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

can't be found

I'm just waiting for my day to come

and I think oh I don't want to let you down

because something inside has changed and maybe we don't want to stay the same

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 The spirit in my head and they won't go.

The spirits in my head and they won't go.

But the guns still rattles.

The guns still rattles.

Oh.

With the guns still rattles.

The guns still rattles.

Oh.

And I... still rattles the door still rattles oh and I don't want

a never ending life

I just want to be

a life

while I'm here

and I don't want while I'm here And I

Go on to never

In light

I just want to be alive

While I'm here

And I Goal to see another here and I

don't want to

see another night

lost inside a long

life

while I'm here

I've got

flirts in my head

and they won't go spirits 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

But the guns still rounds

The guns still rounds

Oh

But the guns still rounds The guns still rounds Oh Oh

But the guns still

Out the gun's still out

The gun's still out

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

Spirits in my head and they won't.

Spirits in my head and they won't. I don't. I've been looking at the skies tonight And I think oh

I'll miss that bright sun

I'll be a dream

until the day I die

But they say

Oh

I'll have you for I die young

But we're all strange

and maybe we don't want to change

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

I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head

and they won't go

with the guns

still around

the guns

still rattles

oh

I got guns in my head and it won't go

The spirits in my head and they won't go

I spent a lot of nights on the run

Nothing though

Like I'm lost and can't be found

I'm just waiting for my day to come

And I think oh

I don't want to let you down

Because something inside has changed

And maybe we don't want to stay the same

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 I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head and they won't go

but the guns still rattle

the guns still rattles

oh

but the guns still rattle the guns still rattles I don't know But the girl is still right

I'm still around

I'm still around while i'm here and i don't want to be alive while I'm here.

And I don't want to see another night lost inside of the mind while I'm here. I got'm clear 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

But the gun is still around Go Spirits in my head And they won't go

But the God is still

Rouse,

The God is still around

Oh

Oh

Oh

I'm still around

Oh

I'm still around

Oh

Oh Oh

Oh Oh Oh

Oh

Oh

Oh I got 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 I got guns

in my head and they won't go

spirits in my head and they won't go. I've been looking at the stars tonight

And I think oh

how miss that bright sun

I'll be a dream

until the day I die

but they say

oh

I'll have a go die young.

But we're all strange, and maybe we don't want to change.

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

When the guns still rattles

The guns still rattles the guns still rattles

oh

I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head

and they won't go

I spent a lot of nights

on the run

And I think all

Like I'm lost and can't be found

I'm just waiting for my day to come

And I think oh I don't want I'm just waiting for my day to come.

And I think, oh, I don't want to let you down.

Because something inside has changed.

And maybe we don't want to stay the same.

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

but the guns still rattles

the girls still rattles oh and they won't fall but the girl is still rattle, the girl is still rattle

oh

but the girl is still riles

and I don't want a never

never ending life

I just want to be alive while I'm here

And I don't want to never in life

I just want to be alive

While I'm here

And I don't want to see another night

Lost inside a long

life while I'm clear

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

The spirits in my head and they won't go.

But the guns are still out, the gun is still out.

Oh, oh, but the guns are still out, the gun is still out.

The gun is still out Oh Oh Oh 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 don't in my head and they won't I've been looking at the stars tonight

And I think oh

I'll miss that bright sun

I'll be a dream until the day I die

But they say, oh, I'll be glad

But we're all strange

And maybe we don't want to change 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 spirits in my head

and they won't go

when the guns

still rattles it goes

to the guns

in the rattles

oh

I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head

and they won't go I in my head and they won't go

I spent a lot

of nights on the run

and nothing

go like I'm lost

and can't be found

I'm just waiting for my day to come

And I think oh

I don't want to let you down

Because something inside has changed

And maybe we don't

understand the same

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

spirit in my head and they won't go. Spirit's in my head and they won't go.

But the guns still rattles.

The guns still rattles.

Oh.

But the guns still rattles.

The gun still rattles.

Oh.

And I don't want a never-ending life. And I don't want a never-ending life.

I just want to be a lie while I'm here.

And I

Don't want to

Never in life

I just want to be alive

While I'm here

And I

I don't want to see another night

lost inside a long life

while I'm clear

I got

bloods in my head and they won't go

Spirit's 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

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

Spirits in my head and they won't go

But the guns are still around

The guns are still around

Oh

Oh Oh Oh

The guns

Still around

The ghost

Routes still around

Oh

Oh Oh Oh 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 Spirits in my head and they won't I'll be looking at the stars tonight

And I've been going to miss that bright sun

I'll be a dream

until the day I die

But they say

Oh, I'll have you go

I die young

But we're all

strange And maybe we don't want to change but we're all strange

and maybe we don't want to change

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

I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head

and they won't go

but the dogs

are still around

I'm going to

go and they're

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

Spirits in my head and they won't go

I spend a lot of nights on the run

Nothing go like I'm lost and can't be found.

I'm just waiting for my day to come.

And I think, oh, I don't want to let you down

Because something inside has changed

And maybe we don't want to stay the same

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

I got guns in my head

and they won't go

spirits in my head

and they won't go

but the guns still rattles

the gun still rattles

oh

but the gun is still out

I'm still around

I'm here

And I don't want to never in life

I just want to be alive

While I'm here

and I don't want to see another night

lost inside a long light while I'm here

I got to 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

But the guns are still around But the gun is still rattle

The gun is still rattle

Oh

Oh

But the gun is still rous

The gun is still rous Oh

Oh

Oh

Oh

Oh Hagak Hagak and you know The What I'm going to? I'm going to and one of my friends and a lot of

you have

no

one and I'm a

I'm a lot of I'm a

I'm a I'm a

I'm a

man

I'm a

man

and I'm

a lot of I'm going to

I'm going to

I'm not

I'm going to

I'm a

I'm a

I'm

a

I'm

a and the I'm going to

I'm

and and the other people. I mean, and you know

and

I'm coming

on I'm I'm

a

I'm

a

I'm I'm I'm

a

I'm I'm going to I'm I'm

I'm

I'm The Three Kingdom, what's going on, brother?

So we are kind of just going to start right from the outset.

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

I am doing a politics Discord AMA.

I'm going to be doing that at 8 p.m. Eastern. So be on the lookout for that. But otherwise, you know, got a haircut. That's an important announcement, I guess. No, seriously, an important announcement is that I'm going to Venezuela 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 Anna 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 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

libtards 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 J-Qing.

And this makes them seem subversive.

Well, all the J-Qing 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 where'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

if it, 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 nuggets and chalky milk sitting behind their desks. It 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 going to do the debate right now.

And I suspect this person's going to bitch out and they're not going to show up. That's what I think.

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

But where are they? Because here we are. Anyone who I see these tweets that I see about the

Bolsheviks, calling it 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 you'll go

and, 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 is 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 curbstomped 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 his money

GMO Doritos and fries as

he wants while sitting with his

disgusting fat Cheetos-stained fingers

typing and spreading lies

about the Bolsheviks while l 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, uh, 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

these is not the behavior of human beings it's the behavior of bots people who, it goes right past their head when I'm saying, and they're back at it again spreading Anna 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 Bolshev.

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.

Anna Louise, the disgusting freak and all of these retards spreading low IQ,

false nonsense pro-natal 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 anti-establishment for 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 Halada more, 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 Halodomor Lai 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 with a JQ bent so that fucking low IQ schizzo 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 Halada Mor myth, actually.

So 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.

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

Let me see if they are

asking to be brought up. 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 are 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 Haladamore

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. Lupin

bring up the Dr. Lupus monstrosity abomination fans please bring up the Dr. Lupus 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,

people were like, goo-guga

over ACP. Yeah, yeah.

Sorry, we can talk about it later, but let's

get down. That was just my nice

thing. Let's get to the Nazi. 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.

Hey,

do you have

evidence that the Jews

were not Bolsheviks? Yes, we have evidence that the jews were not bolsheviks yes we have evidence that the overall 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.

Right, I know you don't.

You just listen to Anna Louise because you have a, 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, uh, 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 schizzo 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 we get that.

Where's the evidence?

Give me one primary source.

One fucking primary source.

Go ahead.

We have it all compiled, my friend.

We have it all compiled.

Then you cite it right now. Then cite it right now.

Then cite it right now.

Actually, I'll compile it all right now for you.

And give me, give me five minutes.

And I'm going to go through all of it for you.

Go ahead.

No, no, no.

What you're going to do, what you're going to do, you babbling metrosexual schizo fuck is link it to me. Right. In front of fact, 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, minutes right i'll meet you right now

yep i'll break it all down give me five minutes yeah yeah everything break it all down

break it all down go ahead i get it you're upset 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 you 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've done, you just devastated the Middle East.

Not only five decades. Who did you fucking devastated the Middle East, not only five decades

devastated the Middle East, you fucking retard.

My parents are a little from the Middle East,

you dipshit.

Right, the United States devastated the Middle East, yes or no?

Okay, so now you're blaming me

for the U.S. government's actions.

No, I'm not. No, I'm not.

And then the United States

passed the baton to Israel, and now

Israel is the story in 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't 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?

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?

Yes, yes, I actually do.

Everything I've said so far as 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, the Zionist

kill list.

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-Zionists.

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.

Oh, 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

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

JQ or 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, the beginning,

that 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 petuated like anti-Semitismired, you know, the communist regime

petuated 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 happened to be

Jews that lived in Russia. What Bolshevik bankers do happen to be Jews that living in Russia.

Bolshevik bankers in Russia supported the revolution. Name one.

Let's see. The Tsars. Remember the Tsars? I forget its name. I'm not...

The Tsar was funding for a house. The Ts not There's a Ozzy.

Bazar was not a banker.

He was...

Louis Marshall,

even our own FBI

has documents

regarding this

what we're talking about

right now

because that's what

it was a

Arm and Hammer guy?

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

name one i'm asking you to name one

can you name one

i'll help you out brother jacob ship is one of them

jacob ship jacob ship

there is absolutely no not only is there no evidence Shiff is one of them. Jacob Schiff.

There is absolutely no, not only is there no evidence he supported the Bolsheviks,

Jacob Schiff funded the White

Counter-Revolution. This is why nobody thinks 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 wasn't the Bolshevik revolution.

That happened in February, and that's exactly the provisional government

that the Bolsheviks started 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, what is 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, it was all their propaganda.

It was all funded by these same bankers

and we have receipts and proof for that fact.

This is why nobody takes you serious, man.

You're asking me to explain something.

Not only did Jacob Schiff funded 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.

You retard?

Then link it and send it.

You are making it up.

It's right out of your own asshole.

It doesn't exist.

No, man.

Okay, just made it on.

There's nobody like there's no on. Link, the primary source

that Jacob Schiff gave one cent.

They're not going to talk about Leon Trotsky.

You're not going to...

They don't know what primary sources are.

You dip shit. 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 stitcher meme. One primary source not a schitzel meme one primary source not a jpeg not a p and gme that's

unverified that's made up that anyone can make up one primary source that shows this go ahead

uh the u s department has it on their website, man.

I don't even think you're in the same.

Listen, if the U.S. 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 going. I'd rather just point and laugh at how stupid you are. Because you're

because on, hon, 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 Anna 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 like, I'm going to do to anybody

who slanders the Bolsheviks going forward.

You're a fucking retarded as shit dude I'm just laughing at how dumb you are

maga-communism like

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 my mom inside.

Because I'm not...

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

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 industrialized 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... Finally.

Okay, if you can take the evidence.

He's just so stupid, bro. Look how he acts, man.

Leon Trotsky played a

All right, I want to debate the guy

who's actually debating, not the one

menstruating. Who's the menstruator between the

two of? Sarah, who's menstruating?

The guy who's ready to give me receipts,

we're going to proceed with him.

Are you like STIA?

What is he? Who's, Sarah, which one is we're going to proceed with him are you like S TIA or what is

Sarah which one is menstruating and not giving

any arguments? I think that 99

99999

repeating is menstruating.

It's just kind of spurging because

I don't think they know what a primary

Right, we need to remove the menstruators.

I also think that this weird theory

about Jacob Schiff comes from his

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 Tsar, 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.

Taz, they don't know, but the different,

they don't know that there's more than one.

They don't know, 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.

Okay, where are, okay, I want you to announce who you are and tell me what, what's your username and where's the receipts?

He's not going to let you talk, man.

He's just, my other, this other guy.

The other guy is, okay, I want to address the other guy for a second.

You were 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? Can you link it

to me right now? I want to link.

Any link.

You type in, how did J...

So you don't have a... You don't have a source 999 I want a single link that we could go through together

why do we have to teach them with sources and how to provide we need a link go read the mLA bible so nine nine I have it nine nine nine nine. 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 come up here and make you get out no sources.

999

are you

are you

are you you are the Jewish

Jack the Ripper

yes or no

hilarious

you're not

willing to

yes or no

well I just made

a claim

that you are

the Jewish

Jack the Ripper

and I'm going to open a 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

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 link.

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

Single piece of evidence.

There's the entire front page of the index has it, but which is every article.

Give me one of them. 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 cheptie?

No, I want something

that can be scrutinized. I don want 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 Yondex 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 Halaudomor genocide, whatever you want, that the Jews did the Bolsheviks, that Jacob Schiff financed the Bolshek, 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 right now.

Send me the link to what you are talking about.

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

Send me one in particular.

Okay.

No, no, no, no.

You're going to commit to just one for now

and say, I-9-9

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 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 nest.

And I'm going to...

Where is it?

Where is it? In the nest. I sent it in the nest. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna, 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.

But you,

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

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

I sent it in your chat.

Should be.

And on kick, you sent it.

No, you sent it right here.

Here it is.

All right.

So we're going to all right yeah

archive dot 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 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 dot com slash infrared if you want to read

it yourselves i have it pulled. Let's start with the...

Can we start with the writer?

No, hold on. Let me... 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... 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 sources.

Let's look at this.

Delphine Slotten, 1B, extended essay, candidate number, oh 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 Bol bolshevik revolution if we're using

our calendar happened on november seventh of nineteen seventeen which was many many months after

march nineteen seventeen so right off the fucking bat, this has nothing to do with the Bolsheviks.

Now, let's see what they say. Following the November 17th,

1917 revolution, similar reports emerged. Okay, So where are the sources?

Where are the footnotes?

