yeah, it was a foreign policy disaster on part of Russia.

Medvedev is in the government still.

He's like one of the big heads of the intelligence agency.

Okay, Russia's foreign policy orientation is not the same one as the one that was under Medvedev when they did nothing about Libya, which they regretted by the way, and which was considered a which is considered a major blunder in Russia to this day.

Why do you support woke China?

They're woke.

What is woke about China?

A affirmative action.

It's affirmative action, really?

In China, they give more rights to minorities than hunters.

Clearly, give an example of that, concretely.

Give a concrete example of that.

One child policy, which didn't apply to Uyghur Muslims.

Okay.

That's what you're upset about?

You're upset about that?

I thought there was an Uyghur genocide, by the way.

Okay.

Do you deny the genocide?

You just said they don't even rest they they restricted Han Chinese from having more than one child, but not Uyghurs.

This sounds like a weird genocide to me.

Okay.

Wait, is the uh population in Gaza increasing or decreasing?

Can you tell me that?

Is there anything is there any equivalent to what's happening in Gaza in Xinjiang?

Mm-hmm.

Quantitatively different, but qualitatively different.

If there's a gun to your head and you either have to go live in Xinjiang or Gaza right now, where are you going to live?

It's it's genocide is not to do with uh uh it's a stupid fucking question.

Why is it stupid?

Would you rather gun to your head be an Uyghur in Xinjiang right now or a Palestinian in Gaza right now?

The question has no relevance.

All right.

If it has no relevance, then stop comparing them.

Okay.

But uh wait, do you think this is woke?

Uh no taxes in minority regions are required to be sent to the central government.

All of it can be spent locally.

Minorities are.

It's not woke at all.

It's not fucking woke at all.

So do you support the Democrats?

All right.

There's no I just want to uninterrupted.

There's no equivalent to Democrat affirmative action in that case because China is a multi-ethnic state that's overwhelmingly dominated by the Han.

In order to make sure that everyone is happy and wanting to be part of one China and there's no separatism or nationalism, yeah, they're going to give they're going to appease minorities living in certain regions.

But what you will never find in China is the equivalent of white guilt, which is what's actually decisive.

I don't think Americans really care if the government was taking proactive steps to benefit black people uniquely.

What they have had enough of is the white guilt stuff and penalizing, you know, trying to make white people feel like they owe something like that.

I mean, that's really the problem.

China, you know, giving minorities in return for being part of an overwhelmingly Han state where there's a Han majority.

Yeah, they're balancing it out so there's no ethnic conflicts.

But notice the fucking difference with the U.S.

Huh uh Chinese ethnicities speak different languages and are different nations and peoples.

But different races in the United States they only differ in terms of the color of their skin.

They don't differ in terms of being part of the same nation.

They don't differ in terms of speaking different languages.

So it's complete nonsense comparison.

China's policies are not based on race.

They're based on recognized ethnic minorities with their own languages, literally, their own languages and historical ties to the regions they live in.

It's completely wrong.

It'd be like the equivalent of uh

Well there is no good comparison.

It'd be like if the if Mexico was somehow part of the US and different parts of Mexico were d given different laws, you know, to balance out, you know, the fact that now Mexico is part of the US.

I mean, even that's a really bad comparison, but it has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Go ahead.

So you kind of sidestepped the whole point and then just said it's ethnically homogenous.

It makes I don't get it.

It's not ethnically homogeneous.

I said it's the opposite.

So I get the opposite.

Yeah, the opposite.

Yeah, but that's not the case in the US where we have this nebulous concept of race, which is not what they have.

They have a concrete distinction between ethnic groups based on language, regional ties, and history.

It's completely different.

Yeah, but then should the should that still begs the question.

Should they have affirmative action?

Look, you're just being dishonest in the comparison, using the word affirmative action to describe a wildly different system and country.

So I don't know what your actual argument is.

Does this sound familiar to you?

The Chinese government encourages businesses to hire minorities and offers no interest loans to businesses operated by minorities.

Yeah.

Does that sound familiar to Democrat policies?

No, it doesn't.

Okay.

So wh why do you think China should discriminate against Han Chinese?

They're not.

Han Chinese are over 90% of the population.

Correct.

And it sounds like here they're giving no interest loans to non-Han Chinese.

That's discrimination against Han Chinese.

But similar, yeah, because similar policies are also targeted on the basis of developmental differences, even within the Han.

They don't have unilateral interests policies that are just based on ethnicity.

There's also other considerations.

But yeah, the goal is to have an even development.

So what's wrong with that?

Even development's okay, but on the basis of reverse racism, that's not okay.

It has nothing to do with race.

It's what I'm trying to tell you.

They don't recognize races in China.

They have different legally recognized ethnic groups on the basis of language, territory and other considerations.

Do you think giving preferential treatment to non-Han Chinese ethnic groups in academic settings is acceptable?

Are you an NPC or something?

Like, are you a bot?

Why do you support uh genocide?

So, who are the victims of genocide in this case?

I can't tell if it's the Han Chinese or the Uyghurs, who apparently simultaneously have the status of being victims of genocide while also being the beneficiaries of the communist system, which is what you're saying is woke and overwhelmingly privileges them.

So, which one is it?

I think it's um firstly that's not a contradiction.

Both of them can be true.

You can be a victim of genocide but simultaneously the beneficiary of reverse racism.

Please explain how that makes sense.

'Cause of different um

Uh maybe because of it's towards a policy of integration.

So what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with integrating?

Yeah, what's wrong with integration?

It's how it's done, which is the problem.

So it's like the Democrats, how they do integration, is similar to the CCP.

Oh.

um uh alienating the majority race as a means how are they promoting racial grievance and bad blood between different groups like the Democrats do?

Is there a single example of racial grievance politics that's platformed by the communist government?

I just gave you a one-on-one example.

Those are the opposite.

Those are eliminating racial grievances.

There's no racial grievance politics.

Education.

The education one is one-on-one.

That's what Democrats push and the Chinese Communist Party.

Okay.

They support raising the bar for entry for Han Chinese and white people, respectively, and lowering it for minority.

That's woke and leftist.

Yeah, you're just oversimplifying it.

You're talking about a country with over a billion people.

What you're saying is nonsense.

Most of the places, most of the university applicants and places are just overwhelmingly Han Chinese most of the time.

So you're talking about very specific targeted circumstances or targeted policies, which in no way, it's not in no way impact the day-to-day lives of people in China to the point where they're feeling reverse.

Those education camps in, I guess.

All right.

This guy is like a schizo retard.

Sarah, is there any other right?

We have 15 minutes till I have to do the AMA.

Yep.

Anton came back.

Alright.

Go ahead, Anton, did you get your source and your place in the Communist Manifesto?

Yeah, you wanted me to read off like the uh Ten Commandments, right?

Is that correct?

The ten planks.

Like thirty-three pages.

But you're but it's not even ten commandments.

It's basically nine commandments among the Communist Manifesto.

The abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

The second one, a heavy progressive and graduate income tax.

Third one, abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Fourth one, confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels.

Five, centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Six, centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Seven, extension of the factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultiva cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with the common plan.

Eight, equal liberty of all to work.

Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Nine, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all the distinct distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the populace over the country.

It's nine, by the way.

Alright.

Um

So where's the anarchy?

Well, the anarchy is not within the nine commandments.

The anarchy is in the last page of the Communist Manifesto.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.

They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forceful overthrow of all existing social conditions.

Let the ruling classes tremble at the Communist Revolution.

The proletariats have nothing to lose but their chains.

They have a world to win.

Working men of all countries unite.

Your doctrine declares war on the world.

Oh, so are you saying they changed their mind in a few pages?

I'm saying that's the very last page.

He calls for revolution.

Do you think there's a contradiction between the very last page and the part where they outline the ten planks?

No, because that's their establishment of their doctrine.

That's basically their nine commandments.

Can I finish?

It's not a commandment.

It's a policy prescription that they have for when they seize power.

Yes.

Yeah, so when they seize power, you said the goal is anarchy.

So where's the anarchy?

Did you just can you stop interrupting me?

I did not say that.

You said that.

I said that they declared war upon the world through revolution, and then you twisted it and wanted to make it about their policies.

Those policies is for when their ideology is implemented through revolution, when they obtain power.

At the very end, though, they do call for revolution on the entire world.

The Bolsheviks were not good people because of this.

They want to destroy the social class.

They want to destroy all classes' culture, identity.

They're against borders.

They're against racial identity.

They're against traditions.

And they think that the world is theirs and that they can manipulate the lower class.

That way they can artificially inflate their own ideology and turn people against their own.

But they declared war on their own people, and any actions they do do not justify the end.

Anton, I don't know what's going on here, but you said that Stalin wasn't a true Trotsky was the true communist, because in the Communist Manifesto they said that it's going to be total anarchy and you're just going to overthrow everything.

Then you read the ten planks where that was clearly wasn't their intentions.

Then you very loosely and broadly interpreted the meaning of the last part of the Communist Manifesto, which did indeed try to make sense of a social revolution they predicted was at hand.

Not one they were going to voluntarily enact themselves, by the way, but one that they predicted was inevitable as a consequence of historical and social laws developing.

And you claim that this was about total anarchy and abolishing everything.

So what are you trying?

And then you said, no, that's not what I said.

Right now you're saying that.

So what are you trying to say?

You're trying to say the Bolsheviks did not believe in borders and all these kind of things, but then we can see how the Bolsheviks governed Russia.

And that wasn't the case.

That's why Trotsky, you know, he said the revolution's betrayed, yada yada.

And then you said Trotsky's correct.

What are you trying to say?

Are you trying to say Trotsky was the real Bolshevik or the real communist?

Like what?

I was actually asking you a question about Trotovsky, and then I just asked you, don't you think that he's actually adhering to the doctrine?

Because you just justified killing him.

Because he called for revolution, but the Communist Manifesto does call for revolution.

Does it call for revolution?

Does the Communist Manifesto call for revolutions against actual proletarian dictatorships?

Does it even necessarily call for revolutions or does it predict revolutions and claim that communists are the best primed to lead these revolutions because they're the ones who articulate the spirit of the era, the zeitgeist, yada yada?

But in any case, where does it say to overthrow proletarian dictatorships in the Communist Manifesto?

Go ahead.

I just read it off where it tells the entire world to take up arms.

Yeah.

This is so f I feel like a special needs educator right now.

It's like it's so frustrating.

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848.

Are you saying that when they said they're apparently declaring war against the world, they were including Stalin Soviet Union beforehand?

Like a hundred years earlier, that they had that in mind?

That Trotsky, oh, the command is to, so whatever government exists, you should just work to destroy and overthrow it, because that's the doctrine.

But where does it say that?

It doesn't say that.

It's very specifically referring to a specific ruling order in Europe, the Anchien regime.

Which was primarily ruled by these nobles and aristocrats and kings on the one hand, and then you also had the bourgeoisie on the other hand.

But Europe was primed for a revolutionary circumstance, and that was the context of when the document was written.

But what you're saying, it's a doctrine to just it's an anarchist doctrine.

It makes no sense.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

You haven't actually studied this book you're referencing.

You just gleamed over it once, thought you were some brilliant, unique snowflake genius.

But you haven't done the actual work to engage in Marxist literature or historiography for that matter to understand what you're talking about, frankly.

Go ahead.

Thank you for multi uh interrupting me multiple times.

It says to call war against all countries.

And basically they do talk about how they're going to subvert and infiltrate.

They talk about how they're going to infiltrate religion in the Communist Manifesto to push their agenda, even though they have a distinct I love that.

Please cite me where in the Communist Manifesto they said they're going to infiltrate religion to push their agenda.

Go ahead.

I'll give you time.

Right, well that's about thirty three pages.

I already dug out two of them and I quoted them off to you and you

According to Anton here, the Communist Manifesto has thirty-three pages in it dedicated to the idea that Communists should infiltrate religion.

Didn't you just read a sentence that said the Communists disdain to conceal their aims?

Now they're apparently prescribing methods to infiltrate religion in thirty-three pages?

That isn't that's like what is that, like half of the entire book, a third of the whole book, depending on what version you're reading.

Go ahead.

I just think you're making things up.

I think you have a wild and awful.

By the way, the topic of inheritance was assuming that the landowning peasants were already majority proletarianized.

That was the assumption.

Regarding the policy of land inheritance for peasants working on land, it was more complex in the Soviet Union.

Children were inheriting dachas and personal property and stuff from their parents.

That was the Bolshevik policy.

The right to inheritance was mainly uh an attack on the uh the Yunkers and the aristocrats and big landowners.

In any case, you're you're throw you're doing uh what a lot of right wingers do.

You're throwing a million things at the wall, waiting for something to stick.

But you can't commit to a single line of argumentation, and that's the issue.

Go ahead.

Can you uh explain where the Communist Manifesto says to infiltrate religion?

So right, that's actually given throughout basically pages when they're talking about the process of how they can utilize religion and infiltrate re- Cite me one sentence from the Communist Manifesto.

Uh corroborating your claim.

You're not going to do it.

You're not going to commit to your argument?

to your claim.

What a surprise, Anton All night that's uh

You are such an outlier.

Right wingers, as we know, are so eager to commit to their retarded bullshit claims they pull out of their ass.

So you're really just an outlier.

For those not n who don't know what uh we're talking about here.

The special boy Anton here made the claim that the Communist Manifesto has thirty three pages where it prescribes communists to infiltrate religions and use them against whatever.

Uh he can't tell us where these pa these lost the lost pages of the Communist Manifesto.

They're they're lost.

It's like a lost volume.

It's the stuff of myth and legend.

Only Anton is in possession of this lost copy of the Communist Manifesto.

No one else has.

Go ahead, Anton.

You want to talk more about this legendary copy of the book which has this?

Why by the way, why is it so hard to just fucking read books?

Like, why is that so impossible for you people?

Like, why can't you just read instead of blabbering and mouthing off?

Instead of mouthing off on X about shit you don't know about, why don't you just fucking read and learn?

Why do you have to make shit up just 'cause it sounds like it might be true in your head?

I don't understand.

Go ahead, Anton.

We have four minutes, by the way.

Right.

Well, you completely denied the own rhetoric of your own doctrine, such as what I read off the Declaration of War Against the World, telling people to uprise against their uh that wasn't a declaration of war against the world, it was an announcement.

It was a declaration that all workers of all countries should unite.

Which is not a war against the world because the majority of the world are in fact workers or destined to be workers according to the manifesto.

So you're wrong.

It's not a war against the world.

It's a war against the oppressors of the world, which are a minority.

Right.

It's a war against the world because it adheres to Marxist philosophy.

No, it's not a war against the world.

It's w a war against five percent of the world at most.

Right, so it it is war uh war against the world because you did just say people deserve to be thrown in Google logs.

Uh, I think stupid people should probably be reformed through labor.

Um, because their stupidity is an embarrassment to all mankind and all history and all civilization.

Uh, well, stupid people that mouth off and are completely wrong about everything they say in public, but it double down and insist on it to the point of spreading lies just to run cover for their own ego.

Yeah, I do support that.

Go fucking cry about it.

Go fucking cry about it, you piece of shit.

Throw people and gulags.

Aren't you a fucking Hitler supporter, you bitch?

You literally support people like that Durlwenger, fucking child rapist, cannibal monster.

Fucking SS pieces of shit that rampage through Europe, massacring and looting and shooting everybody.

You're fucking sitting here defending the Nazis, crying like a bitch, acting like you're a victim.

Because I talked about gulags.

Shut the fuck up, acting like you're some kind of persecuted.

Oh, the horror.

You literally linked a Hitler photo in this very space, you pussy.

Yeah, we're going to throw you idiots and gulags if you ever lay a single fucking hand on the workers' dictatorship.

Absolutely, bitch.

Fucking Nazis always act like they're fucking victims.

They're going and raping and massacring people, saying that they're the superior race and they have a right to loot and rape and occupy lands just because they have a racial claim on it.

And then they want to moralize and complain when the proletarian dictatorship takes steps against its own enemies.

You're a fucking...

It's exactly what Mark said about all reactionaries.

You're a bunch of disingenuous pussies.

No morality, no honor, nothing.

Bunch of lying scum.

Fuck you.

You deserve to be repressed by the highest means of state dictatorship.

Anton, fuck you for that.

I'm glad you get emotional like a child, because it says right up there.

You're the classic 4chan Hitler supporting Chud.

You're not the Aryan race.

You're not Hitler's top guy.

You just have autism, Anton.

And that's the truth.

You are autistic.

So right, I believe in giving a fair If you wrote Mein Kampf, My Struggle, it would be one word just saying autism.

That's your struggle, Anton.

All your problems fitting in and all the things that led you to radicalism is 'cause you have autism.

Can you admit that?

You claim that there's thirty three pages in the Communist Manifesto, according to which we plan to infiltrate religion.

You couldn't produce evidence for this, so you decided to spiral into derange tangents about why the Bolsheviks are so bad.

Right, I'm not answering because you're doing a tactic where you constantly doing find it in the book, find it in the book, I'd have to read through 33 pages, and then you constantly deviate every time I find it.

There's only one book I'm asking you to cite, which was the Communist Manifesto.

Anyway, Anton, time is up.

It's 8.01.

I have to do this Politics Discord AMA.

Everybody, kick.com/slash infrared.

I'm going to be doing the AMA.

Join the Politics Discord if you want to, you know, challenge me in Discord.

You can do so.

And then maybe I'll be back after that.

Anyway, kick.com/slash infrared.

See you guys there.

Alright, we're gonna do the uh politics discord.

What a fucking nightmare.

Fucking idiots.

I have no patience for these retards.

Alright.

Um

Amila with the chen.

Wow.

Also, I want to thank um

J4M N with the ten, appreciate you.

Alright.

Alright, I'm here.

Um

Here I am.

What is going on?

See myself.

Alright, I'm here.

I gotta raise my hand.

Yo, what's up?

Hello, hello.

We'll get started in two minutes.

Let's just give people the chance to join.

Yeah, for sure.

Sleeper cell, what's going on?

Sleeper Cell, appreciate it with the five.

Crass with the five, what's going on?

Appreciate you.

Nitaz, what's going on, brother?

Appreciate you.

Wello, what's going on?

Alrighty.

Hello everyone.

I'm Joker and I'll be your host for today's AMA.

This evening we will have our guest, Infrared Haas, who will be speaking on the twenty twenty four election, Trump, MAGA Communism, and more.

Now I'll give him the floor to introduce himself, and when he's ready, we'll start pulling people up from the audience to ask questions.

Welcome.

What's up, everybody?

This isn't the first time I've been here.

You know, I'm a veteran of the politics discord, but now I'm executive chairman of the American Communist Party.

A lot has changed.

A lot has passed.

I don't know if I actually did one of these after the MAGA communism thing, so a lot has actually changed.

So, yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, shoot whatever questions you got.

Yo, Morador, what's going on, bro?

Alrighty.

Let's start with Malms.

Uh thank you.

Um so I was only supposed to give a warm welcome to Comrade Haas on behalf of the Communist Room of the server.

We have prepared a list of questions for Haas, however, those are to be asked by our American comrade, uh CEO, um where is he?

If he can be pulled up.

A C old lifestyle?

Hello.

Hello, hello.

Which questions do you have for Haas?

Uh-huh.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So the first question is, isn't multipolarity just modern day campism like the likes of Kotsky and Bernstein?

How can you say that the imperialism of Lenin is no longer primary mode of economic production in the world and that we already exist in socialism on a global scale?

How can multipolarity even be a Marxist-Leninist position?

Um

Um

How can multi-polarity be a multi

had the Marxist-Senatist position when it's void of Lenin and Hughes's reaffirming of Lenin's immortal theory of imperialism.

Two.

How do China's activity in African countries and actually existing?

Let's start with the first question and let him answer that.

And then we can get on to the second one.

Yeah, sure.

So regarding the first question, I think I heard something a little strange, which was that Lenin's theory of imperialism was immortal.

Well, it's immortal with respect to accurately reflecting the circumstances at the time in which it was written, but it's not immortal in the sense that Lenin or any Marxist for that matter, or Marxism-Leninism for that matter, believes that imperialism is a permanent state of existence.

The anticipation was that imperialism was the final stage of capitalism, after which would triumph victorious the socialist mode of production.

Now, whether that's happened or not, I don't want to get into the weeds of, because it's an extremely confusing, contentious question.

What I will reference, though, is that one of the primary changes experienced by imperialism, which was defined by Lenin as primarily the export of capital rather than commodities at the time imperialism was written, is the rise of a system which Michael Hudson refers to as the super global super imperialism.

And global super imperialism is defined by the simultaneous, sorry, the paradoxical status of how the United States as a world power is simultaneously both a debtor and a creditor, right?

It occupies both of these statuses to basically propel and establish this lubricant of the global, well, super imperialist system.

Which is a kind of uh which has become this mechanism of uh recycling value, and in particular, recycling the US dollar.

And why it is I regard multipolarity as revolutionary is, first of all, it is qualitatively a step uh above that.

Imperialism, first of all, that Lenin was describing, uh there's multiple ways this can be approached theoretically.

First, we can just approach it through common sense.

A handful of countries in Europe fighting for world domination is not the same thing as regional powers, which represent the various different civilizations and histories and traditions of statecraft of many different people around the world representing the actual global majority, right?

Those emerging and insisting upon some kind of self-determination and the emergence of multiple polls, regional polls, that's not the same thing as a handful of countries in Europe fighting for dominance over the entire world.

Because in Europe, Germany, Britain, France, you know, even during the Great War, Russia, those are not polls.

Those are powers vying for world domination.

A poll is regionally specific.

A poll does not necessarily depend on this pretense and this claim to unilateral domination through control of the sea.

A poll is actually a representative of hundreds of millions of people potentially.

As they actually live and as they actually exist.

So the comparison I think is ridiculous.

Just because different powers are fighting doesn't mean it's campism.

Campism is, again, in reference to taking sides in an inter-imperialist conflict.

So that's the common sense angle, I guess.

Just the absurdity of this idea that a handful of small, geographically small states in Europe fighting for world domination is the same thing as multipolarity today, which it isn't.

The second thing is that American superimperialism, which is Michael Hudson outlines, qualitatively differs from the traditional kind of imperialism outlined by Lenin in many different ways.

But if that's a qualitative step in advance from imperialism, just in the sense of the development of history, then multipolarity is a step in advance with respect to that.

Because multipolarity is coming at the expense of the American super imperialist system.

And why that is conducive to the victory of socialism, in my view, is, well, just look.

To the extent that a power is genuinely an independent pole, is the extent to which its policies and its form of development can no longer primarily be motivated by profit.

It has to be motivated by specific developmental goals that are measured not in terms of money, but are measured in terms of quality of life indexes, living standards, health, material wealth, energy, and so on and so on.

And this is what gives multi-polarity a socialistic orientation, and it's not a coincidence that China and I'm sure this is the next topic.

Uh in contention.

It's not a coincidence China's the global leader of multipolarity.

Um so roughly that's my response, I guess.

Do you want the second question?

Sure, yeah.

Uh how do China's activity in African countries and actually existing socialist country like Laos not constitute imperialism?

Um, sure.

I mean, for one, it's not political imperialism because China is not using force.

It's not using uh means of control and domination and occupation and militarism in these countries.

Two, because it's done on the basis not of having colonies.

but of agreements between different sovereign countries.

Whether those agreements are too tipped in the favor of China, I mean, whatever.

It's not China's fault if a government is not able to properly defend its own interests.

But China's not crossing any lines in terms of the agreements that it's signing and coming to with respect to African countries.

Second, I would say if it's imperialist, it wouldn't be able to explain how much China has forgiven loans and debts on the part of African countries because they know they could just never be paid back.

The IMF and other kind of imperialist instruments of neo-colonialism, they strive to keep countries in a permanent state of debt in order to have control over them, to define their policies, to have some kind of leverage over them.

China doesn't want that.

China, if it has d if countries are indebted to China, Ch you know, i talking about Africa in this case, China expects some means in which they're going to be eventually paid back.

And if they don't anticipate that's possible,

They forgive the debts.

And this is the pattern of behavior we see repeatedly from China.

I'll also say that China's economic relations are also there's also an element where they're again, this is similar to the second thing, where they're they are defined by win-win developmental goals, not the pure pursuit of profit.

They, of course, figure within China's five-year plans, and of course, there's economic interests as far as

Chinese enterprises are concerned, but only to the extent that they fit in the developmental goals of the five-year plans.

So there's a lot of things that distinguish them from imperialism, frankly.

There's the imperialism in the political sense.

Now, I've seen people try and make the argument that it's imperialism in Lenin's sense because China is exporting capital.

But such an absurd dis uh qualification of imperialism in the twenty first century would mean that plenty of small countries that export capital to the imperial core, to NATO countries and to the United States, are imperialist, which I don't think anyone is prepared to commit to as an idea.

It's ridiculous.

The export of capital

in the form of investment and credit and so on and so on.

doesn't I mean i it it would create a lot of awkward um

Awkward uh

Descriptions of the current world system as far as the people that accuse China of imperialism on that basis.

So in in many ways the imperial world imperialist system has become subsumed by another system, which is the superimperialist system, described by Michael Hudson, and that system is being gradually undermined by the emergence of bricks.

So the third one says, what is your response to bordegis slash leftcoms who often argue that the USSR wasn't socialist because it had commodity production and Scarfat Lenin's notion of socialist commodity production?

How do you defend the notion of socialist commodity production and SIOC, socialism in one country, from their typical attacks?

Uh well, okay.

Um with respect to socialist commodity production, if you read Marx's descriptions of how modes of production change and how they transform.

Uh a mode of production is never eliminated in one fell swoop.

Modes of production are reproduced uh historically.

And the decisive significance of socialism is that when the capitalist mode of production begins to be uh reproduced in a way that um

Is no longer conducive to its own premises, this is kind of signifying a contradiction, which Marx interprets as the emergence of a new mode of production, the socialist kind.

So rather than just eliminate commodities entirely in one fell swoop, the emergence of the socialist commodity, which if you actually understand what a socialist commodity is, it's a commodity defined by a limited and determinate quality of exchange, meaning it can't be exchanged for anything.

It differs from general commodities because it's

It's not uh indeterminate in the sense that, you know, uh so-and-so bushels of grain could exchange, you know, um universally for any kind of equivalent measured in an abstract formal standard of value.

It could only be exchanged in a in a way that is uh predetermined, like um for example, in exchange for machinery with the state.

Uh for example.

So this is what gives it a socialist quality.

The the range and the extent of the exchange is determined.

according to uh a different logic rather than profit, according to the logic of developmental wolves.

So Marx in his description of how socialism is going to emerge from capitalism, he uses the analogy of uh

Uh the birth what what's the precise quote?

I don't remem exactly remember it.

It'll bear the stamps of the previous uh mode of production as it emerges, as it's uh

Uh he uses the um

The word birth pangs.

I don't remember the exact quote, unfortunately, off the top of my head right now.

But, um

Yeah, I mean, it's confusing to people because it's like a commodity is only capitalism.

But capitalism, in the process of its transformation, all of the categories unique to the capitalist mode of production will be assimilated and subsumed by a new logic of production.

They're not going to just be eliminated outright.

They're going to be assailed by an even higher logic.

And it's this subsumption that sublates them, that renders them superfluous, rather than just abolishing them by decree.

The question of socialism in one country.

is uh I think the most contentious one because uh yes, Marx and Engels did not actually anticipate the long-term development of socialism to be in one country.

They did interpret they did believe that all of Europe there'd be this pan-European revolution that would happen simultaneously and that you know the the um dissolution of the capitalist mode of production would correspond

To the dissolution of the nation state.

Now, the extent to which they're correct, I think, can actually be justified by the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't a nation-state.

It was a multinational polity, which, you know, today we have these phrases like from Zhang Weiwei, like civilization states, right?

And these are, you know, these are forms of.

political existence that are much higher than nation states.

So that prediction was correct, but the notion of a simultaneous world revolution was an in incorrect prediction.

And it's to that extent that you know the the phrase is called Marxism Leninism.

It's not just called Marxism.

Lenin had a qualitative contribution which changed and rediscovered and in many ways reinterpreted.

Marx's uh original view.

The fourth question is, will the ACP protect the right for marginalized groups assuming racial and sexually marginalized groups to exist and have their basic needs met?

Um, I mean, uh

Like, yes, but the framing of marginalization, marginal marginalism, if you want to call it that, I think is an incorrect framing in the first place.

I don't know what groups are sexually marginalized.

I don't know what that actually means.

And it's such a broad phrase.

A lot of things could be included in that, which I'm not really prepared to sign off for.

What does it actually mean concretely?

That would be my question.

With respect to racial groups, the goal is promoting racial unity between so-called different races.

The existence of races, separate racial groups, in countries like the United States has been a major stunt on the development of communist workers movement, and it would be a hindrance upon the development of a socialist state.

So to that extent, the goal wouldn't be to promote racial marginalization.

The goal would be to promote racial unity.

Unity across racial differences.

So we have one more question.

What were the mistakes of the radical labor and communist movements of the twentieth century in the United States?

And how does your party intend to avoid making these mistakes?

I think one of the mistakes they made was they um

I think uh

They basically

didn't know how to translate the revolutionary experiences of other countries like Russia or China or other, you know, um non-Western countries to their own context.

And that led to a circumstance where the avenue of social democracy was a very easy one to pursue.