I have no footnote just saying similar reports.

That's all we have right now.

The real reason why I sponsored the March 1917 reason why extended his sponsorship to the orchestrators of the

nineteen seventeen bolshevik revolution again there's no footnotes where what's the source for

this specific claim this is a woman delphine slottin 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 they're 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 Bolshev revolution of 17, French sources in the 20s claim that Schiff had bankrolled communists to the tune of 12 million. Where was their source? There's noneth february nineteen forty nine issue of the new

work journal american the following was said of schiff's contribution today is it estimated by jacob's

grandson john schiff at 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 alleged jewish conspiracy

is the u.s. departments of states decimal file number 861 compiled between 1910 and 1929.

The essential document entitled Bolshevism and Judaism dated 1918 describes the U.S.

Entourage Bureau's belief that nothing.

There's literally nothing.

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

slash infrared and there's nothing

whole way maybe right here

planning for the bolsterer revolution first began in February

in 2016

investigators explained that among the four

listed banking 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 U.S. and Europe who had allegedly participated.

Trotsky and Company, the Rhinus, Westphalian Syndicate, Jewish multimillionaires, brothers Lazard, whatever, Spire.

The investigators conclude 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... we first of all this is the source no american government document following decimal file 861 44016 325 established these close relations as having existed and because of this lack of document can be interpreted as a

lack of further interest in 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. 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 Bolivism, and according to 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. This is not true.

The inaccuracy of these assertions, as made evidence 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 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 revolution,

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 as propaganda. But was any investment, 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,

Wall Street funded the Bullsework 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.

There's something else about this source we need to draw our attention to because it gets even better.

In 2011, Delphine Slotten, 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

uh number 861.4016 slash 325 that is the strongest strongest thingites, 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?

Which part?

In front of all your listeners. 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. Then it says the involvement of the... I need a primary source.

What source says Trotsky met with Zionists?

What are you about the Rocktile 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, and it had, and that, but he was completely against and openly denounced the bolsheviks later in november so that that's so much for shifts 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 um 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. Actually,

sent you five, but you have three more to peruse. I'm curious why you're skipping

involvement of the Rothschild family.

You're just skipping over that entire

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 them. Why do you keep, why do you keep muting me while I'm actively giving you evidence?

Because you're a spurred, because you're a Spurg who constantly interrupts me, and rather than

provide evidence, you're just spurging out about Rothschilds and all this kind of stuff.

We need to concrete...

We're not. I'm not providing evidence, and everyone's listening to you.

We're trying to go through the evidence, actually.

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, 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. Hold on. Make a note of the author of that essay is an environmental scientist. So I'm not sure why they're dealing with you. I'm not sure. And I can't even find the, the most smoking, it's not even smoking gun, but the most substantive thing in that entire thing, 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 uh let's see and uh such a such a claim makes sense by the way

because Schiff was clearly involved in the February revolution so 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.

Here it is.

Right here.

So here's the WordPress.

And we're going to go, we're going to go we're going to

again

kick.com

slash infrared

where we're

going to 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 podcast core. The Wall Street Jews behind the Bolsvick Revolution.

All right.

Here's a picture.

Paul Wahlberg, Trotsky,

J.P. 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.

Okay. This is just another schizo thing that's just making claims where are the sources

quingly 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 looking for this

I'm looking for this

this is supposedly the original source that's the source of

this jay peck but this okay here it is this is where it's from according to him

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

but 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 word press

here we are with this, 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,

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 mr schiff source this, what does this have to do with 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.

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

There's no footnotes.

There's nothing.

But they did highlight this.

It is highlighted.

It's underlined.

This is definitely underlined.

All right.

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

They underlined

it. The Jewish high finance have been planning

and working on destroying

Zardom and the Romanovs. Their street

rabble, Bolshevik,

co-religionists.

But where are the factual claims, where are the factual pieces of evidence in primary sources backing up sentences like this?

So much for the great Gentile fortunes!

This is bolded and it's in 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.

So much for that, though.

That was probably even worse than the other one.

Let's see.

Countercurrents. 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 Bullsevik

Revolution was in any way

financed by Schiff, the

Rothschilds, and all these bankers

like you're trying to claim.

Let me see.

All right. let me see all right all right

again

again kick.com slash infrared

we're going to be looking through this together

by the way this is the this is what

has been given to us so let's 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, 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? Look at what I'm looking at.

All right, here are the footnotes begin.

Let's see.

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

So this is two.

I'm not interested in disputing that claim right now, although it's the detail surrounding Lenin's involvement with the Germans is actually something that's contested, but it has no relevance with respect to the claim that we care about right now, so I'm going to ignore that for now.

A partner of Jacob Schiff at Wall Street looked after the family interest in New York.

The primary factor was behind the banker's support, weather from London.

Okay, so let's look at

these are footnotes being cited.

So let's see what they cite.

Paul Warburg had been decorated by the

Kaiser in 1912. That's not evidence

of anything. Colanol

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

He became partner of Coen, Loeb, and Co. from May 1st, 1918, Wiseman cabled house that the ally 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 of the Bolshek-Kold 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 the property of these foreign powers so according to the according to them the intimate papers of colonel house volume 3 page 421.

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

So let's see.

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

All right, 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... All right, hold on.

Page...

I might actually be able to access it for free what page is page 421.

I'm going to check page 422 just in case it's there, but here's page 421.

All right?

You guys ready?

I'm going to read it to you.

I'm going to 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 5, 1913. Okay okay this is

1915

are Okay, this is 1915.

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 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

time period.

So there we go.

There we go.

So, that would be

enough, to be honest, to dismiss the

source completely outright.

Because they're putting in their footnotes bullshit,

which doesn't line up with the claims being attributed to the source.

Let's see. Thank you. again this is the Colonel Thompson guy. and then it

and guys keep in mind that the U.s 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 by bankers, by Wall Street, or any of these other claims.

So, so far, this is going to make claims about later after they ceased power, and then 20s, they're going to make claims about you know 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 to implement socialism,

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

Again, so this has nothing. This has nothing on the actual Bolshevik revolution. It's just making claims about Armand Hammer, who everyone knows about. Armandhammer was the guy who was a radical kind of pro-worker guy who owned a business the 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 not news to anyone all right so nothing let So nothing. Let's see what else you have.

So 16 minutes ago, educate yourself.org.

Let's see.

Educate yourself.org.

Let's see what this one has to say.

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

All right, 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 chapter four, what is this? Louis Maryscalo, world conquerors published

1998 millionaire bankers back

bolsheviks The Tsar's murderers were Svirdlov.

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

But how could that be when only 6% of Bolshevik leadership was Jewish.

50 percent of the members of the first

Social Democratic Party of Russia

were Jews. Where is the source

for this claim? Because we have claim to the contrary.

I don't even think the

Mensheviks reached this proportion

in terms of Jewish membership.

Russia had its own

revolutionary tradition

even before the Social Democrats.

Karenski. Why are you talking about Karenski.

Why are you talking about

Karenski, who wasn't a Bolshevik,

where the Bolsheviks overthrew? so this 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 walk 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? You silence and censor

your opposition. Because I need, because I need to be able to read it aloud without your spurging so we could actually

evaluate the verification.

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

Your viewers are actually intelligent.

Do you understand that you just got dissected, by the way, because we've done the research.

No, you know.

Wait, 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. I went

to 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 out 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 need to know where the source for that is.

Which source are you citing?

You're skipping, you skipped over all on purpose.

I don't know why.

Which link?

The first one you read, the financial support in 177.

One from the environmentalist.

Is this the environmentalist lady?

Are you going to let me speak at all?

I'm trying to find your source.

He's giving us an environmental assignment.

Is it the environmentalist lady?

In 1917, the Ross Child Family Bank and Paris divided loan.

You don't know what the primary sources.

Just to say that.

I'm looking for the source.

What are you reading?

What are you reading?

This is why I'm doing it.

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 Ben Baron Edminder 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 you're listening.

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, it has been.

So let's go and control F, Rothschild.

Am I spelling Rothschild wrong? Archive.org by Delphine Slotten.

R.O.

Am I spelling

Rothschild wrong?

Let me see.

No, I'm not spelling it wrong

so I'm control effing

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 I, 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 thearchive.org.

Archive.org forward slash details,

forward slash the slash

Rothschild's archive.

Have you linked to this?

Where is the link?

No, I haven't linked it.

So what are we talking about

if you haven't linked?

Are you fucking moron?

Was I supposed to just

fucking astraly project the source?

I don't just pull things out

of my ass like you fucking link it,

you dip shit, you fucking

NPC. You actual

pigeon brain

bird shit retard.

Give me the fucking link this whole time you hadn't linked it and i was

siphling through your retarded schizo links 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 going to unmute you.

Yes or no, will you link it?

Yes or no?

Sure. Yeah.

I have stacks of

evidence behind archive

dot org that i can link

i've went i've gone through every single one of your sources

thus far i'm going to send 10 of them i'm going to send 10 i sent 5 before i'm going to send

10 now i'm going to only i'm only going to okay here's what'm going to send 10 now. I'm going to only go.

I'm only going to, okay, here's what's going to happen.

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 is there literally nothing

no he started to troll towards the end when he knew he had nothing well i want once because

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.

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.

I'm not going to give me...

Go get truth taller. I'm done with us. You not going to give me... Go get through.

I'm done with us.

You're going to give me one

that you're willing to commit to,

that I can pin you down on.

One that I'm going to pin you down on

and that you're willing to vouch for.

Because I'm not going to 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 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

them, you fucking pussy. Then why is he

running a parallel face instead of running

his mouth

him then you fucking pussy? He's been

off, 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.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

If he can actually argue the point, sure.

But this guy's a schizo retard who just makes claims about fucking what...

He ran anyway.

That 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 you can give me evidence, sure.

Where's the evidence?

If it's true, it's some of the most hidden information

you could possibly find.

Then how do you know if it's true or not

then? Because everything

that happened in World War I 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 want...

Does anybody here know what a primary source is?

Sarah, Sarah.

Sarah, it's got to be one v. one or else they're going to claim we teamed up on them.

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 that there

wasn't a fucking day that went by, 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, biological 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 banqualled the white counter-revolution.

The NKVD arrested people for being Zionist agents.

So how does it make sense by logical inference? being Zionist agents. So,

why 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?

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. No, they weren't Zionists.

Was Lenin's wife

Rothschild? No.

No? Okay. No?

No, she wasn't.

Do you even know who Lennon's wife is?

Name his wife.

I can't name his wife.

You can't, 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 retardedarded NPC who is my leader who uh 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 in your eyes?

Who isn't a Rothschild?

A lot of people.

You're a Rothschild.

You're a fucking Rothschild.

You are.

You're a Rothschild.

That's great.

Are you 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 1, 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? Am I laughing?

Am I laughing right now? You're a Rothschild. Am I laughing right now?

You have

a voice inflection which suggests

your producing comedic styling You have a voice inflection which suggests your...

Producing comedic stylings for your gay bandbate.

You just produced comedic stylings.

You just let out a laugh.

You're a Rothschild.

This isn't funny.

I know it's not funny.

This is what you do.

You're a Rothschild.

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?

So for noticing?

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. 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 irony is.

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. That's what you do. You paint

everyone else to be like Nazis.

The truth is, I don't give a fuck

what you are, who your leader is.

I care about defending the Bolsheviks.

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

That's awesome.

So, yeah, I'll go read Anthony sutton's book and i'll try to find prime sources

please because even anthony sutton had to admit that there's no jewish bolshevism and that

uh jacob shift didn't find the bolsheviks i don't get why you can't entertain the idea

like what would you spiral would there's no evidence well it's not that i can't entertain it

is 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.

None of that

concludes that you

can't entertain it. Why can't you entertain

the concept? Why can't I entertain

the concept? Why can't I entertain you being

a raw child? Why can't I 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 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.

And 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 rationally your opinion not my opinion i'm 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 push secularism

all right so what was what's what is what is where does secularism come from

where does secularism come from right i don't know. The non-belief in God.

I would say Lorian cobblism and the Frankus.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Oh, it didn't come from the war between the Catholics and the Protestants that ravaged Europe.

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.

Was the American Revolution Jewish too?

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?

Christianity.

Monarchy.

Justice.

Law and order.

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

No, no.

You mean to think of other things that are non- or 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 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 sabbatian frankis who murdered christians because it's a mitzvah for sabbatians to kill non-sabotan 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 zinous

okay and why why was that

why did they prop a pitler 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 Europe. Yeah, you guys keep saying that and then they destroyed the Nazis and that's what

we're telling you. We can't talk about the Holocaust.

Yeah, because their plans were thwarted. Yeah.

And where did all, and who transferred

who transferred all the Czech gold into

the Nazi bank accounts?

I don't know who did.

The Bank of England.

Okay. 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 I.

Okay, and how, 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 Zionist 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-Mar

being a Jew. You know who Vilhelmar 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.

Yeah, 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 bullshit

I don't 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, the cabal of Jews, saw Stalin as a Napoleon-type person in that they funded

him originally, but he didn't push

for communism westward enough.

But this is just the story you're telling over the campfire

with no evidence, so why should anyone believe you?

Because my worldview makes so much more sense regarding what...

All the other stuff?

All right.

All right.

Yeah, but it's not testable.

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

sense.

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

I could make up anything I fucking want.

Where's the evidence?

Why should anyone believe it?

No, it would not

be as much evidence as I could bring up,

given what's going on right now,

as far as degeneracy.

What do the Bolsheviks have to do with degeneracy, though?

That's where two plus two doesn't add up.

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.

Stalin was.

Stalin was.

Yeah, I'm sure you say that.

He was. Everyone who knew him

privately said that in private he was.

Oh, yeah, he was like a secret like religious man 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 canonist who is

a literal satanic serpent piece of shit liar, knowing liar. He knows 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.

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, what'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.

Yeah, the road is narrow. What can I say? I mean, none of us are perfect.

Well, 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?

Yeah, I mean, what does it matter if I'm Christian or not?

Because 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. Why do you

want to have

this relationship

with me,

Jacob?

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.

Really?

Because I guarantee you 90% of the people...

90% of the people listening to speak right now

would literally behead you for $5 million.

Could you reword that?

What does that even mean?

They would behead me for $5 million?

It means nobody gives 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.

These aren't my supporters, dude.

That's what I'm saying.

Jacob, Jacob, are your fellow right-wing schizzo's corrupt?

Yes or no?

Are they deeply corrupt who are open to bribery

in all manner of fucking snaking each other all the time?

Because they have no notion of collectivism

and they're all individualists?

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

So you have no arguments about the Bolsheviks.

Got it.

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

All right. Joa

Joa

Go ahead

All right.

We'll see.

I'm trying to add this guy.

I don't know where Joe went, but... Martinez, are you there?

Yeah, I guess my question for you is 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

a 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.

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 socialist themselves. They have 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.

How many times did the Soviet Union ask Britain and France for a common security pact against Nazi aggression before the Malta of Ribbon-Troft 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, man? Yeah, what about that?

You only care, 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 deal over it.

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

Let me know when you're done. Let me know when you're done

because it sounds like

hearing this on your voice.

You're not against

invasions.

You're only against anyone.

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 Brezzt-Littvask,

which was actually violated, null and void.

So they actually had every right to reclaim Corella 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 in 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 Mind Kampf that he wanted to do. This was

his whole dream.

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

They took Czech Slovakia.

They want to even go more eastward.

And the Soviets needed security assurances with respect to that.

So the Winter War to reclaim Corella was for Soviet A, it was justified because the Treaty

of Brest-Ladvostk 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 packs 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-Ribbentrov pact, of course the Soviets needed to buy time in the lead-up to this invasion.

France refused a 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 need 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, had they not 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?

I put down a potential, a potential again. 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, 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-Ribbentrov-Rov-Ribbentroth pact. Hitler's 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.

Then why didn't they annex Poland after

1945 when they could have?

They installed a satellite state government

that was loyal to Moscow. It's the same fucking thing.

But what does that actually mean?

What is that, okay, yeah, the war...

All of those governments in Eastern Europe are loyal.

Martinez, if Stalin wanted Poland, just like Hitler wanted it, why did Soviet troops leave Poland?

Let's say, I'm just going to make up this date after 1949.

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

But why did

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, y'a.

Yeah, but I mean,

how many satellite states did the U.S.

have around and still have around, or 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 as taking all of it.

It may seem like the same thing because the maps you've seen is a big red, iron curtain,

but the reality is much more complicated than that.

No, he took it through proxy, he 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 remove the original claim was wrong 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 right right uh 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...

In the eyes of the Russians...

In the eyes of the Russians...

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 of an 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 a 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 amount? It was about cutting up, the giant

cake of Eastern Europe and splitting

it between the two.

Who was the-Hilbert actually admired Stalin, dude.

Hitler admired.

See, this is the thing where you're doing this

retard babble, this over-enthusiastic,

like sucking herself off,

going into tangents, instead of

committing to the actual

line of argumentation. Hitler loves

a 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 Czech Slovakia,

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 that...

Wait, wait, wait.

Wasn't there a war between Poland and the Soviet Union?

Yeah, there was. There was. And who was the aggressor? 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 besiezed

and attacked.

Lenin himself signed the Treaty of

Breastlit Vosk 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

raging 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 attack the Baltic states.

They attack Finland.

None of that was defensive.

All of that was aggression.

None of that was defensive.

Finland wasn't defensive? 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 had design.

I know you're making the claim.

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.

You're moving on Romania.

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 we can start with georgia the georgian affair we can start with 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 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? you support that obviously but they

they had the intention

what government did the bolsheviks overthrow

what government did they over

what government did the

bolsheviks overthrow

the Russian government

what was the Russian government

what was the Russian government?

What was? What was?

They killed the czar and is...

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 just... Yes or no?

The Bolsheviks

overthrew the Tsar

according to you.

Yes or no?

Yeah, they did.

They killed him.

The Bolsheviks deposed the Tsar's government.

Well, they were part of the revolution.

Do you belong in a gulag?

Yes or no?

Or being an idiot?

They were part of the revolution that overthrew the

czar and then they did a coup against

Kerensky and took power.

Ah, so I finally you googled it.

Finally you googled it. Finally you Googled it.

You see what a retarded time waster you are?

No, you're...

You're an idiot.

You're telling me they had...

You said they overthrew the czar, which they didn't, that happened in the February

revolution.

They didn't overthrow the czar.

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 we'll 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 Russia, he was a socialist himself.

Yeah, he was like a OC.

I was just a different faction of socialist fighting each other.

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... Who killed all their opposition and mass

murder. Any political... 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,

Kerenzky 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 was no elections ever in the Soviet Union

why did they kill

was so was Stalin

elected sorry he was elected

by the by the party you think

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.

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 be proved 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

they weren't pure dictators

there's a difference between having

no procedure whatsoever to validate your

governance and not being directed directly by a popular rule.

Kerenzky 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 emigres, 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 Kerenzky doesn't have popular mandate, but Lenin, the dictator does, Stolen,

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

Kerenzky was bad, because they were

dictators who had a popular mandate.

Kerenzky 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 intensive

purposes.

Yeah,

Lenin's popular mandate

was the Checa sending

assassins to kill anyone who...

Yeah, you've read no historical literature

on the Checa. The Checa 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 Steliep

and empowered bloodsuckers

who oftentimes they were within physical vicinity of, who were

counter-revolutioners. That was mob violence and street violence. That was part of the Red Terror.

And the Cheka was led by a guy named Felix Georginsky, 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.

Well, 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

intense atrocity 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 polls weren't shot in the head by vastly blocun in the Ketian

4 signed by Beria and Stalin

they didn't kill those people

the jury is out as far as who

was responsible that to be frank

right there's a signed document

by Stalin by Barry

all the top people

why were the bodies

why were the bodies littered

with German bullets can you explain that

they massed it wasn't it was

yes they were

at the nerve of trials the Soviets

lied about it and tried...

You fucking retard.

I know you don't know anything about the Katsun Massacre, because if you did, you'd understand that even the anti-Soviet historians confess 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?

It wasn't Svurdloff who ordered the massacre

of the family of the Tsar, right?

Where's the proof? Where's the proof?

Svordloff is all there. It's all in history books, right? Where's the proof? Where's the proof? Svurdloff is all there.

It's all in history books, man.

Where?

Svurdloff ordered the assassination of the czar and his family.

They killed his children as well.

Where?

Where?

Where?

Where?

Every history book of the Russian Revolution, every history book of the Russian Revolution, every history book will say that the

Soviet Union, the Bolshevich killed the

truth. They shot him in the head. Just like they shot...

They shot him in the head. They shot it. See, you know how I'm asking

specific questions? Like, hey, show me the evidence that the

Bolsheviks were responsible.

They did it! 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 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 Revolution.

Give me one. Give me one with the...

Give me one with primary sources.

Give me one with primary sources.

So who killed his czar, sir?

Well, Lenin, we don't have any evidence that Lenin or Spurred Law were responsible.

Who killed the czar?

Did they get shot?

So because you're a retard or 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, in that city specifically,

was full of extreme radicals and anarchists who were really fed up with the Tsar and really fed up with, you know, 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...

Yeah, so the Russian government itself, who killed them, 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,

Yaakov Yorovsky coordinated the killings was personally recognized by Lenin for the murders.

All right, where's the evident? What is it citing? What's the source?

This is history.com. All right. What is it citing? What's the source? This is history.com.

Right.

What is it citing?

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 going to wait for you to dig them up.

Because 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 Svirdloff told him personally.

And that's the only evidence anyone can ever seem to refer to.

So what do you think they would have done with the Tsar if he wasn't killed they were planning on holding a trial for the czar

yeah just like all those show trials that stallin did right yeah yeah. But that's what they were planning on doing.

So the Soviets did murder the 20,000 polls?

Do you admit that?

No, I don't.

The evidence is inconclusive, in my view.

Doesn't the Russian government admit that now today?

Yeah, but that's not the communists.

It's not the Bolshevik government, is it?

It's the post-Soviet 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

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, yada.

You know, this was back in a different era, and, you know, I doubt that they would have appeased the polls like that if it was the same thing that happened now to litigate the Katzian 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

is, okay, so the Soviets denied

doing it, but the current

Russian government, amidst they did it,

they produced the documents. The current Russian government isst they did it they produced the document

the current Russian government is not the soviets

they produced the letter that that Stalin

Baria and the rest of the Central Committee

signed it and ordered it

they got the guy vastly blocun who

did it all of that stuff

man I mean, ridiculous

coax. Yeah, again, such letters, there's no reason such letters, there's no

reason such letters couldn't be fabricated. Again, that was an anti-connorist government at the time.

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

Someone in the Russian state today... The anti-communists who ruled the Russian state at the time,

you idiot? So the current Russian government is pro-stown, the rehabilitating...

They are now. They weren't bad.

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 Stone look bad,

really?

You got to come up with a pretty crazy conspiracy theory.

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 the fighting and running amok.

Why would they,

why would they try to exonerate the Nazis

for the Ketian massacre?

These, these historians...

Because they were trying to delegitimizeize this.

They're happy to blame the Nazis for stuff, right?

Why don't 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

captured all of these people. The Nazis didn't at that time.

I mean, it's pretty obvious. Evidence points.

Evidence points to the Germans,

actually.

Yeah. Okay.

Right. Right. Stalin

didn't kill anybody, right?

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.

I 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, weren't they for a while? Stalin actually never

No. Are you kidding? He didn't

like him from the beginning. Trotsky was in the central committee.

Trotsky was in the central committee with

Stalin. Trotsky was an the central committee with Stalin. Trotsky was

an opportunity. Trotsky was

hitched on at the last minute and was not

a Bolshevik and Stalin was denouncing

very early wrong. He was a total Bolshevik.

No, he wasn't.

Who cares about whether they're,

whether they're,

I hate the internet because it really empowers retards.

Is this how there's always goes?

It empowers retards to just make claims

without knowing what they're talking about.

And I guess like 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 not just using that to prove you

to kill a...

To 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 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 communist.

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. He was willing to kill his own

party members. 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's Stalin's

delusion that he comes up with to kill anybody.

You think it's that implausible

that foreign powers could

find agents in high

places in the Bolshevik government and infiltrated?

Is there any...

Is the British, for example, the British,

have they ever infiltrated?

Are they known for having, like, 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 your own business. Is that what you actually believe or no?

No, it's possible, but it's also possible that

stalin was infiltrating other governments too and it's it's probably the case is that what we're

talking about what's the evidence for trotsky i mean he didn't he didn't provide any evidence did he

what was the the evidence was discovered by the Soviet intelligence forces.

Why would they care about some random guy who didn't even have a lot of clout?

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. In what meaningful sense?

Is Leon Trotsky...

This is just retarded

communist infighting.

Are you like, what is, what is this feminine, like, thing you have where you just don't, you don't, you 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 arrival to Stalin by the mid-1930s, 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, Zenov, Zenov, 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-1930s.

He goes, wasn't Trotsky the leader of the opposition

in the Bolshevik party with Khamenev and Zinoviev?

And I said the mid-1930s

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.

It 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 have, uh,

is there any,

any big names there?

Because all I could see is a guy named Robert and Giatdahl.

No.

All right.

They ran away.

Let's bring up

this Hitler troll

guy.

Okay.

I'm gonna sit here

and fucking argue

with you fucking

comments.

We'll see you in the fucking streets

alright. We're gonna bill all you fucking Jews

and the debt. We'll see... We mopped

the entire continent of Europe we once

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, your idol

and see what fucking happens to you,

you fucking pussy.

You think fucking Antifa from 2016

is what you're going to 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.

All right. so my question is what was Trotsky's crime when he was killed

and then 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 his power in his power to sabotage and wreck and uh and harm the soviet union from

within that was the justification from within.

That was the justification.

All right, so I may reply now to that, right?

Yeah.

So was Chonovsky 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. It doesn't give you the right

to sabotage wreck and try to overthrow

the Soviet government. That is

objectively collusioned 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 co-w about 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.

All right. Hey on.

When you say that it's not actually the 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 that'll implement.

Can you read those off?

I can, but it'll take me a little bit to

find it.

But I do actually but it'll take me a little bit to find it. But I do actually have it.

All right. Well, I'll wait for you to pull up the evidence that they wanted to destroy all social structures.

You might as well pull someone else up if you're waiting because i got to scroll through some pages here all right so the pussy truth teller um rather than uh debate has opened up his own space

um he's running away from a debate from me he debate has opened up his own space.

He's running away from a debate from me. He won't come in this space.

In 30 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 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 TrueTeller Space right now

or I could do it after the AMA.

Go to TrueSellerspace. Please, please, please, please, please.

Libra, go ahead.

Can you hear me? I think one of my people is, apparently one of my people's already debating truth

tellers, so let them handle that now and deal with this. And then after with my AMA, I'll go.

Go ahead.

Can you hear me first?

Yeah, I could hear you.

All right.

Do you base your understanding of the cat massacre off Groverfer?

Yeah. Okay.

All right.

Firstly, do you think the Soviet Union invaded Poland?

No.

No.

Okay. Not according to international law.

Okay.

Do you know that the evidence

that one of the

evidence that fur uses

is the diary entries of

Zucov, which he himself states that they invaded.

Well, I don't care what Zukov thinks because under international law, they didn't.

Okay.

By the way,

about the banking stuff,

the Rothschild funded about the banking stuff.

The Rothschilds funded the

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 it was bullshit. It was the

history. We find it.

Yeah, which one, please? Because I keep hearing this

that I'm brushing over things. And

he didn't even link the source.

All right. Heritage History, that's it. It was

the heritage history source. You scrolled over it.

Let me find it.

It was the inconvenience to you, yeah.

Well, I didn't see it 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 uh this is the heritage history which had no primary sources to

this is the one where i found the primary source and looked at page 421 and there is nothing.

So let's look up...

Yeah, this is the one.

This is the one.

We can play it back on my stream.

This is the one that had no fucking primary

sources.

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 group.

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... 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, what am I brushing over?

Please tell me what I'm brushing over and I'll go to it.

Because I control that for 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 the Russia, the insiders,

bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate

between $30 and $40 million.

And then it goes into the different...

Whoa!

Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia, the insiders,

bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate.

Wow! For 30, 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 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 where is the evidence 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 something I don't have it on me

yeah I know you don't have it on here you don't have to find it, but I don't have it on me. Yeah, I know you don't have it on you. You don't have it anywhere.