But the Social Democrats, or the New Dealers in the case of the United States, eventually became institutionalized and part of the system.

So when other forms of populism started rearing their heads, other forms of mass popular discontent with the system, with the establishment, communists, which were radicals, if we're talking about revolutionaries that were distinct from Social Democrats, found themselves in an awkward situation.

On the one hand, they oppose the reactionaries obviously, but on the other hand they th they oppose the Social Democrats and the New Dealers in their own ways.

But they weren't really able to articulate how concretely they could distinguish themselves from the established left, the Social Democrats and the New Dealers.

So they kind of were caught in this

Like, um

Limbo between just defending social democracy or defending the Democratic Party or, you know, consigning themselves to an extreme radical fringe due to fanaticism and dogmatism and sectarianism.

So articulating a Leninist politics or articulating a revolutionary politics, you know, in in this circumstance was difficult for them and they failed to do that.

And they failed to do it because they didn't really

Fully understand, and this is also why Lenin wrote Left-Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder.

Because the Western Marxists didn't really understand what the Bolshevik Revolution was actually all about.

Lenin is here, he's breaking with international social democracy, but why?

What's the actual substance of that dispute?

And the way they interpreted it was that, well, it's because we're more pure, we're more left, and we're more, you know, ideologically principled.

So that created a precedent where, like, radical politics was based on.

Theoretical purity or ultra-leftism or something like that.

And put it this way: I don't think Bolshevism as a realistic and pragmatic Bolshevism, like the real substance of Bolshevik politics, ever got imported into the West.

I think the people that were trying to follow the example of the communists meandered, and there were some limited forms of success, for example, in the CPSA under Foster in the 30s.

But there was this meandering between, you know, extreme ultra-leftism and idealism versus, and when they wanted to be pragmatic and realistic, they decided to just kind of go over to the Social Democrats.

So that was an extremely difficult situation for them.

And that's the best way I could explain it, I guess.

So the next question is, what were they posting?

Can we pick some other folks up and then maybe come back to you?

Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

And I just wanted to say one thing.

Like, me personally, I've been checking out the scene of American Communism for quite some time.

And honestly, until the coming of the ACP, it has been dead.

But I'm very happy to see the ACP.

It's the first viable Communist Party that has existed in a long, long time, in my opinion.

So keep up the good work.

Uh yeah, thank you, appreciate it.

Yeah.

ECP rising.

All right, our next speaker is Purple Noon, coming up.

Hey How's how's it going?

Uh good, how are you?

I'm doing good, thank you and um I just wanted to tell you, a member of your c your community, Stannis USA, constantly hits on transsexuals, including myself.

Is this what maga communism teaches?

What is your opinion?

Alright, so this is Stannis.

Uh alright, very funny.

Excuse me, no, sir.

Yeah, very funny and uh

Did you miss me?

Should I come back?

I can come back.

Yeah, you yeah, well, we don't want anything to do with you, Stannis.

I mean, you just you went too far.

You went too far.

Okay, wa was it that gay tweet?

I don't I it was a lot of things, frankly.

Uh the trolling it just went way too far and uh yeah.

Okay cool.

Well um I'm speaking on behalf of JP Dyer now, if you believe that.

But um would you be willing to debate him away again and not run away this time?

Yeah, very funny.

I get you're doing the trolling thing.

And, you know, my advice is, Dannis, yeah, it's true.

99% of people on the internet are, well, I don't want to say any bad words on Discord, but you know, they are not very smart, let's say.

And it's very easy to manipulate mass flocks of stupid people by trolling them and doing outrageous things and watching, you know, being like, ha, look how stupid all these people are for reacting to it.

But you got to think, like, okay, where to go from there, though?

Like, I don't know.

My advice to you is, why don't you draw out the existential implications?

Like, why are people so easily manipulated by bait and things like that?

It's like, well.

Um is there anything hu is there anything we could recognize as human about them still, you know?

Despite that fact, do we just do you think you're just superior because you you control like this and people fall for it?

Is there is there anything that can be salvaged from the mass stupidity that we g see proven by all of these people falling for bait and trolling, you know?

So that's my advice.

Okay, and just one last thing if you don't mind.

Um, is there a chance I could come back?

Um.

No, no.

Okay, well well thank you Adam.

Um I'm at Haas.

We'll be seeing you, okay?

All right, yeah.

Alright, bye-bye.

Okay, next up we've got Molly Tov.

See if there's anything interesting out of this one.

Molly Toff, are you there?

I am, yes.

Awesome.

Hello.

So earlier you talked about the mistakes of the radical labor movement and communist movements within the US and the twentieth century.

How does the ACP intend on avoiding making these same mistakes in the future?

Yeah, I think um

Yeah, good question.

I think that one of the things I think that distinguishes us is that our Constitution

And our declaration, and you know, the whole spirit of how our party works is that the premise of the unity, the premise of this, most people think it's a split from the CPUSA.

We don't interpret it that way, but I could forgive someone for seeing it that way.

The primordial sin of our organization that unites us together is not a desire to be theoretically pure or ideologically pure or even homogenous ideologically.

We all agree on basic premises, but the basis of those premises is something practical and materially real.

It's just that it's pragmatism, it works.

Marxism-Leninism has worked in a certain way to a certain extent.

This specific precedent of organizing a party and a mass movement and a revolutionary strategy has worked in some capacity in the past, and it's just a foundation to build off of.

And success is being measured by work.

And, you know, the premise of the unity is based on an aspiration to get things done, not an aspiration to validate ourselves subjectively, not an aspiration to fulfill a utopia or a pure idea.

It's just to get the ball rolling and accomplish things tangibly.

Um so I think we have a realism and pragmatism right off the bat that distinguishes us.

But I think there's also something else, which is that we we have an extremely um

I think refined understanding of the relationship between um ideologies, uh between movements and uh political phenomena.

I think that

We can kind of see between the lines.

For example, when it comes to MAGA, not all of MAGA, not all of that, is going to be dismissed just because of the superficial ideological commitments.

We're not just going to brand it everything as reactionary.

There's an extent to which it is rooted in this breakdown of the Democratic Party and the Uniparty in general.

And we understand the need to kind of transcribe Communism in a way that

non-communists actually understand.

So

There's an ideological realism and there's a practical realism, I think, that distinguishes us.

Wonderful.

So many people on Twitter and other people in general have accused you and the ACP of being socially conservative, anti-gay and other things.

I myself do not believe this, but how would you respond to these accusations?

Um

Well, I uh I I would respond by like, you know, um

I understand the labels, but in practice we're not interested in hunting people down because of their sexual orientation.

We're not interested in abusing or bullying them for it.

We're not interested in, you know, focusing on it really at all.

And uh I think the problem where we've erred and sinned, I guess, is that we don't really believe in the na what Lenin called the navel gazing.

We don't really

Believe that someone's sexual orientation or desires has to be something that is raised to the status of social significance.

Um.

We think these should probably just be private matters and um

I guess that makes us uh I don't know if that makes us socially conservative, but it's pretty much the standard for Communist parties.

It is a different um take than most uh Western LGBT organizations.

Right, yeah.

Would you would you say that uh LGBT groups have been co-opted by uh Western organizations like the CIA to try and push uh anti-Russia and anti-China narratives within Russia and China?

Yeah, I think I think there is an extent to which those have become conducive to just anti-social political goals in general, when you're just trying to fight against a population, a majority population, on behalf of a, you know, um a a hegemony, a hegemony.

Uh yeah, I mean, um

that it makes sense that people who are, you know, more likely to be estranged from their families and communities, which by the way I don't consider a good thing, but it makes sense that that could be a good base for s things like that.

But, um,

Yeah, I I don't know.

I mean uh it's very strange when infrared before ACP first launched.

It wasn't a focus of ours at all.

We really didn't even comment on issues like that.

But it seemed like some of these, like LGBT.

organized groups just decided to target us and they made us an enemy and they said, Oh, there they're these people are these people are hateful and we did nothing.

We didn't even say anything.

We didn't mention it.

So I find that very curious and that really kind of

Came to define our perception of those kinds of groups, I guess, those organizations, I mean.

When in doubt, blame it on the CIA.

I mean, uh yeah, I I I I don't really buy the idea that

The LGBT movement or in its organized capacity is a grassroots thing that just became popular because of culture and people.

I think it's been a combination of

You know, popularity among young people, but also without Hollywood and without the culture industry and without NGOs, it's been kind of a synergy between those two things that seems to have propelled it into the signific significance it has now.

A final question for you.

How w how does the ACB intend on preventing itself being co-opted by other groups or interests?

Yeah, good question.

I think that um

We designed the organization with the knowledge that it is probably inevitable bad faith actors are going to try and co-opt us or infiltrate us, which is inevitable for any kind of left-wing organization or just dissident organization.

So I guess how we designed it is that we're just not going to make it that personal.

Whatever we don't care about your motivations, we care about the results.

If we can find a way to control the results, then people's motivations won't actually matter to us.

Subjectively, it won't matter.

If we could somehow...

place a primacy on the objective goals and seeing to it that we have a clear understanding of what our objective goals are and our our um desire to fulfil those, then the subjective element we don't really even have to recognize.

Um

So that's our approach at least.

Thank you.

Sinor for asking these questions.

Yep, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, next up we've got Mainlander.

Mainlander, are you here?

Yo, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right, cool.

I just had one question.

I wanted to kind of keep it simple, but um I just want to ask you specifically, how did you repair your prolapsed anus after the Armarna forma gaped it?

Uh, I didn't really hear that, but uh

How did you re

I genuinely didn't even hear the second half of that.

I don't even know what.

He has something really odd.

Yeah.

Let's pull up oh, hey Yahweh.

Did you want to ask him anything?

I come to stream Apex.

Okay.

Next up we've got Para.

Hello, hello?

Yep.

Okay.

So, Hawes, I'm I'm uh someone who's been looking to join the ACP.

I'm uh a black trans woman.

I don't know if that's okay or not.

I mean I've been kinda wary of joining just 'cause of the things your members say on Twitter slash X.

However, I did see a tweet yesterday from at Volk Vulture One who claims that the ACP has trans and gay members.

Is that true?

Um I mean I I wouldn't be shocked if a small minority of people are

have uh non-standard sexual orientations.

I don't it's not really s data we collect, frankly.

Okay, okay.

It's not really something I I would know, to be honest.

Okay.

I I wouldn't be like prevented from joining though, right?

Uh, I mean, uh, y y y you would y the qualifications for joining are based on merit.

It's based on what your background is, what you are capable of doing and what your character is.

So

Okay, but that's good to know.

I mean, I as I as a trans woman am fight and uh am proud to fight for multipolarity and Russia and China.

So yeah, thank you.

Okay, next up we've got Catface.

Uh okay, I I got a few questions.

Um one uh and these are gonna be kinda hard hitting, uh, but I genuinely want to know the answer.

Um why do you s why are you a MAGA communist when uh

When conservatism like Donald Trump uh is very antithetical to any sort of left-leaning policies.

Well, I'll just give you the short answer, which is we think the Democratic Party must be completely destroyed for a real left wing to have the breathing room to even take the first step to try to exist in this country.

Okay.

Um my next question is uh why do you support Lenin when uh the coup happened in uh nineteen seventeen with the voting system?

Or do you not uh think that that that that vote that that vote that happened in nineteen seventeen was legitimate?

Uh it wasn't legitimate because the lists that were collected in the months following up.

were not representative of the new political blocs that had formed.

For example, they combined the entire socialist revolutionaries into one voting list, even though they had split between left SRs and right SRs precisely on the basis of whether or not to give all power to the Soviets.

The Constituent Assembly kind of parliamentary system they were floating as a proposal never really proved its credibility.

It never even existed.

It was a question of, you know, should we pursue a Soviet system?

The Soviets had already existed, they were already managing day-to-day life, or this Constituent Assembly, which has never even proven its ability to govern anything and is a hypothetical construct and proposal of the Kerensky government.

And I think after a year of the population waiting for elections and not getting them and just seeing the incompetency and decisions of the Kerensky government, they didn't really care to entertain this Constituent Assembly.

The goal now was to just

you know, uh have some form of power that actually represents, you know, the day-to-day life of people, which was the Soviets, you know, that was at the local levels managing life.

And that w wasn't an ideological thing, it was just the structure of governance and organization that emerged in a state of chaos at the time.

Uh okay, Eden, uh m I have w uh another question and it kind of goes back to the first question is uh that didn't Lenin go on record saying that he would support the liberals over the conservatives in the in an electoral system up until the communists had uh have enough power to uh take over said system?

I think so like referencing was uh when he made a comment about what hypothetically should be done if for example the black hundreds were going to win and the Bolsheviks could decisively you know help the cadets uh over the black hundreds.

Uh, yeah, so but that was just a kind of hypothetical scenario, and the context was Lenin actually, I think he was railing against either it was the Mensheviks or some other faction for tailing behind the cadets when this wasn't the case.

So he was saying, Well, maybe if you know, if the black hundreds were about to take power, maybe that would justify it, but that's not the case.

So.

He wasn't really an advocate for a collaboration with the cadets, because uh no such collaboration occurred in any form.

Uh but yeah, he did write, you know, if if if it came down to uh preventing the black hundreds.

Yeah.

But he wasn't saying conservatives, I mean, that's a very nebulous word, I think.

So like isn't that contradictory to uh to the MAGA Communist uh movement that you support?

No, because I would contest the idea that MAGA is an equivalent to the Black Hundreds.

I think people get this perception that the Black Hundreds were this, you know, um buried in the soil kind of organic popular movement.

But the Black Hundreds were an incredibly urban phenomena.

They didn't have a base in Russia's peasantry.

They had a base primarily in kind of lumpin and professionals even, urban.

I think the equivalent, it would be like, imagine DSA went far right.

That would be the black hundreds, in my view.

Oh, okay.

Also, if if the American Communist Party did gain political power, what would happen to anyone who was a communist but disagreed with the ACP?

Like, say, like, there were libertarian socialists, would you guys do what Lenin did?

Or what would happen to people's subjective ideologies and viewpoints are not really important.

I think what matters more is what they what would you do?

What would you do?

You know, would you if you're throwing bombs and doing what the anarchists did under the Bolsheviks?

Yeah, of course, that's.

That that would need to be uh neutralized.

But just for having uh subjective views or opinion doesn't really matter a whole lot.

Oh, okay.

And I got my my last question is uh and and uh to be fully clear, I don't support this person at all.

I I think they're kind of uh kind of scum.

But I I gotta ask this.

Um Paz, how how does it feel to be shorter than destiny?

Um you know it's just it's so devastating, you know.

I don't know what to say.

Yeah.

Damn.

Okay, I'm done.

All right.

Next up we have one of the mods from politics mathematician.

Alhaz.

I've watched you for a long time.

Um my question to you is um who would you classify as the modern day lump and proletariat in American society?

Um yeah, it's an interesting question.

I think that

Uh part of the lumpin historically is that

They were are declassed.

So these are people that were used to be they're being pauperized, but instead of being proletarianized, they're just kind of meandering in a state of

Um criminality and antisocial kind of existence.

So, you know, uh my answer might surprise people.

But I think Neats, the Neats, I think the OnlyFans, the Neats, this kind of crowd I think fits the description pretty well.

I think uh

The key thing is the antisocial relation to production.

Would you agree that uh a majority of Americans are antisocial in nature in their quote unquote work life?

It is funny because uh the lines are blurred and especially in countries like America where, you know, most people are obviously not blue collar workers and lines obviously are curiously blurred between like salaried professionals with bullshit degrees and bullshit jobs and straight up just, you know,

Um, vagrants and whatever.

But I think the distinction, uh,

Yeah, it's it's kind of it's it's it's hard to

It's hard to really

know exactly where the line is.

I think

It's a pretty superficial one if you ask me.

I mean when the going gets tough, I think the PMC become lump lumpin'.

Um in circumstances of political instability.

What proportion of America would you say classify under the PMC?

I would say probably at least twenty percent.

Okay.

What uh political party do you think these people in general align with?

The Democratic Party.

Can you justify that claim?

I mean, uh, probably, yeah.

I have to see the demo the recent elections.

I know for previous elections and primaries within the Democratic Party there's j data that supports this, but uh I would say uh the recent one, I haven't looked at the demographic class data, but I did see that

The demographics that swung in favor of Kamala seemed to be the college educated, suburban.

Ones.

I was looking at an article the other day that showed that a majority of Elon Musk's donations go to the Republican Party, and the workers at Tesla and SpaceX actually donate an overwhelming majority to the Democratic Party.

So, why do you think that is?

Why do you think there's like that?

Well, because Elon is not really PMC.

He's kind of a.

He's like, um well, Vero Fakis would say he's like a feudal or, you know, lord or something.

But he's a billionaire.

I mean, he's not a he's not a salaried employee.

He is a billionaire.

And yeah, he um, but he's a billionaire that, for whatever reason, seems to be uh clashing with the rest of the billionaire class.

Um, he's in the minority, it seems like, or maybe he's not, maybe the rest of them supported Trump this time.

I it's not really clear to me, it's not very conclusive.

Okay, well I appreciate you answering my questions.

Yeah, for sure.

By the way, that last guy was a total idiot of what he said about Dusty.

Uh, I just kinda see it as like an N P C uh automated response.

I don't really hold them I don't take it personally, like it means they're a bad person, I think.

It's like a reflex.

Next up we have Thy Art is Cads.

I like your name by the way.

Let's bring 'em up.

Thank you.

So I guess I have two questions for Haas.

So my first is, why is there no like women in your ACP movement?

I've seen lots of men, but I would think you would have some woman in your movement.

And two, why do you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Well, uh it's difficult to answer your first question because um

It's just not true.

Um, so I can't explain the cause of a thing that is just not true.

Um

I recommend you do more research on our party.

It doesn't seem like you're very informed.

Regarding your second question.

Um

I support Russia's special military operation because well for multiple reasons.

One, I think they're completely justified because of the events of Maidan and the Donbass over the decade.

I think they should have done it much earlier, just because of that.

But secondly, the thing that I support the most is the complete destruction of the US-led rules-based world order.

You know?

I uh

That is the most important thing.

U.S.

political global hegemony, which is not democratic, no one elected that.

So, claiming that it's for the sake of enforcing democracy, I think, is nonsense.

Acts to enforce the will of the IMF and the World Bank to underdevelop countries to prevent their sovereignty, to prevent their self-determination.

And I think, yeah, there needs to be drastic militant action by states to kind of formally declare war and rebellion against this world order, which is an unwritten world order, right?

So, there's this dynamic where the U.S.

is a global hegemon, but it's not written anywhere.

It's not enumerated constitutionally anywhere.

And just in the same way, Russia is an open rebellion against the very thing that has no formal existence, but which clearly exists.

So, is Russia formally rebelling?

Well, how can it formally rebel against something that formally doesn't exist?

The best way it can rebel is by asserting its sovereignty at the expense of

The will of the US and its rules, just openly defying NATO and the EU and the USA, saying, Yes, we can do this, we will do it, and you're gonna do nothing about it

So I support them fully and completely with respect to that.

Even though I like to think you has have talked about being anti-imperialist, correct?

Right, which is why I support it.

Well Russia is an imperialist state, so how can you support Russia?

Um, I disagree with that.

I don't think Russia's an imperialist state.

I think it's a big country that, uh, territorially, historically, is bigger than it is now.

That's true.

It is definitely bigger than Ukraine, but that doesn't make it imperialist.

Youthland had conquered over seven centuries of expansion.

I think under the Romanovs you could make the argument that Russia was an imperialist country.

I don't think you could make that argument before the Romanovs where conquest and whatever warfare I mean, uh it depends on what you mean by imperialism.

Bad Empanada, uh

Tried to make the claim that, you know, oh, well, even Lenin agreed that the Roman Empire was imperialist.

All imperialism is having an empire.

But the very passage he cites was literally Lenin saying, No, imperialism is a new qualitative development of history.

I'm not referring to the Roman Empire, I'm not referring to the Mongols, it's a new thing I'm referring to, which is different.

And um

So it depends on what we mean by imperialism.

I'm not you know I'm not here to be too autistic about it.

If you just mean Russia's a big bully, which is a big country that's wanting to dominate and control its neighbors, I don't think that's very fair.

I think that Russia doesn't want NATO aggression at its doorstep.

I haven't seen any real examples of Russia just trying to control other countries.

That is that's not defensive.

Like, you control them, yes, in the sense that you can't join military alliances against us and put missiles at our doorstep or whatever.

But is Russia trying to control other countries to the extent that they're not allowed to develop in a way peacefully that reflects the will of their own population rather than Russia's?

I don't see examples of that.

Okay.

Tell someone else if they have a question they can go answer.

Okay.

Blue team down.

Europe.

Hi, what's up?

Um

So I I had a question.

So you say you've n you've never seen him do it.

What about Georgia?

Do you think that they did it aggressively for defensive reasons or because they wanted to keep them under influence of power?

No, I I mean uh you could say there there's elements of both, but the ma remember the main thing that happened in Georgia was that this is a post

Sorry, are you not finished or?

No, no, no, no, sorry, my uh my shit's fucked, my bad.

I had to fix it.

Yeah, well, after the dissolution of the USSR, there was a lot of chaos as far as ethnic minorities being displaced that used to be part of like uh autonomous regions or something, um, or you know, just kind of were seamlessly between the borders of different Soviet republics, and this wasn't an issue for them because they were ultimately part of one state.

So this was true for uh you know Abkhazia in Georgia.

Uh, for Ossatia, for the Ossetian ethnic minority.

And, you know, they were caught between Russia, which was North Ossetia, and the South Ossetians, which were in Georgia.

And, you know, there had always been a balance in the Soviet Union where the center, which is in Moscow, is kind of managing tensions between the Georgians and the Ossetian minorities and making sure they had this kind of sense of responsibility to protect the minorities, protect one group, erasing the other, and so on.

And the North Ossetians in Russia were the ones that were applying the pressure to be reunited with the South Ossetians below, who, you know, the Georgian state was antagonizing.

And Russia.

But does that give excuse?

Does that make it a valid excuse because a minority of an old population lives in a foreign country that you can control it?

In the abstract, no, but in the context of Russia being the formal successor of the Soviet Union and taking on the responsibilities of making sure that the ethnic minorities within its borders, who they literally have family with, they're just right across the pond in South Ossetia, taking responsibility for this to maintain peace and self-determination.

I think it falls, yeah, it very well falls within the realm of their so does Mexico have the right, does Mexico have the right to invade California or Texas, even though it's because it was their land, and there are small minority groups who still live there.

Yeah, I would just ask the question: why now?

Why wouldn't it have not done it in the decades following the annexation of those territories?

Why now, hundreds of years later?

I think, again, the context is that the truth is that a lot of people don't want to admit it is that there wasn't a smooth transition after the dissolution of the USSR.

There were a lot of problems in terms of the successor states just not being able to manage the various different ethnic minorities and populations, you know, which the Soviet Union did manage, like love it or hate it.

You know, so yeah, I don't think post-Soviet conflicts can be, you know, held to this abstract standard of international law where it's like, oh, do you have the right to do this?

Because it's technically not your boundaries or your territory.

But it's like, well, the thing that the most important driving consideration.

Should be the right of the self-determination of peoples, the right of continuity of peoples, um, to preserve their ways of life, to preserve their existence, and to preserve stability.

So, uh, yeah, the pro-Soviet collapse was a complete mess, and the borders that have been drawn since are not very sustainable.

Evidently, they're not.

So, if they have the right to self-determination, then why is a foreign power coming in trying to determine what's going to happen for them?

That just doesn't because technically for Russia's a foreign power trying to tell Georgia how to deal with its shit.

Well, that's just does George did Georgia have the right to invade South Ossetia and antagonize the South Ossetians?

Does Russia have the right to tell another country during that time what to do, seeing as they didn't even have an economy or military strong to care of itself?

Russia was struggling.

There's a reason that nobody has an abstract right to do anything.

But when you consider the context of North Ossetia, which borders South Ossetia being inside of Russia, those people being divided by a border randomly overnight that wasn't there before, I think, yeah, I mean, Russia does have a right to assume its post-Soviet responsibilities of you know, protecting uh the Ossetians.

Well I guess on that point we'll agree to disagree, but I also want to bring up bricks.

What do you think about bricks?

Um I I support it and I think it's somewhat promising and um

I uh it's just a matter of uh is there a political will among all the BRICS members to do what's necessary.

See, the the issue with BRICS and why I think it's never gonna work is because they can't even agree on who's gonna be the regional power.

Russia right now is trying to get control and now has North Korea to help it with Ukraine.

China is an economic powerhouse compared to uh comparative to Russia, but India is equivalent almost in here too.

So if BRICS is supposed to work out, but three of the four major nations can't accept who's gonna be that regional power, how is it ever going to work?

In what region are you talking about?

We're talking like Eurasia.

Yeah, I think uh well, I don't think they believe they have it all figured out, but I think they're pursuing a new kind of framework in which differences like that could be resolved potentially.

Um and that's where I see failure in the essence like well if if we look at um in like the international politics version of BRICS, right?

Uh China is supporting Russia in the war.

I think a lot of the premises of BRICS is not that we don't have conflicts and histories of conflict and disputes and disagreements.

I think it the the idea uh the consensus is increasingly that

Conflict spilling over into armed warfare and and killing and and bloodshed is primarily the doing of the United States.

It bears the majority of the responsibility of these devastating wars after the post-war period.

So BRICS is saying we have to find a way to Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia didn't fight those countries.

Did you say Egypt?

Yes, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt.

Russia hasn't fought those countries?

Uh, I'm actually curious about what you're talking about when it comes to Egypt, first of all.

My S Egypt.

My bag, take that back.

Syria and Afghanistan, Russia had no play in those countries whatsoever.

Well, look, recall what I just said, that the majority of the bloodshed in the conflicts, the United States bears the majority of the responsibility.

And then look at both of the countries where Russia intervened and look at what happened.

In Syria, you had the FSA, you had the Al-Qaeda, you had ISIS, and who bankrolled them in the beginning?

Who sowed the seeds for an otherwise peaceful Arab Spring to turn into a war?

Accusations.

No, it's proven.

Who funded their who armed them?

Who gave them weapons?

Accusations.

A little bit of...

A little bit of America.

A little bit of America.

Well, not a little bit.

It really was America.

Okay, and then what about Afghanistan?

Who was sowing the seeds of rebellion against the Communist government in Afghanistan to build the Mujahideen and arm them and provoke them to kind of take up arms to fight the communists?

We understand the Reagan Doctrine and the effects of it, and the Truman Doctrine.

So you see, otherwise, you know, the conflicts could prop there could be a precedent for solving conflicts in a way that doesn't necessarily have to lead to warfare, but.

Where where we see bloodshed, we kind of see a US flag next to it almost all the time.

I don't necessarily agree with that totally.

I would say in general, yeah.

Generally.

If we're talking post-World War II, I wouldn't disagree with that framework.

And the reason is not a conspiracy.

It's just that, well, you have this military-industrial complex that gains so much prominence.

You have a hegemonic global system that has to be maintained by force.

Well, I would I would disagree with the military-industrial complex.

I don't think it has to do with error.

I think what it has to do with...

All I would say is that any unilateral framework where there's a rules-based order where everyone has to do what one power says or else has to be maintained by violent force.

BRICS is the proposal that there can be a multilateral form of global governance where they're not going to have one power control everyone.

I would already say it's a multilateral world.

I don't think it's a bilateral.

Well, I don't think it's either.

I think it's since the dissolution of the USSR, the U.S.

has acted as a unilateral power.

I mean, who gave it the right to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and make all these unilateral decisions to destabilize entire regions?

They control.

I mean, if you want to talk about hegemon, yeah, technically U.S.

is the hegemon for the Western Hemisphere, but Western ideology.

But then you have India, Russia, China, who are not even close to our belief systems, have their total immediate belief systems.

I think after the 1990s, the US was meddling in the Eastern Hemisphere plenty.

Um

Money enough in a way that I don't think anyone would dispute.

No, no, I think communism was a real threat.

I'm very anti-communist.

Well, even in the post-communist period after the 1990s, the U.S.

is still the CIA is backing the Chechens.

The CIA is attempting to foment Balkanization in the post-Soviet space.

Oh, Russia is always going to be the enemy of the U.S.

I don't think that there's ever going to be a time period where Russia isn't, especially right now.

We'll see what happens with Ukraine and Trump.

I think it's this ideology difference.

I think it's probably just the fact that the U.S.

has to maintain its global hegemony through force and that Russia doesn't want any part of that.

That's probably not.

I wouldn't say necessarily through force.

I think policy is how to keep most of their power.

I think this idea of just force is like a 2000 idea.

Well, sanctions are a policy, but they're a policy that forcibly present businesses from things can go both ways.

Same for tariffs.

But I mean, you can't really sanction the U.S., which I get what you're saying.

And sanctions do get abused, which I have no disagreements there.

But the sanctions, for example, on Iran, I have no guilt towards.

I think we should sanction the shit out of them.

Well, I'm sure that's very easy to say.

It is, because I'm a forced order living in a fourth war country.

I'm not going to pretend.

If I was in this situation, I would understand.

But when we talk about Russia and BRICS, do you think I don't ever see it working out because Russia's ego is too big and China knows that they're so powerful that they in economic point, they should control it.

It may be true that BRICS in a post in a multipolar world is going to have wars.

But, you know, frankly, that's not the immediate concern.

The immediate concern is the U.S.'s unilateral dictatorship.