You said I brushed it over because it was inconvenient for me.

This is the thing that's inconvenient for me, a fucking nothing burger.

Why do you support Putin?

Why do you support fucking NATO and Zelensky?

Uh, because Western liberalism is superior.

Western liberalism.

Sound 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 pot 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's the, it's the, it's the European empire. It's Europe.

All Europeans are benefiting from it.

Go, go, go, go, uh, sleep in the pot 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

bunch of cucks

why did uh Russia support

well they didn't oppose in the in the u.n 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.

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 uh woke china they're woke What is woke about China?

Affirmative action.

It's affirmative action, really?

In China, they give more rights to minorities than

not China. They give an example of that, concretely.

Give a concrete example.

One-child policy, which didn't apply

to Oiga Muslims.

Okay.

That's what you're upset about?

You're upset about that? I thought there was an Oigar genocide, by the way.

Okay. Do you deny the genocide?

You just said they don't even rest- 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 population in Gaza increasing or decreasing?

Can you talk about that?

Is there anything, is there any equivalent to what's happening in Gaza and Xinjiang?

Quantitatively different, but qualitatively. 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

genocide is not to do with

it's a stupid

fucking question. Why is it stupid? Would would you rather gun to your head be an

oiger in shing yang right now or a palestinian in gaza right now the question has no relevance

all right if it has no relevance. All right. If it has no relevance, then stop comparing them.

Okay. Wait, do you think this is woke? No taxes in minority regions are required to be sent to the central government. All of it can be spent locally

minorities receive at all it's not

fucking woke at all

so it's you support the Democrats

all right there's no

I'm from uninterrupted

there's no equivalent to Democrat

affirmative action in that case because China's 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 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. Chinese ethnicities speak different

languages and are different nations and peoples but different races in the

united states are only 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 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, well, there is no good comparison.

It'd be like if Mexico was somehow part of the U.S. and different parts of Mexico were given different laws, you know, to balance out, you know, the fact that now Mexico is part of the U.S. I mean, even that's a really bad comparison, but it has nothing to do with affirmative action. Go ahead.

So you kind of sidestep the whole point and then just said it's ethnically

homogenous. It makes, I don't get it.

It's not ethnically homogenous.

I said it's the opposite.

That's all right. So we get the opposite. Yeah. The opposite.

Yeah, but that's not the case in the U.S. 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

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.

Does that something familiar to Democrat

policies? No, it doesn't.

Okay.

So 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.

That'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?

Are you a bot?

Why do you support

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, firstly, that's not a

contradiction. Both them can be true. How can both be true? That's the most

retarded thing I've ever heard. You can

be a victim of genocide but simultaneously

the beneficiary of reverse

racism. Please explain how

that makes sense.

Maybe because of different,

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.

It's similar to the CCP.

How? Alienating the majority race as a means how are they promoting racial grievance and bad blood between different groups like the democrats do

what what is there is there a single example of racial grievance politics that's platformed by the communist government?

I just gave you the one-on-one example.

Those are the opposite.

Those are eliminating racial grievances there's no

education the education one is one-on-one that's what democrats push and the chinese

communist party okay they support they support raising the bar for

entry for Han Chinese

and white people respectively

and lowering it for

minority. That's woke and

leptus. 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, mostly universally 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 reversed

those education camps in I guess

all right

this guy is like

a schizzo retard

Sarah is there any

other right

we have 15 minutes

so I have to do the AMA

yep

Anton came back

all right

go ahead go ahead Anton did you get to your All right.

Go ahead, Anton.

Did you get to your source and your place in the Communist manifesto?

Yeah, you wanted me to read off like the Ten Commandments, right? Is that correct? right.

Is that correct?

The ten planks.

I'm not sure.

I know that you cited the Communist manifesto and then couldn't find it

even though it's only like 100 pages.

Go ahead. It's 100 pages. Go ahead.

It's 30 pages,

like 33 pages, but it's not even 10

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.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport and the hands of the state.

Seven, extension of the factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into 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.

All right.

So where's the

anarchy?

Well, the

anarchy is not within

the Nine Commandments. The anarchy is not within the Nine Commandments.

The anarchy is in the last page of the Communist Manifesto.

The communist disdain to conceal their views and aims.

They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the force will overthrow

of all existing social conditions.

Let the ruling classes tremble

at the communist revolution.

The proletariates

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 change their mind

in a few pages?

I'm saying that's the very last

page. It calls for revolution.

So do you think there's a contradiction between the

very last page and the part where they

outlined the ten planks?

No, because that's their establishment of their doctrine.

That's basically their nine commandment.

Can I finish?

It's not a commandment.

It's not a commandment.

It's a policy prescription that they have for when they seize power

yes when they seize power yeah you so when they seize power you said they were the goal is anarchy

so where's the anarchy did you just can you stop interrupting me i 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 10 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 he 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 Trotsky.

And then I just asked you, don't you think that he's actually adhering to the doctrine?

Because you just justified killing him.

What do you call for revolution? What 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

you know, prime to lead these revolutions?

Because they're the ones who articulate, you know,

the spirit of the era, you know,

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

This is so...

I feel like a special needs

educator right now

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's 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 Ainschen 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 prime 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 at 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

interrupting me multiple times.

It says to call

war against all countries.

And basically, they do tell about how they're going to subvert and infiltrate.

They tell me 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 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 33 pages.

I already dug out two of them, and I quoted them off to you.

According to Anton here, the Communist Manifesto has 33 pages in it

dedicated to the idea that communists should infiltrate religion.

Didn't you just read a sentence that said the communist disdain to conceal their aims?

Now they're apparently prescribing methods to infiltrate religion in 33 pages.

That's like, what is that? Like half of the entire book, a third of the whole book, depending on what version you're making things up.

I think you have a wild...

Well, I just write it off to you.

Your doctor and even denies people their right to inheritance of their own land and personal possessions. That's not

moral for the Bolshevik Party to claim land, property, all things of value to dismantle religion,

culture and identity of a people that have been their centuries before them.

So the bullshit...

Wait, so are you going to let go of the claim that communists said they should infiltrate religion before we get to the topic of inheritance?

By the way, the topic of inheritance was assuming that the land-owning 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.

You know, children were inheriting dachas

and personal property

and stuff

from their parents.

That was the

Bolshek policy.

The right

to inheritance

was mainly

an attack

on the,

the yunkers

and the aristocrats

and big landowners. any case you're you're

throwing a you're doing 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 explain where the communist manifesto says to

infiltrate religion so right that's actually given throughout basically pages when they're

throughout the process of how they can utilize religion and infiltrate

re-sight me one sentence from the communist manifesto corroborating your claim

right i'm not going to do that just because you're running circles to evade all the other things that actually claimed it.

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, 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

who don't know what we're talking about

here, the special boy

Anton here made the claim

that the Communist

manifesto has 33 pages

where it prescribes

communists to infiltrate

religions and use them

against whatever

he can't tell us

where these lost the lost

pages of the Communist manifesto they

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 what 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 because 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 deny the own rhetoric of your own doctrine, such as when I read off the Declaration of War Against the World, telling people to uprise against their...

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 are 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 here's the Marxist philosophy.

No, it's not a war against the world. It's a war against a world because you did just say people deserve to be thrown in gulags

uh i think stupid people should probably be reformed through labor because their stupidity is an embarrassment to all mankind and all history and all civilization.

Well, stupid people that mouth off and are completely wrong about everything they say in public

but it doubled 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.

Who are you to

throw people in gulags?

Aren't you a fucking

Hitler supporter, you

bitch?

You literally support

people like that

Dirlwanger

fucking child rapist

cannibal monster.

Fucking SS pieces of shit

that rampaged 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 gulag

shut the fuck up acting like you're some kind of persecuted.

Oh, it's a 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 act 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. A bunch of

disingenuous pussies.

No morality, no honor,

nothing. A 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.

Listen, you have a lisp.

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 I believe in giving a fair.

If you wrote Mind 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 because you have autism. Can you admit that?

You claim that there's 33 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

is doing find it in a book find it in the book i'd have to read through 33 pages and then you

constantly deviate it every time i ask there's only one book i'm asking you to cite which was the

communist manifesto anyway anton time is up it's1. I have to do this politics discord AMA

Uh everybody kick.com slash infrared. I'm going to be doing the AMA join the politics discord if you uh 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. All right. We're going to do the politics discord.

What a fucking nightmare.

Fucking idiots.

I have no patience for these retards.

All right. Um, amyla with the 10.

Um,

Amila with the 10

Wow also I want to thank

J4 MNN with the 10 appreciate you

All right with the 10 appreciate you all right all right I'm here um here I am what is going on see

myself all right I'm here What is going on? See myself.

All right, I got to 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. Yeah, for sure. Sleeper Cell. What's going on? Sleeper cell. Appreciate it with the five. Cras with the five. What's going on? Sleeper Cell.

Appreciate it with the five.

Cras with the five.

What's going on?

Appreciate you. Needs. What's going on, brother? Appreciate you.

Well, what's going on? What's going on, brother? Appreciate you. Well, oh, what's going on? All righty. 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 2024 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 is 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, Mordor, What's going on, bro?

All righty.

Let's start with Malmes.

Thank you.

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 CEO. Where is he? is he can be pulled up

a CEO lifestyle Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Which questions you have for Haas?

Uh-huh. She's... questions you have for Haas. Okay. So the first question is, is it

is multi-pilarity just modern-day campism like the lights of

Kotzky and Bernstein

how can you say that

the imperialism of Lenin is no longer

primary motor economic

production in the world and

that we already exist in socialism

on a global scale.

How can multipolarity even be a Marxist position?

How can multipolarity be a multi

be a Marxist

in his position

when it's

void of

linen and

hugs as

reaffirming

of Lenin's

immortal theory

of imperialism

two how do China's activity in Africa 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

yeah sure so regarding the first question I think I heard something on the second. 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 you know 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 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 side 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 has become this mechanism of recycling value and in particular

recycling the U.S. dollar.

And why

it is, I regard, multipolarity

as revolutionary, is first of all,

it is qualitatively a step

above that. Imperialism,

first of all, that Lenin was describing, 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 poles. Those are powers vying for world domination. A poll is regionally specific. A poll does not necessarily depend on, you know, this pretence and this claim to unilateral domination through control of the sea.

A poll is actually a representative of, you know, 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 super imperialism, 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 poll 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 um uh you know living standards health material wealth energy and so on and so on

and this is what gives multipolarity a socialistic orientation, and it's not a coincidence that China, and I'm sure this is the next topic in contention.

It's not a coincidence China is the global leader of multipolarity.

So roughly, that's my response, I guess.

Do you want the second question?

Sure, yeah.

How do China's activity in African countries in actually existing socialist country like Laos not constitute imperialism?

Sure. I mean, for one, it's not political imperialism because China is not using force.

It's not using 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 interest.

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 imperials, 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, if countries are indebted to China, you know,

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

there, again, this is similar to the second thing, where 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 qualification of imperialism in the 21st 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.

It would create a lot of awkward descriptions of the current world system as far as the people that accuse China of imperialism

on that basis. So in many ways, the world imperialist system has become subsumed by another

system, which is the super imperialist system, described by Michael Hudson.

And that system is being gradually undermined by their emergence of bricks.

So the third one says, what is your response to bordegis slash leftcoms who often argued that the USSR wasn't socialist because it had commodity production and scoffatt-Lennon's notion

of socialist commodity production.

How do you defend the notion

of socialist commodity production

and S-I-O-C

socialism in one country

from their typical attacks?

Well, okay,

with respect to socialist commodity production,

if you read Marx's descriptions

of how modes of production change

and how they transform,

a mode of production is never eliminated in one fell swoop. Modes of production are

reproduced historically. And the decisive significance of socialism is that when the capitalist

mode of production begins to be reproduced in a way that 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 to 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 it's not indeterminate in the sense that, you know, so-and-so bushels of grain could exchange, you know, universally for any kind of equivalent measured in an abstract formal standard of value.

It could only be exchanged in a way that is predetermined, like, for example, in exchange for machinery with the state, for example.

So this is what gives it a socialist quality.

The range and the extent of the exchange is determined according to a different logic rather than profit, according to the logic of developmental

rules.

So, Marx in his description of how socialism is going to emerge from capitalism, he uses the

analogy of the birth, what's the precise quote?

I don't exactly remember it.

It'll bear the stamps of the previous mode of production as it emerges.

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 uh 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, I think, the most contentious one, because, 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 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.

There's a multinational polity, which, you know, today we have these phrases like from

Zhang Wei Wei, 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 incorrect prediction, and it's to that extent that 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 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 their basic needs met. I mean, like, yes, but the framing of marginalization, 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.

Am I, do I think that, 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 social estate.

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 yeah

we have one more question

what were the mistakes of the radical

labor and communist movements of the 20th 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, non-Western countries to their own context.

And that led to a circumstance where, you know, 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,

you know,

they were communists,

which were,

you know, radicals.

I'm talking about revolutionaries that were distinct from social Democrats,

found themselves in an awkward situation.

On the one hand, they opposed the reactionaries, obviously.

But on the other hand, 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 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 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 CPUSA 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.

That's the best way I could explain it, I guess.

So the next question is what would I post

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.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate it.

Yeah, DCP rising.

All right, our next speaker is Purple Noon. Come on up.

Hey, how's how's it going?

Uh, good. How are you?

I'm doing good. Thank you. And I just wanted to tell you, a member of your community, Stanis USA, constantly hits on transsexuals, including myself. Is this what agro-communism teaches? What is your opinion?

All right. So this is Stanis.

Excuse me? No, sir. is Stannis. Excuse me?

No, sir.

Yeah, very funny and...

Did you miss me?

No, I did.

Should I come back?

No.

I can come back.

Yeah, well, we don't want anything to do with you, Stannis.

I mean, you just went too far.

You went too far.

Okay.

Was it that gay tweet?

It was a lot of things, frankly.

The trolling, it just went way too

far and uh yeah

okay cool

well um i'm speaking on behalf of jaydye 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 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,

Dennis, uh, 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, be 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 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 huge 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 see proven by all of these people falling for bait and trolling?

You know, so it's my advice.

Okay, and just one last thing, if you don't mind.

Is there a chance I could come back?

No.

No. Okay, well, thank you, Adam.

I'm in Haas. We'll be seeing you, okay?

All right, yeah.

All right, bye-bye.

Okay, next up we've got Mali Tov.

See if there's anything interesting out of this one.

Molly Tov, are you there?

I am, yes.

Awesome. Awesome.

Hello.

So earlier you talked about the mistakes of the radical labor movement and communist movements within the U.S. 20th century.

How does the ACP intend on avoiding making these same mistakes in the future?

Yeah, I think, yeah, a 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 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, 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-Lendism 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 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.

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 have an extremely, I think, refined

understanding of the relationship between ideologies, between movements, and 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 in 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 would respond by, like, I, uh, 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 I think the problem where we've erred and sinned, I guess, is that we don't really believe in 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.

We think these should probably just be private matters.

And I guess that makes us, I don't know if that makes us socially conservative,

but it's pretty much the standard for communist parties.

It is a different take than most Western LGBT organizations.

Right, yeah.

Would you say that LGBT groups have been co-opted by Western organizations like the CIA to try and push anti-Russia and anti-China narratives within Russia and China?

Yeah, 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 hegem know, a hegemony, a hegemony.

Yeah, I mean, 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 things like that. But yeah, I don't know. I mean, 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, 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.

But in doubt, blame it on the CIA.

I mean, yeah, I don't really buy the idea that the LGBT movement 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, you know, the culture industry and without NGOs. It's been kind of a synergy between those two things that seems to have propelled it into

significance it has now.

Final question for you. How does the ACB intend on preventing itself being co-opted by other groups or interests?

Yeah, good question. I think that 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

desire to fulfill those then the subjective element we don't really even have to recognize

so that's our approach at least thank you so wonderful asking you these questions yep 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 I just want to ask you specifically, how did you repair your prolapsed anus after the Armarnoforma gaped it?

I didn't really hear that, but...

How did you...

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, Yowai.

Did you want to ask him anything?

I come to stream Apex.

Okay, next up we've got para hello hello

yep

okay so

pause

I'm I am

someone who's been looking to join the ACP. I'm a black trans woman. I don't know if that's okay or not. I mean, I've been kind of aware of joining just because of the things your members say on Twitter slash X.

However, I did see a tweet yesterday from at VolkVulture 1 who claims that the ACP has trans and gay members.

Is that true?

Um, I mean, I wouldn't be shocked at this moment. Is that true?

I mean, I wouldn't be shocked if a small minority of people have non-standard sexual orientations. It's not really data we collect, frankly.

Okay, okay.

It's not really something I would know, to be honest.

Okay. I wouldn't be like prevented from joining though, right?

I mean, you would, 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, in in proud to fight for multipolarity and Russia and China.

So yeah, thank you.

Okay, next up we've got catface.

Okay, I got a few questions.

And these are going to be kind of hard-hitting, but I genuinely want to know the answer.

Why are you a Maga communist when,

when conservatism like Donald Trump is very antithetical to any sort of left-leading 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.

My next question is, why do you support Lenin when the

coup happened in 1917

with the voting system

or do you not

think that that that vote

that vote that happened in

1917 was legitimate?

It wasn't legitimate because the lists that were collected in the months following up

were not representative of the new political blocks 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 Korenski 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 Korenzky government, they didn't really care to entertain this constituent

assembly. The goal now was to just, you know, 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 wasn't an ideological thing.

It was just the structure

of governance and organization

that emerged in a state of chaos at the time.

Okay, Edin.

I have

another question, and it kind of goes back to the first question, is that didn't Lenin go on record saying that he would support the liberals over the conservatives in an electoral system up until the communist had have enough power to

take over said system

I think what you were referencing

was 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 over the Black Hundreds.

Yeah, so that, 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 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 no such collaboration occurred

in any form.

But yeah, he did write, you know, if it came down to preventing the black hundreds.

Yeah, but you wasn't

saying conservatives.

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,

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 lump in and

professionals, even, urban. I think the the equivalent it would be like imagine dsa went far right

that would be the black hundreds in my view oh okay also if uh if the American Communist Party did gain

political power, what would happen to anyone who was a

communist but disagreed with the ACP?

Say, like, they 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 would need to be neutralized.

But just for having subjective views or opinion, it doesn't really matter a whole lot.

Oh, okay. And I got

my last question is, and to be fully clear, I

don't support this person at all. I think they're kind of, kind

of scum, but I gotta ask this.

Um, Pause, 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.

Ohaz, I've watched you for a long time.

My question

to you is

who would you classify

as the modern day

lump and proletariat in American

society?

Yeah, it's an interesting question.

I think that part of the lumpen historically is that they 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

criminality and antisocial kind of existence.

So, you know, 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 the key thing is the anti-social relation to production.

Would you agree that a majority of Americans are antisocial in nature in their quote-unquote work life?

It is funny because 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'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 lumpin

in circumstances of political instability.

What proportion of America would you say classify under the pmc i would say probably at least 20% Okay What political party do you think

these people in general align with?

The Democratic Party

Can you justify that claim? Democratic Party.

Can you justify that claim?

I mean,

probably, yeah.

I have to see the recent elections. I know for

previous elections and primaries within

the Democratic Party, there's data that supports this.

But I would say 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 like 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...

Well, Verofocus would say he's like a feudal, you know, lord or something.

But he's a billionaire. I mean, he's like a feudal, 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, but he's a billionaire that, for whatever reason, seems to be clashing with the rest of the billionaire class. He's in the minority, it seems like. Or maybe he's not. Maybe the rest of them supported Trump this time. It's not really clear to me. It's not very conclusive.

Okay, I appreciate you answer my questions.

Yeah, for sure.

By the way, that last guy was a total idiot of what he said about Destiny?

I just kind of see it as like an NPC

automated response. I don't really

hold them. I don't take it personally.

It means they're a bad person. I think

it's like a reflex.

No. think it's like a reflex next up we have thy art is cats

I like your name by the way

let's bring him up

thank you

so I guess I have two questions for Haas.

So my first is, why is there no like woman 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 you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Well, it's difficult to answer your first question because

it's just not true.

So I can't explain the cause of a thing that is

just not true.

I recommend you to do more research on our party.

It doesn't seem like you're very informed.

Regarding your second question,

I support Russia's special military operation because for multiple reasons. One, I think they're completely justified because of the events of Maidan and the Don Bass 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 U.S.-led rules-based world order.

You know, I, uh, that is the most important thing.

The U.S. political global hegemony, which is not democratic.

No one, 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 you can rebel is by asserting its sovereignty at the expense of the will of the U.S. and its rules, just openly defying NATO and the EU and the USA, saying, yes yes we can do this we will

do it and you're going to do nothing about it

so I support them

fully and completely

with respect to that

even though I'd like to thank you

has talked about being anti-imperialist correct

right which is why I support it or what Q has have talked about being anti-imperialist, correct?

Right, which is why I support it.

Well, Russia's an imperialist state. So how can you support Russia?

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.

You found it 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, it depends on what you mean by imperialism.

Bad empanata tried to make the claim that, you know,

oh, well, even Lenin agreed that the Roman Empire was imperialist.

All imperialism is 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 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 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 you, 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.

Someone else, if they have a question, they can go answer.

Okay.

Blue Team down.

You're up.

All right, what's up?

So I had a question.

So you say you've never seen him do it.

What about Georgia?

Do you think that they did aggressively for defensive reasons or because they wanted to keep

him in their influence of power?

No, I mean,

you could say there's elements of both,

but remember the main thing that happened in Georgia

was that this is a post...

Sorry, are you not finished, or...

No, no, no, sorry, my shit's fucked.

My bad. I had to fix it'd 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 autonomous regions or something 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, you know, Abkhazia in Georgia, for Ossetia, for the Ossetian

ethnic minority. And, you know, they were caught between Russia, which was North Osset, and the South Osatians, which were in Georgia.

And, you know, there had always been a balance in the Soviet Union where the center, which was in Moscow, is kind of managing tensions between the Georgians and the Osatian 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 Osatians

in Russia were the ones that were applying

the pressure to be reunited with

the South Osatians 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 a 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, you know, making sure that the ethnic minorities within its borders, who they literally have family with, just right across the pond in South Ossetia

taking responsibility

for this to maintain peace

and self-determination

I think it falls

yeah very well falls within the realm of

their... Does Mexico have the right

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

that have...

I would just ask...

Yeah, I would just ask the question, why now? Why would 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 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. It's like, like oh do you have the right to do this

because it's technically not your boundaries 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 self-determination of peoples, the right of continuity of peoples,

to preserve their ways of life, to preserve their existence, and to preserve stability.

So, yeah, the 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

rushes in foreign power

trying to tell Georgia how to do with that shit

well does George

did Georgia have the right to invade South

Osatia and antagonize the South

Osatians?

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 the U.S.

is hard.

Nobody has an abstract right to do anything, but when you consider the context of North Osatia, which borders South

Osatia 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 the Osatians.

I guess on that point

will I disagree, but I also want to bring up bricks.

What do you think about bricks?

I supported, and I think it's somewhat promising,

and it's just a matter of

is there a political will among all the BRICS members to do what's necessary?

The issue with BRICS and why I think it's never going to work is because they can't even agree on who's going to 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

Russia, but India's

equivalent almost near too.

So if Brick's just supposed to work

out, but three of the

four major nations

can't accept who's going to 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, 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.

But we're...

Failure in the essence.

Like, well, if we look at, in like the international failure in the essence like well

if we look at

in like the international politics

version of bricks right

China is

supporting Russia in the war

I think a lot of the premises of bricks

is not that we don't have

conflicts and histories of conflict and disputes and disagreements. I think the idea, the consensus is increasingly that conflicts spilling over into armed warfare and killing 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 Bricks is saying we find a way.

Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia didn't fight in those countries?

Did you say Egypt?

Yeah, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt. Russia doesn't find us countries?

I'm actually curious about what you're talking about when it comes to Egypt, first of all.

I'm sorry.

My is 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 an...

Accusations.

No, it's proven. Who funded their,

who armed them?

Who gave them weapons?

A little bit of America.

Well, not a little bit of America.

Well, not a little bit.

It's really,

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, yeah, and the

Truman doctrine, yeah. So you see,

otherwise, you know, the

conflicts could probably, there

could be a precedent for solving

conflicts in a way that doesn't

necessarily have to lead to

warfare, but

where we see

bloodshed, we kind of see a U.S. flag

next to it almost all the time.

I necessarily

agree with that totally.

I would say in general, yeah.

If we're talking post-World War II,

I wouldn't disagree with that for a work.

Right, and the reason is not a conspiracy.

It's just that, well, you have this military industrial complex that gains so much prominence.

And you have a hegemonic global system that has to be maintained by force.

Well, I would disagree with the military-desional complex.

I don't think it has to do with it.

I think what it has to do with is...

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.

Bricks 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 you know make all these unilateral

decisions to destabilize

entire regions.

They control, I mean, if you want to,

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 the total independent belief systems.

I think after the 1990s, the U.S. was meddling in the eastern hemisphere

plenty.

Plenty enough. In a way that

I don't think anyone would dispute.

I think communism

was a real threat. I'm very

anti-communist.

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 of alkanization

in the post-Soviet space.

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 or Russia isn't

especially right now.

We'll see what happens with Ukraine and Trump.

I think it's this ideology difference

and I think... I think it's this ideology difference. I think

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...

I would 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

It is fair

It is fair

I'm a policy but there are a policy But they're a policy that forcibly present businesses

From

Things go both ways

Same for tariffs

But I mean you can't really sanction the U.S., which I get what you're saying.

But, and sanctions do get abused, which I have no disagreement there.

But like 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 first order living in a fourth world country.

I'm not going to pretend.

Like, if I was in this situation, I would

understand.

But when we talk about Russia and bricks,

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 an economic point

they should control it

it may be true that uh bricks

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. is

unilateral dictatorship.

And whether or not Bricks 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, Bricks is coming together

because they're not satisfied

with the way the U.S. is running

the world.

I think Bricks is coming together

because they don't like Western ideology.

I wouldn't say because of the U.S.

Well,

most non-Western state actors don't agree. say because of the U.S. Well, it's...

Most non-Western state actors

don't agree with the ideology that the U.S.

pushes, which is

followed by the mass of

Western civilization.

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 are disagreeing with with the u.s would be

Palestine is like the big factor i would be Palestine is like the big factor.

I would say Palestine is probably the biggest factor.

Right, 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 U.S. doesn't care and I think that just reveals... I don't know about anything it wants but I

agree that... Well 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 U.S. 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 can be whatever.

I think it's reached proportions now that

you know, people are just, they've had enough.

See, I don't get this argument

for Palestine about Israel

when the U.S. 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 40,000

people have been civilians and or

no, yes, civilians

but then the U.S.

killed like hundreds of thousands of Afghanistan

and like pretty much

nothing happened. People told us to stop.

I don't get this.

Why would you argue

Palestine now when you could have argued Afghanistan

10, 15 years ago?

I think there's a lot of reasons.

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 big thing, though. I think that

the fact that everything can just be immediately

and instantaneously exposed

has been a game changer.

And I remember when

when Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

were leaking stuff, it was just shock

to the whole world.

And we have that now, but

it's now, you know, on a mass

scale. We don't even need

WikiLeaks. People could just record it with their phones.

I don't know.

I think Julia Saan just still

a necessity.

It's actually peace, bro. Never going to happen again.

And then one final question, kind of just to round it off.

Communism

in the 21st century possible?

Yes or no?

Yeah.

Inevitable.

We say inevitable, but I don't think, think any more democracies have happened

since the 1960s that are

eroded correct

well

I mean I think that's a really short

time frame frankly I mean the time frame

of this is the future of all mankind

and civilization I mean 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

eighteen twenty nine you know it decades had passed and the Waterloo was done and the French Revolution was done.

And they said, okay, you know, monarchy is victorious.

The whole thing about republicanism and democracy is done.

And then look what happened, you know.

So I think we are experiencing an era of temporary restoration, but ultimately, communism will return in a meaner, bigger, badder way.

I don't know if I can agree

with that. I feel like communism is kind of

the dead thing of the past.

I mean, but I swear I tried it.

Through the 90s and the 80s.

You had Guatemala.

You had Guatemala, El Salvador.