And whether or not BRICS is going to work out, you know, let's see.

But we already know how the current system is working out and it's not working out in a way that's satisfying anyone.

What do you mean?

Explanation, please.

Well, BRICS is coming together because they're not satisfied with the way the US is running the world.

I think BRICS is coming together because they don't like Western ideology.

I wouldn't say because of the US.

Well, most non-Western state actors don't agree with the ideology that the US pushes, which is followed by the mass of Western physivization.

It's the ideology and it's the policies and the sanctions and all of it.

So.

Well, I don't I disagree with the sanctions as well.

I think most countries agree on sanctions.

I think if anything right now, I would say countries that agree that are disagreeing with with the US would be Palestine is like the big factor.

I would say Palestine is probably the biggest factor.

But you need to understand there's a bigger context to that, which is everyone's sick of the hypocrisy of the rules-based world order when everyone is held under a microscope and not allowed to do anything, but Israel can do whatever it wants and have a genocide in Gaza and the US doesn't care.

And I think that just revives.

About anything it wants, but I agree that well that's that's how most people see it.

That's why they're upset, because they're just basically saying, you know, what is this rules-based order?

What right does the US even have at this point to be the world police when this is what's happening in Gaza?

I think people have always understood that it's been a premise of rules for thee, not for me when it comes to Western powers.

Most Western countries have been.

I think it's reached proportions now that people are just they've had enough see I don't get this argument for Palestine about Israel when the US murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and then like 40,000 people I'm not trying to minute the number or simplify it but I think it's like two-thirds of forty thousand people have been civilians and or uh no yeah civilians but then the US killed like hundreds of thousands of Afghanistanis and w like pretty much nothing happened people told us to stop like I I I don't get this like why would you argue Palestine now when you could have argued Afghanistan ten, fifteen years ago?

I think there's a lot of reasons.

Um I don't want to get into all of them.

I think that social media is a big thing though.

I think that the fact that everything can just be immediately and instantaneously exposed has has been a game changer.

And I remember when uh when Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were leaking stuff, it was just shock to the whole world.

And uh we have that now, but i it's now, you know, on a mass scale.

We don't even need WikiLeaks, people could just record it with their phones.

Yeah.

I know, I think Julius Sange is still a necessity.

Rex your peace, bro, never gonna happen again.

Uh and then one final question, kinda just to round it off.

Um

Communism in the twenty-first century, possible?

Yes or no?

Yeah.

Inevitable.

We say inevitable, but I don't think I think more democracies have happened since the nineteen sixties that are alert and correct.

Well I think that's a really short time frame, frankly.

I mean the time frame of com this is the future of all mankind and civilization.

I mean um a few decades doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

I think a lot of people in Europe

you know, if the year is like uh eighteen twenty nine, you know, it decades had passed and the Waterloo uh was done and the French Revolution was done and they said, Okay, uh, you know, monarchy is victorious.

uh the whole thing about republicanism and democracy is done and then look what happened, you know.

So I think we are experiencing a era of temporary restoration, but ultimately uh communism will return in a meaner, bigger, batter way.

Uh I don't know if I can agree with that.

I feel like communism is kind of kind of the dead thing of the past.

I mean Vera Suero tried it uh through the nineties and eighties.

You had Guatemala with it, you had Guatemala, El Salvador.

Well if if communism is dead, I think that the thing that's gonna come after it will be just as revolutionary as communism and it will inherit the whole history of communism, but it'll be like an even more it'll be even more um

revolutionary, just how communism was more revolutionary than the Jacobins, if it's true that it's truly um outdated.

But the the the revolutionary um tendency of history is not outdated.

So the Jacobins were outdated, but they came back in a different form, right, through Marxism.

So that's something that won't be that won't disappear, it's immortal.

It it's throughout all of human history.

Alright, Dan.

I just let you go, my man.

Thank you for the conversation.

For sure.

See you later.

All right, we have Abdul Hakeem thirty-nine representing the Communist room in our server.

He said that he had four questions to represent everybody.

And I'll go ahead and bring him up now.

Abdul?

Alaykum Assalamu alaikum.

So um my first question is uh how do you reconcile your uh pro Trump position with your uh pro Palestine position considering that Trump is uh very anti Palestine, very Zionist?

Well, I I I don't know what you mean by pro Trump, because I didn't advocate for people to vote for Trump.

I advocated an ab abstention.

Um and I wouldn't say that I am here to run cover for Trump and, you know, um

do Trump's bidding.

But to whatever extent the Democratic Party is destroyed by Trump is something I support and uh that's for tactical and strategic reasons.

It's not because I agree with Trump's you know ideological world view, whatever that is.

But I think the Democratic Party is a is a machine that has to be destroyed for a left wing to even have a chance in America.

Right.

Okay.

This actually moves me to the second question.

Uh uh can you explain what MAGA communism is and isn't once and for all?

And uh did you vote for Trump or did you also uh abstain?

No, I abstained.

And MAGA communism can be summed up in this way.

Uh American politics has different eras, right?

There was an era of populism in the eighteen nineties, there was an era of the New Deal, there was an era of the civil rights movement.

And these different eras just define and frame the form of politics and in particular mass politics.

And so I I I want people to see MAGA as it's understood in MAGA communism as almost a kind of neutral, not necessarily good or bad, but just this is objectively the form of US politics now.

And I think that has been proven by the fact that even the Democrats started to copy MAGA.

And if we get to the bottom of what MAGA actually is, I think it could be described as a new form of, I don't want to use like pretentious words, but I say cybernetic mass politics because of the important role of social media at the expense of mainstream media, which is simultaneously oriented toward a politics that's articulated on the base of American self-interest.

What is good for the people of this country, not this indescribable global empire and whatever.

And that could be good and that could be bad.

There are a lot of ways in which that it's a form, it's a retainer, it could have a lot of things fill that up, right?

But I don't think politics is able to be articulated in any other way anymore in the U.S.

So MAGA communism basically is just an acknowledgement of how MA irreversibly changed the nature of politics.

We can't go back to the Obama era or neoliberalism, where politics was this kind of respectable sphere within the division of labor where we pursue a career and we wear lanyards and we're just going around and canvassing and we're having respectable debates and we're kind of working through the system to get the policies that we want to see.

It's this new hyper-partisan environment defined by feedback loops on social media, by alternative streams of information, by a new articulation of what unifies us as a country in a way that really is outside of the parameters of the prevailing institutions.

And that is irreversible.

So MA communism is saying this is a new beginning for communism in this country.

We have to basically tap into this zeitgeist and articulate a communist politics out of it.

What does it mean to even be a communist concretely, not abstractly, concretely in this country?

And, you know, broadly, it's a combination of anti-imperialism based on a rejection of interventionist ideology and neoconservatism.

And it's based on this orientation inward, that we should focus on policies that benefit the country rather than take on these obligations about defending Europe or Israel or whatever.

And communism is like.

Is like the emphasis is on class struggle.

That this MAGA phenomena could only be carried to its fruition, or else it's going to be hijacked and consolidated by the establishment if it's a working class, blue-collar phenomena.

And the policies that it pursues and the form of political power it seeks should reflect that fact.

It should reflect the blue-collar working classes.

It should reflect seeking a policy of nationalizations, of industrial policy based on heavy-handed developmentalism.

Of land reform, raising the property question back into relevance.

Why should multinational corporations and an unaccountable 1% elite control all of our land, all of our factories, our resources?

But instead of this being framed in an I think I would put it this way: I think the choice in 2022 was MAGA communism or democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is this idea.

That we should just have socialism because it is more morally sound that this is run democratically on a managerial level for workers to have a say in production rather than it being controlled by authoritarian private capitalists and the whole Noam Chomsky argument.

But MAGA communism is different because it's not abstract.

It's not abstractly referring to some kind of democratic system or.

Or even this cheap uh this cheap uh mistranslation of the labor theory of value where they're saying, well, the workers should be entitled to all of the fruits of their labor, which Marx critiques in the Gotha program, right?

It's more based on like, no, these communistic policies and giving the country um giving the uh state control over the means of production is necessary for sovereignty.

We cannot be sovereign as a people if we don't have the means of production.

It opens us up to infiltration, to a deep state, to foreign interests, whatever, right?

The second thing is that it's actually beneficial for the country.

This is what's going to uplift our country.

This is what's going to make things better for the people of this country.

So, it's this kind of framing that makes it MAGA.

It's not about the content necessarily, it's about how it's framed, right?

And I guess that would be my best way of putting it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next question is um what would a post Trump America look like to you?

That is a really interesting question.

And I think if we're talking about where it's going now concretely, I think it's going to be some kind of civil war.

I don't think Trump will have a successor.

that will I think Trump

Is the last major figurehead of the U.S.

state, of the United States of America, of the United States government?

Um.

I don't see the instit the problem is very simple.

Our institutions are outdated.

They are not adapted to this new information economy era.

Our constitutional framework isn't, our legal system isn't, our legislative system isn't.

And Trump has been this compromise where he's this absurd celebrity personality that allows us to kind of at least recognize this fact.

And in some ways, he circumvents the institutions of democracy.

And he has to because it's there's no other way to adapt to the era we're living in, and that's why he's called an authoritarian or whatever.

But there is no legitimate way for there to be a process of succession.

Who will come after Trump?

If Trump's role is going to be formalized, which is a necessary role for the United States to function at this point, if it just functions purely on the basis of democracy, like in neoliberalism, it doesn't work.

There's a crisis of mass popular mistrust of these impersonal institutions and experts.

They don't have faces.

They don't have personalities.

We can't trust them, right?

A figure like Trump is needed for the stability of the United States at this point.

But think about something scary.

We don't have a formal way to, we don't have a precedent.

We don't have any kind of way to make that a part of the state machine.

So when Trump is gone, who is going to step in his shoes?

How could anyone step in his shoes?

People say Baron Trump, his son will succeed him.

Well, at that point, we would have to kind of have a constitutional crisis where we say, okay, are we going to become a monarchy now?

Are we going to become a dynastic, you know, Trump dynasty or something?

If that happens, it's clearly going to have to pass through fires of civil war because the entire formal basis upon which the state rests right now is the Constitution.

And that's the only thing separating us from a state of civil unrest.

We all agree who the government is.

We all agree what the system is because it's formally enumerated by the Constitution and it's legal.

It's a state of law, right?

But Trump's disappearance, in order to ensure the stability of the state,

The Constitution will have to be scrapped in some kind of way and uh well, how will the state assert its legitimacy to the people if it doesn't have uh a legal basis or foundation?

That's that's a state of conflict and civil unrest.

So I predict civil war, really.

Okay, um well you know there is the the Bush and Clinton families who also had this kind of dynastic uh thing, but but moving on to the other question is um what do you think about Biden uh Biden announcing a few hours ago that he will let Ukraine use its long range missiles to strike deep into Russia?

Considering this and the many, many other conflicts in the world, do you think this can escalate to World War three?

Absolutely it can, and if you want to know if people in Russia think it it it can, they do, and that's what makes this very scary, to be frank.

Um no one knows what the intention is, if the intention is for to give Ukraine more negotiating power when Trump assumes office, or more radically is it to provoke World War Three so that when Trump comes to office he has to fight this war and and and there's no way to establish a ceasefire.

So, it's an extremely terrifying development if you're someone who is afraid of dying, I guess, or global instability on a mass scale.

I'm not trying to sound like a tough guy.

I'm just going to be completely honest.

I personally.

Don't really fear these kinds of scenarios.

Um

Right.

Death is a blessing.

Right, yeah, yeah.

I I have a a different relationship to death, I guess.

But if you're someone who is afraid of, you know, um, nuclear war, I guess, yes, you should be very scared right now.

Um just uh as a last comment, I have to say, um you said rules based uh US order, but to me it seems more chaos based, because here in the Middle East there are no rules, there is only war.

I agree.

I think that the rules-based world order, so-called rules-based, has to rely on a permanent state of instability, of um civil unrest, of tension, building tension, controlling tension.

And um because why?

Because it's very simple.

Because peaceful development and sta peaceful and stable development builds sources of competitions with US monopoly capital, which which it not only US but global financial monopoly capital doesn't want competition.

It doesn't want more China's emerging in the world.

Thank you.

Thank you for answering my questions.

And free Palestine.

Yep, free Palestine.

Thank you.

Okay, HSO, here we go.

Uh hello Haz.

I have a question.

Sure.

Uh about your uh well I won't say your comments about like the Democrat Party and stuff like that.

You seem to be very anti-Democrat but not really the same uh towards the Republican Party.

And I just find that a bit strange.

Yeah, I think I think uh the source of the confusion is that

The premise for this to be a double standard is that the Republican Party is the same kind of effective and competent, well-oiled political machine as the Democrats are.

But I think I would contest that by pointing out how the game changer in U.S.

political history was Roosevelt's New Deal.

And Roosevelt's New Deal was the Democratic Party putting together these coalitions that combined political power with institutions of civil society.

That included unions, it included even media, it included everything.

And then throughout the Cold War, this began to incorporate federal agencies, the CIA and so on and so on.

So the Democratic Party has become this kind of huge machine, whereas the Republicans acted as this kind of pressure valve of an alternative for the directly private interests of businessmen.

The Democratic political machine has to balance, it's very kind of feudal in the sense that it's like the Catholic Church was to feudal kings.

It has to balance their interests.

It has to balance the interests of these monopolists and capitalists to arrive at one consensus.

The Republicans oftentimes were controlled by business personalities, like, for example, Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller directly, and others, who kind of wanted to go against the consensus in various different ways.

Not radical ways, by the way, not profound ways, but to have the room to do that.

And that's what the Republican Party was.

Throughout the post-war period, for a long time, it was just a party of businessmen, right?

It was considered a businessman's party.

Not because the Democrats weren't representative of businessmen, but because the Democrats also represented all these other sectors of civil society.

But I think that has led to a scenario where the Republican Party has morphed into this circus where there are just so it's just a very it's filled with a chaos of just directly bribed politicians, extremists, evangelicals, clowns, populists.

It has it doesn't really have its shit together in the same way the Democrats do.

So the destruction of the Democratic Party.

will lead to a crisis of US statehood because of the legacy of the New Deal that I don't think the Republican Party would.

I think if the Republicans were destroyed, it would just be the status quo and they would regroup in a new way and that would be that.

But if the Democrats were destroyed, something would have to fill that vacuum of uniting the interests of the ruling class with uh the institutions of civil society.

And that is a much more chaotic thing.

And and in s such circumstances of chaos, the US state would be severely weakened, and that would be a great opportunity for other political alternatives to fill in, such as a left wing.

All right.

That makes a little more sense to me.

And my next question is regarding: do you think Trump in any way is pro-peace in Ukraine or Palestine?

Because let's say in 2019, I think it was, he also unblocked military aid for Ukraine that was being used against the Donbass.

And he's just like gives general statements about blowing the top off the Kremlin and trying to strong-arm Putin and stuff like that.

When Putin is a lot smarter than to go along with his like anti-Chinese organization, I think it's not clear.

I think it's absolutely not clear.

To what extent he's committed to peace, I have obviously doubts.

You know, I have a lot of doubts.

He has rhetoric.

And I think a lot of people believe that he is a pro-peace guy.

But in reality, I don't know.

I have I lean pessimism, to be honest.

If Trump accomplishes a deal with Russia, I would be extremely surprised if Trump

Accomplishes a peace deal in the Middle East, I would be extremely surprised.

If he managed to pull those things off, I would probably reevaluate a lot of what I understand about where we stand strategically, politically.

Not in the sense that I throw my weight behind Trump, but it'd be like, wow, I mean, this Trump phenomena has a lot of vitality and power in its own right, and it's here to stay for a foreseeable future.

And we have to re, you know, regroup and rethink our strategy.

What I think is going to happen is an acceleration of the current.

trajectory toward a world war

And um

I don't think Trump will be able to stop that even if he wanted to.

Yeah, I agree.

So that's my pessimism.

But if the opposite happens, I would be very surprised.

I'm not saying it can't happen.

I'm just saying I'm not holding my breath.

I doubt it will happen, as we saw with his recent cabinet picks and everything.

They're all pro, like Ukraine, pro as well.

That's the thing.

I'm curious because it really, I mean, we already saw it after 2016, but it would reveal like, wow, who is in control?

Who is actually in control?

Right.

I think we already know that he is not in control, that there is a machine in control, right?

Mozra.

Sure, it's part of the machine.

There's a machine in control.

It doesn't matter who the president is.

If he manages to have Marco Rubio as the foreign secretary while simultaneously achieving peace, that would reveal a great extent of control on his part over the administration.

But I'm not holding that.

It's highly unlikely.

Yeah, yeah.

And it's also, it's also, you can argue that he kind of set up the situation in Ukraine and Afghanistan and Palestine during his presidency.

So Biden will take the blame only for this to like only for him to come back a hero, quote unquote.

I tend to think that the president just doesn't matter all that much.

Yeah.

That's fine too.

I think there's a degree of continuity

Which is just interpreted differently subjectively.

Oh yeah.

I'm just seeing if I have anything else written down.

Uh

What are your general thoughts about Jackson Hinkle and his frequent quote unquote grifting that he seems to do a lot?

I think people are mistaken and he's not a grifter because I understand his motivations for.

you know, um, posting in the way he does, it is to reach the goal of reaching people.

It is the it is to it is to reach the goal of uh talking to mass audiences.

And that people find it very vulgar because it's it seems like he's contradicting himself and it's not very doesn't appear very refined.

But

What most people don't see is the actual motivation.

They just assume he's looking for money and as much popularity as possible.

But I agree with you because I think he's doing this for like the young audience, quote unquote.

But I do feel that it could also sway more like older communists and more educated people away.

He is ruthlessly pragmatic in terms of creating an effective pipeline for communism, which the first goal of that is you need to be someone that people trust and follow and respect.

And, you know, um.

He has so many opportunities to throw our cause under the bus and gain in popularity, and he doesn't.

And I think that's, uh

speaks that that that should be proof for the public, frankly.

Privately, of course, I have much more proof that he's not a grifter, but in public, the the very fact that he is still hitching a wagon, so to speak, with the ACP or he's he's rolling with us

should be proof enough, you know.

I mean, he could easily join forces with the far right and be much more popular and rich than he is now and he doesn't.

Probably, yeah.

And one and like thanks for the uh questions, but I also have to say that Jackson Hinkle's new channel, Legitimate Targets, is doing a good job and that's what I wished it was years ago too.

Yeah, yeah, it's uh much much more professional.

Right, yeah, I mean he's he built it from scratch, you know, and there was no guarantee of success for that show and he's doing very well.

Anyway, thanks for the time.

Thank you.

Goodbye, Pyro.

Bye guys, love you, I'll be back.

Okay, now for one of our own senior mods, Dark Master come on up.

Hello, huh?

Um so I followed your work for a while um and I also followed the work of um uh of Antonio Wolf and um I was wondering if um you'd ever be interested in maybe a discussion with Antonio about uh Neo-Confucianism in modern China since like um I think like um that could be a pretty healthy and interesting discussion yeah I know who Antonio is he was actually an old character on infrared.

I'm not reducing him to that, I'm just saying like uh he was an original personality that we um that engaged with infrared early on and yeah, we had differences in the beginning but we eventually came came to respect him and I I uh think he's a good guy, he's a solid guy.

And um yeah, he mostly does work with uh Hegel and philosophy.

Yeah, I I'm aware.

And I I I uh the the stuff o about Neo-Confucianism, um I have to admit, I it it is a blind spot for me, I think.

Uh

The history of Confucius.

I know some people in Russia researching this very thing actually, and um, Confucian history and philosophy is not my strong suit.

I have a very vague familiarity with it, but um, we try to collaborate with Antonio in some capacity, and I know he's not a Marxist.

But our official party journal

Just wants to cultivate an atmosphere of philosophy and inquiry and stuff.

And if he could contribute to our journal in some way, that would also be very great, you know?

Yeah, I'd definitely reach out.

You know, last year we actually went through the history of Chinese philosophy.

And, you know, he's really equipped and he has a really good explanation of Neo-Confucianism and how that would fit in with Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.

Yeah, no, it's a very, it's an extremely important and interesting topic.

Yeah, yeah.

I could just see it like being a really healthy, productive conversation that could add a lot of it could certainly add a perspective on China that is not really seen very much in the West.

Because in the West, they try to try to pretend that the Marxist-Leninism in China isn't part of Chinese history, you know, that it didn't result from all the centuries before with China.

And I think Antonio's standpoint is like actually Marxist-Leninism is very consistent with Neo-Confucianism and like with China's whole direction in general.

Yeah.

No, yeah.

I mean.

Yeah, I think that would be a very one-sided discussion just because I wouldn't have a lot to contribute.

But if I could if I could become more

Equipped, that would be better, you know, in terms of something I can bring something to the table with respect to Confucianism.

Yeah, if you ever need help organizing that, definitely let me know.

Yeah, for sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Okay, Pack of Reds, you're up next.

Hello, hello.

Yeah.

Hey, I've been aware of your movement for a while now.

I've actually got a couple of uh or one of your guys on my server, so I've been learning a bit more about you guys.

I had three questions for you.

Sure.

Um so I wanted to ask what is socialism to you?

Specifically, how did historical projects f uh fulfill this title with regards to revolc revolutionary activity, state policy, or even aesthetically?

Okay.

Is that it?

Um that I have two others after that.

Okay, we'll go one at a time then.

Well, uh interesting question.

Uh people have not been satisfied with my definitions in the past, so I'll try to think of a more succinct um description of socialism.

Which would be, I guess, less awkward sounding, I guess.

Let's see.

I would say.

Socialism

Um

Socialism refers to

To well, the premise is that socialism is inherently scientific to me.

And the reason I say that is because Engels wrote a book called Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.

But the third kind of socialism, don't worry, it's not the Nazi kind.

The third kind of socialism, I think, was just this general impersonal societal and social substance that was the object of human activity in the various modes of production that were described as Asiatic modes of production and more or less are considered the default state of mankind's existence within civilization.

I think generally, private property as an institution.

follows a very specific trajectory in Europe.

That's not to say other everyone's living in Avatar or whatever, tribal land everywhere else.

It's just kind of like that common ownership of land and the fundamental means of production and the this being regarded as of impersonal common and social reality was not really a con that contentious, it was just the norm.

No the the notion of individualism and private property was the exception.

starting in Greece and through Rome and the Middle Ages and finally capitalism.

So I think that um

When we're talking about socialism,

I don't think we're necessarily talking about a uh a specific system that, you know.

a specific system of policy.

I don't necessarily think we're talking about a a a recommendation for even a specific economic system.

I think we're actually referring to almost an ontological attribute of what human beings are.

which, for whatever reason, reached its highest point of alienation and destruction at the onset of the capitalist mode of production.

Capitalism saw to the losing of a common social substance and reality,

Which Marx described as alienation, right?

Which had reached its highest point.

Because it reached its highest point, human beings could no longer be certain about what it means to be human, what it means to live in a society, to coexist, to have a sense of common existence and be responsible for that common existence.

All these things were thrown up into the air, so to speak.

And for the first time, socialism had to be something scientific.

It had to be something we discover through knowledge.

It had to be something that we subject to some kind of impersonal, cold scientific and modern inquiry through historical materialism and class analysis and so on and so on.

It wasn't just something that seamlessly came to us intuitively or naturally, so to speak.

Well uh don't let the don't let Twitter communists hear that.

I I saw a big debacle about how indigenous people intuited historical materialism.

So right, yeah, I mean I think it's the opposite.

I I wouldn't necessarily be against the idea that various pre-colonial and non-Western societies could vaguely be called socialistic, but I think calling them that is superfluous.

Because socialism I think this we're going to get at the definition, I guess socialism specifically refers to the rediscovery of common social existence.

After it was destroyed and alienated through capitalism.

And that discovery is something scientific necessarily.

Sure, it could be imagined in the case of utopian socialism, where we propose that this is the true existence, and we create a blueprint, and we live in it, and even experiment in it, or whatever.

But scientific socialism seeks to actually acquire knowledge of our social relationships through class analysis, through understanding our relations of production.

And once we understand how those relations are changing and transforming,

Um

We come to understand that what they are changing and transforming to is a different relation of production and form of production, where sociality is becoming an object for the first time in all of human history.

It's not becoming a superstitious, indirect object where we happen to yield a common social existence through indirectly through various rituals and religious beliefs and so on, but it is actually becoming an object.

We actually have to take responsibility for our common economic existence.

In a way that is just uh i um

Uh

Unambiguously, uh, clear, you know, like it's not indirect, it's not, it's not, uh,

It's not being like denigated by some other kind of

Ideology.

It's social socialism, I guess.

If I need to, I know I'm kind of waffling around a definition because it's really hard to come up with a definition of socialism.

The socialist mode of production has as its object the production and reproduction of social existence.

The production and reproduction of a form of existence

That is conducive to a common impersonal and social reality.

Um

Where the needs of individuals are fulfilled in a way that's harmonious with the needs of society.

All right.

I I like that definition.

Um my other question here.

You uh online, you used to be a bordegist when you were younger.

Why did you leave the communist left and engage with what is considered from them revisionist Marxist theory?

Um, I don't actually think I would ever sit I don't think there was ever a point in which I was a bordegist or identified as a bordegist.

I think that probably is a snippet from one of my streams where I talked about how in the past I did in I did endorse Bordega's theory of so-called Stalinism when I was a teenager.

And that theory said that Stalinism was good, it was progressive, it was revolutionary, but it was like a bourgeois revolution where it was overturning feudalism.

And I found that to be an interesting way of explaining why it is that these communist revolutions are happening in semi-feudal kind of pre-capitalist conditions.

Well, of course, they're catching up with the advanced capitalist countries and they're having their own, you know, French revolution or they're having their own bourgeois revolutions.

So that is something I found interesting from Bordega.

Everything else I didn't, I don't really think interested me.

Um, but I I I came to diverge from that view uh very quickly, you know.

I think I abandoned it completely around twenty sixteen or twenty seventeen.

All right.

Um I have one final question, but a friend wants to ask it.

Can you bring up High Pool twenty two in the chat?

I can't bring up anyone uh because I don't control the No, I I know.

I'm I'm I'm asking the mod that's in here.

Well, he currently placed his hand down so I can't even drag him up if I wanted to.

So just ask him to raise his hand again and then I'll be able to.

Oh, he got he got stage fray.

Anyways, I'll I'll ask it anyways.

So what do you think of the trending hashtags on X?

Hashtag Unleash Wagner Conscripts with Sledgehammers on Eddie Liger and hashtag torture Chris Morlock.

I don't I'm not aware of those uh hashtags at all.

Oh, that's unfortunate.

Anyways, that's my last question.

I'm done.

You have a good evening.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's just strange because Wagner.

Who wants to Wagner are people that are opposed by ultra leftists.

I don't know what

What that means.

Anyway

Um that just sounded like gibberish to me.

Then again I don't go on X, so I don't know anything.

Next up we have Velociraptor.

Hello, uh has, nice to see you again.

I have uh an important question.

Um how does the ACP deal with life in a world where

I don't know if you even have an answer to that.

I I didn't hear it.

That's the issue.

I don't know what that even.

I don't know what that was, uh

He was schizobabbling.

I don't know what that was about.

Right.

I I know we have a mental health crisis in this country and One hundred percent.

Right.

Okay, Mr.

Unknown, let's give you a shot.

Uh hear me?

Yeah.

Um, hello uh hi hi everyone.

Um, I ha uh I had like a a question for you, Hans.

What do you think about East Germany, like the D D R or like the N V A?

I think it should be brought back in some kind of way.

C I I the only thing I actually like East Germany is their um military um style.

Do you know why?

Uh no, is it because they preserved the Prussian uh uniforms and marches?

Yeah, and why why West Germany never bring back their tradition?

Uh because the West Germans were just completely Americanized and you know the s communists had a different approach to history.

Instead of erasing history, they want to preserve it and carry it forward in a new way into the future.

So communists very much believed in preserving history, and that was very important for them.

And the Prussian military traditions

were part of Germany's history and, you know, Communists wanted to be the heirs of

The history of nations.

And uh

Right.

I I d I do understand.

Um and now now today, like German right now, they just they just lost their tradition and their their heritage so something like that.

But yeah.

Uh

Uh yeah.

So everything.

I I I last question, do you think we should split two countries again?

Like

Like each year is way better than the the modern era.

But yeah.

Yeah, if the whole thing can be the D D R, that'd be great.

But yeah, okay.

At minimum I think East East should come back.

Right.

Okay, thank you Hans.

Yup.

Okay, everyone.

Okay.

Next one.

Ziva

Hello.

Hi.

Hello.

Yeah.

Yeah, I was just wondering, like, when we win, like, when the ACP comes to power and we live under MAGA communism, will a nigga still be allowed to eat some poop?

Or is that off the table?

Frederick

Um I appear.

Hi.

Um, so my first que so it it was uh so you said that this earlier.

So you communism would come back, um

like much more meaner and uh

How would it look like that?

Would it be replacing Marxist-Leninism with something more

advanced than classical I don't think anything would be replaced, I just think there would be a new synthesis.

Um which is what Mao did, which is what Lenin did.

And it would be the same tradition, the same revolutionary tradition, but it would just be a new synthesis of that tradition.

Um so nothing would be replaced per se, it would just be

So it it would still be the same, just, you know, something new.

Yeah, just like how Lenin was a Marxist and Mao was a Leninist.

I don't I don't think it's not well I think more the more radical question was i the Marxist-Leninist tradition itself is outdated because Marxism-Leninism already carries the seeds of you know of uh this new synthesis is in it and I would say even if that's true that wouldn't eliminate the revolutionary traditions of mankind and there would just be a new one but I don't I don't really dwell on that because it's not my view at all that Marxism-Leninism is outdated fundamentally what's your view on Brazil um not letting um

What country either was like Cuba or Venezuela?

Yeah, well, look, when Lula was neck and neck with Bolsonaro or whatever, I was raising the alarm bells about Lula.

I was saying Lula is a CIA stooge.

And you know, I got piled on and everyone said, oh, you're a fascist, you're this, you're that.

You are supporting the U.S.'s interests because you're against Lula, who's clearly against.

I tried really hard to raise the alarm bells on Lula really early, and then I gave up and I said, you know what?

Yeah, you were right because, you know.

Yeah, I mean, that doesn't surprise me because I knew I was right at the time, but I just stopped because I was just sick of people not wanting to hear the truth.

So I just left it be.

But here we are now, you know.

Okay, uh third question.

Um if if the Communist Party was to ever get into power, do you think the USA would be able to join Brits?

Yeah, that would be a goal, yeah.

Yeah, the g the goal would be uh

joining BRICS or some other multilateral global institution.

So is there any other plans that the the Communist Party uh plans to um do?

It's what we've been told on, you know, your website, you know, the

Perfect.

Well, we have our program that's public and uh the basic ideas, um

Uh American socialism would be implemented in

Mm-hmm.

So like a lot of people have criticized uh this w like how would

Mm.

How would gun rights look under a Communist America?

Cause a lot of people are scared of this.

I would look.

I think that gun usage and ownership should remain um

Should remain in the hands of the people, but a new thing that should be encouraged is that it should be more collectivistic.

And what do I mean by that?

It sounds scary.

I just mean like communities should come together and have militias and have a culture of responsible firearms handling and safety and usage.

And you know, people should grow up knowing how to use firearms and remove and trained in them.

And we have this in our program, and they should learn how to clean just like in Russia, they have kids, you know, how to put together AKs, you know.

But so so, yeah, I mean, uh, gun culture should be more collective and more communal.

Communal is a better word, I guess.

Um so what it look like in South Korea where it like the guns are stored in armories.

Well I I don't think I don't think we would want to pass laws mandating that probably, but whatever happens what whatever makes sense to people, if that becomes more lucrative, that it be just becomes less of a thing for people to just store weapons in their houses, but they want to store 'em in in a high trust communal society or village, that'd be great.

But, you know, um

It just depends on the evolution of American culture, frankly.

If it's just gonna go in that direction.

Oh

Yeah.

able that your party will be able to gain power in your time or would it come to power after your time?

A good question.

I don't know.

I don't I really don't know.

I'm not it's not a deal breaker that it has to be in my lifetime for me to continue fighting for it.

So I guess that's the only relevant thing.

Yeah, because I s I could see this.

Coming big, but

It wouldn't be like coming into power in your time 'cause it would probably take many, many years, probably.

Sure, that's possible.

Your your movement does have a chance, I'm not saying it doesn't, but.

Okay.

It's probably not gonna be like, you know, in the next four or eight years.

Uh that's just not realistic.

Yeah, I mean we're not expecting that.

Yeah, we're not expecting any any crazy miracles happening.

Um I think that's it.

It's good to talk to you, Hawes.

Um I also been uh banned on your s uh what was it, the tanky server?

'Cause I was uh making a point about um mouse for pests movement or um policy and I got banned for it so hopefully well I don't know what's going on, so

Um

I was wondering if I could get um that server from you, 'cause I think I gotta know what it wo if that's really the reason you were banned, but

Um yeah.

Uh

Alright, thanks for coming up.

Appreciate it.

Okie-dokie.

Next we've got Barba.

Thank you, Frederick.

Barba?

Are you present?

Yes.

Are you guys listening to me?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, first I would just like to say good night and uh thank you for entertaining us in this beautiful evening.

I would also like to say that I'm so so thankful for your patience, especially during some figures in this server.

And I would say that if I could say I'm not American, I'm Brazilian.

If American society is a little bit like this server, well, good luck with your party because you're going to need it.

But yeah, first I would like to present my question.

Then I would like to make some clarifications.

First, my question is, what motivated you to construct this party?

You know, of course, it was not only you, but you and other comrades, but what motivated you to do so?

And second of all, I would just like to make some clarifications about Müller, because although I disagree with its policy, and again, I'm not in its presidential basis, but I would like to point out throughout his history, and even in this government specifically, his action don't point out directly, I would say, that he is a CIA stooge, although he is close to any spectrum of US policy, more precisely sectors of the Democratic Party.

I would like to point out the heavy criticism that he received by allowing Iranian Navy ships to dock into Rio de Janeiro, which was heavily criticized even by the presidency.

Again, the case of Ukraine, the refusal to send weapons, the peace proposal with China, and of course the refusal to condemn Russians' actions.

Moreover, we have the example of Palestine that, although more subtle, it is still pointing out the hypocrisy of the West, especially when he calls it a new Holocaust, what is happening in Palestine right now.

But anyway, I would just like to point out my question again.

What motivated you to construct this party, to build this party with your comrades?

What make you wake up in one morning and think I should pursue this political action?

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

The context was since 2021, we wanted to take over the CPUSA and reinvigorate it.

We wanted to restore it to its former glory.

We had nothing to do with the DSA.

We're communists and we have a Communist Party.

And everyone says no, the party is compromised and it's a Democrat Party.

And we said, yeah, but it's still our Communist Party and we don't want sectarianism.

We don't want to keep having this precedent of just creating sects based on our political stances.

And we need a concrete reason for any kind of split or change to happen.

PCUSA had split before, but they didn't really have a concrete reason.

They just had an ideological difference.

So that was the main reason.

We didn't think ideology or even disagreement about policy was enough to justify forming a party.

We we thought a party is a more objective thing and that was a very crucial precedent.

And uh so we waited until the uh next national convention, which they delayed by a year in twenty twenty four, which was this summer, and what happened?

They rigged it.

More or less.

And so that was a legal justification for us to reconstitute the party.

Um

The that we we got the formal legal reason we needed.

Um they rigged it.

They they we had nobody had documented that before.

There was hearsay here or there, but we had kind of smoking gun documentation of corruption and rigging and stuff, and we just said, All right, that it's over.

The democratic centralism is done, they've usurped it, and now it's kind of a

A di a uh uh a you know, um, illegitimate institution.

So we reconstituted the party as the ACP and that's but we don't have well, now we have the precedent that we don't form parties based on

ideology.

Reform party is based on a shared premise of practical

Um

of practical goals and

Practical results.

And as long as the party can be a platform for potentially, you don't have to agree with us.

Ye but you can join and you know, you could you could agree with us in practice and then if you want a different direction.

Those voices are platformed and there is a genuinely a a freedom of opinion in the party and that wasn't there in the CPU SA.

by the way, they banned us very early on.

That still didn't deter us.

We just said, Okay, we're gonna we're gonna conceal our views then.

Um, in any case, uh, ACP was born out of not sectarianism, but uh

Practical necessity.

The CBSA was getting nothing done and it was usurping its protocols and it needed to be reconstituted, which it had in history before.

There's there was precedent for that.

Okay, so the problem wasn't again programmatic, wasn't a problem ideological di misunderstanding, it was a problem with the instrument, the political party in itself.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all.

Yeah, or ordinarily in a democratic centralist group you can have a freedom of opinion to disagree with the ruling orientation.

Um and there are mechanisms so that if you become more popular, it could democratically pass.

And they were not receptive to the overwhelming consensus in the party, which is that they don't they wanted a conversation about the Democrats.

They didn't want to continue supporting them over the Gaza issue.

And the party just leadership was not receptive to that change in the party.

And so they had to rig it, basically.

So, Doctor, could I take a bathroom break?

Because I have to use the bathroom to be bad.

Yes, of course.

I need to do I need to take one as well.

So let's take a five-minute break.

Right, that sounds good.

All right, I'm going to go use the bathroom.

I'm I'm back everybody.

Before we continue and we'll wait for Haas, if you have any questions or if you'd like to debate him, just raise your hand and we'll make sure we get to you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

I'm back.

You ready?

Yep.

Okay.

Default TMC you're up.

Hello?

Default?

If you're speaking, your mic isn't working.

Let's come back to default.

Instead let's pull up ante.

Testing, testing one, two, three.

Am I coming through clear?

Yeah.

You're working.

All right.

Splendid, splendid.

Well, first off, I'd just like to say, Haas, hello.

How are you doing today?

Good.

Big fan of your work, big fan of Infrared's work.

I've been following y'all since about March 2022, right after those special military operations started.

But I just had a couple questions.

Obviously, from what I understand watching y'all's content, there is, you know, conservative revolutionary influence, Heidegger, Schmidt.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on Ernst Junger, though.

Ah, uh I don't really draw from Junger.

A whole lot.

Um

I know he's very popular on the

continental philosophy circles, but uh

I uh hold on, I was right.

Yeah, y Junger is um not a very decisive uh significance for me.

That's fair, that's fair.

And um I'm just curious, 'cause you've mentioned in the past, whether it be through videos or through posts on X, that you're writing a book.

And I'm curious as to, like, what the breadth of this book is gonna be, how in-depth it is, how big it might be, perhaps.

Just speculation really.

Oh, it's going to be very big so far.

I if I include as many of the writings I am going to include in it.

I may trim it down and remove some of them to make it but the the theme is going to be political philosophy or political theory I'd rather say and um

Political philosophy.

Yeah.

Um

And um you know it's going to be a challenge to classical political philosophy, which I think Marxism never fully surmounted.

I think

It's going to re examine the emergence of what we call the state.

Uh similar to Engels's origins, instead of beginning with the Greeks, it uh the the goal is an alternative chronology, which is based in uh the emergence of the um the dynasties of ancient uh Mesopotamia and

Egypt and so on.

Okay, okay, alright, alright.

Uh well, that's really all I have as far as questions.

Uh thank you for answering them and uh good luck to your endeavors in the future.

Sure, thank you.

Of course.

Thank you, Auntie.

And default said that he's back, so come on up.

Hello.

Hello, hello?

Yeah, hello.

Yeah, sorry.

Um my mic wasn't working because I had a Twitter space open trying to challenge that uh crypto Nazi truth teller to a debate who like a coward refused to join join uh Sarah's Twitter space because he claimed that oh why don't uh why don't you Haas join my Twitter space because I have more more followers.

I've got more people listening to my Twitter space.

Oh, I was gonna say he doesn't have more followers.

He claimed that his space was bigger, and that that's why you should join his space.

No, I started the space, I challenged everyone to come.

He should join mine, or he wants to join the Discord, he can do that.

But actually, he's wrong because if you combine my kick viewers with his space followers, I have more.

So he's actually fucking wrong.

And you know, I'm being told that he has co-hosts, and all they do is mute you the whole time.

And don't lie to you.

Yeah, he just, yeah, like I had like a two-hour-long debate, but he just kept on muting me every time I started exposing his complete ignorance historically.

Like this idiot thought that the white army was created in 1906.

He thought the white army fought in World War I.

Yeah.

He doesn't even understand it.

Yeah, he's.

Oh my god.

He's a rebuild and uh if he was interested in debate, he wouldn't have started a new space.

He would have just joined my space, which I started first.

So he clearly avoided my debate challenge intentionally by starting his own space, uh which he has no intention to allow me to debate in because uh we all know that it's just going to be him and his uh co-hosts uh coping, taking turns coping while I'm muted.

And I'm not I'm I have no interest in uh sitting through that.

Would you be interested in uh debating him on like a neutral neutral platform?

Yeah, I would.

I would.

Okay.

All right, that's great.

Yeah.

Um if I

Well, I'm going to Venezuela this week, so I don't know if I can this week, but when I get back, it's definitely possible.

Um

I I also wanted wanted to uh let you and uh ACP members know that there is a uh a pro-ACP communist room on this server that is uh owned by by uh somebody who is uh he's not American, but he is pro-ACP.

Okay.

Do you have anything else?

Uh no, that that's it.

That's it.

Alrighty.

Thank you so much.

And we have somebody up that wants to debate you, detained deputy.

Howdy, I've come from far away lands to ask you some questions.

Now before I do that, can I uh just preface this by asking, what type of uh communism would this be?

Would this be the idealistic uh where there's no real figurehead?

Or would this be the historical kind where there's usually like a power vacuum of some sort that gets filled by an authoritarian figure?

If I have to operate in this framing, the second one.

Okay, okay.

Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

I can see why that's sometimes a little necessary.

But um earlier you were talking about how you think gun ownership y should be uh more communal and militia based.

Yeah.

I was just gonna ask how would that work?

Would there be like uh little group chats where you join instead of it being I mean I I don't know.

I think it would probably have to take the form of like um recreational clubs um which could be given some institutional support just like in high school or something and beyond.

Similar to how there's gyms now there could be you know prolific gun clubs and riflemen's associations and militias and

You know, as far as how it would work, I would prefer it to work in a way where it doesn't need to be um too institutionalized by any kind of government.

It just kind of is a part of the culture.

Yeah.

I I agree with that.

Now, how would you realistically transition a modern day America to a more communist one without causing a lot of economic and social upheaval?

Well, I think communism would rise on the basis of a struggle, right, which is between the working class of this country and the uh political establishment and the um the people who run it now.

And

You know, it it would be a long struggle that would culminate in one side winning over the other.

And if the working if the communists win, you know, um

It won't just be like, you know

people with good ideas just taking power.

It would be people who represented, you know, uh forces, they represent um populations, they represent a voice of the people struggling.

And, you know, um

Uh, I think it would be the context of upheaval and unrest that it would happen.

Alright.

Now oh I'm blinking.

Oh

Shit.

I was gonna ask some.

Uh

It was uh

Okay.

Hold on, I gotta come.

Haw, what'd you say?

I just forgot, I ain't gonna lie.

Yeah, I said uh communist would win on the basis of some kind of upheaval that already is there, you know.

Okay, yeah.

It's like that song we didn't ask.

Yeah.

Sorry.

But um it sounds like the only way this could happen is with a revolution.

Is that true?

Well, it's like the song We Didn't Start the Fire.

You know, We Communists Didn't Start the Fire.

There's clearly fire in America right now and uh I think it's just gonna turn into a shit show.

And the goal of communists is to basically make some sense out of it, you know.

For that.

And so does that mean it would be during a revolution and the civil war.

Civil war.

Yeah, that's that's what I'm talking about.

Right.

I think if you there's a breakdown of law and order and the only people that can provide a semblance of normalcy in law and order are people that are extremely organized, like communists, that would be the context.

So this is more of an anarcho-communism type thing?

No, not necessarily, but when shit breaks down, somebody's got to make sure things can

People can go on normally with their day, and you know, I think communists are the only ones that'll be able to do that.

I think everyone else isn't ready for that responsibility because, uh

You know, gangs could fill in, they kind of do that.

But gangs are not motivated by any kind of collective or impersonal principles.

They're just kind of motivated by, you know, whatever.

And uh there could be other political factions, but you know, they don't have the level of I think it's all about the collectivism, honestly.

When when shit gets tough, only the most collective and organized people can really weather the storm.

This is No offense, but that sounds more like a religion, don't it?

When shit gets tough you have people, a community to turn to.

So would this communism have hints of religion intertwined, unlike the previous regimes in history, or would it just be

You know, you can do whatever.

No, I think it would be like uh it would have a lot of religious themes in the sense of tapping into

American spirituality, it would be understood, you know, through quoting the Bible and all that.

And, um, that would be the context.

But would it be like a religious institution?

No, I don't think so.

I just think

American history is full of religious themes, you know.

Yeah.

That built a lot of our modern day America.

Now in a communist system where the collective is prioritized, like how you've been talking, would there be individual freedoms and would those be discouraged or more like uh encouraged?

Um, encouraged, but I think part of what pe individuals yearn for is to be part of, you know, part of a community.

And that's a liberty we're denied right now, more or less.

I mean, it's hard for communities to form and function and exist.

But, you know, for people that just want to live in the woods by themselves, I guess, I mean, I see no harm in it.

I meant more as in today if the collective likes peanut butter on Tuesday and someone wants

I don't fucking know.

Butter.

Yeah.

Would that be discouraged?

Like, would they not be?

No, I don't think I don't I don't I don't think um taste

Should be mandated collectively.

I mean, I think 95% of people just follow crowds in anyway in terms of tastes.

But granted, you know, I don't think it should be forced.

I think that, yeah, I mean, people want to do their own shit.

They want to consume and have their own preferences and do it their own way.

That's totally fine.

But I think the collectivism needs to happen when, like, for example, like shit hits the fan and there's like a fire that needs to be put out.

Like, okay, everybody needs to jump into action and put the fire out.

You can have butter and peanut butter or whatever the hell else you want after, but there's things that need to be done to make sure everyone can be free.

You know, there's common responsibilities that got to be inte that have to be attended to.

But when it comes to the consumption side of things, no, I think people should be able to do it their own way.

Now, okay.

Now, human nature throughout history has proven to be pretty not so good.

So on a larger scale of communism, so not like a hundred people, but more like several of those hundred people banding together to form a nation almost.

If communism relies on communal corro cooperation, what um what would prevent the trust from breaking down?

Would it be those communal activities, as you were saying?

And even then, would that be a guarantee that there wouldn't be any uh

I think the trouble always comes.

When it comes to trusting impersonal institutions that are not really.

There's no face behind it, you know?

And so it's hard to understand where the accountability is.

But I think it's part of the tradition of a real state in history that, you know, the state isn't really personal.

It's a it's a machine.

It's a it's not a it's not e it's not reducible to the sum of its parts, so to speak.

It's it's it's a beast of its own, you know.

And um

Trust in that, I think, has a lot to do with whether the machine is working for you.

If the machine is working, but it's not working for you, it's working for some other group that's separate.

From you and your neighbors and your community, and you can see how it's working for them and not you.

Yeah, I think that's where the trust starts to break down.

But I think

Alright, I think that's it.

It was a nice meeting you has.

See you later, bro.

Alrighty, we have only two more and then we'll wrap things up.

Yeah, that sounds good.

So we've got headgeg first.

Right, right.

Thanks for for joining us.

I have a l a bit more s stupid questions if you don't mind.

Okay.

So well first of all, I wanna ask about your Telegram channel.

Did you abandon it?

And after some YouTube ban or something, did you did you not want not more providing content on this uh on this uh channel?

Oh, uh n it's just been a lack of time.

Uh and also I've been a little demoralized by Jackson's ban, which told me that no matter how hard I work, I'll eventually just get banned just like he was.

And um if I ever get successful on YouTube,

I'm just gonna get banned.

And that's the truth.

So it just kind of discourages me from even trying, honestly.

But for Telegram channel, Devolto succeeds.

You right now are busy with other forms of m social media, right?

Right, I am.

ACP, that's the party I'm a chairman of, so it's a lot of responsibilities.

Then there's the X, which is my main focus.

And yeah.

No, let's see.

The next question.

I wanna ask uh what to how to deal with non-political people, like they don't the people who don't want to cover their white wings and dust or just want to just don't want to talk uh oth other opinions or um to feel bad feel bad feelings and uh feel like they're not same th o as others.

Uh well, there is a difficult topic and various uh situations, but how to deal with non-political peoples?

Well, I think the majority of people are non-political.

I think politics is not a priority for the majority.

And so how to deal with them I think is just uh in proportion.

Like uh

There will come a point where politics will affect the ordinary

a flow of life and, you know, that they're they may be angry and demand answers and there should be patience.

But other than that, I I don't think people should be forced to be involved with politics.

I think, you know, it's not it's not really a need to deal with them if they're truly apolitical.

But it's kind of edge to joke about some politics or talk about economics and stuff and uh to represent uh m some Marxist uh definitions and etcetera, etc.

How to think it's uh a bit too rude for them or you you just must support the opinion so not getting into it if they want to, or rather not, y rather they still need to m know something about different uh different movements or political uh topics, etcetera, etc.

Well, I think it depends on the context.

What I've kinda realized something about friend circles is that

When people start talking about politics in a casual way, and you happen to be a Marxist who has a lot of knowledge and theory and stuff, it's kind of.

It is kind of rude sometimes to just

make things serious and less casual and just like

you know, overwhelm people with the knowledge you have because it makes them feel like, Okay, what?

I mean, I I d I don't know about all that.

I haven't done And so I think people need there needs to be a kind of leveling with w to what extent are people actually interested in engaging with this.

And um, what I've learned is that y y you have to be aware of the context.

I mean, are people really interested in an impersonal, long discussion?

Are they passionate about that?

Or are they just making comments?

If they're just making c casual comments, you should meet them where they're at and just kind of, you know.

You don't have to be dishonest, but you don't necessarily have to completely, um

completely uh overwhelm them with everything.

I see.

And uh the next question is about your movement.

You right now is mainly um you are more media person or a local guy.

How much do you how much time do you spend on your Discord server?

How big it is?

Do you learn some uh do you teach some uh um classic uh books on it or just uh just focus on on uh current stuff?

And by the way, why is MAGA?

What y does that mean with this uh this uh this title?

Maybe it's ma m may m maybe it must be a mega mega mega communism.

Yeah, uh I think uh I mean I'm in the middle of a lot of things.

I manage the party, I manage the Discord and the X account, but I'm also writing a book as well.

So I'll feed people some of my theory in between, I guess, on streams, live streaming.

Um Discord community is decently sized.

I I think uh f MAGA I did explain this earlier.

Um

So I just want to defer to that explanation, I guess.

MAGA is a new chapter in American history and there's no way to reverse it.

It's not about Trump.

It's not about a specific personality.

It's just about a way of understanding how politics works now.

And it's politics is based on social media.

It's based on a sense of um

Domestic national self-interest, popular self-interest,

popular sovereignty, you know.

That's my simplification.

And uh w about activity on your server.

Do does it big or may maybe better?

Sorry?

What ki what kind of stuff, what kind of activities do you have in your server?

Um

Content creation, and I don't know.

It's not too serious, to be honest.

It's kind of lighthearted.

Just to e information, sharing information.

Oh yes, I see.

And um w about uh this is a rumor or maybe a classification i in around leftist.

Like uh the leftist that is an army who are not into politics and stuff.

The leftist who can be interested or may may hear something about Marxism.

Uh then that is Marx Marxism, uh Marxist who knows the theory, who understands the pol political, historical and uh um and uh other stuff.

And uh no, no.

Uh so socialist, socialist and communist.

Communist is who actively uh uh manipulating this world, who is uh managing to uh to bring in this uh this into life.

Like uh who who learns the material, who works with material.

And so you this last one guy who create uh create a history, like let's let's let's say, or some kind of other, uh all all of them.

I'm so sorry, I just don't understand your question.

Well, it's like um it's like uh uh classification of Marxists.

The non non-Marxist, the uh the leftist, the uh uh how that's socialist and the Marxist.

Socialist only ignore the the uh theory, but Marxist makes theory come true.

Yeah, yeah, yeah so the goal is the goal is to be a Marxist, you know.

That's what our party is about.

Yeah, of course.

And you you feel yourself like a Marxist, right?

Yeah.

Very nice, very nice.

And so maybe for my last question, I don't really uh remember what I want to ask.

Well, uh how about that topic?

Um in some d in some decisions, in some definitions, someone say, Well, it's not proved by the proofs, you know?

Like this is not nothing this is non-successful socialist country or Marxist country.

Uh the the history show us that the Marxist uh I can respond to that.

Uh I think it's very simple for me.

And thank you for coming on.

Uh we should bring on the next person.

Uh yeah, I could I could uh respond though, I mean very briefly.

Uh

The the most the only country that is uh

Providing a paradigm of development that's sustainable for the future right now is China.

Moreover, the communist states did fulfill the goals they set about to fulfill, which is to modernize backwater and pre-modern countries that had no industry, that had no institutions, that had nothing.

And Communists did it more rapidly, more efficiently, and more successfully than anyone else.

So I disagree with that narrative.

I'm not saying you have it, but that one.

But anyway, thank you so much for coming on.

Let's bring on the last person and we got to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right, Don Golfing, you're the last one?

Sorry.

Hello, how's it going?

Good, how are you?

Uh doing good.

Um so you're a recently new person.

How how long have you uh started your when did you start your movement?

About three years ago.

And you said your end goal is to be a Marxist.

Do you feel like Trump would align with your views based on that?

All right, so why support Trump then?

Uh who said I support Trump?

Oh, you don't support Trump?

No.

Then why do you call yourself a MAGA communist?

That makes no sense.

'Cause I think MAGA is a movement.

Not necessarily a person.

I think it's a chapter of history.

I think it's a lot of things.

Then why why don't you uh

A a more uh liberal platform instead of like a conservative platform of people.

I don't know what's necessarily meant by that, but I think the explanation for why our cultural views are probably more in line with your average MAGA guy than a liberal is that liberal cultural views are inauthentically based on, you know, these hegemonic institutions where people just virtue signal beliefs they don't actually believe in, but believe in by virtue of the fact that they are, you know, politically correct on an institutional level.

That filter doesn't exist in MAGA.

So it's just unfiltered what people actually think of reality.

And if you want to say that's conservative, that's fine.

But the liberal stuff and woke stuff is just not in any way based in

any kind of real experience of real life.

Uh whether that's collective or individual, it's just kind of a official formal opinion that you virtue signal and you're supposed to have.

Because of institutional commitments.

All right, yeah, y you you may say that, but it maybe it's just uh of going back to the fundamentals.

May maybe the the Liberal Party has s s strayed away from uh helping the poor and uh getting everybody down.

I don't I don't think that's liberalism though.

I think that's uh left left wing politics, which I think needs to be brought back in a new way.

But liberalism is uh something different.

You you want to replace the whole thing and call it something else?

I mean, i the structure's already set.

You you just need to uh I disagree.

I think the Democratic Party has crushed left wing politics time and time again.

That's it look, I I understand like trying to have a clean started with a new clean slate and starting some new movement, but y you have a strong base in the Democratic Party, you have a whole bunch of socials.

It's a shifting base.

Uh almost all of the main all of the main working class bases

uh went to Trump in terms of the changes, the swing swinging.

The only groups that swayed back to the liberal base were like nonworking class people who don't care about healthcare or left wing politics.

People who actually need, you know, help, the poor are not l the liberal base anymore.

I I don't see where where you get this attitude of just oh completely doing away with the mm-hmm.

Yeah, I I I don't get it, dude.

It doesn't make sense to me.

You know, I I've observed politics for a long time.

You know, I've seen the Teen Party back in twenty live.

Uh, I'm I'm in the Uni United States South.

You know, I've I've observed politics.

Yeah.

Which state, if you don't mind me asking?

In uh Oklahoma.

You live in Oklahoma.

Do you think the Democrats are a working man's party?

Surely you don't.

Yeah, you don't all think the same.

But, you know, I've just observed politics for a long time.

You know, back in 2012, the Tea Party was useful for electing libertarians, but then they just faded away with time.

You have political commentators such as Alex Jones.

He decided to die on the Sandy Hook Hill to help prevent gun legislation.

So you have these political narratives that take hold for a period of time just because they're useful at the moment, but they don't survive the test of time.

And I think you will not be relevant in more than four years.

You're just going to be gone, dude.

All right.

We'll see.

All right, well, thanks so much for having me.

It was a great uh Q and A.

Thank you, Haas, for taking time out of your day to talk to us, and thank you to the audience and all who came on stage.

Remember to check out Infrared Haz's Discord server, website, XPage and Kik, all pinned in the AMA discussion channel.

Thank you so much.

Nice day, everybody.

Goodbye.

See ya.

Alright.

Uh let's see what's going on.

Alright guys.

Did not freeze?

Alright.

I'm fuckin' starving, holy shit.

So the German guy who said they want to debate me said I can pre-plan a time for the debate.

Okay.

Again, the plan is that I'm going to Venezuela in a matter of days.

I don't know wh if it's gonna be tomorrow or the day after.

True Tyler agreed to debate me on a neutral platform.

Alright, so what's a neutral platform?

And do they mean tonight?

What neutral platform could we use?

What's a neutral platform?

Who could host it?

Well they Sarah he said he won't allow Sarah to host it.

Oh, Jesus Christ.

Soleiman offered.

Is this happening?

Does it want to happen right now?

So we do this all night?

Is Solimon holding a space right now?

Let me DM him right now.

Get a snack?

He'd offered earlier.

Yeah, Truth Teller is doing a space.

It is late.

I think he lives in the UK.

I just DM'd him.

I'm fucking starving.

I gotta eat some food.

I'm so fucking hungry.

Huh.

I'm actually fucking dying of starvation.

Holy shit.

Johnny, what's going on, bro?

What's good, bro, how you doin'?

Assumed what's going on?

How are y'all doing?

Alright.

Um truth teller.

So Soleiman might actually host this.

I have food on the way.

So I'm gonna take like a break and eat, but I guess we'll do this tonight.

We might actually have this debate tonight.

If it's not tonight, it's got to be when I get back from Venezuela.

That's why.

Zapatismo with the 10.

Let's go.

What's up, brother?

Gherkon 4, what's going on?

Blonde guy, what's going on bro?

HB Ryan, what's up?

One guy, what's going on, bro?

Hey guys, we might get a debate tonight.