If communism is dead, I think that the thing that's going to 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 will be even more um revolutionary just how communism was more revolutionary than the jacobins

if it's true that it's truly outdated.

The revolutionary

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 disappear.

It's immortal.

It's throughout all of human history.

All right, I was going, man.

Thank you for the conversation.

For sure.

See you later.

All right.

We have Abdul Hakim 39 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.

al-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-sahsahsah.

So, my first question is, how do you reconcile your pro-Trump position with your pro-Palestine position, considering that Trump is very anti-Palestine position considering that Trump

is a very anti-Palestine

very Zionist.

Well,

I don't know what you mean by pro-Trump

because I didn't advocate for people

to vote for Trump. I advocated an

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 that's for tactical and strategic reasons.

It's not because I agree with Trump's ideological worldview, whatever that is.

But I think the Democratic Party 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.

Can you explain what Maga communism is and isn't once and for all?

And did you vote for Trump or did you also abstain?

No, I abstained.

And Maga communism can be summed up in this way.

American politics has different eras, right?

There was an era of populism in the 1890s.

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 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 U.S. 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 Maga 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

a lanyards

and we're

just going around and canvassing and we're

you know 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 hyperpartisan 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 Maga 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, you know, defending Europe or Israel or whatever.

And, you know, communism 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, you know, 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 would put it this way i think the choice in 2022 was maga communism or democratic socialism democratic socialism is this idea that you know 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 Tomsky

argument. But Maga

communism is different because it's not abstract.

It's not abstractly referring to some

kind of democratic

system or you know or even this cheap this cheap

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 marks critiques in the Gotha program, right? It's more based on like, no,

these communistic policies and giving the country, um the 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.

Next question is, 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, the United States government.

I don't see 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 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 if if if if 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? 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 uh people say barren trump his son will succeed in 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 a 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 well, how will the state assert its legitimacy to the people if it doesn't have a legal basis or foundation. That's a state of conflict and civil unrest. So I predict civil war, really.

Okay. Well, you know, there is the Bush and Clinton families who also had this kind of dynastic thing.

But moving on to the other question is, what do you think about 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 III?

Absolutely, it can. And if you want to know if people in Russia think it can, they do. And that's what makes this very scary, to be frank. No one knows what the intention is. If the intention is to give Ukraine more negotiating power when Trump assumes office, or more radically, is it to

provoke World War III so that when Trump comes to office, he has to fight this war, 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 a 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 kind of scenarios.

Death is a blessing.

Right, yeah, I have a different relationship to death, I guess.

But if you're someone who is afraid of, you know, nuclear war, I guess, yes, you should be very scared right now.

Just as a last comment

I have to say

you said rules-based

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 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 civil unrest, of tension, building tension, controlling tension.

And because why?

Because it's very simple. Because peaceful development and stable development builds sources of competitions with U.S. monopoly capital, which not only U.S., 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.

Hello. Okay, HSO, here we go.

Hello, Haz. I have a question.

Sure.

About your, well, I won't say,

your comments about the Democrat Party and stuff like that,

you seem to be very anti-democrat, but not really the same towards the Republican Party.

And I just find that a bit strange.

Yeah, I think 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 a

alternative

for the

directly private interests of businessmen.

The democratic

political machine

has to balance, it's kind of futal 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's not, doesn't really have it

shit together in the same way the Democrats, too.

So the destruction of the Democratic Party will lead to a crisis of U.S. 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 the institutions of civil society.

And that is a much more chaotic thing. And in such circumstances of chaos, the U.S. 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 Donbath

and he's. And his 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

Yeah, I think there's

I think it's not clear. I think it's absolutely anti-Chinese and secondization.

I think it's not clear.

I think it's absolutely not.

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 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 re-evaluate

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 phenomenon 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 regroup and rethink our strategy.

What I think is going to happen is an acceleration of the current trajectory toward

a world war

and

I don't think Trump will be able to stop that even if you

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 what happened as we saw with his recent

like cabinet picks and everything

they're all pro like Ukraine pro as well

that's that's the thing.

It's,

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? I think we already know that he is not in control, that

there's a machine in control, right?

I don't know. Sure, it's part of

the machine. There's a machine in control. It doesn't

matter where 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 on.

It's highly.

Yeah, yeah.

And 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 would take the blame only for this

to like, only for him to come back a hero quote

unquote um 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.

What are your general thoughts about jackson hinkle and his frequent

quite and quite 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, posting in the way he does.

It is to reach the goal of reaching people.

It is the, it is to reach the goal of talking to mass audiences.

And that people find it very vulgar because 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.

I agree with you because I think he's doing this for like the young audience, quote and quote,

but I do feel that it could also sway more like all the 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, 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 it 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

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 like thanks for the

questions but I also have to say that Jackson Hinkle's a new channel, legitimate targets, is doing a good job, and that's what I wished it was years ago, too.

Yeah, yeah.

Much, much more professional.

Right, yeah, I mean, he's, he built it from scratch, you know.

There was no guarantee of success for that show, and he's doing very well.

Anyway, thanks for the time.

Thank you. Goodbye, Piro.

Bye, guys. Love you. I'll be back.

Okay. Now for one of our own senior mods, Darkmaster. Come on up.

Hello, Huss.

So I followed your work

for a while, and

I also followed the work of

Antonio Wolf.

And I was wondering

if you'd ever be interested in maybe a discussion with Antonio

about a neo-Confucianism in modern China, since I think 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, he was an original personality that we engaged with infrared

early on. We had differences

in the beginning, but we eventually

came to respect him

and I think he's a good guy.

He's a solid guy.

Yeah, he mostly does work with Hegel and philosophy.

Yeah, I'm aware.

And I, uh, the stuff about Neo-Confucianism, um, I have to admit, I, it is a blind

spot for me. I think, the history of Confuci...

I know some people in Russia researching this very thing, actually, and Confucian history and philosophy is not my strong suit.

I have a very vague familiarity with it.

But I'd like 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 um you know i just definitely reach out um you know

last year we actually

went through

um the history

of uh

Chinese philosophy

um

and uh

you know

he's he's really equipped

and um

he has a really good

explanation of

Neo-Confucianism and how

that would fit in with Marxism

and you know Marxist Leninism.

Yeah, no, it's a very, it's an extremely

important and

interesting topic.

Yeah, yeah. I could just see it

being a really healthy, productive

conversation that could like add a lot of

it could certainly add

a perspective on China

that is not really seen

very much in the West because, you know,

like in the West, like, we try to like,

you know, they sort of try to pretend

that the Marxist-Leninism in China

like isn't part of Chinese history, you know, that it didn't result from,

you know, all the centuries before with China. And, you know, I think Antonio's standpoint is, like,

actually Marxist Leninism is very consistent

with Neo-Confucianism and like

with China's

like whole direction in general.

Yeah.

No, yeah, I mean

yeah, I think

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 that would be better, you know, in terms of something, I could 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, for sure. Thank you. Yeah, of course. Okay, pack of rides, 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...

One of your guys in my server,

so I've been learning a bit more about you guys.

I had three questions for you.

Sure.

So I wanted to ask,

what is socialism to you?

Specifically, how did historical projects

fulfill this title with regards to revolutionary activity, state policy, or even

aesthetically.

Okay.

Is that it?

I have two others after that.

Okay.

We'll go one at a time then.

Well, interesting question.

People have not been satisfied with my definitions in the past, so I'll try to think of a more succinct description of socialism, which would be, I guess, less awkward sounding, I guess.

Let's see.

I would say socialism, socialism refers. Socialism Um Socialism refers 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, whatever, tribal land, everywhere else. It's just kind of like that common ownership of land and the fundamental means of

production and this being

regarded as of impersonal

common and social

reality was not really

that contentious. It was just the norm.

The notion of individualism

and private property was the exception starting in

greece and through rome and the middle ages and finally the capitalism so i think that um when we're talking about socialism, I don't think we're necessarily talking about a specific system that, you know, a specific system of policy.

I don't necessarily think we're talking about 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, you know, 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, don't let

Twitter communists hear that.

I saw a big

debacle about how indigenous people intuited historical materialism so

right yeah I mean I think it's the opposite 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 of 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,

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 unambiguously clear, you know, like it's not indirect.

It's not, it's not, it's not being like denigated by some other kind of ideology it's 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 um 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, where the needs of individuals are fulfilled

in a way that's harmonious with the needs of

society.

All right. I like that definition.

My other question here,

online, you used to be a

Bordecaist when you were younger.

Why did you leave the communist left and engaged

with what is considered from them, revisionist

Marxist theory?

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 endorse Bordegas' 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-futal kind of pre-capital

pre-capitalist conditions.

Well, of course, they're catching up with the advanced

capitalist countries, and they're having their own

French revolution, or they're having their own

bourgeois revolutions.

So that is something I found interesting from Bordeca. Everything else I didn't, I don't really think,

interested me. Um, but I, I, I came to diverge from that view very quickly you know I think I abandoned it completely around

2016 or 2017 all right um I have one final question,

but a friend wants to ask it.

Can you bring up High Pool 22 in the chat?

I can't

bring up anyone, because I don't control

the... No, I know.

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 stage fright.

Anyways, 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 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 he wants to,

Wagner are people that are opposed by ultra-leftists.

I don't know what that means. Anyway.

That just sounded like gibberish to me. Then again, I don't go on X, so I don't know anything.

Yeah.

Next up, we

have Velociraptor.

Hello,

Haas, nice to see you again.

I have an important question.

How does the ACP

deal with life in a world where

I don't know if you never die

I don't know if you even have an answer to that

I didn't hear it that's the issue

I don't know what that even

I don't know what that was

he was schizobabbling

I don't know what that was about

right I know we have a mental health crisis in this country was schizobabbling. I don't know what that was about.

Right. I know we have a mental health crisis in this country.

100%.

Right.

Okay, Mr. Unknown. Let's give you a shot.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Um, hello, uh, hi everyone.

Um, I had, uh, a Christian for you, Hans.

What do you think about East Germany, like the DDR or the NBA?

I think it should be brought back in some kind of way.

The only thing I actually like East Germany is their military

style. Do you know why?

No, is it because they

preserve the Prussian uniforms

and marches?

Yeah, And why

why West Germany

never bring back their tradition?

Because the West Germans

were just completely Americanized

and, you know, the 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 um 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 airs of

the history of nations

and uh

right

I do understand

and now

today like German right now they just lost it to stand. And now today,

like

German right now,

they just

lost their

tradition

and their

heritage

or something

like that

but yeah.

But yet

is that everything

I

last question

do you think

we should split

two countries

again

like

like

each year is way better

than

the modern era but yeah yeah Like, Eastern is way better than the Monion era.

But yeah.

Yeah, the whole thing can be the DDR.

That'd be great.

But, yeah, okay.

At minimum, I think East should come back.

Right.

Okay, thank you Hans.

Yep.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay.

Next one.

Ziva.

Hello. Hello?

Hi.

Hello?

Yeah.

Yeah, I was just wondering, like, when we win, like when the ACP comes to power and we

live under Maka communism, will a niggas still be allowed to eat some poop or is that off the table?

Frederick.

Hi there. Hi. Hi. um hi there

hi

so my first

so my first question

so it

it was uh

so you said that

this earlier

so your communism would come back um said that this earlier so communism

would come back

like much more

meaner and

how would it look like that

would be replacing

Marxist-Leninism with something

more

advanced than classical

Marxist thought? I don't think anything

would be replaced. I just think there would be a new

synthesis.

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.

So nothing would be replaced per se. It would just be...

So it would still be the So,

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,'s not well I think more the more radical question was

the Marxist-Leninist tradition itself is outdated

because Marxism-Leninism already

carries the seeds of you you know, of new synthesis is in it.

And I would say even if that's true, that wouldn't eliminate the revolutionary traditions of mankind.

There would just be a new one.

But I don't really

dwell on that because it's not my view

at all, that Marxism, Leninism, is

outdated. Fundamentally.

Right.

What's your view on Brazil

not letting what what's your view on Brazil not

letting

what country either was

like Cuba or Venezuela

Yeah well

Look when Lula

was

Neck and Neck with Bolson Arrow

or whatever

I was raising the alarm bells about Lula I was was neck and neck with Bolson Arrow 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 or this, you're that.

You're, you know, you are supporting the U.S.'s interest because you're against lula who's clearly against i tried really hard to raise the alarm bells on lula really early and um 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 was, 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, I left it be, but here we are now,

you know.

Third

question. If

the Communist

party was to ever get into power,

do you think the USA would be able to

join Brits? Yeah the USA would be able to join Bricks?

Yeah, that would be

a goal, yeah.

Yeah, the goal

would be joining

Bricks or some other

multilateral global institution.

So is there any other plans that the Communist Party plans to do?

It's what we've been told on your website

you know the

well we have our program

that's public and

the basic ideas

American socialism would be implemented

and

so that's

so

like

people have criticized this.

Like, how would...

How would gun rights look under a communist America?

Because a lot of people are scared of this i would look i think that

i think that gun usage and ownership should remain um should remain uh 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 means 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 just like in Russia

they have kids you know how to put together

AKs you know but

so

yeah I mean a gun culture

should be more collective and more

communal communal is a

better word I I guess.

So what it looked like in South Korea

where the guns are stored in armories?

Well, I don't think we would want to pass laws

mandating that, probably, but whatever happens, whatever makes sense to people, if that becomes more lucrative, that it just becomes less of a thing for people to just store weapons in their houses,

but they want to store them in a high trust communal society or village, that'd be great.

But, you know, it just depends on the evolution of American culture, frankly,

if it's just going to go in that direction.

So

I think

that your party will be

able to get in power in your time

or would come to power in your time or would

come to power after your time?

A good question. I don't know.

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 i could see this coming big it wouldn't be like

coming into power in your time

because it would probably take

many many years

probably

your movement does have a chance I'm not saying it doesn't but okay it's probably not going to be

like you know in the next four or eight years that That's just not realistic.

Yeah, I mean, we're not expecting that.

Kurt Brown. I'm just saying.

Yeah, we're not expecting any crazy miracles happening.

I think that's it.

Good to talk to you, Oz.

I also have been banned on your, what was it?

Tank Eastover, because I was making a point about um mouse for pest movement or um policy and i got

banned for it so well hopefully i don't know what's going on so um i'm if i could get um to that server from you because i can i got to know what it

if that's really the reason you were banned but um yeah uh Um, yeah.