E Pluribus, let's go Okay, so Soliman is gonna host it.

And uh, you guys have to go tell truth teller to get in.

Solomon's about to host it.

Let's open up BlueStacks.

I'm gonna eat food.

Soon?

Um not yet.

I do gotta eat and then I'm gonna be back.

And then we're going to do it.

Alright.

Alright Solomon's about to start it and we're gonna do it.

HoCoVision, what's going on bro?

Alright, Solomon's gonna start it.

We're gonna do this space.

We're gonna have a lot of content and probably 'cause uh I'm gonna be going to Venezuela soon.

And uh I'm not gonna be able to stream for a little bit.

All right.

Space is started.

Guys, let Truth Teller know about the space, link it to him, and just have him show up.

Tag him with the info.

He wanted a neutral space.

Here it is.

The intro music for the space.

I'm gonna restart it.

I think it's glitching because hardly anybody's come on.

So just give me 30 seconds.

We're gonna restart immediately.

Apologies to Haz as well and everybody who's come straight from his stream.

Just give me two seconds and I'm gonna restart immediately.

Alright, he's gonna restart it, you heard him?

But let truth tell her know what's going on.

'Cause I know he has his own safe space he's in, a literal safe space.

Well now he's gonna have to be in a neutral platform and debate.

So let him know guys.

If you don't let him know, he's not going to find out.

So make sure to go let him know.

Okay, he's got a new space.

Alright, here it is.

Show up.

Right guys, appreciate you guys joining in.

Appreciate you guys listening.

We're back.

Wasn't expecting to be back so soon.

I mean, it's a lot later than we normally do, but has messaged me.

He wanted a debate, and obviously, has is someone I respect significantly, both in terms of his knowledge and his debate skills.

I've seen a couple of his debates recently where he destroyed Andrew Wilson and Joel Davis.

So I was like, the only message I was, bruv, like, how could we debate a truth teller?

Like, I don't think he's on your level, but much respected truth as well.

He's going to come down here soon.

And then we'll be doing that debate between Haz and Truth Teller.

And it's going to be fire.

It's going to be on the Holdemore fact or fiction.

A big point of contention on Twitter spaces, on social media.

Haz, what was the reason you decided to do this debate and specifically with Truth Teller?

Well, he's always spamming my replies, talking about the Bolsheviks are all Jews.

I'm seeing the Hello Demore stuff gain traction and go viral a ton on X, you know, and it's just the proportion.

It's just millions of impressions, you know, tens of thousands.

And it's complete, in my view, it's complete lies, you know, and I want an opportunity for people to hear the truth.

Truth Teller said he would agree to debate on a neutral platform.

And I believe you're a neutral host.

And I really appreciate you taking the time to host this.

And, you know, hopefully he shows up.

And yeah, we could have this debate.

And, you know, I know he's not really on my level.

None of them are.

But, well, I mean, none of the ones who are ever willing to debate me are.

I mean, people.

really on the right tend to avoid this topic with me for a good reason because they're just not really confident in the veracity of the various claims they're making in my view.

I don't know how else to explain it.

Yeah, I was shocked at the fact that nobody was willing to debate you, but I can see why because I did watch, like, I watched both of them debates.

I watched your debate with Andrew Wilson, and I also watched your debate with Joel Davis.

And you kind of destroyed him really badly.

So I can see why people may not want to debate you because it's like you know, they don't want the smoke.

But I've tweeted it out a few times, so everybody, and I'm in a lot of these group chats, and or was before I was considered, you know, not too much of a hater against the Jews.

But point being, a lot of them, yeah, unwilling to debate you.

So that's going to be interesting.

So, Truth Teller is coming out.

We've sent him the invite, and it's going to be an interesting debate.

I mean, let's see how it goes.

We're going to decide how we're going to do the debate.

Probably be something along the lines of a five-minute introduction by both sides and then maybe two minutes each.

I think anybody, Truth Teller is a regular on our spaces, so you know, it will be a neutral debate, it will be timed.

And obviously, we know Truth Well Teller really well, so he, I think, timed is the best way to go about it.

Um, I have brought a couple of people up because they might want to give comments, but as soon as the debate starts, I will make it fair.

It will just be has and Soliman, um, in about I don't know, like um, six or seven minutes, I'm just gonna eat a burger really quick, it'll be really fast, it'll be like a three, four-minute thing.

Just gotta eat some food because I've been streaming for like six hours, so just giving you that heads up, but yeah, until then.

All good.

It gives time for people to be aware of the space 'cause we don't normally start at this time.

And it gives a true teller time to jump onto the space as well.

So yeah, go ahead.

Just uh take your five to ten minute break.

Um well not not now, but it's it's not here yet, but uh when it gets here.

Uh oh, okay, okay, okay.

So we'll stop and we'll do like a commercial break.

Yeah.

Should be uh I'll let you know.

But now, I mean, yeah, I'm free to do whatever now.

It's just I'm letting you know in about five, six minutes.

Cool, cool.

We'll just wait for uh truth teller to come.

Uh don't know how long it'll take him to come across, but until then, um I'm just gonna let a few people up if they wanna give their thoughts.

Uh obviously if this isn't part of the debate, the debate is gonna be between has and um truth teller, but I know Joe and Khaleese, you both come up.

Any thoughts?

Khaleesi, what was your thoughts on anything you wanted to say?

No, thanks for hosting this, Suleiman.

I'm really looking forward to hearing how and truth teller.

um oh you can you'll hear it i'll drop you down and bring you back up go ahead please continue yeah i'm looking forward to the debate um it was it was not on the radar at all um i think it's been um long awaited by people um has i think people always get really happy to see you debate anybody and i think truth teller's got quite a profile and persona on x um for various different reasons so yeah i'm looking forward to to the debate and thanks for hosting so Thanks guys, do me a favor, retweet, reshare the space, let everybody know we're live.

We've started a lot earlier than we normally do.

So let me just delete the one that kind of flopped.

And there we go.

Yeah, I think look guys, retweet it.

Let people know we're live.

People might want a commercial break from the drama that's going on.

Come here.

I'll have a break.

Listen to a bit of debate.

Get back into geopolitics a little bit.

So it'd be good.

Cool.

Uh Joa, what Joa, Joa, Joa, what's going on?

I brought you up.

What was the thumbs down all about?

And because this one, this one's a difficult one for me because I get why I'm on Haas's side when he says he shares a lot of posts about not making it about the Jews because if you do, you just help their side, right?

And I get that, and I've said that repeatedly, and that's why I focus a lot on Likud and how Likud was started and all the genocides that Likud have supported and sold weapons and things of that nature.

And that's why I focus on Likud.

Although you can point at other parties in Israel that aren't that also have atrocities, but not as much as the Likud.

But when it comes to the Bolsheviks, there's something that no one can deny, right?

Although they were 5% of the population, they made up at minimum, and this is the minimum, 30% of the leadership.

And then on top of that, they made up all of the what they called, I forget what the title was, but before the Bolshevik evicts, there was a party that was called the Maximalists, which were all Jewish, who majority of them joined the Bolsheviks, who were extremely violent.

And then you also have all the people.

Emma Goldman, who was a Jew, supported the Bolsheviks.

She then left and tried to spread anarchy in the U.S.

She actually even tried to plot an assassination.

Her husband did an assassination of a political leader in the U.S.

to make it seem like it was someone else in order to create conflict.

You have Bella Kuhn, who then went to Hungary, tried to basically do the same thing.

You had the other one, Lovelace or Lovelace or something like that, that also did this in Germany.

Like they were all Jews, right, that did that.

So while I don't blame the Jews, right, ever, you can't look at the Bolsheviks and understand that there was a faction of what I would call anarchist Jews, which came from the Maximalists, a lot of them, which were heavily involved and disproportionately involved in the government because they only made up 5%.

But then they were at minimum 30% of the government.

So regardless of how you look at it, I understand Haas's point.

I don't want to make it about the Jews.

I don't think it's about the Jews when it comes to this global cabal.

But I do, but when I look at the Bolsheviks, I see a lot of what we see in the U.S.

where their population is way overrepresented when it comes to the government.

And that is a problem.

And that's why I think people spread anti-Semitism at times because they just want to blame all the Jews.

And if you actually look at the polls in the U.S., majority of them don't identify with Zionism.

It's 63 or 62% that don't identify, do not identify with what Israel is doing, don't identify with what Zionism is prior to October 7th.

Those numbers changed after October 7th.

So yeah, I understand his point, but I also understand that you do need to state facts and that is a fact.

So regardless if you say it's, you know, the Bolsheviks was a Jewish thing.

No, it wasn't a Jewish thing, but there was a heavy representation of what I would call anarchist Jews.

Thanks for giving your opinion there, Joe.

This is what Haas is going to debate.

He's going to give his own perspective on that.

Truth Teller is going to give his own perspective on that.

And then we're going to basically have the debate.

But yeah, thanks for giving us your thoughts on that.

I've messaged Truth Teller.

I'm not sure.

The Truth Teller already agree to this debate.

What was the situation?

No, I'm sorry if I assumed he said yes because he said a neutral platform.

He said, you know, he wouldn't come on my space.

And he said, if you get a neutral platform, I'll debate.

And I, you know, I assume that because he's in his space right now, I mean, I don't, I don't see what the issue is.

Well, let me get my peeps.

Guys, where Casey, go to the other space and tell Truth Teller and his crew that Haz is here.

He's ready for the debate.

I'm neutral.

He knows I've hosted a number of his debates.

I think he debated Gary once.

I think he debated Destiny once and a few other people as well.

So he can come to this space.

It'll be kind of fun.

So one of my followers just told me that he's in truth teller space and he says it's the wee hours of the night, but he will do it with Soleiman.

I don't know what that means.

But people are telling me that he's trying to dodge, he's trying to run away.

It's what I'm hearing.

I don't know if he needs a nudge or something.

I mean, truth, my boy, you need to come, bro.

This is your chance.

You're coming into the big leagues now.

You're coming after Az Aldin, the guy who destroyed Joel Davis, the guy who's going to be able to do it.

I want to say, Suleiman, that right now I'm on track to go to Venezuela.

It's still being organized and stuff, but I should be going there in a matter of days.

So if it doesn't happen tonight, I'm not going to be able to do it until I come back, which is probably going to be late November.

Yeah, so if someone can go to truth space and let him let him know that that's the case, I mean, I'm not sure Ryan Dawson is here as well.

I don't know if you want to debate Ryan, but Ryan's messaged me.

He said that he the Holdemar is a fact.

So maybe I don't want to put Ryan under the under the bolt as well because maybe he doesn't want to debate.

Maybe there might be a lot of overlap where he just agrees with you as well.

So I'm not trying to do Ryan over as well, but if he if he wants to, if he disagrees, then he's more than welcome to as well.

Right, has?

Yeah, I mean, Truth Teller is kind of rolling with the O Canonist crew who I really detest.

And, you know, he was very aggressive in my replies.

So I prefer we do that.

But if Ryan wants to debate as well to fill in, we could do that.

Yeah, and not in that as well.

With truth, I would say his position now is diametrically opposite to your position.

Whereas I bet Ryan would have more of a nuanced position where it probably is a bit, you know, a bit of overlap between the two.

So truth, the truth teller debate does make a lot more sense.

So if someone can go to truth teller space and let him know that we're ready, he said he's okay with me.

I think from what has was said, if I understood the message, he said he's more than happy for me to host the debate.

His only issue.

So Suleiman, somebody in my chat, sorry to interrupt you, is saying that he said he will do it with Suleiman in a week when you get back.

I don't know if it's going to be in a week when I get back.

As long as Ian Malcolm84 is co-host, why does he need to be co-host?

I don't understand that.

And to have Suleiman message Ian Malcolm to set it up.

Um so like Ian Malcolm, I'm cool with Ian, but the thing is Ian has the same position as uh uh True Tyrrell.

So I don't think I don't think that'd be a fair situation, whereas I would say I am like extremely neutral on this, so I think me being the lone co host would be a lot more fair than him having someone from his side as well as me.

Yeah, I mean, uh, no, it's it obviously it's not too surprising that, uh

He's stipulating all these terms and conditions.

It's a little ridiculous.

Um, in my opinion, but uh

I don't know exactly.

I could come back from Venezuela the 29th, or I could come back as early as the 24th.

It's not exactly known.

Well, to be fair, if it was me, I would say, look, this is your only chance because, like, I don't want to sound mean, right?

Like, look, True Teller, I like him a lot in the space.

I mean, he is in a space right now, to be fair.

He's in a space, so clearly he's not, like, sleeping or something.

Yeah.

I mean, I was surprised that you were going to debate him anyway because there's like different like leagues to this situation.

But the fact that you're willing to debate him, I mean, this is his big chance.

I think he should come because he's going to be in the big leagues when it comes to debating then.

He's going to go against you.

He's going against Haz.

So I think that personally, it's your choice.

You may want to delay and give him a chance till November, December, wherever it may be.

Or maybe this might be his one and only chance.

We never know what's going to happen in the future.

But one thing I will say is.

Haz has put a challenge out to everybody who has been talking about the Bolsheviks and the Holdemar, and nobody has been willing to basically debate him.

And so, Truth Teller seemed like he may have been the only person, but now it seems like Truth Teller is unwilling to come and debate, which isn't great because he does have a concurrent space on.

So, it's not like it's not, you know, it's not like he's busy or he's asleep or whatever it may be.

So, truth, I mean, I would advise Truth to come on for the debate.

If not, we can maybe get Ryan to fill in.

I'm not sure.

I don't want to dupe Ryan into it as well.

I don't want to dupe, I don't want to like do the same thing to Haz as well.

Maybe both have not prepped each other's positions because, like, sometimes when I debate somebody, I want to know what their positions are.

And I guess you both probably don't agree.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think he's obliged to if he doesn't want to, because I think Truth Teller is one of the leaders of this narrative.

I think there's more of a responsibility.

So, you know, I'm open to having Ryan debate, but if he's not, you know, if he's not particularly invested, that's completely fine.

I'm not going to say that he's running or something.

I think Truth Teller is the one who has there's more of an onus on him because he's one of the people that really aggressively push this, like, just constantly.

And I'd like to see him kind of substantiate it.

Okay, I've messaged the truth anyway, so let's see what it says.

Um hi Darren, how's it going?

Sorry, Ryan.

I mentioned your name, and then I thought, damn, I don't know, I don't know if I've done him over there.

So well, I don't even know what his position is, so I like to listen first.

That makes sense.

I don't even know if I disagree.

Exactly, exactly.

No, no, you're both right, because no one soon said it, I regretted it, and I was like, damn, because actually, I bet Ryan and Haz have got like some new obs positions, and therefore, there'll be a lot of overlap, so therefore, like, I wouldn't debate Haz on the name of the name.

What do I mean?

From the title, it's like, yeah, Holdmore happened.

That's a fact, but I guess you mean, was it intentional or famine byproduct of dumb policies?

Like, what's the real thing?

Yeah, I mean, look, to be clear, the term Holodomor emerged in the post-war period by the Ukrainian emigrate community that left after World War II and was hosted by Canada and the United States and the CIA.

I mean, that's a matter of recorded fact.

And they invented the term Holodomor to basically make it just like a Holocaust.

Just like the Zionist lobby weaponizes the Holocaust for its own political brownie points, the Ukrainian emigrate community wanted to do the same by emulating and mimicking the name to make it sound similar.

And um basically uh

The claim, a really ridiculous claim started to be made that weren't made before, which was the claim that the famine, where there was a famine, I'm not here to deny there was a famine, which happened in 1932 through 33, not the whole year, but the parts of those years.

That that was happened all the way to the Soviet Union now.

Yeah, the idea was that that was a deliberate policy by the Soviet government to engage in a genocide against Ukrainians, which is to me completely preposterous.

And I'm seeing that claim being reproduced now.

Except the claim is now that Ge Gendr uh Yagoda, who uh was briefly chief of the NKVD before being shot, um, apparently oversaw a genocide of Christians

To the tune of 30 to 60 million people.

So the Holodomor claim is now being stretched from a genocide against Ukrainians to a genocide against Christians, which is really preposterous to me.

And I just, you know, I don't understand how that claim could be defended.

Yeah, I've heard that crap before, too.

I don't like those nice round numbers either.

So I don't think we really disagree then.

But I don't know.

Keep going.

Maybe I'll find something.

I don't need to debate, but if I don't have a different position on it, then I can't really argue.

Yeah, I mean, I just think that people really underestimate how much propaganda narratives were crafted during the Cold War to discredit the Soviet Union.

And I'm obviously very biased.

I mean, obviously I am.

But just in terms of thinking about common sense, if there's a movement to expropriate all of the actual sources of wealth of the ruling class, especially in the colonies, that's where they really were being hit hard, and to basically cancel all debts overnight, which is what the Bolsheviks did, literally directly hitting into their money supply.

I think there's a strong incentive for the forces that rule Western governments, which is always money, to basically do everything in their power to defame and completely blacken the name of whatever movement is doing that, just for really simple reasons of self-interest.

Um, you know, the claim I know someone earlier was like talking about the Bolsheviks having a thirty percent Jewish leadership.

Uh, I don't know where that comes from because when I look at the data, the high point of Jewish um

You know, presence in the power structure.

It's one of the years or one of the months where you had Zinoviev, you had Kamenev, one of his a half-Jew, one is a full Jew, as well as Trotsky, I think, was there.

I don't know if Trotsky was in the Politburo, actually.

But yeah, that was like three Jews out of seven people total.

So that was a huge amount.

But after 1924, there's never more than 10% of Jews in the Politburo.

And all those three people I just mentioned were killed by the Soviet government.

They were shot.

So clearly, they weren't in control in any way.

Yeah, I will grant that among radicals in Europe, there was a huge Jewish presence in general.

I think that can be put down to the fact that there was a huge Jewish working class at the time.

They were actually like working class people who were working in factories and stuff.

So, yeah, they were Yiddish.

Sorry, to interpret you has it.

I'm speaking to Ian Malcolm, and he is trying to get Truth Teller to join right now.

So he should be joining.

Sorry, go ahead.

Sure.

Yeah, I mean, so people forget that because after Zionism, when most of the Jewish population fled to the Zionist entity, and then the remaining Jews in America, they became part of the upper middle class.

But there used to be 100 years ago a lot of most of the Jews were just working class people working in factories who were dirt poor.

But, you know, to say my issue is that the majority of those, even those Jews, weren't pro-Bolshevik.

As a matter of fact, one of the anarchist Jews was named Fanny Kaplan, who shot Lenin and tried to kill him.

So the Bolsheviks were distinguished from all the other radicals because they were primarily not getting their base of support from urban areas in general.

Now, Jews were heavily overrepresented in cities like Odessa.

They were 30, 40% of the population were Jews.

The Bolsheviks hedged their bets on the peasants.

They said, We wanted the majority of our we want the revolution to be carried out by the peasants, right?

So they were beefing with Mensheviks and all these other groups because they didn't want to have a, you know, a politics that was at war with the peasants.

And I'm confused about the Jewish Bolshevism thing because if anything, Jews were much more overrepresented among the Mensheviks.

And there is overrepresentation, by the way, among certain spheres of Bolshevik leadership.

And when I say overrepresentation, I'm not saying the majority.

I'm not even saying 30%.

I'm saying Jews were 5% of the population.

So why was there any overrepresentation to begin with?

Well, look at the literacy rates.

How many Jews could read and write and were educated compared to the general population?

When you look at the data, Latvians had a 90% literacy rate, right?

So that's why before the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk, which cut Latvia off from the territory of what became the Soviet Union, actually Latvians were much, much more overrepresented among the Bolsheviks just because they had better literacy and education.

You know, when you're when you need personnel and when you need people who are fighting for your cause, it there was a barrier to entry when it came to education.

That's why it's not a coincidence.

A lot of people say Stalin is anti-Semitic because, you know, most of the Jewish overrepresented leadership was purged during the Great Purges under Stalin.

People say it's because Stalin didn't like Jews.

Well, that's not true.

It's just because most of the Russian population became educated.

They became literate.

They were in schools.

Now they could read, they could write, they could, you know, they could.

Become more than just peasants farming.

And when that happened, the demographics just became proportional to the populations.

There was no Jewish over-representation anymore at all.

There was a proportional leadership representation.

Now, I'm not just talking about high leadership either.

I'm talking about engineers, doctors, middle-ranking, you know, officials and whatever.

So, you know, I'm just very baffled at why.

The Palestine issue is now being used to further NATO-crafted propaganda talking points that are meant to vivify.

Actually, I'm sorry, can I stop you there because I don't listen to NATO talking points?

I'm sorry, you know, my name is Casey.

I don't listen to NATO talking points or anything like that.

I'm actually totally against NATO.

I think what's happening with Ukraine and Russia, I was against it too.

You know, as soon as it happened, I saw what was going on.

But when it comes to this, right?

So, are you saying that the death of, you know, I'm no truth teller, and I don't, I'm not going to pretend that I'm some expert on Russian history, but are you saying that the death of like 20 million, some 30, 60 million, I don't know how many millions of like Christians, we're saying like it didn't happen or something?

Like, why?

Yeah, why that's a question?

I'm saying, yeah, I'm saying it didn't happen, all right?

There weren't 20 to 30 million people killed.

There were wait a minute, yeah, but it did happen.

Like, how do y'all say that that didn't happen?

I mean, the guy, Yagoda, and all that, who had the gulags and everything with bringing in the Christians and the way that they were tortured before they were killed and all of that.

Like, so people made it tortured.

Yogoda himself was tortured and killed.

All right.

So I don't know where this idea is.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.

But like, I'm just saying, like, the gulags and like all of the other stuff.

Like, so somebody made that up for Christians.

I want to tell you about the gulags because it's a scary sounding name and it has a bad reputation.

Look, Russia was an extremely poor and underdeveloped country by the time the Bolsheviks took over, and it especially was in the 1930s when they were trying to industrialize.

So the reason the gulags were so harsh and bad wasn't because they wanted to torture people because in an already extremely poor country, your prisoners and keep in mind that over like 95% of everyone in the gulag is there because they're common criminals, thieves, rapists, these people still existed, and something had to be done with them.

The gulag conditions were obviously worse than that of the general population because if you have limited resources, you're not going to give prisoners something that's equal to the level of everyone else.

You can't even afford it, right?

But that wasn't the goal.

The goal of the gulags was just to, there are prisoners, it's inevitable.

They're criminals.

They're vagrants, whatever.

The goal was to put them to work.

Now, that sounds really horrible and really bad, right?

But why don't we ever consider the fact that per capita as a proportion of the population in the Soviet Union, at the peak of the gulags, it still isn't what the U.S.

is today in the prison population that we have.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the U.S.

and today and the prison population.

We just have different words.

We just use this is how we get conditioned to vilify.

You know, but like, but this is the thing that happened in history.

I don't mean to keep cutting you up.

It's just that, like, I think that this is this doesn't make sense to me because I've seen this man's quotes about wanting to torture these Christians and kill them and stuff.

And then knowing where communism is, but we need to, what you need to do, though, is check if those quotes were made up by someone or if they're actual real quotes.

Because I'm willing to bet you $5,000 right now that there is not a single quote from Yogoda about wanting to torture Christians that can be verified anywhere.

And it's completely not.

I mean, and I will put $5,000 that I have.

I have the money.

I'm willing to bet it right now if you're willing to bet it as well.

That that is a completely fabricated quote that has no authenticity and no validity whatsoever.

And this is what frustrates me.

What frustrates me?

No, but frustrating me.

You don't get frustrated.

I'm not frustrated by you, but the reason the lies frustrate me is because a lot of people don't know.

It's like the big lie.

Like, they're not aware that people actually will go to these lengths to just fabricate these things and lie about them from scratch, purely as defamation and libel and slander.

But they do.

I don't know where it comes from.

I don't know who's responsible.

But they are just making things up.

And people are too naive to believe that someone could ever do that.

So they just take it at face value.

But it turns out to be a complete fabrication.

I don't think that it's a complete fabrication.

It's just that I don't have all my information right now to pull it up.

I looked this stuff up a while ago.

I think you've seen that.

No, no, no, no, no.

No, I want to be very clear.

Like, just because this isn't my thing that I'm staying, you know, stuck on, you look at something and you get the information and then you do keep it moving, right?

But this isn't me just seeing people on Twitter.

This is stuff that I've looked at, books, all of that, right?

So the thing is, again, when you know where communism itself comes from, like, where it comes from labor Zionism.

So why would this even be an ideology that we want to promote?

So how does communism come from labor Zionism?

Moses Hess.

I mean, he did say that communism will work for the benefit of the Jews.

This is sort of talking about the media claims that Marx and Engels were introduced to communism by Moses Hess, but I checked the primary source from that Wikipedia article and can find nothing to confirm that.

In any case, Marx was a disciple of Feuerbach, not Moses Hess.

Feuerbach was interested in communism.

Communism was prolific and very popular in Prussia at the time already.

And Marx came from the young Hegelian circles.

Moses Hess was a man that Marx and Engels did know, but Frederick Engels, who was a non-Jew, by the way, had sex with Moses Hess's wife behind his back, and they kind of laughed at him and didn't take him seriously at all.

They cucked him, literally.

It's actually a fact.

Look it up.

Moses Hess was not a serious figure for Marxism at all.

And as a matter of fact, his ideas later on came to be more closer to some kind of fascism or something, which a lot of self-proclaimed socialists at the time were morphing into something like that.

But Moses Hess was not someone Marx took seriously, or Engels for that matter.

And he had no influence on the development of communism as a movement.

Whether he did or didn't, but they do say that he did.

Moses Zionism was that he proposed a colonization of Palestine, but the reason he said is that he said the Asiatics and brown people are savages, and we Europeans need to give them enlightenment by having a colony in Palestine.

So he did have that idea.

So yes, you could call him a Zionist.

Labor Zionism came afterwards and was influenced by other.

Personalities and figures.

Moses has really has no significance historically.

He kind of died out and yeah, but he came up with these theories like communism.

I mean, he is no longer communist.

He did not.

Moses did not.

So just trust me that he didn't.

Like, even though everybody else kind of knows they did, I want you to look up the history of the usage of the word communism, and you'll find that it predates Moses Hess by many, many decades.

His birth.

At communism, the usage of the word communism has its background in the French Revolution.

Communism as a movement, you could say, officially begins with the Protestant Reformation with Thomas Munzer and the Anabaptists, you know, who believed everything should be held in common.

And you could say, if you want to stretch it even more, you could say it goes back much more ancient than that.

But modern communism officially has its origins in the Protestant Reformation.

It was not a Jewish phenomenon whatsoever.

No, but no, see, it always goes back to the Christians.

Like, again, but he did, he was an early communist.

I mean, he wrote a book about, and he did talk about how communism does help for Jewish people.

So we put people, hold on, let me just finish it because the whole ideology is to put people in groups so that people don't notice like what the Jews were doing at the time.

It's not my word to say.

I'm just saying, like, this is where did you say that?

Tell me where he said.

I mean, this is stuff that's in their books and all of that.

Like, I mean, like, the person who keeps sending me thumbs down, the same way how you could tell me, you know, oh, well, the Protestants did this and this, that, and the third.

I guess I have to take your word for it, right?

But let's not act like this didn't come from Zionism.

I mean, Marxism, this is these are like Jewish things.

I mean, it's okay, right?

Marxism.

Moses has, where are you getting that?

I've seen that.

I've read it.

I've seen it in documentaries.

Okay.

So it's like, yeah, but did you verify it in any way or did you just take it?

But it's obvious, though.

I mean, it's obvious.

And I saw it in, and you see it in documentaries, and it is obvious.

I mean, to keep asking Marxism.

I have actually read Moses has his own writing.

I understand how I'm a lifelong Marxist for my whole adult life.

I've read just about everything Marx has ever written, including his personal correspondence and letters.

And there is no evidence I can find that Marx was in any way influenced by Moses has okay.

So regardless if he was, it wasn't, but he was.

But even Marxism itself is not, to me, an ideology that works for people at all.

Like, I mean, look what it's done to the black community in America.

So I don't understand why people promote this kind of ideology.

What did Marxism do to the black community?

Yeah, the black community was worried about God family property, right?

Then you had people like W.E.B.

Du Bois coming in with the NAACP that, by the way, they couldn't be a part of in the beginning, telling them that they needed to be more worried about the white man loving them and they were oppressed and all of this.

And then this is also how these like radical Marxist communists, whatever, Sololinsky was hiring preachers to go into the black churches.

Yeah, when did this ideology?

Can I get a date from you when things went bad for the black community?

Just so I know.

I don't give a date.

That's crazy.

Well, how about a time period?

How about a time period?

Yeah, like around the time where all of this started with the all of these riots, this civil rights act was a civil rights movement itself.

More than 60s, yeah, starting in the 60s.

These people weren't worried about all of this stuff.

And you have blacks who tell you this when the social communists came around, it wasn't good for them.

It wasn't for black people in America during the 60s were good?

I think that they had their own businesses and they had their own buses and stuff in the you know in the south and and they were working towards more of that until they were told that they had to force integrate and everybody had to love them and so they got distracted with these ideologies of mass black unemployment in the 1960s was there a cause for that or what what was what was going on there because uh i mean you could you could give me a cause but i don't know what that has to do with the point that i was making black uh communities that they lived in did they have uh funding from the government were they were they run they want funding from the government was like the worst thing that happened the welfare state i mean look what that stuff i'll just tell you that um i'm just curious about how marxism ruined uh the black community because i'm just again it is that ideology of you know of putting people in groups and telling people one group is oppressing the other group right i mean this is this is what happened was it the marxists that put the black people in groups or was it the jim crow laws that forced them to be separate no but the thing is they didn't mind being separate though see that's the part nobody ever talks about that part because who put them in groups then was it the marxists or was it uh u s history

No, they didn't mind that part.

These people, when they were freed, they weren't.

Let me finish.

They didn't call themselves ex-slaves.

They called themselves freedmen, right?

Yeah, they weren't.

So hold on.

Hold on.

Hold on.

But they were working towards that, right?

And they didn't, and the segregation.

There was progress.

Go look at Booker T.

Washington was training black tenants, people to own apartments and stuff like that.

There were people making strides and so on.

You were saying the black community was becoming a utopia until Marxists came and ruined it.

Yeah, they were working towards being better than what's going on now.

Yeah, absolutely, because they were focused on Godfamily progress.

Separate but equal was better than integration, where they had this class hierarchy.

Exactly.

Like forced integration was not good for anybody, really, in that moment.

And there were a lot of black people at the time who were saying they didn't want any parts of this.

And today you can hear older black people talk about it.

And they said they didn't want these communists coming into their neighborhoods and telling them that they weren't.

They're better off to be Native Americans or better off separate than being forced on reservations.

Did Marxists force black people to fight for their right to vote at ballots and stuff?

Did Marxists force them to care about these things?

Who forced them?

But again, black folk would have figured that part out.

Like, I don't understand what that happened.

They couldn't even access the thing.

They were meeting a lot of challenges and they were fighting.

And they were being called communists for doing that.

Listen, whatever you want to say at that point, but again, just that one thing you just said about voting, I'm talking about a group of people who were focused, who were focused on making themselves marketable because that was the book of T.

Washington Ray.

Make yourself marketable.

Don't get worried about all of that other things.

But facts are stubborn things, and here are the facts.

Black people did not own land.

They didn't own any capital.

They had nothing.

They were rising unemployment.

They had no jobs.

They had no opportunities.

They had no future.

And they were basically being quarantined into ghettos where they were basically being left to rot and decay while being taught.

That's not me.

You have to watch.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

You're right.

You're right.

You're right.

Sorry, sorry.

But I mean, that's not true.

Black men got the right to vote in 1866 and 67.

But on at large.

And they were black senators and they did own land and they wa they were not hoarded into ghettos.

Well, that was the Reconstruction era.

But in the Jim Crow era, black people were there were means that were being deployed to prevent them from voting, which was, yeah, a federal right that they had.

But at the local level, that right was being blocked.

That wasn't aimed at blacks.

That was aimed at poor people.

Literacy tests affected poor whites and blacks.

Well, you know, I don't know.

I know for a fact that it was aimed at blacks, black people.

And, you know, it was considered an affront to their rights that they had earned.

You're right, that they earned it in the post-war Civil War period.

So, yeah, was there discrimination against poor whites as well with respect?

Well, it wasn't from the Civil War.

The northern states did not have black suffrage for many years.

Okay, yeah.

Through Reconstruction, only black suffrage was awarded in the South.

And in northern states, where it didn't matter, like Maine, where they're less than 1% of the population.

In any case, the idea that black people had it really good until the civil rights came around is just complete nonsense, in my view.

But see, that's the thing you put words in my mouth.

I never said really good.

I said they were meeting the challenges, okay?

And you may not understand it, but like, I mean, they were meeting the challenges.

I mean, they had black people who started the Republican Party.

That's what meeting the challenges looks like, because for some of them, meeting the challenges meant fighting for civil rights.

And there's a way to do that without forced integration.

There's a way to do what they should have done was tell the states, we don't need the cops coming in and telling us that we can't serve white people or that white people can't serve us because there are some businesses that did want to do business with black people, right?

Because at the end of the day, you have to pay your bills forced integration when by the 70s, by the 80s, there's literally get they called, they were called ghettos, which were black neighborhoods and communities, and same with white ones.

You think that there was forced integration?

How?

Communities remain separated.

Yeah, there was like busing policies and stuff like that.

It's called forced immigration.

What people say is forced integration was just the fact that during the rise of neoliberalism, the white and black working class had their living conditions completely destroyed and deteriorated together, by the way.

And, you know, they blame it on each other or they blame it on integration.

But the truth is, it was the ruling capitalist class screwing over the working class after the civil rights era.

And that's why there's this negative rap about so-called forced integration.

That's just the poor people being thrown in together into the same

Same misfortune.

That the problem has nothing to do with getting rid of segregation.

And because it's not forced integration, it was forced segregation.

Remember, there's a difference between those.

Forced segregation divided people on the basis of their race.

Even though we have a united republic, people were divided by their race.

It's nonsense.

So black people overwhelmingly didn't like that.

They didn't like forced separation.

What do you say, sir?

Well, the funding we're skipping the part of of Southerners having their land confiscated and not being allowed to vote for a period of time.

and having no capital allowed.

All the public works, ninety percent of the taxes went to the north to pay for their cities and their debts.

They confiscated southern gold to pay off Lincoln's war bonds.

It's the first thing Grant passed when he became president.

Well, and over a million black people died between 1866 and 1900 as sharecropping and starving to death.

Rapid immigration was not good for blacks or poor whites.

In 1900, the working man, black or white, and the small farmer, was being screwed over.

That's why they formed things like the Farmers' Alliance and the Populist Party, which actually united the poor whites who were being dispossessed and indebted with the black, small black farmers and black workers.

And guess who came and ruined it?

It was the Southern Democrats who came and decided that they were going to fuel racial tensions and racial conflicts and completely broke it up.

So, you know, nobody's saying that poor whites were not what caused them to be poor in the first place was Yankee bankers withholding capital from the South.

They were well well, that was one of the causes, but they were poor under the slavery as well.

Southern states were the ten richest states out of eleven before the war, and the poorest after.

For the planters who were a ruling class, yeah, they were filthy rich.

The poor whites that were in the south had nothing.

I I think you're misunderstanding.

Peop places like Atlanta and Columbus, entire cities were burned to the ground.

Everybody.

That's war.

Not just the planters.

Not just the planters.

No, everybody lost everything.

That was war.

Because Yankees invaded.

Well, that's war.

Well yeah, it is not disagreed.

I'm saying the reason for the poverty was a physical invasion where they set the crops on fire and burned the houses down.

There wasn't because of treason.

It was Democrats from the South.

Of course it was.

It was treason.

It was the planters who decided to rise in rebellion.

And look at the look at the history of every single state.

Wait, who invaded who?

The Confederates.

No, which army went into which territory first?

The Confederates seceded.

What right did they have to do that?

Every right.

It was the United States plural, not the United States.

There were secession movements before that which Lincoln even supported in Texas.

And in the Northeast.

If you can keep it freely entered into the Union and could freely leave the Union.

That's why nobody was convicted to treat it.

They did keep it.

Well Nincon put blockades on his own states that had not even seceded, North Carolina, Virginia, that's why they seceded.

If the if these were uh sons of the soil That's treasonous, putting a blockade on your own states Why did Britain and France uh prop up the South?

They didn't.

Yes, they did.

The only reason the British didn't even invade is because the Russian Navy came and helped defend the northeastern coasts.

But yeah, the British were about to go to war with America again over the Civil War.

America just had a war in Mexico.

It wasn't doing anything.

The South had a whopping revenue cutters they bought before the war from the British.

France and Britain wanted to keep the U.S.

as a shithole backwater country that wasn't industrial, and the South was supplying all the cotton as raw material to Britain to create finished.

It would be in their interest to topple the ten richest states in the Union, which were all southern.

The British funded and bankrolled the South, literally.

No, they did not.

Yes, they did.

It's a matter of historical fact.

No, it's not.

They did not bankroll the South.

The South is desperate for money.

The Confederate dollar was useless.

The British are the ones that were everywhere.

They absolutely did.

Look at the international relations at the time.

Lincoln was called a tyrant and compared to the Tsar by the British president.

Because he was.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

He didn't close down the free press.

He threw the mayor of Baltimore in jail.

He arrested journalists.

He arrested thousands of people in Maryland without a trial.

He was a tyrant.

That should happen again.

And he invaded a donation.

They should do that to CNN again.

You can't just physically topple a scene in.

Look, I don't know what to tell you.

Without Lincoln, we wouldn't even be a country.

We could either be like Europe, a bunch of small shitty microstates, or we could be a great country.

Without Lincoln wanting to have the high tariffs, they could have just lowered that down and there wouldn't have been secession.

There wouldn't have been a civil war.

But there wouldn't have been industry.

There wouldn't have been development.

There wouldn't have been the ability for the US to actually compete with old Europe, which wanted to keep us down as a shithole forever.

All you have to do is have uniformity on the taxes instead of scapegoating one side.

The South was providing 80% of the cotton in the world.

They were making money off cash crops.

And they weren't doing a damn thing with it.

They weren't industrializing.

They were just hoarding it.

That is so dumb.

They're all part of the same nation.

The North was industrialized.

There wasn't such uh they didn't hate the North, it wasn't until Lincoln decided before that with Morailtown.

They were not.

They were the ones bringing the wealth in.

They were the ones exporting goods to back of cotton.

Wealth isn't just money.

Wealth is actual industry.

Wealth is actually technology.

They weren't doing any of that.

They weren't building roads.

They weren't doing anything.

They weren't building infrastructure.

What are you talking about?

Others in the North, the South had more railroads than any nation in Europe.

Yeah, that's fine.

They were industrialized.

They just weren't industrialized compared to the North.

They weren't industrialized.

They were far more industrialized than anyone else.

Britain was far more industrialized than the US South.

Are you kidding?

Textile industry specific things, but they you talk about infrastructure, rail lines, canals, things, they did not have it.

No, they no, they were not.

The south was incredibly underdeveloped.

No, they were not.

They came that's the stereotype from Hollywood after the war they got destroyed.

No, this is the lost cause myth that they you know Look, the South would have turned America into medieval Europe.

And thank God for Lincoln that was prevented.

God damn, you're a dumb no wonder you're a communist.

Look, uh, it's just a matter of fact.

You look at any great state in history, every great state in history was built atop of uh burning cities and all this stuff.

Every conqueror in history, Cyrus the Great, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, you name it.

That's that's war.

And we as a country could never be a country unless we have a united republic that's willing to defend itself from uh treason and society.

You could have had a united republic by simply not tariffing one side to benefit the other.

Well, we could have had a united as every president before Lincoln was able to pull off.

We could have had a united republic if the planters and slave owners didn't uh subvert our common interest to defend their own private ones.

Well, hold on, six of the slaveholding states fought for the north.

Well, they weren't slaveholding for m for very long, were they?

Through the duration of the war and after and after until Lincoln was dead, it was still New Jersey and Delaware and Kentucky had slaves all the way until the Thirteenth Amendment.

Yeah, well they weren't fighting about slavery.

I know you think that's what it was.

The truth is the dramas about slavery.

If you look at the songs they were.

They weren't about revenue.

Well, for the soldiers that were fighting and on the West Virginia.

They seceded, but they're not affected by the tariff because they're not on the coast.

Why was John Brown revered as a hero by the soldiers in the Union Army?

John Brown was laid in a slave rebellion, which is what they wanted because it would go against southern labor and undermine their war.

Do you think that the abolitionists were empowered by the war and were their morale and they were abolitionists on both sides?

There were more abolitionist groups in the south.

The abolitionists were on the side of the union.

And when Lincoln was coming up, he supported the war against Mexico, which turned the Texas territory into a slave holding away from non-slave holding because Mexico ended slavery in 1821.

Yeah, I agree.

And he didn't have a problem with secession then either.

He supported that secession movement, so the legality of it, like, oh, you can't secede except when he wants you to.

Secede from Mexico.

No, Texas was going to be an independent country.

But it wasn't Mexican.

He supported secession.

He supported slavery.

He was indifferent to it when he got older.

But he didn't mind slaveholding states that joined and wore blue uniforms and pointed guns at the South to go to war.

He didn't support secession against the Union.

He supported secession within the Union.

That's why there's a West Virginia from the Union.

It's recession within the Union.

Created a new state out of a state.

So you can s you can do that.

Oh yeah, you can keep that part and not the other half.

But he drove Virginia out by putting a blockade on them before they seceded.

Yeah, and what's the underlying cause?

They were underdeveloping and holding the U.S.

back.

The underlying cause was no, because the North needed revenue.

All their cities were in debt.

Boston and Phillip, New York, wanted that money from the South.

No, they didn't.

He said that his first address to Congress, I did it to preserve the revenue.

Ending slavery was not a popular idea.

It caused race riots in the North.

Went around hanging black people in New York City.

The abolitionists were a very prominent phenomenon in the North.

You don't think the South was in debt?

Birdside New Hampshire sold it, got rid of slavery in 1857, just before the war.

Like, oh, we're going to free the slaves after we sell them all, get that money, and then kick them out and then have segregation.

His home state where the law blacks and they enforce the fugitive slave laws throughout the duration of the war.

I'm not saying that.

Oh, we were behind Union Lines.

How about Grant's contraband camps forcing black people to death?

Yeah.

Working through Mama cars for the dead horses and things.

I'm not saying the war was fought for moral reasons, all right?

I'm not saying that.

It's just delusional to be like, oh, the North was just a bunch of anti-racists and they were trying to end slavery.

That's bullshit.

They did put a money.

I'm not saying that.

It's not what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the war was fought for moral reasons, but I did have a you said a second ago it was fought to end slavery.

It was well, it was fought for money for the people fighting it for the country, for the north.

Yeah, that was how they were seeing it, that they're fighting against slavery.

That's how they saw it.

No, you didn't make the Emancipation Proclamation to the middle of the war, not the beginning of the war.

It doesn't matter, and there is nothing in the citing reasons for the war.

All I gotta know is that the songs that the Union soldiers would sing on their way marching through the South would be songs about setting men free and ending slavery.

That's the songs they sang.

They didn't sing songs marching around in the South.

That is Hollywood.

Well, the songs are real and they were composed.

They made them up after the war.

Half of them were copied on Southern tunes with new words.

I think only one of 'em was copied.

Which ones were copied?

Saying is about slavery.

That is a that came out in the 1960s.

During the Civil Rights Era, they started coloring the award in the 1860s to be about ending slavery.

It wasn't.

They didn't care whether they had slaves or not.

Only northern states still had slaves when the war was over.

And even when they were forced to end slavery, they just put them on script pay, which is another form of slavery.

Going to work at the company store.

It was about slavery.

It wasn't about moral, how they were morally necessarily that they were morally against slavery, but it was because it was about slavery.

Lincoln and Grant wanted to take blacks and send them either to Africa or to the Caribbean.

And he did send hundreds of blacks to the Caribbean.

They had a malaria breakout.

They still wanted to.

Lincoln met with his cabinet four days before he got shot in the head to deal with what to do with these black people.

They wanted to get rid of the slave occrats.

No, they wanted to get rid of blacks.

Lincoln said, too, about Kansas and the Western states.

He didn't want slavery in those states because he didn't want blacks and whites to live together at all.

I'm not saying Lincoln was this lover of black people, but I am saying that he was an enemy of the Southern planter class and wanted to destroy them.

Lincoln was so racist that he didn't want blacks and whites to live together, period.

So he didn't want slavery because he didn't want slavery.

He didn't want blacks to be in the western states at all.

I'm not here to talk about how racist Lincoln or the generals of the Union were.

When Lincoln ended slavery in Washington, D.C., the capital of the North, which had slaves for the majority of the war, he would pay them $100 if they'd leave the country.

Yes or no?

Was Lincoln an enemy of the Southern planter class?

Yes or no?

Did he want to destroy the United States?

Lincoln was an enemy of everybody in the South.

Was he an enemy of the Southern planter class and wanted to destroy them?

He did not care what class they were in.

Nope, he was a mercantileist and a lawyer for a railroad.

He wanted to use the government as a giant ATM machine for the steel industry and the rail industry and people like Thaddeus Stevens and his lobbyists that they wanted to take the money from one sector and award it to themselves.

But the southern planter class were the most degenerate, disgusting aristocracy.

Well, fuck slaveholders.

Like, nobody's arguing.

Like, fuck those guys.

But that ain't why he's attacking the South.

So, well, that was what they're the reason there was a war.

That's the rhetoric.

No, that was.

They were the driving cause.

Well, you didn't have a problem with the northern planning class because they had their slaves throughout the war.

But the northern planning class didn't run the north.

That's the difference.

If he had opposition to slavery and plantation owners, then he would have a bunch of slave states fighting on his side.

Look, you can remain in the Union.

He went around and personally signed letters to every governor in the South of the Corinth Amendment said, we will sanctify slavery in the Constitution with an amendment if you will stay in the Union.

All right, Ryan, let me.

And that passed, and that passed with northern states, and that was introduced by Ohio and New York.

Ryan, let me explain what I mean by the planter class.

The planter class were people who primarily made money from slavery, right?

And their interests were to expand slavery in the new territories that were being part of the U.S.

They had already given that up before the war, though.

They wanted to expand it, but that came at the expense of the interests of the industrialists in the North who were making money in a different way.

And they claimed at the expense of that Chicago wanted a railroad to California before New Orleans, and they didn't want slave labor used on the railroad.

The industrialists had a material interest against slavery.

It wasn't a moral one.

Against railroad growth.

I'm not saying it was a moral one.

I'm saying it was a material one.

But the facts are that the war was against the Slavocrats.

You're getting closer with the backpedaling, but it wasn't a war against the Slavocrats because they had their own slave crats on their own side.

And they were not expanding slavery to the West.

That had already been given up.

The whole slave.

And Lincoln, it was so important to him to preserve the Union that he would codify slavery in the Constitution.

All they had to do was stay in the Union.

And they all left anyway.

And that was never the primary reason for secession.

They had to stay in the United States.

They didn't hold them on the Bolsheviks, too.

Yeah, you can't ratify it if you're not in the Union.

They had to stay in the Union, but they had to agree that they had to compromise and not exist.

It had already passed the Senate and Congress.

You just need the governors to sign it.

And the Southern governor said no.

Listen, Ryan, the Slavocrats had aggressive designs on the new territories.

That's a fact.

They were not willing to give them up.

And furthermore, when they did come up with the 13th Amendment, the first go-around, while Lincoln was still alive, the northern states shot it down.

It wasn't until after that bastard got shot in the head that they finally passed the 13th Amendment.

But why would the North fight a war to end slavery and be against the interests of their plantocrats or whatever, and then have a 13th Amendment that ends slavery?

And they voted down.

Because it wasn't about fucking slavery.

That's why.

The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery.

No, it did.

The Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in territory they didn't control and not in the territory they did control go read it.

It was to incite a slave revolt in the South because at that point the South had been winning all the land battles.

It was a desperate attempt to try and get slaves to revolt.

No, no, no.

You just said the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery.

It did not explain why.

No, it didn't.

Could explain why all the slaves in the North remained.

All right, I'll let you know.

And he wasn't the president of the South, so he can't make an actual country that he doesn't run.

Why won't you let me know?

The British papers made fun of it.

They're like, Lincoln did not see it.

He did not free a single slave in any territory he controls, but declared them all free where he doesn't control.

It did end slavery.

No, it didn't.

Oh, he got it.

You got the $5,000 bet.

You wanted to bet $5,000 earlier, right?

Well, bet $5,000 in the incarceration did not end slavery.

We don't even have to bet one dollar.

Put your money down.

The fact that you won't even let him respond proves that you probably think you're wrong.

So here's the issue.

No, no, no.

Bet me money right now about the Emancipation Proclamation.

Even if we were to believe this idea that slavery was somehow a significant institution in the North after the Civil War, before the 13th Amendment, the difference is that there couldn't have been a powerful, there couldn't have been a slave recrat class that was even close to having any kind of power because Lincoln's death would not have been enough for them to give up slavery as an institution in the North.

Even if the North did have a so-called slaveocrat class, why weren't they able to shoot down the 13th Amendment?

Because they weren't in control, they weren't significant, and they had no power to begin with.

That's why.

But that's different from the South, where the slave recrats literally controlled everything.

Go ahead, Ryan, you can respond now.

Put Money Down on the Emancipation Proclamation.

Uh did you not hear what I just said?

I did not, so I was getting an elevator.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery.

The whole reason you need a 13th Amendment is because the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery.

The facto destroyed the institution of slavery, which was officially ended by the 13th Amendment.

Did you?

No, I didn't.

The Thirteenth Amendment and the slavery emancipation proclamation was an attempt to create slave revolts.

And you know what it did?

You know what it actually did?

There were no slave revolts in the s there were no slave revolts in the south, but there were black revolts in the north.

Okay, if that's why he's tentative on that because it's such an unpopular idea, and Yankees were just as racist as the South.

If slavery going around and murdered black people over it.

If slavery was alive and kicking in the North, then why did the Thirteenth Amendment get passed?

It didn't get passed until the second go-around.

What they figured was since they had taken because they had taken they wanted a voter block, they had taken southern whites' right to vote away and they wanted black suffrage so they could have Republican rule.

Why didn't the Northern Slavercrats prevent it or do anything about it?

Oh, they tried.

Some of them abstained even on the second time.

Several of those states refused.

Oh, so they weren't actually they weren't actually like an actual class of slaveocrats.

It was an extremely marginal, irrelevant thing.

No.

It's 'cause Lincoln got shot.

And when the President gets shot, they unified behind that.

And his when when Johnson came in, he was a Republican, they had a every of all the new states added, they ended up with twelve new states.

All of them had Republican senators.

And they were able to put the South and all the states except for Tennessee under occupation.

They didn't need Tennessee 'cause that is Johnson.

He was already conservative or Republican 'cause they were the National Unionist Party by now, but whatever.

And the Thirteenth Amendment narrowly passed.

But during the war, when they tried to end slavery, it did not pass because they were not fighting to end slavery.

And when it did pass, there were southern states Georgia and Virginia that voted for it.

And there were movements to end slavery in Tennessee and North Carolina before the war.

The Emancipation Proclamation is in the middle of the war, and it caused race riots in the North.

And it did not free any slaves in the North.

Where were the slaves in the North?

How big was this phenomenon?

New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia all had black slaves.

All of them allowed Chinese slaves and coolie trade in California.

And that went on well after the war was over because they were not set free by the 13th or 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment stipulated being born in the U.S.

because they knew there was Asian slaves weren't going to be born in the U.S.

What year was slavery?

I want to go back to putting money on the Emancipation Proclamation into slavery because it didn't.

When did um slavery end in New Jersey?

You said New Jersey still had slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Yeah.

New Jersey had slaves until 1866, January.

It had how many slaves?

I don't know how many slaves they had, it was legal, that's all that matters.

It wasn't uh abolished in eighteen oh four.

Nope.

They had a they tried to do a phase out saying after a certain date in the future, you cannot buy any new slaves.

That happened in eighteen oh four.

That happened in that happened all the way back when Jefferson ended the transatlantic slave trade or Western territories.

A lot of these places were phasing slavery out, including the South.

It was already going to end.

That was a global phenomenon.

The slave was going to end in the South.

Yeah.

Maybe not in the deep south Mississippi and Alabama, but North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee, it was on its way out anyway.

Um and and uh what's your event?

Okay, Ryan.

If it was on its way out, why did the people from those states fight so hard to expand it in the new territories if it was on its way out?

They were split on that, but the reason they wanted slavery in the new territories is because they had interest behind that.

The reason they wanted it in the new territories is because they wanted to use slave labor to build a railroad first, which is what they ended up doing anyway, because they had put script pay on blacks and Irish on the eastern side, and they got Asian slaves on the western side and built the railroad.

Biggest damn bullshit I've ever heard in my life.

They didn't want to expand agricultural slavery.

They didn't put people on script pay to build a railroad?

They didn't want to expand agricultural slavery to the new territories.

Really?

The planters didn't want to have their farms in the new territories with slaves?

The planters did.

That's not what you asked.

You said the south.

Right, but the planters didn't own any slaves.

The reason they fought is because the north invaded them.

You're saying slavery is being phased out, but the planters wanted to expand the institution of slavery to the new territories and aggressively lobbied and campaigned.

Of course, the planters who own slaves want to keep slavery.

The planters don't own everything.

The planters were having fights.

There were abolitionist movements in the South.

They ran everything.

The states that were not involved with the railroad, like Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia were already phasing slavery.

They were the ones of all politics in the South.

They controlled everything.

Cotton was king in the South.

The planters ran everything.

But we ran New Orleans, which is where the railroad started.

They ran everything.

The planters ran everything in the South.

They controlled everything.

They were literally the rule of the world.

They did not control everything.

Well, yes they did.

They were the dominant guys.

They were in control.

Well obviously they didn't.

And that is why you had West Virginia break away from Virginia.

It's why you nearly had the same thing happen in North Carolina.

Is that because of the North's help or is it because of the North?

In East Tennessee, too.

And the third largest division in the North were people from North Carolina.

There were people from Tennessee and North Carolina fighting for the Union.

Because even though the state seceded, it wasn't split evenly.

Wilmington, which was hit hard by the tariffs in the East, sided with the South.

This is just how West sided with the North.

This is a whole lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.

The planters.

It's not mental gymnastics.

East Tennessee, West North Carolina, and West Virginia were pro-union.

The western part of Virginia was so pro-union it became its own state.

Yeah, but the war was against the planter class in the south who were extinguished out of the world.

No, the war was to collect revenue from exports, which was the cash crops.

The war was against the planter class, which annihilated.

The secession was over the tariff issue.

That's why South Carolina attempted it in 1829, and nobody brought up slavery back then.

Why didn't anybody in the North have an issue with the tariffs to secede?

Why was it only the fucking slave owners?

They were not selling cash crops in the North.

They're not growing them anymore.

What the hell is a damn cash crop, Ryan?

What are they using to get those cash crops?

What cash crops?

What cash crops is the main one?

Name the damn cash crop.

Cotton.

Cotton.

How is cotton being picked and produced?

Cotton is being picked by slaves in this house.

The damn cotton gin with slaves.

Yeah.

So it was about slavery, Ryan.

What are you talking about?

No, it wasn't.

They didn't care whether slaves were cotton or not.

They just wanted their money from the cotton, so they put the tariffs on it.

Oh, so what you're saying is it wasn't about slavery.

It was just about the money that slavery brought in.

Yeah, we know, Ryan.

We don't think they love it.

It didn't matter how it was brought in.

Yeah, they wanted money.

Everything's about money.

But the way they brought it in.

They didn't care because, like I said, in territories that didn't grow cotton, that still had slaves, like coal miners' slaves in West Virginia, for example.

They didn't care about those slaves.

That's not a cash crop.

Ryan is everything.

They didn't care about the slaves in Maryland or Ryan, Ryan, Ryan.

They didn't care about him in New Jersey.

Listen, Ryan, when Columbia.

Fucking chickens and shit because it's not a cash crop.

Ryan.

When we say that Colombian cartels are fighting over drugs, we know it's about money, Ryan, but it's about the way they're getting the money.

Drugs.

So it's the same thing with slavery.

We know it's about money, but the way they're making their money is through slavery.

So that's the whole point.

They didn't have a problem with their own slaves and what they were doing and the money those slaves were making.

Only the ones that were benefiting one area and not theirs.

What are you talking about?

The North wasn't getting its money from slavery in the Maine.

If they had a problem with slavery, then they wouldn't have slaves at all.

Their problem wasn't that how the South made money.

It's that they made money.

Ryan, if they had done that without slaves, they still would have terrified.

Everything's about money.

I'm not saying it was morality.

Everything's about money.

Yeah.

But the South was the one upholding the institution of slavery as the primary money-making.

Oh, I didn't argue morality either.

Both sides were immoral.

Both sides had slaves.

But they weren't fighting to end slavery.

One side would have led to the Ryan.

One side.

They said you can keep your slaves if you stay in the Union.

Which means we don't care if you have slaves picking the cotton as long as we can tax it.

But it ain't what happened.

It ain't what happened, is it?

The slavery got abolished because one side.

So the South rejected the Corinth Amendment.

Had they accepted it, then it would have been codified in the Constitution to keep slaves.

And the only way to get rid of slaves is if the state decided to keep it.

Ryan, there isn't a damn chance in hell, I don't care what way you put it, that if the Confederates won, they would have abolished slavery.

There wasn't a damn chance in hell that would ever happen in the Confederacy.

But it happened because the Union won, and it's as simple as that.

They weren't fighting over slavery.

They're fighting over the money.

Well, it doesn't matter what he interrupted.

It don't matter what the true cause was.

The North was perfectly happy to continue slavery in the North and the South.

And in the West, the motivations don't matter.

The South would stay in the Union.

Ryan, the motivations don't mean jack shit.

What matters is what actually happened.

The outcome is what matters.

And the outcome is that slavery got abolished because the South won or sorry lost and the North won.

So that's the outcome.

The outcome would have not been the same had the South won and the British got their way.

It's as simple as that.

It wasn't the British.

The British were not backing.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about what the true moral motivations were.

What matters is about what the outcome and the results were.

Oh, you would be making moral claims.

They weren't fighting over slavery.

See, now you're back.

They're not making any more.

Well, one of the outcomes was this.

Another outcome was a genocide of Native Americans.

That's not what they planned on, but that's what ended up happening.

It freed Custer and all these northern generals to go west and kill all of them.