All right. Thanks for coming up. Appreciate it.

Okay, dokey. Next we've got

Barbara.

Thank you, Frederick.

Barbara?

Are you present?

Yes.

Are you guys listening to me?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, first, I would just like to say

good night and

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 doing 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.

Yeah.

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?

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 Lula, 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 doesn't don't point out directly

I would say that he is a CIA Stuge, although he is close

to

an spectrum of U.S. 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 Russian 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 to 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 CP USA and reinvigorate it.

We wanted to restore it to its former glory. We were, we had no, 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 thought

the party is a more objective thing, and that was a very crucial precedent. And so we waited until

the next national convention, which they delayed by a year in 2024, which is 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

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, it's over. The

Democratic centralism is done. They've usurped it. And now it's kind of a an

you know,

illegitimate institution.

So we reconstituted the party

as the ACP and that's, but we

don't have, now we have the precedent that we don't

form parties based on ideology.

We form parties 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,

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 genuinely a freedom

of opinion in the party and that

wasn't there in the CP USA

by the way they banned

us very early on that still

didn't deter us we just said okay we're gonna

conceal our views then um in any case uh acp was born out of not sectarianism but uh

practical necessity the cbBOSA was getting nothing done

and it was usurping its protocols

and needed to be reconstituted,

which it had in history before.

There was precedent for that.

Okay, so the problem wasn't, again, programmatic, wasn't a problem ideological, misunderstanding.

It was a problem with the instrument, the political party, in itself.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Yeah, ordinarily in a democratic centralist group, you can have a freedom of opinion to disagree with the ruling orientation. 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 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 really bad.

Yes, of course.

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. Thank you. Thank you. You know, 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. You know, You know, Thank you. All right.

I'm back.

You ready?

Yep. Okay. You ready? Yep.

Okay.

Default?

If you're speaking, your mic isn't working.

Let's come back to the default instead let's pull up ante testing testing one two three am i coming through clear yeah if you're working

all right splendid splendid well first off i just like testing one, two, three. Am I coming through clear? Yeah. If 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 the special military operations started

but i just had a couple questions um obviously from what i understand watching y'all's content

uh there is you know conservative revolutionary influence, Heidegger, Schmidt.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on Ernst Junger, though.

Ah, I don't really draw from Junger a whole lot.

I know he's very popular on the continental philosophy circles, but I, hold on, I'm just right.

Yeah, Junger is not a very decisive significance

for me.

That's fair. That's fair.

And I'm just

curious, because 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 going to 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 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

political philosophy, yeah.

And, 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 reexamine the emergence of what we call the state

similar to angles as, instead of beginning

with the Greeks, the goal is an alternative chronology, which is based in the emergence of

the dynasties of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt and so on.

Okay, okay, all right, all right. Well, that's really all I have as far as questions. Thank you for answering them and 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

My mic's working now

There we go

Hello hello

Yeah hello

Yeah sorry

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 sar Sarah's Twitter space

because he claimed that

oh, why don't

why don't you,

Haas, join my

Twitter space because I have more

followers.

I've got more people

listening to my Twitter space.

Oh, I was going to 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 allow you to...

Yeah, he just, uh, 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

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 the I. Yeah.

He doesn't even understand the difference.

Yeah, he's...

Oh, my God.

He's a reward, and 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, which he has no intention to

allow me to debate in, because we all know that it's just going to be him and his co-hosts

coping, taking turns coping while

I'm muted. I'm not, I have no interest in

sitting through that.

Would you be interested in

debating him on like a neutral?

Right, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would.

I would. Okay. All right, that's great. Yeah. Yeah. I would. I would.

Okay.

All right.

That's great.

Yeah.

If I,

if I ever see him again, if I ever join one of his space, I'll be sure to let him know.

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.

I also wanted to let you and ACP members know that there is a pro-ACP communist room on this server.

Okay.

That is owned by somebody who is not American, but he is pro-A-CP.

Okay.

All right.

Do you have anything else?

No, that's it. That's it.

All righty. Thank you so much.

And we have somebody up that wants to debate you, detain, deputy.

Howdy, I've come from far away lands to ask you some questions.

Now, before I do that, can I just preface this by asking, what type of communism would this be? Would this be the idealistic 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.

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

I can see why that's sometimes a little necessary.

But earlier, you were talking about how you think gun ownership should be a more communal and militia based.

Yeah.

I was just going to ask, how would that work?

Would there be like a little group chats where you join instead of it being?

I mean, I don't know. I think it would probably have to

take the form of like recreational clubs

which could be given some institutional support

just like in high school or something

and beyond.

A 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 too institutionalized by any kind of government. It just kind of is a part of the culture.

I agree with that. Now, how would you realistically transition on 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 political establishment and the people who run it

now.

And, you know, 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, people with good ideas just taking power.

It would be people who represent, you know, forces.

They represent populations.

They represent a voice of the people struggling.

And, you know, I think it would be the context of upheaval and unrest that it would happen.

All right.

Now, oh, I'm blinking.

Oh.

Shit. Oh. Yeah. lincoln oh shit I was gonna

ask some

it was

um

it was um

hold on I got to come Hold on.

I got to come.

What did you say?

I just forgot.

I ain't going to lie.

Yeah, I said

Communism 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...

Yeah.

Sorry.

But 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.

We communists didn't start the fire.

There's clearly fire in America right now.

And I think it's

just going to turn into a shit show.

And the goal of

communist is to basically make some sense

out of it, you know?

Right.

And

so

does that mean it would be during a revolution and the communist...

Or a civil war.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

Right.

I think if there's a breakdown of law and order and the only people that can provide a semblance of normal

to see and 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, 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 there could be other political factions, but, you know, they don't have the level.

I think it's all about the collectivism, honestly.

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 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 encouraged?

Encouraged, but I think part of what 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

stay 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

no? I don't, I don't think...

I don't think taste should be mandated collectively.

I mean, I think 95% of people just follow crowds in any way in terms of tastes.

But granted, you know, I don't think it should be forced. crowds in any way 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 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

banning together to form

a nation almost.

If communism relies on communal cooperation,

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, you know, insurrections?

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 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 machine.

It's a, it's not a, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not reducible to the sum of its parts, so to speak.

It's, it's, it's a beastcible to the sum of its parts so to speak 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 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.

That's a really good argument.

That's a really good argument.

Yeah.

All right, I think that's it.

For sure.

Back to the thing. See you.

It was nice meeting you as.

See later, bro.

Good art.

All right.

We have only two more and then we'll wrap things up.

Yeah, it sounds good.

So we've got head gig first.

Right, right. Thanks for joining us.

I have a bit more stupid questions if you don't mind.

Okay, sure.

So, well, first of all, I want to ask about your telegram channel,

did you abandon it and after some YouTube ban or something?

Did you not more providing content on this channel?

Oh, it's just been a lack of time.

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 if I ever get successful on YouTube

I'm just going to get banned

and that's the truth

so it just kind of discourages me

from even trying honestly

but um

yeah but for telegram channel

the world do you succeed

so you right now

busy with other forms of

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

the X, which is my main focus.

And, yeah.

Okay, see, the next question.

I want to ask 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 other opinions or to feel bad feelings and feel like they're not same as others.

Well, there is a difficult topic and various 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 in proportion. There will come a point where politics will affect the ordinary flow of life and, you know, they may be angry and demand answers and there should be patience.

But other than that, I don't think people should be forced to be involved with politics.

I think, you know, it's not really a need to deal with them if they're truly apolitical.

But it's kind of aitch to joke about some politics or talk about economics and stuff and to represent some Marxist definitions and etc.

How to think?

It's a bit too rude for them or you just must support their opinion to not getting into it if they want to or rather not rather they still need to know

something about different different movements or political topics etc etc., etc.

Well, I think it depends on the context.

What I've kind of 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 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, to what extent are people actually interested in engaging with this? And what I've learned is that 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 casual comments, you should meet them where they're at and just kind of, you know, can don't have to be dishonest,

but you don't necessarily have to

completely, um,

completely, uh,

overwhelm them with everything.

Okay, I see. And the next question is about your movement.

You are mainly, you are more media person or a local guy.

How much time do you spend on your

Discord server how big it is do you learn some do you teach some classic books on it

or just just focus on

current stuff

and by the way

why is MAGA

what does that mean

with this

this

title

maybe it's

maybe it must be

a mega

mega communism.

Yeah, I think 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.

Discord community is decently sized. I think, Maga, I did explain this earlier.

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 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-interestinterest popular self-interest

popular sovereignty

you know

that's my simplification

and uh

about activity on your server

does it be or maybe better

sorry

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 information

sharing information

oh yes I see

and about this is a rumor or maybe a classification in around leftist, like the leftist, this is an army who are not into politics and stuff, the

leftists who can be interested

or may hear something about

Marxism.

That is Marxism

who knows

the theory, who understands the political,

historical and other stuff. And, no, no, socialist, socialist and communist.

Communists is who actively manipulating this world who is managing to bring this into life.

Like who learns the material, who works with material. And so

you, the last one guy

who create a

history, like let's

let's say, or some kind of

other, all of them.

I'm so sorry,

I just don't understand your question.

Well, it's like a classification of Marxist.

They're non-Marxist, the leftist, the, how that's it? Socialist and the Marxist, the how that

socialist and the

Marxist. Socialists only

knows that the theory

but Marxist makes theory

come true. Yeah, yeah. Well, the goal is to be a

Marxist, you know.

That's what our party is about.

Yeah, of course.

And you feel yourself like a Marxist, right?

Yeah.

Very nice, very nice.

Okay.

And so maybe for my last question, I don't really remember what I want to ask.

Well, how about that topic?

In some decisions and some definitions someone say well

it's not proved by the proofs

you know like this is

nothing this is non

successful socialist country or Marxist

country

the history shows us that the Marxist

project is... I can respond to that I think it's very simple the history show us that the Marxist project

is... Yeah, I can respond to that. I think

it's very simple for me and thank you for coming

on. We should bring on the next person.

Yeah, I could respond though, I mean, very briefly.

The most, the only country that is

providing a paradigm of development

that's sustainable

for the future right now is China.

Moreover, the communist states

did fulfill the goals

they said 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 a rest of session.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Yeah.

Right.

Gone golfing for the last one?

Sorry, hello, how's it going?

Good, how are you?

Doing good.

So you're a recently new person.

How long have you 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?

Probably not.

All right. So why support Trump then?

Who said I support Trump?

Oh, you don't support Trump?

No.

Then why you call yourself a Maga communist?

It makes no sense.

Because I think Maga is a movement.

Not necessarily a person. 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 don't you have a more 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. 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, whether that's collective

or individual.

It's just kind of an official, formal opinion that you virtue signal and you're supposed

to have because of institutional commitments.

All right. Yeah. You may say that, but maybe it's just going back to the fundamentals

maybe the

liberal party has

strayed away from

helping the poor

and I agree I totally agree with that

I don't think that's liberalism though I think that's

left-wing politics which i think

needs to be brought back in a new way but liberalism is uh something different

you want to replace the whole thing called something else else. I mean, the structure's

already set. You just need to

I disagree.

I think the Democratic Party has crushed

left-wing politics

time and time again.

Look, I understand

like trying to

have a clean, start with a new clean slate

and starting some new movement, but

you have a strong base

in a Democratic Party. You have a whole bunch of

social. No, we don't. We got to

look at the demographic trends it's a shifting

base 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 swing, swinging.

The only groups that swayed back to the liberal base were like,

non-working class people who don't care about health care or left-wing politics.

People who actually need you know help the poor

are not the liberal base anymore i i don't see where where you get this attitude of just

all complete doing away with them all.

I'm from the Midwest and the Democrats are not the working

man's party anymore. I could tell you as much.

Yeah, I don't get it, dude.

It doesn't make sense to me.

You know, I've observed politics for a long time you know i've seen the tea

where do you live uh i'm i'm the united states south you know i've observed politics

yeah which state if you don't mind me asking?

In Oklahoma.

You live in Oklahoma. Do you think the Democrats are a working man's party?

Surely you don't.

Yeah, I 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 Q&A.

Thank you, Haas, for taking time of your day to talk to us, and thank you

to the audience and all who came on stage.

Remember to check out Infrared

Has' Discord server

website, X page, and kick, all penned in the AMA discussion channel.

Thank you so much.

Nice to everybody.

Goodbye.

See it.

All right.

Let's see what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. all right guys did not freeze Thank you. all right All right. I am fucking starving, holy shit. Thank you. 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 if it's going to be tomorrow or the day after.

True Tyler agreed to debate me on a neutral platform.

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.

Jesus Christ.

Suleiman offered.

Does this want to happen right now?

So we do this all night?

Is Suleiman holding a space right now?

Let me DM him right now. Let me DM him right now.

Get a snack.

He'd offered earlier.

Yeah, Trutheller is doing a space.

It is late.

I think he lives in the UK.

I just de-ended him. I'm fucking starving. I gotta eat some food. Thank you. I'm so fucking hungry.

Oh. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm actually fucking dying of starvation.

Holy shit. Johnny, what's going on, bro?

What's good, bro? How are you doing?

Assume! What's going on?

How are y'all doing? Thank you. Thank you. You know, Thank you. Thank you. You know, Thank you. You know, All right. Um, truth teller. So Soleiman might actually host this. I have food on the way. So I'm going to 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. Thank you. Zapatizmo with the 10 let's go what's up brother Gurkhan four what's going on? Thank you. Lawn guy, what's going on, bro? Lawn guy, what's going on, bro? H.B. Ryan, what's up? Thank you. and Lawn guy, what's going on, bro?

Yeah, guys, we might get a debate tonight. Thank you. E Pluribus. Let's go. Okay, so Solomon is going to host it.

And you guys have to go tell truth tell her to get in.

Solomon's about to host it.

Let's open up Blue Stacks.

I'm going to eat food soon um not yet i do got to eat and then i'm going to be back and then we're

going to do it all right All right. all right solomon's about to start it, and we're going to do it. Coco vision. What's going on, bro? All right, Solomon's going to start it.

We're going to do this space.

We're going to have a lot of content, and probably because I'm going to be going to be going to Venezuela soon.

And I'm not going to be able to stream for a little bit.

All right. Okay. going to be able to stream for a little bit all right space is started guys let truth tell

her know about the space link it to him and just have him show up.