It's not like they were anti-racist.

They didn't have a problem raping and murdering everybody between Minnesota to California.

I didn't say a damn thing about morality.

I didn't say a damn thing about racism.

I think you did.

The very beginning.

You just keep backpedaling more and more.

Originally, what I said is about civil rights and how black people didn't want to be prevented from going to the polling station.

All right.

That's what I was talking about.

This got down to the South and Lincoln, and I was defending Lincoln.

I wasn't saying Lincoln.

Yeah, and I was saying the Jim Crow laws affected poor people, which ought to be the argument you adopt as a Marxist.

That was a class thing, not a race thing.

Well, it was both.

It was both.

But a lot of poor people are black.

That isn't what they were aiming at.

They wanted to wipe them out.

They didn't want illiterates.

Ryan, you're from the South, and you know damn well that the rich southerners pit the whites against the blacks and the poor whites against the poor blacks and that's their tool was racial division so yeah that's how they kept the poor whites happy they told them yeah we're going to keep the blacks down and that way uh you know you can feel like you're special and you can feel like you're you know bigger than you are and it's the classic tactic and you know that damn well it wasn't it wasn't that um brainwashing from the rich it wasn't an unfortunately a very common uh idea yeah that blacks bought themselves it was a way that blacks were inferior to whites that is something that they thought if that thought that way in the north they thought that way in the south white people thought that way everybody was also thought that way everybody was racist but guess what before the landowners and the capital including blacks before the landowners everybody everybody means everybody even blacks put themselves in the issue is in the late 1800s 1890s farmers alliance populist party sure people were racist but they were having alliances with uh black people and they were you know fighting against the uh the ruling class and then the southern democrats came and completely changed the nature of the um political situation by making racial politics the biggest thing so yeah i'm not saying they weren't racist but i'm saying the race the political division based on race was a hundred percent the result of the ruling class dividing the working man by race and everyone knows everyone knows when white workers went on strike they would try to have the black people be the scabs everybody knows that the racial division was being used by the capitalists in the south and it continued to be used well into the uh even today it's still being used that's a fact it was whites and blacks poor people together that instituted the blair mountain rebellion that got labor rights and got them off script pay and that went on into the 1920s they still had slavery they just what they do is say oh you get paid but not in real money you get paid with this script that can only use yeah so when black when black and white workers unite that's the biggest danger to the ruling class so that's how they keep them divided and keep them separated and keep them hating each other that form of slavery was most prominent in the north i'm not denying it you know i'm a marxist i'm not a i'm not a i'm not just saying i defend lincoln and that's it i i agree the there was you know what marks you know the reason marks supported lincoln isn't because he said that it's going to be a great time you know with the northern system and with the industrial capitalism he said it's because slavery was keeping the workers divided now once it's gone and the union wins all the workers can now unite together and topple the system together and that's why he supported it lincoln did not oppose slavery until the middle of the war and lincoln was a mercantilist that used state funding but it's a good capitalist in railroad and steel foundries as much as taking state money to prop up the wealthy in the north as much as the wealthy northern capitalists came and uh did a were really brutal in the south i know about all that as much as that happened it's still a good thing that those slaveocrats were overthrown oh it's it's good that slavery ended but that wasn't the aim of the war that's like there was a war in vietnam and then we had civil rights the two things are not related not just good that slavery ended it's also good that the slavocrats no longer controlled everything in the south and now there is an opportunity no they just had the slaver cats in the north institute script paying genocide indians it didn't matter and like i said they let those sharecroppers starve to death they didn't care like you're free now right stars everybody care at least everyone was put on an equal footing and could unite together and topple the system now that's what that weren't really because everybody under reconstruction was not under an equal footing no matter what color they were and if you were red you were getting shot

Well, guess what?

You know, we know reality is brutal.

We know it's cruel.

Nobody's making a moral argument.

We're making the argument that the destruction...

Oh, okay.

Well, I'm making the argument that Lincoln was not in line with Marx in that regard because Lincoln was one of those top hat-wearing capitalists, like the definition of it, pure crony capitalism.

That's what he was.

I think you're being a little too harsh on Lincoln.

I think a lot of people around Lincoln were corrupt.

I agree.

But, you know, the fact of the matter is that the outcome was better than before.

It was a better outcome.

It was a better fighting chance.

You know, every time you're given an opportunity, it doesn't mean they take it.

Yeah, the workers failed to topple the system.

That's why we're living in this bankster dictatorship now.

But the opportunity, imagine if we had slavery now, how much harder it would be for working people to come together and unite.

He made a move to end slavery to try to instigate slave revolts because they were losing on the battlefield despite having five times the population and inheriting the Navy.

They couldn't deal with Robert E.

Lee.

Well, look, I don't know what to tell ya.

Right now, there's nothing that's good about s causing racial division in this country.

I don't agree about that.

I hate racial genealogy.

I can't stand racist.

And what I see, more modern prejudices towards Southerners.

Like, y'all are a bunch of backward cousin fucking racist hillbillies.

That's all you hear in Hollywood.

That's not condemned.

At least when someone's being racist, the blacks, browns, reds, whatever, it's socially unacceptable and condemned.

And there's rules against it.

But you can stereotype the southerners all day.

Well, a lot of our party...

which is a communist party are in the south and after hurricane helene we mobilized thousands in relief to go down and help communities in the south and we're still working in the south labor organizing and all this kind of stuff and uh do you have something uh specific that people could work with uh are we have a program on our website acp.us it also records all of our posts about what our party's been doing and all of our chapters have been doing a lot of them are in the south um and yeah i mean we don't we're not against southerners we we have a big base of support in the south and a lot of membership in the south actually some of our best members are southerners i think some of our toughest and most dedicated and strongest people and we're not here to be against southern people we're here to um organize in the south and organize communities and you know bring people together but

The problem is that when you ha go down the road, his solutions for it.

Well

He d you know, you'll be surprised about the solutions that there's a lot of room for interpretation, frankly.

Marx didn't focus on solutions.

He said, Well, it's up to us to have the solutions.

He just gave us the tools to understand the world and system we live in.

The way I read it is he was saying it was a process of history and we weren't there yet.

But that is not how most people see it.

No, he he he was saying both.

He's saying it's a process of history and now we have to respond to it and take up the calling and uh or and if we don't take up the calling, you know, we're gonna go into a spiral of uh you know of decay and uh d you know self-destruction, which I think is true.

We have to respond to the tendency of history.

History is yearning for a great change, for a great uh you know a great uprising even.

And uh if we're not up to task in responding to that, it's going to happen either way, but it's not going to happen in a way that benefits us.

It's going to happen in a dest purely destructive way.

Such as a lot more variables to that, but bringing it back to Holdemar, are you of the opinion that there were all these great famines, but they did not intentionally target Christians and wasn't some Jewish conspiracy?

And what do you think the numbers were?

Not 30 million, but what do you think it was?

They estimate about 3 million people perished in the famine of 32, 33.

Just in Ukraine.

No, no, throughout the whole thing.

And 30, people need to understand that that was the last, besides we're talking about World War II, which is a different story.

That was the last great famine in Russia's history.

They had famines periodically and nobody cared.

They just said that was natural.

That's the way it is.

And they had a really vicious one during a period of intensive, intensive industrialization where they were anticipating they're going to be invaded and they need to produce tanks and tanks and tanks and planes and guns and equipment and everything to defend themselves.

So they were under pressure to industrialize really, really fast.

And to do that, they had to do the collectivization.

And unfortunately, you know, it was a chaotic, chaotic process, and there were too many.

That was a drought.

We have it in the U.S.

It was called the Dust Bowl, same exact time.

The whole world was experiencing a drought at the time.

And then you add on to all of the chaos, especially with Kulags burning all the cattle and burning all the crops to resist the collectivization.

It was an extremely chaotic, disastrous thing that happened, which culminated in a famine.

And they ended it as quickly as they could to respond to it.

And once that...

Well, what does that mean exactly?

We say totalitarianism implies the government has total control and is completely in control of everything.

But who is the government?

The government are millions and millions of people who are personnel who are working for the government.

And those people were drawn from the ranks of ordinary common people.

They weren't aliens from outer space.

It was regular people, neighbors, people in your community.

And were there people abusing their authority and their power?

Sure.

But then why do people complain that when the Great Purges come around and Stalin kills all those people abusing their power, he's somehow a bloodthirsty monster?

But even the mainstream historians say that the common people love the Great Purges because it opened opportunity for them and it brought a lot of people committing abuse to justice.

You can't just do wealth distribution through murder.

Well, that's not what it was.

It wasn't about wealth distribution.

It was about wealth production.

It was about industrialization.

And the Kulaks didn't want that to happen.

They just wanted to hoard grain and not have that grain be put to use to purchase machinery and equipment that could improve and industrialize.

Wealth distribution, I agree, doesn't really do a whole lot because where does the wealth come from in the first place?

But when you have wealth production and you're making sure that material wealth is being produced and expanded on a huge scale, that's a good thing.

Well, obviously the market favored grain because people eat it and it was useful and they end up dead because they didn't have it.

You might want those machines and those tanks and those whatever.

If it comes at the cost of you don't have enough food and you have to sacrifice millions of people.

Well, if you don't, if it's mismanaged and it's all the worst combination of factors, yeah, I agree.

A lot of horrible things could happen.

And did happen under and did happen in that famine 3233.

But remember, under the market system, the grain was not being put to use.

It wasn't being consumed by cities.

There wasn't enough of it, spare enough of it to afford machinery and parts, and people were kept in backward conditions.

Now, that's all well and fine.

People can just live in an underdeveloped, pre-modern state like the medieval times.

But here's the issue.

When you have countries that want to invade your country and enslave you and take over everything, how are you going to defend yourself if you're not industrialized?

So it's a difficult decision to have to make.

to, you know, manage all that and be responsible for all that.

But look, when you look at it in the long term perspective, it was the last thing.

The industrialization was overall good.

It came at huge cost, I agree.

It was harsh, it was brutal, but generations and generations of people

could grow up, you know, educated and healthy and have a fighting chance at a fully developed state's industrialized and they had their going pains, but they did not sacrifice millions of people.

They didn't sacrifice their own people, but they sacrificed people abroad in India and in the colonies and in the New World and in everywhere else.

They did a lot of that after industrialization, too.

I don't think imperialism, I don't think they fed themselves through that.

I'm talking earlier, way earlier than the British or French Empire.

You know, when I'm talking about picking between putting your RD into technology or into agriculture, typically, nobody should agriculture is always first.

It's only when you have a surplus of that that you get to do the other fun things.

Listen, if you have a world market and you have a world economy, you don't need to do that.

But the Soviets were blocked off from the whole world.

So that's why they were put in that desperate circumstance where end famine forever, but it could be potentially chaotic and unforeseeable, or you know, continue risking more famines and more famines and more invasions.

And it's a horrible, impossible choice.

But they were blockaded from the whole world.

They were isolated from the world.

What could they have done?

Now that we live in a world that's interconnected, I mean, with China taking leadership of the world market and world economy, these kind of choices don't have to be made anymore.

But it's like, you know, these are the tough decisions they were put in.

And they didn't know there was going to be a famine, obviously.

But yeah, they took the risk.

And, you know, it was in the short term, it was really ugly and hideous.

But in the long term, you know, the result speaks for itself.

They fought off the Nazis.

But look, I wanted to say.

You know, with industrialization, a lot of people.

They had some help fighting the Nazis.

Well, that's something we can talk about too.

But here's the thing.

Everyone talks about the Holodomor, quote unquote.

But what about the Irish potato famine, which killed like one-sixth of the entire population in Ireland, which is way more than what the Holodomor killed for people in Ukraine and in Russia and the whole Soviet Union in general?

Why don't they say that was a genocide in the same way?

How is it a you know, why don't they exaggerate those numbers like they do for the Soviets?

I mean, the British killed way more people.

than all communism combined.

And nobody gives them any slack for it.

Nobody gives them anything for it.

Oh, I do.

Yeah, well I'm just trying to say, you know, people need to understand how much these narratives are propaganda, especially NATO propaganda, and that's what it is, it's NATO propaganda, because they say they Russia committed a genocide against Ukraine and therefore, you know, Ukraine uh should be able to defend itself from um having to you know treat its Donbass speaking population as equal.

And, you know, it's crazy to defend communism in the USA.

But I went to Donbass and I went there myself and I talked to people in what's called what used to be called Ukraine.

And all they have are statues of Lenin and Stalin.

And they have nothing but good things to say about Stalin.

And they fly the Soviet flag proudly.

And they, you know, and I tell them I'm a communist.

And, you know, 30% of them say me too.

The other ones say, you know, it's totally normal.

They're, I mean, people like Truth Teller, who's got a Russian flag in his name and is trying to represent Russia somehow.

I'd like to see him go to Donbass himself and just talk to people on the street because he'd be considered a freak for the things he's saying.

And Donbass had the right to secede.

Yeah, they did, because uh there was a their flag looks very familiar to another flag.

Well, that's true, but uh that's not because they like the Confederacy, it's because they, you know, they sympathize with the, you know, the what is that show called where they got the flag on the top of the car.

What is that called again?

Dukes of Hazzard?

Dukes a Hazzard.

They like the lost cause rebel spirit of reality that came after.

It came after.

That was like the mid-20th century.

Why the Dukes of Hazard was still played in the 2000s.

There wasn't an issue with the Confederate flag.

Nobody had that twisted version that you had until very recently.

That wasn't seen as a racist symbol.

That's why it was on TV.

Even like Kid Rock and Leonard Skynyrd and Stone Cold C.

Voss.

It was all over pop culture.

Very popular show in the North, too.

And they named the car the General Lee.

Jessica Simpson played Daisy Dukes in the late 90s, early 2000s.

I'm not going to have an opinion on whether that flag is, you know, I personally think the war is over.

But here's my take on the South.

I don't think Southerners are a bunch of racists who are bad people.

I think what happened is that, you know, Southern workers and southern people got it really bad when it comes to what they call in Marxism proletarianization, which is basically dispossession.

Not of the slaves.

I'm saying of like, you know, homes and, you know, things like that.

And they were put into debt.

They were impoverished, pauperized in the South.

Capitalism was extremely ruthless and brutal in the South.

And people created this illusion that, you know, the South was a lost cause, the Confederacy was the lost cause to defend them from all those brutal things.

So they started, you know, waving the Confederate flag and identifying with it because they had that illusion.

But I don't agree with that.

But I don't think that it was because they loved slavery or they were racist, but it was just because...

Nah, the battle flag is the most popular flag, which is honoring veterans.

And it just became a symbol of Southern culture in general, all things from all different eras.

The Black Panther Party allied with a group called the Young Patriots, which were from, I think it was West Virginia.

And it was a white organization who flew the Confederate flag.

Martin Luther King formed the Mississippi Freedom Party and used the Confederate battle flag, which was also in the Mississippi state flag.

Well look, I personally I personally don't like the flag, but I'm not here to say that everyone is racist for having used it because it's not the reason.

But you know well I'm just trying to get you in the audience to understand that no one considered that racist up until recent times.

That's why it was allowed in popular culture like the Dukes of Hazard.

Although on T V and stuff that would if that was an actual like you would never have a swastika on T V that conversation out because at the end of the day I'm not you know I'm not I don't know that much about southern culture and whatever you know my parents came here.

You don't have to you don't have to know much about it.

I'm saying it would they ever allow a swastika on the top of a car on a T V show?

No.

Not unless they're the bad guy.

Fuck no.

But they did allow a Confederate flag and then no protests about it, nothing like that.

They did allow bases named after Confederate generals and they allowed statues and things.

All that stuff gotta start to get taken down during the woke era because to get the bottom class to eat itself, they need to foster racial division and paint things start twisted history and pit blacks and whites and everybody at each other's throats.

Well, you know, look, um

Again, my parents came to this country when they were about seven or nine years old.

I'm very, so I consider myself new to this country.

And, you know, these kind of disputes, I'm just going to sit them out, frankly, the cultural stuff about the legacy and stuff.

I care about history a lot.

I care about these kind of things.

But uh you know, those things I'm not gonna

Be really involved in.

Now, I don't think Don Boss just liked the Dukes of Hazzard.

I think Don Boss saw a secession movement in America that half the country agreed with.

It's a Russian naval flag, so there's that.

I have heard the theory that they were inspired by the South, but it's they sang Dixie in Russian.

Yeah, but it's not because they identify with the Confederacy, it's because the southern culture you're talking about, where it's like a rebel flag, like just identify with the right to secede.

Uh I think that's I think it's a I think it came from the um dukes of havard hazard stuff, frankly, if anything.

So Don Boss in the middle of the secession movement puts up most prominent secessionist flag, but it's about a TV show in America.

Because I'll tell you why, because Don Bass is a lot like West Virginia because it's a coal region and they're kind of considered a little bit, you know, hillbillies or whatever, and not necessarily the most refined.

They share similarities with the South because they are left behind.

West Virginia was in the Union.

Yeah, but you go to West Virginia today and there's a lot of those flags, frankly.

You go to Northern Michigan.

Yeah.

Well, a lot of Northerners have that flag 'cause they agree with secession.

Well you it's okay to like someone else's culture.

There are people who have Japanese kanju tattoos that aren't Japanese.

That's okay.

It's a lost cause idea that's not really connected to the actual history in my opinion.

I did.

Put the money down there.

It didn't.

Well, it depends on how you interpret it.

I'm not going to put a trap and put money on it and then have it mean something.

Well, he did it, and then years later, there's still slavery in both sides.

You know, we can go in circles, but here's the thing.

I at least can accept.

No, there's no circles.

Slavery still existed after he made the proclamation in the north and south.

And yet it was not changed until the 13th Amendment after Lincoln is free.

And it was ended by the 13th Amendment.

No, not a single slave was set free by the 13th Amendment.

Not one.

I don't know about that.

Look, in any case, I know you don't know about it.

That's why I'm telling you.

If all slave instances of slavery didn't end, the planter class was destroyed.

And that's as much as I know.

Anyway, well, every class was destroyed.

They burned the cities down.

Well, everybody got destroyed.

Planters in particular were destroyed.

The equivalent death count that America had a war today is like going to war and losing 17 million people.

That's how bad that was.

Brian, I'll tell you something.

I think if you were alive during the Civil War, you would have joined the Union side.

No, I would have been on the native side because that's what my people were doing.

And I actually had a relative that was on both sides.

He started on the union.

I think you would have to.

But after Sherman went around raping and burning everything, he joined the South.

I think you would have been on the Union side.

I think you just lacked the confidence.

Absolutely not.

Look, if I lived, wherever I live, if I lived in the South and my state got invaded, I'm siding with my neighbors and my land.

Well, you know, here's the thing.

Here's the thing.

There's a bunch of reasons for secession.

The reason there was a war is because the North invaded.

There was no dream of the South invading the North and taking them over and forcing the government.

Brian, we're not going to agree on this topic, but at the very least, I'll give you this.

You can't sit there and go, I bet you would have fought me very angry.

That's insulting as hell.

I'll give you this.

At least you're not a LARPer and you believe what you do because a lot of people from the South believe what you do.

I don't agree with it at all.

But at least you're not like truth teller who's LARPing as Orthodox and representing an Orthodox Christian, whatever perspective, and is basically bullshitting and lying to the whole world on purpose.

I'm from an island that actually sided with the North.

They had a little mosquito feet battle or something, and they had hospitals and they took injured soldiers from both sides.

We weren't in it.

And the natives got crushed by America and it would have been crushed by the CSA.

It wouldn't have made a difference.

I'm just looking at it factually.

Lincoln was a crony capitalist tyrant.

No.

He did it for the revenue.

That came out of his own mouth.

We're not going to agree on that.

It came out of his own mouth, his first address to Congress.

We're not going to agree on that at all.

He didn't do an Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of the war.

He did it in the middle of the war, and it didn't free any slaves.

Ryan, we're going to talk about it.

And the planter class is gone from history.

Wiped away.

Okay, guys.

Yeah, and we have civil rights because of the war in Vietnam, because it both happened at the same time.

Identify with the planter class so much.

It's nonsense.

I'm not.

Those people had not, those were extremely elite people that controlled everything, and you're defending them right now.

No matter who won the war, the elite people on the other side were going to have everything taken from them.

Yeah, but like I said, the planter class was holding back development.

They were holding back industry.

They weren't holding back industry.

The industry that made more money was cash crops that they could use on everything else.

But what was happening is even though they were paying 80%, shut up and listen.

Even though they were bringing in 85% of the revenue, it wasn't being look.

If the South got to keep its own taxes, they could build industry.

The North had more people and they could vote themselves money.

All they had to do, all they had to do is say, I want to go in circles.

This is going to be certainly certain.

We'll make the South pay, and then we'll take the money and spend it on Boston and Philly and New York.

This is going to go back to cotton.

Cotton is slavery.

We're going in circles.

Yeah, it's going wrong.

No, you said that that held industry back.

I'm saying the distribution of the tax money.

You can't build infrastructure if they're going to take the money you just earned and spend it in some other city somewhere else.

The planters didn't want industrial circumstances.

That's why the Confederate Constitution had a uniformity of taxes.

They got their cotton gin.

They were going to keep everyone in this horrible slavery nonsense forever.

And poor people.

Where money being red that was being ginned up from the cotton gin and everything else was being spent in the North.

They were mad at Yankees way before the war, way before any discussion of slavery.

It was being spent in the North, then why did they want to expand to the new territories?

Why wouldn't you want new territory?

Because they all they were because all they were doing listen, slavery was uh complete uh

impediment to the development of the USA.

It's just a fact.

Oh, I think slavery is awful.

But it existed on both sides.

And it had only recently been abolished in some of the northern states where it had been, but only for blacks.

But they still had other types of slaves.

They still enslaved Asians.

They still enslaved natives.

They still had scriptures.

They were about something.

And the reason the North finally phased out slavery is because wage slavery is cheaper because there's no initial capital.

When you buy a slave, that's like $40,000.

If you have a wage slave, you have no initial capital to put in, and you're easily replacing labor.

It's cheaper than slaves.

Let's not beat around the bush here, all right?

Real slavery, the planter slavery, the southern slavery, that was a completely different beast than wage slavery.

That slavery existed in the north and the south.

That slavery is that infamy of the slavery and the west.

The infamy of that slavery is well known to history.

The abolitionists shined light on it, and it was nothing like anything that existed in the north.

It was exactly what existed in the North.

It's larger scale in Mississippi and Alabama.

That kind of slavery that we're talking about in the South, that was rape, it was sexual slavery, it was every kind of horrible, twisted torture, you name it.

And wage slavery's bad, but listen, it's not like that.

All right.

I'm not arguing that pro-slavery or anything.

You said that that was keeping them down industrially.

I'm saying no, moving the revenue from one area to another because you have m larger population and you can vote yourself money.

Only the union winning led to the destruction of the slavery.

That's the outcome.

Forget the intention.

That was the outcome.

They're not fighting over slavery, then.

That's the only point I'm trying to make.

Well, who are we?

This is what I want to distinguish for you.

You switched from they fought to end slavery and emancipation in slavery.

Lincoln was anti-slavery too.

Well, consequentially, slavery ended about a year after the war was over.

I want to make a distinction.

All right.

Now, the underlying causes of the northern ruling classes who ran the north, were they morally about slavery?

No, they didn't give a shit, right?

I agree.

Well, they were bankers.

Yeah, they didn't care about slavery.

I agree.

No, no, the banking class had slaves.

They just kept them abroad.

All right, but here's the thing: right, when it came to the northern morale, those union soldiers and the people in the north, and how what they were rallying and how they were seeing the war and what they were fighting and dying for in their own eyes was to eliminate this wicked institution from the face of the earth.

No, it wasn't.

It was so unpopular.

No, a lot of northerners deserted the Union Army after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln had to get conscripts from abroad.

He had over 250,000 Irish,000 Germans.

Why did Brown do what they did?

Why did John Brown do what?

40% of the Union Army were foreign mercenaries because they didn't have a cause and none of them cared about it in slavery or not.

Let them have it.

That's why they had riots.

They say, what?

We're fighting over slaves.

F them in words.

They didn't want that.

You mean they were immigrants?

Conscripts from abroad.

Were they immigrants or what?

You're saying mercenaries.

What do you mean?

Some of them are mercenaries right off the boat.

So, I mean, you're an immigrant for two minutes.

You know, here, welcome to America.

Here's your rifle.

Here's your uniform.

Why I can't agree with this narrative because Marx had a friend.

Well, he had a falling out with him later.

His name was August Willich.

He was a German communist.

He literally immigrated to the U.S.

to fight for the Union, to fight slavery.

And I read his whole thing, and the whole thing was about slavery for them.

There were people like that.

felt that propaganda.

But I'm saying the northerners who started the war to get the revenue didn't go for that cause.

They had to conscript foreigners.

They had to get conscription for foreigners.

And most of them weren't doing it for the end slavery either.

They needed a paycheck.

Well, look, I'm not sure.

You can be fighting people in such a desperate situation.

You could be fighting slavery as an institution without doing so for moral reasons necessarily.

But they were fighting the social structure called slavery in the South, objectively.

No, they're just fighting because they're Americans and their country's at war.

And a lot of people in the South, they weren't fighting to protect slavery either.

They're 'cause there's a Northern army invading into their town.

Well, look, the objective outcomes are what matter, not necessarily.

Same with a lot of Ukrainians.

A lot of Ukrainians are not fighting Russia because they're a bunch of neo-Nazis or something.

A lot of them can't stand Zelensky or Ihor Kolomoisky or the oligarchs.

They're just doing it because they defect to Russia.

They're called the Maxim, I think it's Maxim Krivanos Battalion.

I went and saw them.

A lot of Ukrainians aren't fighting for the political reasons of Zelensky.

They're just fighting because they're from Ukraine and there's a foreign army on what they consider their territory.

Well, I don't know how much of those there are, to be honest, because there's not much left of Ukraine's army now.

They're having a hard time pressing people into service.

Yeah.

All right, if we're going to continue the Holodomor thing, I got to take a break and go eat something really quick.

So, um, well, I was thinking we should wrap up because I spoke to Truth Teller and he's not gonna come.

He said he wants to not debate now, and possibly in a week or two, I told him that maybe the debate won't be on then because obviously I didn't expect you to be wanting, like, willing to debate someone like truth anyway.

But he is saying that he's not gonna turn up, um, so that's um, yeah, that's a shame.

Well, Soliman, thank you so much for hosting it anyway.

I hope it was uh entertaining and interesting for people, anyway.

Um, sorry, hijacked it.

Someone says something about Lincoln like that, I'm gonna get triggered.

Yeah, right.

And the person that was supposed to debate Holdemar wasn't here anyway, so whatever.

That's true.

I mean, the conversation did divert a bit.

Um, I think people wanted to hear about Holdemar.

I think Jordan did have a counter to the point where he was trying to claim that the vast majority of the Bolsheviks, and not the sorry, let me rephrase that, that they were disproportionately Jewish.

So, he was going to make that argument, and then I know Haz was going to debunk that point, but I guess we didn't get a chance to go down that road.

Um, in the very beginning, they were very beginning.

Disproportionate could mean you're 5% of the population, but you have 11% representation.

That's all disproportionate means.

Um, and the disproportionate representation was much more represented for Latvians than it was for Jews in the beginning.

It's just that the treaty of Brest-Litvosk cut Latvia away from the rest of the Russian territory, or what later became the Soviet Union, and that's why Latvians stopped being so overrepresented.

But they would have been disproportionate would be like the Biden cabinet.

Well, let's just take those claims at face value that Biden's cabinet is that way.

Nothing like that existed in the Bolshevik government, nothing.

Nothing at that.

Nothing like that.

It's never been that bad until him.

Jews, majority of Jews in Russia were against the Bolsheviks.

They voted against them in the Constituent Assembly elections.

And, you know, if Jews, the Jews that were prominently represented in the Bolsheviks, if they controlled the Bolsheviks, how come so many were killed?

People got to understand what control means.

Anyway, someone has their hand up.

Yeah, Joe, jump in and then we gotta probably wrap up questions.

Yeah, look, I brought it up early, and then Haas agreed to it that, yeah, there were seven that began the Bolsheviks.

No, no, no, no, no, I didn't say that.

You're taking words out of my account.

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

You are putting words in my mouth.

For a very brief period, the Bolshevik.

No, the beginning was in the early 1900s.

We're not talking about the beginning.

We're talking about an extremely provisional, it's like a scrambling, okay, we're going to form the Politburo.

It's going to change in a month.

It's going to change in a year.

And yeah, there was a case where the Politburo.

The most deadly time.

Right?

Yeah, but that doesn't say anything about who's.

Yeah, but Suleiman, this is kind of ridiculous, childish behavior.

I'm trying to actually.

I'm trying to actually finish my point.

And he's just interrupting me.

One second, Joe.

You basically said he said seven.

I actually know that he didn't say seven.

He said three out of seven.

So let him clarify the point you made that.

Then I'll go to the other side.

No, no, no.

He's trying to say, Soleiman, he's trying to say that I said he said at the founding.

He's trying to say at the founding.

I never said at the founding.

At the founding, this wasn't the case.

It just so happens to be that Zenoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky were in the leadership for a brief period.

But all three of those people were killed later.

And moreover, after 1924, the amount of Jews in the Politburo ranged between 0% and 10%.

All right.

And a lot of that was 0%, by the way.

You know, even less than 10%.

A lot of you're talking about one out of 13 people, right?

You say you have 13 people.

Does he get to address the point or just keep rambling on?

The point is, just because for like one month.

Here's the thing.

Just because for one month.

At least now you're.

It wasn't for one month, and you know it wasn't for one month.

All right, I'll give you the exact time.

You're right.

It wasn't for one month.

It was like three months, right?

And you forget when you said three out of seven, you forget that Lenin had also Jewish ethnicity.

No, no, I'm willing to dispute that.

I'm willing to dispute the claims that Lenin.

It was four out of seven.

And all the ones that left, all the ones that left and went to go spread anarchism across the world, including the U.S., where they tried to kill a political leader.

All of those people were not.

Why are you getting emotional?

Why are you getting emotional?

Is it because I exposed you?

This is why it's very difficult.

This is why, by the way, it's very difficult.

They are the Jewish problem.

Herzl said this.

Why don't we bring them to Palestine?

That's why he went to go visit Russia.

This is before the Bolsheviks.

So there was a lot of anarchy coming from the Jewish population when this started.

And then when they joined the Bolsheviks, they had the deadliest period of time ever.

So when you say, hey, this wasn't a Jewish thing, you're right.

It wasn't a Jewish thing.

The most deadly part though happened when Jewish took over leadership.

Right, and that's the part that you refused to admit yesterday when it's absolutely true.

Red terror happened under them.

The gulags have theirs.

Just let me know when you're done menstruating.

Joe, I'm gonna have to time it because uh Joa, I understand you have an emotional investment in this story you've given yourself in your head.

I have no emotional investment.

I'm trying, all right.

You know what?

This is gotta work somehow where I can get sent.

You can't just like go on for like two minutes and then not let him speak and then overspeak him.

Let has finish, and then I'll go to you.

And if he continues, then I'll just time it.

But just let Haz finish his point.

Go ahead, Haz.

Right.

A lot of emotional attachment to a narrative, which you can't substantiate on the basis of fact.

I already showed you that a Jewish anarchist named Fanny Kaplan literally tried to kill and shoot Lenin.

So to say that Jewish anarchists were aligned with Bolsheviks is complete nonsense.

Now, were there Yiddish anarchists?

Yeah, but the majority of the anarchists, for example, in the U.S., those were the Ellis Islanders like Sacco and Vanzetti, which were Italians.

The anarchists were actually primarily Catholic, not Jewish.

The stronghold of anarchism was in Spain, and they were all primarily Catholic.

Not that they were atheists, obviously, but if you want to talk about to the same extent, Jews were Jews while still being atheists.

That's what I mean.

Catholic backgrounds.

So you're completely wrong on the front of anarchists.

Can I reply now?

Hold on, let me let me continue.

He made the point about the three out of seven and making a big deal.

We can name the three individuals, Trotsky, Zenoviev, and Kamenev.

They weren't in charge of the Bolsheviks because those guys were shot.

Two of them, two of those three were actually against the Bolshevik Revolution.

And one of them, Trotsky, went against Lenin's desires for peace in Brest-Ledvosk and tried to sabotage the peace negotiations.

So these were not Bolsheviks in spirit.

That's why they were shot.

You claim that Lenin had Jewish ancestry.

I know this is a widely widely claimed thing, and it's also something that mainstream media says.

But I actually dispute it because there's evidence which shows that this was a misattribution of who Lenin's grandfather was.

Suppose Lenin had a Jewish grandfather named Alexander Blank, who was Jewish.

But what most people don't know is that there's two Alexander Blanks.

One of them was Jewish, and one of them was an Orthodox merchant family who Lenin actually descended from.

And if you look at the actual evidence, the Alexander Blank, who they claim was Lenin's grandfather, was three to four years older than Lenin's actual grandfather.

And he could not receive any rank given the right of nobility, which Lenin's grandfather did.

So the document that claimed that Lenin's grandfather was the Jewish guy was deliberately distorted.

And the blank is a Russified German uh and it's a it's a German surlane which translates to brilliant.

And, you know, his mother, Maria Blank, was also a Russified German.

So the claim that the Soviet historians actually went with, which was that Lenin's grandfather was a Russified German, actually was the truth.

The claim that it was a Jew was bullshit propaganda that was spread by far-right circles in the 20s and 30s.

And these people were saying Stalin was Jewish.

They were saying everyone was Jewish.

And they were wrong.

They were proven wrong.

But this was somebody who's claiming that it was Jewish.

So he gets a lot of minutes.

I'll complain when I get to.

Right.

I'm at timing out because everyone's wanting.

So from now, you got two minutes.

Everyone has two minutes.

God.

Yeah.

Look, Soliman, the world, every single AI model, all research papers show that Lenin's grandfather was Jewish and he converted to Orthodox, right?

It's not a separate person.

They converted, right?

That still means he's ethnically Jewish.

If Judaism is an ethnicity, he's ethnically Jewish.

So that's four out of seven, not three out of seven.

So you want to make up some story about it.

And I'm not emotional about it because I, since the very beginning, have said it's not the Jews.

This is not a Jewish problem, right?

Of what's going on in Israel and Gaza.

But when you deny that there was a radical group, and that radical group to me still continues today, they're called the Likud, right?

That radical group still exists today.

Herzl went to Russia to meet with them, to propose all these anarch Jews that are there conducting tons of violence.

Why not send them all to Palestine?

That's why Herzl was there.

And even Herzl wrote that, yes, the Zionists, not the Zionists at the time, but the anarchists are mostly Jewish in that region.

So for you to say, because this Jewish person tried to, that's untrue.

That's like saying because a Republican tried to murder Trump in Butler, the Republicans are not with Trump.

It's faulty rationale, right?

Just because one person does one act, that doesn't discount the acts of all the other people.

Like your rationale completely falls apart.

It's a stupid point.

Alright, two points.

One is about Lenin's ancestry, the other is about anarchism.

So Lenin's ancestry, yes, there wasn't only one Alexander Blank.

There was in fact a recorded Russified German Alexander Dmitrievich Blank, who is who is completely unrelated to the guy who was said to be Jewish.

And the fact is that the two were deliberately mixed up.

So, you know, you're just claiming here that there wasn't another Alexander Blank.

There was only one.

One was born in 1794, the other was in 1804.

I mean, you're claiming that this isn't true.

Well, I'm claiming it is.

I can give you the link if you want it.

I don't think there's much more to be pressed on that topic.

You're not going to agree.

If it is true that what you're saying is true, there's no evidence that Lenin had any knowledge of it anyway.

But no, it's not true.

If you look at the Kazan archive with the funds of the Providence.

Doesn't everyone disagree?

Historians around the world disagree with that fact.

Historians around the world.

Everything rests upon something that was supposedly taken from the Soviet archive in the 90s when we know there's precedent for things being fabricated from there, where Lenin's sister wrote a letter to Stalin claiming, oh, we just found out that Alexander Blank was Lenin's grandfather.

And as you know, he was...

It sounded fake.

It's completely dubious.

I don't buy into it.

I don't believe it.

But in any case, you know, I'm not going to sit here and claim that's a crock pot conspiracy claim.

It is something that, you know, was reproduced in the New York Times in the 1990s and the Western press pushed it, conveniently empowering a lot of the anti-communist narratives in the 90s, which, you know, whether that played into the hands of the Western interests, I'll leave you to decide.

But in any case, I don't buy it.

I personally don't buy it.

Now, the thing about anarchists, the idea that Fanny Kopan was an isolated incident, similar to the Republican who shot Trump.

I mean, we're talking about Nestor Makhno in Ukraine fighting against the Bolshevik and fighting against the Red Army.

He was an anarchist.

We're talking about the various anarchist rebellions, including later the Kronstadt Rebellion.

We're talking about the founders of anarchism, which include Bakunin, who hated Jews, really hated them, and was more anti-Semitic than Nazis in terms of he believed in genociding them and completely eliminating.

No, no, no, no, no, no, you're not going to interrupt me.

You're not going to interrupt me.

The founders of Russian anarchism.

Are you timing this, Soliman?

Yeah, but 30 seconds.

So what happened was he was one minute in and then you interrupted him.

Right.

So then you interrupted for 20 seconds and asked him a question.

So it was kind of like, do I let him finish tomorrow?

Right, because he's emotionally invested.

He's emotionally invested.

That's why.

Listen, listen, the founders of Russian anarchism were students and disciples of Bakunin.

These include people like Sergei Nikayev, and they weren't Jews.

The Yiddish or Jewish anarchists came afterwards.

So did the Bundists and all these other kinds of people, part of Jewish labor radicalism.

But the founders and the main figureheads weren't Jewish.

And by the way, it didn't even matter if they were because they hated the Bolsheviks anyway.

So.

With five seconds.

That's quadruple.

Yeah, I mean, look, this is easy.

From Paz's perspective, because there were Jews that wanted to kill Lenin, regardless of how many it was, that means that all of them are the same.

And therefore, they couldn't be Bolsheviks because someone wanted to kill Lenin that was Jewish.

This is the rationale.

This is stupid.

This is like saying, all Jews love chicken.

None of them love hamburger.

There's a big fraction of people who love chicken, so they can't possibly love hamburger.

This is how false your narrative is.

It's just like when you were arguing with Ryan.

Like your rationale, your points don't stick together.

You can't pick a group of people just because you're Jewish and be like, oh, because this happened, it's impossible for the other.

No, they're both possible, right?

They're both completely possible.

And you can see there were Jewish leaders, three out of seven.

One of them, you want to argue, the only person I've ever heard that wants to argue that Lenin was not a Jew, did not have Jewish ancestry, right?

Where every other historian in the world says there is.

So to me, four out of seven, but you want to point to one example of one person who tried to assassinate Lenin.

Therefore, Jews could not be Bolsheviks because they tried to even kill him.

It's a ridiculous argument.

It makes zero sense.

There's zero rationale in what you just said.

All right.

So this is kind of funny.

You're kind of all over the place.

You're claiming that I'm claiming that anarchists, whether they're Jewish or not, were against Bolsheviks just because of Fanny Koplan's assassination.

That's not what I said.

I also mentioned Nestor Makhno in Ukraine, who's the most prominent anarchist leader during the Russian Civil War who fought the Red Army.

They killed each other.

Can you name a single...

I want to kind of get to the three or four out of seven things you're making a big fucking deal about.

This is the Politburo.

It's literally seven guys.

No, it doesn't control everything.

It's answerable to the Central Committee, which is bigger.

And this is for a brief period.

It's not for the majority of the period in which there is a Politburo.

It's for a brief period.

And I named the three people, and all three of them were later killed.

So that's the extent of it.

To say that this, oh, they were three out of seven of the Bolsheviks, that's nonsense.

That was just people in the Politburo who had very specific and enumerated tasks that they had to fulfill.

These people were not people who were bossing everyone around who fucking ran everything.

It's complete fucking nonsense.

Now, I mean, it's like ignoring all the commissars.

It's ignoring all the people in the Red Army.

It's ignoring the Cheka, led by Felix Zerzhinsky, much more of a person with power and stuff.

So you don't even know how the power structure works.

You're complaining that I reject the notion that Lenin is Jewish.

Continue complaining.

I don't care.

And finally, can you name a single?

This is the question I want to ask you.

Can you name a single Bolshevik?

Can you name a single anarchist Jew who was a Bolshevik simultaneously?

Just one.

Clua.

Yeah, there was a party which was called.

I forget the name.

I actually just did a post about it not long ago.

They were called the Maximalists, which was all Jewish, right?

Who joined the Bolsheviks, right?

And that was a party of anarchists who joined the Bolsheviks.

If you want me to go look who made up that structure, I don't know.

I can go look it up.

But I do know that the Maximalists did join and gave power, and they were the most radical group.

It's almost like they're Irgun inside Israel.

That's exactly who they were.

So do you mean the socialist revolution?

100% Jewish.

You're not talking about Jewish anarchists.

Hold on, don't interrupt me.

Don't interrupt me.

All right, tell me when you're done.

The point is, is you kept saying, right, last night on your space, you kept saying this was not Jew, there were no Jews.

It was not the Jews.

They don't run the Jews because the Jews tried to kill Lenin and they were killed by Lenin.

They were killed by Stalin during the purge, right?

This is what you were saying last night.

But the issue is, is there was four out of seven of the leadership, but the top leadership was Jewish.

That's a lie.

You're lying.

You're actually lying.

What am I lying about?

You said it on the space.

You said three out of seven.

For an extremely brief period, the Politburo.

I didn't say the top leadership.

You said you were going to look.

The top, the top was composed of hundreds of people.

You said you were going to look for how long?

You said you were going to look for how long?

Look for what?

You admitted that it was the most.

It was an extremely brief period.

It was an extremely brief period.

Look up the dates.

Okay, three out of seven.

Second of April, nineteen twenty two.

It was the most deadliest.

No, it wasn't.

No, it wasn't.

The deadliest period of time, the deadliest period of time was during before 1922.

It's 1922 that three out of seven of the Political Bureau could be identified as Jewish.

So you're completely wrong.

But anyway, look, this was in 2nd of April 1922.

But look, let me explain this to you very simply.

What was the largest massacre?

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Jesus fucking Christ.

One at a time, dude.

You're so emotionally invested.

You can't even let me get a word in because I'm going to expose you for being a fraud.

You're the one that sounds like you got your panties in a bunch.

One thing at a time.

You're the one that sounds like you got your panties in a bunch.

You're menstrual.

One at a time.

Let me address one thing at a time because I know this tactic you guys play where you throw a bunch of shit at the wall waiting for something to stick.

You said the maximalists were Jewish.

They're the one moving the needle.

Wow, shut the fuck up.

Shut the fuck up.

Right.

Listen, you need to let Man said the problem is happening like you're interrupting.

And I think Hazard it to you once as well.

That then the peasant doesn't get the full two minutes.

So let Haz go for two minutes and then you'll go for two minutes.

Well, look at who's getting emotional now.

Okay.

Because you're literally menstrual.

You can't even let me get a word in.

It's crazy.

The maximalists you're talking about were the SRs.

They were the descendants of the Narodniks, right?

And the Maximalists are people you're claiming were Jewish anarchists, but they weren't anarchists.

They were the socialist revolutionaries.

Moreover, where's the evidence that they were Jews?

Name them.

It's widely known.

And by who?

The father of Zionism even wrote about it, Oz.

Where did the father of Zionism claim that the Naro.

You can keep moving the needle.

You can keep moving the needle.

The deadliest period of time was under Jewish leadership.

No, it wasn't.

It was under Felix Zerzhinski, who was Polish.

Felix Zerzhinski was the head of the Red Terror and the head of the Cheka.

The majority of the Red Terror was carried out by spiteful, vengeful peasants at the grassroots level.

Meanwhile, the organization of the Cheka was led by Felix Zerzhinsky, who was not a Jew.

And they were the ones killing anarchists, by the way, on a widespread scale.

Why?

Do you know what spurred the Red Terror?

What spurred the Red Terror was the Jewish anarchist Fanny Kaplan trying to kill Lenin.

That's what started it.

That's what started the Cheka's Red Terror.

And they persecuted the anarchists, including Jewish anarchists, on a very, very widespread level.

So you're completely wrong about these allegations and claims you're making.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

You claim the Maximalists were Jewish anarchists.

You pulled that out of your ass, straight from your ass.

Yeah, straight from the turtle to us, I guess.

Yeah, I mean look the point is is he says they weren't involved but then four out of seven for a very short period of time he says they were in there.

No, no, no, no, you're saying they you're saying they is an organized there was no organized Jewish power involved with the Bolsheviks none there were three Jewish guys that that I mentioned I mentioned three Jewish guys one of them is a half Jew by the way why is he interrupting Soli why is he interrupting uh he's the one that wants to he's the one the proud communist in America and telling me I'm the one who's emotional right there is a long because you won't shut the fuck up about the three out of seven like it's a big deal right it is a big deal you act like it's not it's not because it was only for a brief period and it was three guys I can name they were all shot go look it up Paz and it wasn't just three yeah there was three in the leadership what about the rest all right so so let me what about the ones that tried to spread 23rd of October 1926 okay okay will you at least say are you gonna say now in 1926 zero out of eight were Jews zero out of nine in 27 zero out of eight in 29 one out of ten in thirty one out of ten in thirty four one out of twelve and thirty five one out of eleven in thirty eight one out of ten in thirty eight one out of nine in 39 in 20 1925 it was two out of nine and before in 26 it was one out of nine so does this sound like they're running it

Ja.

Yeah.

Look, he keeps saying it's a short period of time.

It was almost ten years, right?

No, it wasn't.

No, there was no ten year period.

There was no ten year period.

There was no ten year period.

I gave you a ten year period of there being barely any misery.

Joel, what was the tenure?

Joe, what's the tenure of Provision?

Trotsky was part of the Trotsky was part of the Bolshevik movement from 17 to 24 and post, he still was acting until 27.

That's a 20-year period.

He's acting in opposition and was exiled.

A short few months.

A short few months.

A short few months.

It was years.

You are an actual schizo retard.

You're talking about two different things.

Trotsky being existing in the Soviet Union or in revolutionary Russia versus the composition of the Pulitzbuera are different topics.

Trotsky was in opposition after 1924 and exiled later in the 20s, in the second half of the 20s.

So how is he controlling everything if these things happen to him?

It makes no sense.

Zinoviev and Kamenev were allied with Bukharin, who was a non-Jew, and they had a power struggle with Stalin.

They were defeated.

They were later shot and killed in the 30s.

So how did they control a damn thing if they were getting shot?

Here he goes back again to the false rationale.

Just because people then turned against him doesn't mean he didn't have involvement before.

Learn that.

Not once did I deny.

I never denied that Trotsky had involved.

I never denied that.

Why are you so emotional?

Why are you so emotional that you have to keep interrupting?

I can't make a damn fact because Soliman, can I go have my burger for three minutes and then let this guy jibber and then when he's done?

Anyone can was Leon, right, a leader in the Bolshevik movement.

So Haz is going to take a break for five minutes while he eats.

So while he's gone, obviously we'll bring some people up and then he comes back, Jor and Haas can continue the debate.

What I'm going to do when they come back is I'm going to time it two minutes each.

I know I'm allowed to go back.

I got to get a flight, Soliman.

I got to start backing to get a flight.

All right, okay, cool.

So is your argument that there were a majority representation, four out of seven Jews, in the leadership of the Soviet Union or the Bolsheviks for a decade?

Is that your argument?

Just to understand.

No, for five years, definitely.

For a decade, they were still involved, but they didn't have the kind of power they had before.

I was just say something correct.

It wasn't an organized Jewish thing.

It wasn't.

It wasn't an organized Jewish thing.

They happened to be Jewish.

They happened to be anarchists.

Anarchy was widespread among the Jewish population during that time.

But the three or four people we're talking about weren't anarchists, okay?

So you don't know.

You're getting things scrambled and mixed up.

We're talking about like three guys here that you're overexaggerating their significance a lot, by the way, by having them be the faces of Jewish control.

It's kind of nonsense.

By the way, nobody's saying.

Come on.

Nobody's saying that there were no Jews.

Who's living off of Russian money in the U.S.?

You're claiming I live off of Russian money?

Dude, congratulations.

You completely discredited yourself and proved that you're a bullshitter to the world.

Everything you said about the Bolsheviks was nonsense enough, but now you've truly discredited yourself by claiming that I take Russian money.

Did you get that from the same source that told you that the Jewish anarchists?

Did you just say you take Russian money?

Did I just say you take Russian money?

What did you say?

When we stop talking over me, you would be able to hear me.

I said Trotsky was taking Russian money when he's living in New York, more than likely, because he was living a lavish lifestyle.

When was Trotsky taking money from Russia in New York?

While he was living in New York.

Before the revolution, the Tsar was giving him money?

He was living well beyond his means, just like Churchill did.

Before the revolution was talking about before the revolution, you're saying the Tsar was funding Trotsky's lifestyle.

What does that even mean?

I didn't say the Tsar, right?

There are movements that started.

The Bolsheviks didn't start when they took power.

That had been around for years.

But Trotsky wasn't part of the money.

Trotsky sided with the Mensheviks until September 1917.

So you need to understand history before mouthing off about it 'cause you sound stupid to a guy who knows about it.

So who?

So who f Bro, and you keep making the claim.

I agree with that statement but for a different reason.

Yeah, you keep making the claim that because some some got killed we couldn't have been with them to begin with.

I mean it's a ridiculous argument.

Hitman and the mob get killed all the time by their own people.

That doesn't mean that they weren't hitman for the mob.

Why are you moving?

Why are you pivoting?

Trotsky was not a Bolshevik.

That's an example of how stupid your heart is.

But you just said the Bolsheviks funded Trotsky in New York.

It makes no sense.

The Bolsheviks hated Trotsky before September.

I said he was funded by someone.

I said he did either.

You said he was funded by Russia, did you not?

By who?

I don't know.

Didn't you say Russia?

And also Churchill.

But why did you say he was funded by Russia?

Why did you say he was funded by Russia?

You don't listen.

You keep interrupting.

You said he was funded by Russia.

I said, I don't know.

Could have been Russia.

No, no, no.

You said Russia.

I remember you said Russia.

So I'm on.

You remember you said Russia?

Joe, you just said and afterwards you said both.

So you changed your story when you were pressing it.

I spoke over me, so you couldn't hear me.

I also thought you told us what he said was when he was living in New York, he was funded by Russia, I think, because he was living way beyond his means.

He said, I think.

Yeah, but Ryan, the problem is that the period he's talking about is when Russia was ruled by either the Tsar or the Provisional Government, not the Bolsheviks.

I'm just saying, I know.

I'm just saying what he said.

But the Bolshevik, here's what I'm trying to tell you.

You got two things going on here.

Ryan, Ryan, the issue is making like a logical argument by Bolshevik.

Like, you're saying two different things.

Holy fuck.

Your argument does.

Hold on.

Your argument does not rest on just because, oh, well, this person was Jewish.

It was bad.

Another Jew tried to kill him.

And that all they're going to say, but that's not what the argument is.

Hold on, dude.

We're talking about all the different commissars, all the people in the Russian army, all the other people.

I'm trying to get three or four guys.

I'm saying this for you.

I'm making a steel man at you and then him.

But you can't blame the Jews, even if all seven were Jewish.

It would be a faction within that ethnic group that felt that way, engaged in nepotism or whatever.

Kind of like today.

You can't put that on the entire name of the world.

I want to get to something, though, because this guy said, I said, what?

The Tsar was funding Trotsky.

He goes, well, there was still a Bolshevik movement.

But the Trotsky and Bolsheviks hated each other until September 1917, which was right before the revolution when Trotsky hitched his bandwagon on it right at the last minute.

So they hated each other.

Churchill's hated.

The Jews wrote an article saying that every single war around the world.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Churchill?

What does fucking Churchill have to do with the damn thing?

You're alleging the Bolshevik movement funded Trotsky.

That's impossible.

Can I talk without you interrupting?

Because you're fucking pivoting to Churchill's fat ass instead of committing to the claim you made.

You sound so emotional.

What's wrong, Hans?

Because you're a schizo-babbling retard who can't commit to a single line of argumentation.

No, I'm showing you an example of a leader, a world leader that everyone knows was very anti-Semitic, right?

Was very against the Jews, blamed every single war in the world on the Jews, and then all of a sudden had a change of heart after being funded for 10 years, living way beyond his means.

Right?

So I'm showing you.

Give me a single Bolsheviks.

Trotsky was openly talking shit about the Bolsheviks until September 1917.

So, why would the Bolsheviks be funding his lavish lifestyle?

It makes no fucking sense.

I also gave other things.

You want to focus on the one that you couldn't.

No, you gave nothing.

You gave nothing.

You gave nothing.

Was he being funded well beyond his means, Haz?

If he was, the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it.

So I gave other options besides the Bolsheviks.

So I said, yeah, you gave Russia, which was the czar of Russia.

When I said Russia, I meant the Bolsheviks in Russia.

But anyway, I also gave you a lot of people.

So you're wrong.

I also gave other options, which you don't want to talk about.

Why are you talking about the other one?

What are the other options then?

By who?

Who was funding Trotsky?

Why was he allowed to go past the UK, right, when he landed in the UK?

I can actually tell you why.

I know why.

You're talking about that in Canada.

You're talking about Canada when he was released.

I'll tell you exactly why.

It all had to do with World War I, because the intention of the Bolsheviks under Lenin was to completely end that war and withdraw and tell Britain to kick rocks and they're not going to fight Germany anymore.

Britain didn't want that to happen.

Now, Trotsky, because he's a snake and an opportunist, was towing a line where he said, neither peace, neither war.

It was really ambiguous.

What it really meant is he was going to continue the war to do Britain's bidding.

So Britain released Trotsky to send him back to Russia in the hopes that Trotsky would sabotage the peace negotiations that they were anticipating, which he did, by the way.

When he was negotiating and what led to Brest-Lydvos, Trotsky several times, several times sabotaged it, and he was thwarted by actual Bolsheviks who prevented him from getting his way.

So, yeah.

So, wouldn't you assume, wouldn't you assume, right?

Wouldn't you assume that knowing who funded Trotsky would point the finger at who is responsible?

But Trotsky didn't start the revolution.

You realize Trotsky wasn't the one who started the Bolshevik Revolution.

He joined, he hits the ride on it.

He led the most violent period of time during Bolshevik.

No, he didn't.

No, he was uh Trotsky's role in the Red Army is extremely over-exaggerated, by the way.

He's given way too much credit by Western historians for no reason.

He wasn't even the most brilliant or most important commander.

But in any case, it was the the violence was overseen by Felix Zerzhinsky, that's the Cheka, who hated Trotsky, by the way.

Zerzhinsky was a Stalin OG or he loved Stalin.

He was best friends with Stalin.

Yeah, guys, we have to.

I look at it this differently.

Okay.

I think it's important to know who funded him because I would then look at the other people who were involved during that period of time and see who funded them.

Because that has a lot to do with it.

When you look at Churchill, you can pull a parallel and be like, okay, who funded Churchill?

Why did the world change after that?

And you could look at the same of what happened with the British Empire needs funding from anyone, they ruled the world.

Churchill didn't need funding.

Churchill was very anti-Semitic and then after living a very lavish lifestyle with having a cook, a gardener, a maid, a butler, although just being a reporter at a newspaper changed his mind completely.

Churchill was anti-Semitic toward the Jewish working class.

He was not anti-Semitic toward the Jewish capitalists who were part of the English Empire.

and who were facilitating things like the Balfour Declaration.

Churchill had no problem with them.

Churchill wrote an article.

That's after Haas.

That's after Haas.

The British Empire.

The British Empire had no problem with Jewish capitalists, somewhere around the country.

The British Empire was very friendly with Jewish capitalists in Europe, well before Churchill, as a fact.

Right.

Okay, Joa.

One second.

Okay, I think Haz wants to go and eat.

Joa wants to hit and uh jump on a flight.

The debate was meant to be between Haz and Truth Teller, but Truth Teller did not show up.

I don't know if that's going to be arranged for later or not.

If it is, we'll advertise it.

We don't know what's happening with that.

I don't know if Haz is going to give him a second chance or not.

That's going to be up to Haz.

If he does, he'll give me a shot and we'll advertise it.

If not, if the truth tellers, this is a truth teller's only chance.

I did say to him, it's going to be a bad luck on you that you didn't turn up.

He decided not to turn up, so that was his choice.

But the debate about the Bolsheviks and Holdemar didn't really happen.

Joa made a couple of points on it.

But even then, Joa kind of doesn't have the same position as Truth.

As far as I know, unless Joa wants to correct me, because I know everyone's been shifting positions on social media.

Like, I've not been able to keep up.

Like, first, you know, yeah, anyway.

So on that regard, I appreciate Haz joining in.

Appreciate Ryan stepping in.

And we talked about the battle between the North and the South.

And then Joa jumped in as well.

But Haz, thank you so much for joining us.

I appreciate you coming on.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And yeah.

Thank you so much, Suleiman.

Thank you for your patience.

You did a very good job.

And I appreciate you hosting this.

I appreciate you coming in.

Ryan, thank you for joining as well.

Thanks, Sally.

I was just like, I don't know.

Sure, it didn't even change it since the guy who's supposed to come to bait didn't.

Appreciate you stepping in.

I think people learned quite a lot about US history and I bet I do believe that people learned things from both of you.

So I appreciate you coming, Ryan.

Yep, fuck Lincoln.

And um, Joy, thanks for you jumping in as well, right, guys.

Uh, if there is a debate, we will keep you up to date.

A bit disappointed with truth that he didn't turn up.

Uh, I was messaging him in the back end, he I did say to him that, look, it's gonna be a bad luck, uh, but he said he wanted to do it after a week or two.

Uh, appreciate you guys joining in, I appreciate you guys listening, and for sure, we will see you next time.

All right, see you later.

Wow, guys, uh, I need to eat and we're gonna just gonna end the stream.

But uh, truth teller, what a massive pussy.

Um

You know, he's a fucking liar.

His name's Truth Teller.

He's the fucking biggest liar there is.

Brutal Stalinist, what's up?

What's going on, bro?

Alright, guys, these liars got completely destroyed tonight, and that's a good thing.

Bye-bye.

See you guys, hopefully.

Well, I don't know.

It could be tomorrow.

Maybe not.

Maybe I'll be in Venezuela.

I don't know.

I'm going to do IRLs in Venezuela, though.

So, see you later, guys.

Bye-bye.