Tag him with the info. He music for the space. and the uh...

uh...

you

know guys.

I'm gonna restart it.

I think it's glitching because hardly anybody's come on so um just give me

30 seconds we're gonna restart immediately apologies to has as well and everybody who's come straight

from his stream just give me two seconds and i'm gonna restart immediately

all right he's gonna restart it you're immediately. All right.

He's going to restart it.

You heard him.

But let truth tell her know what's going on.

Because I know he has his own safe space he's in, a literal safe space.

Well, now he's going to 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.

All right, here it is. and you know I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm and you know

the

you're

I'm and the you know

the

one and the one

the

one and you know

the

I'm and the uh...

uh...

you know

the

uh...

you uh... uh... so and you know

the

you're

I'm and you know

the

you're

I'm and the you know

the

one and uh...

uh...

uh... and I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm and you know

the I'm I'm and the one

the

one the All right, is he going to show up?

Right? all right is he going to show up right guys appreciate 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 who wanted 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 one of the

one message to house was, Bro, like, how could

be a debate and 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 has and truth teller um and it's gonna be fire it's gonna be on the holdemore

fact or fiction and a big point of contention on Twitter

spaces on social media

has what was the reason you decided

to do this debate and specifically

with a truth teller

well he's always

spamming my replies talking about

the Jews the Bolsheviks are all Jews. I'm seeing the Hello to Moore 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. A truth

teller said he would agree to debate on a neutral platform. And I believe you're a neutral host 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, 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 um 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 them really badly

so I can see why people may not want to debate

you because it's like you know they don't want to smoke.

But I've tweeted out a few times.

So everybody, and I'm in a lot of these group chats or was before, before I was considered, you know, not too much of a hater against the juice.

But point being, a lot of them yeah unwilling to

debate you so that's going to be interesting so truth teller is coming on we've sent him the invite

and it's going to be an interesting debate um i mean i'll let's see how it goes we're gonna we'll

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 tellers are regular on our spaces,

so, you know, it will be a neutral

debate it will be

timed and obviously

we know truth well tell her really well so he

I think timed is the best way to go about it

and 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.

So, Suleiman, in about, I don't know, like six or seven minutes.

I'm just going to eat a burger really quick.

It'll be really fast.

There'll be like a three, four minute thing. Just got to eat some food really quick. It'll be really fast. There'll be like a three, four minute

thing. Just got to 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

because 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 take your five to ten minute break. Well, not now, but it's it's not here yet. But when it gets here. Oh, okay, okay. So we'll stop and we'll do like a commercial break.

I have it in the microwave and stuff.

So yeah, should be, 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 a truth teller to come.

I don't know how long it'll take him to come across,

but until then, I'm just going to let a few people up

if they want to give their thoughts.

Obviously, this isn't part of the debate.

The debate is going to be between Has and truth-teller.

But I know Jova, Kalisi, you both come up.

Any thoughts?

Kalisi, what was your thoughts on?

Anything you want to say?

No.

Thanks for hosting this, Suleiman.

I'm really looking forward to hearing cars and truth teller.

Can you hear of Colisi?

You can not hear it. I'll drop you down and bring you back up. Go ahead, Colise continue.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the debate. It was not on the radar at all. I think it's been long awaited by people.

Has I think people always get really happy to see you debate anybody and I think truth tellers got quite a profile and persona on X

for various different reasons. So yeah, I'm looking forward to the debate.

And thanks for hosting, Solomon. 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. here have a break listen to a bit of debate get back into geopolitics a little bit so it'd be good cool uh joa well joa joa joa what's going on i 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. And I get that

and I've said that repeatedly and

that's why I focus a lot on

Lakud and how Lakud was started and

all the genocides of Lakud

have supported and sold

weapons and things of that nature.

And that's why I focus on Lakud.

Although you can point at other parties in Israel that also have atrocities, but not as much as the Lakut.

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 Bolshevikovic, 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 to Bolsheviks.

She then left and tried to spread anarchy in the U.S.

She actually even tried to spread anarchy in the US. He actually even tried to plot an assassination.

Her husband did an assassination of a political leader in the US

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

Loveless or Lovelace

or something like that that also

did this in Germany. 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 anarch anarchist jews which came from the maximalists a lot of

them uh which were heavily involved and disproportionately involved in the government

because they only made them five percent but then they were at minimum 30% of the government.

Right. 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

when I look at the Bolsheviks,

I see a lot of what

we see in the U.S. where their

population is way over

represented 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 that's 63 or 62% that don't identify, do not identify with what Israel's doing, don't

identify with what Zionism is prior to October 7th. Those numbers changed after 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 were, it 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 that Joe.

This is what has 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.

Did Trutheller 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, 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

see what the issue is.

Well, let me get my peeps.

Guys, with Casey,

go to the other space

and tell truth teller and his crew

that has is here, he's ready

for a 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 time.

I,

uh,

fuck.

So one of my followers just told me that he's in truth tellers 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. That'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 al-Din.

The guy who destroyed Joel Davisin the guy who destroyed Joel Davis

I want to say

Solomon 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're going to debate Ryan

but Ryan's message me he said that

he the Holddemort is a fact

so maybe yeah I don't want to

I don't want to put Ryan

under the

under the ball 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 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'd prefer we do that.

But if Ryan wants to debate as well to fill in, we could

do that. Yeah. And not on 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

of overlap between the two.

So the truth-treather 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 Hazel said if I understood the message, he said he's more than happy for me to host the debate.

His only issue is that-

So, Suleiman, somebody in my chat, sorry to interrupt you, is saying that he said he will do it with Soleiman 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 Malcolm 84 is co-host, why does he need to be co-host?

I don't understand that. and to have solimont message

ian malcolm to set it up um so like i'm cool with ian but the thing is

ian has the same position as a true title.

I don't think that would be a fair situation,

whereas I would say I am 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, no, it's obviously, it's not too surprising that he's stipulating all these terms and conditions.

It's a little ridiculous, in my opinion.

But 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,

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 sense of...

I mean, he is in his space right now, to be fair.

He's in his space, so clearly 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 or you're going against has like 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 as one and only chance we never know what's going to

happen in the future but one thing i will say is has has put a challenge out to everybody

who has been talking about the Bolshevitz

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 in 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 jupe Ryan into it as well.

I don't want to jupe.

I don't want to, like, do the same thing to has as well.

Maybe both have not prepped each of those positions.

Because like sometimes when I, when I debate somebody, I want to know what their positions are.

And I guess you both probably don't know 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 I mean 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 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 he says

um

hey Colin hi Darren how's it gone sorry

ryan i didn't 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 and first and i might not even i don't even know if i disagree so exactly exactly

no no you're both right because no one's soon i said it i regret it and i was like damn because

actually i bet ryan and has i've got like some nuanced positions and therefore there'll be a lot

of overlap so therefore like i wouldn't debate has on.

I mean, from the title, like, yeah, Holmore happened.

That's a fact.

But I guess you mean, was it intentional or famine byproduct of dumb policies?

Like, what's the real?

Yeah, I mean, look, to be clear clear the term Holodomor

emerged in the

post war period by the

Ukrainian emigre community that

left after World War II and was

hosted by you know Canada and the

United States and the CIA

I mean that's a matter of recorded fact.

And they invented the term

Hello to Moore to basically, you know,

make it just like a Holocaust.

Like, just like the Zionist lobby

weaponizes the Holocaust for its own,

you know, political brownie points.

The Ukrainian emigrate community wanted to do the same by emulating and mimicking the name

to make it sound similar.

And basically,

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 parts of those years.

That that was... What happened all over 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 Jgodha who

was briefly

chief of the

NKVD before

being shot

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 uh christians which is really preposterous to me and i just

you know i don't 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. If I don't have a different position, 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.

You know, the claim, I know someone earlier was... really simple reasons of self-interest.

You know, the claim, I know someone earlier was like talking about the Bolsheviks having a 30% Jewish leadership.

I don't know where that comes from because when I look at the data, the high points of Jewish, you know, presence in the power structure, it's one of the years or one of the months where you had Zenoviev, you had Kamenev, one of the half Jew, one is a full Jew, as well as Trotsky, I think, was there.

I don't know if Trotsky was in the Polish Bureau, 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, 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

interrupt you how to.

I'm speaking to Ian Malcolm and he is trying to get

truth teller to join right now.

So he should be joining.

But anyway, sorry, go ahead.

For sure.

Yeah, I mean, so people forget that because after Zionism, when, you know, most of the Jewish population fled to the Zionist entity.

You know, and then the remaining Jews in America, they became part of the upper middle

class.

But there used to be a hundred years ago.

A lot of, most of the Jews were just working class, working in factories who were dirt poor.

But, you know, to say that, why this...

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 Fannie 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 percent 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. 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-Ladvostk, 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 in education.

You know, when you need personnel and when you need people who are fighting for your cause,

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 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, it'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 overrepresentation 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, officials and whatever. So, you know, I, uh, I'm just very baffled that why the Palestine issue is now being used

to further NATO crafted propaganda talking points that are meant to verify.

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 the two, 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, I'm saying like it didn't happen or something? Like, why that's a question.

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 you goadah 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 up your goad himself was

tortured and killed

all right so i don't know where this idea

but like i'm just saying like the gulags and like all of

all of the other stuff like so somebody made that up for christian

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 gulogs, it still isn't

what the U.S. is today in the prison population that we have.

Yeah, because I'm not talking about the U.S. and today in the prison population with the

criminals.

We need to understand that we just have different words.

We just use, this is how we get conditioned to vilify other countries.

No, 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 and kill them and stuff. And then knowing

where communism comes from. 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 Yagoda about wanting to torture

Christians that can be verified

anywhere and it's completely made up.

I mean...

And I look $5,000 that I have I have the money. I mean, and I would 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 is how the...

You don't have to 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.

I think you've seen viral posts that are quoting.

I think you've seen viral.

No, 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 know, 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 when you know where communism

itself comes from like

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?

Yes, Moses has. I mean, he did say that communism will work for the benefit of the Jews.

This is part of the Zionism.

For some reason, Wikipedia claims that Marx and Engels were introduced to communism by Moses Hess, but I checked the primary source from that Wikipedia article and confined 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 movie.

But whether he did or didn't, but they do say that he did.

His socialism 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 really has no significance historically.

He kind of died out.

Yeah, but he came up with these theories like communism.

I mean, he is known with early communists.

He did not.

Moses.

So just trust me that he didn't.

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.

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 Muncer 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, whatsoever. No,

that,

no,

see,

it always goes back

to the Christians.

Like,

again,

but if 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.

You know,

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 words, it's his.

Like, I'm just saying, like,

this is, this is people.

Tell me where you said.

I mean, 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, these are like Jewish things.

I mean, it's okay, right?

Where are you getting the idea that Marxism was inspired by Moses Hess?

Where are you getting that?

I've seen that. I've read it. I've seen it in

documents. Okay. So it's like...

Yeah, but did you verify it in any way?

Or did you just take it in face value?

But it's obvious, though. I mean, it's obvious.

And I saw it and you see it in

documentaries and it is obvious. I mean, to keep

asking me on. I'll tell you something about my background.

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 Hess.

Okay, so regardless if he was, it 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's family property.

Okay.

Right?

Then you had people like

W. E.B. the boys coming in

with the N.W.A.C.

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 um marxist communists whatever soloninsky was hiring creatures to go in for the black churches yeah when did things go back into this ideology can i get a date from you when things went bad for the black churches to put them into this ideology

Can I get a date from you when things went bad

For the black community just so I know

I don't know the date that's crazy

How about a time period?

How about a time period?

Yeah

Like around the time where all of this started

With all of these riots, this, not the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Movement itself is, it's 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 was not good

for them. 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 they were working towards more of that until they were told that they had to

integrate and everybody had to love them.

And so they got distracted with these ideologies.

What was the cause of mass black unemployment in the 1960s?

Was there a cause for that?

Or what was going on there?

I mean, you could give me a cause,

but I don't know what that has to do

with the point that I was making.

Black communities that they lived in,

did they have funding from the government?

Were they run down and decaying?

They weren't funding from the government.

It was like the worst thing that could happen.

The United States is going to be a welfare state.

I mean, look what that's done.

I'll just tell you that

I'm just curious about how Marxism

ruined the black community.

Again, it is that ideology

of putting people

in groups and telling people

one group is oppressing the other group.

I mean, this is

what's 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 it's not...

Who put them in groups then? Was it the Marxist

or was it U.S. history?

No,

they didn't mind that part. These

people, when they were

freed, they weren't...

Let me finish,

then he called themselves at slaves, they called

themselves freedmen, right?

So,

they were really freed. Hold on.

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 Bookerty, Washington was training black tenants of people to own apartments and stuff like that.

There were people making strides in school. So you're saying the black community was becoming a utopia

until Marxists and came and ruined it?

They were working towards

being better than what's going on

now. Yeah. Absolutely because they were

focused on

god family. She's saying separate but equal

was better than integration where they had this class hierarchy.

Exactly.

Like force 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 all the black people talk about it. And they said they didn't want these communists coming into their neighborhood and telling them that they had to be Native Americans are 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 Marxus 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

had to do it. They couldn't even access

the police stations. I think they were fighting. They were meeting a lot

of challenges and they were fighting for it. And

they were being called communists for doing that.

Listen,

whatever you want to say

at that point,

but again,

that one thing

who 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 Booker T.

Washington way.

Make yourself marketable. Don't get worried about all of

that other stuff. 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 was rising unemployment. They had

no jobs. They had no opportunities. They had 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 rod

and decay while being that's not me police you have to watch if you, I'm sorry, I'm sorry

I'm sorry. I'm about it.

I'm fine, you like, you like, sorry.

Sorry, sorry.

I mean, that's not true. Black men

got to write the vote in

1866 and 67.

And they were black senators, and they did own land.

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 named 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 at the post-war Civil War period.

So, yeah, it was there discrimination against poor whites as well?

Well, it wasn't from the Civil War.

The northern states did not have black suffrage for many years through reconstruction.

Only black suffrage was awarded in the South.

And in the northern states, it didn't matter like Maine when there are 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.

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 you have black people

who started the Republican Party

and choose 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 that without

forced integration. There's

a way to do what they should have did 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 so that

immigration 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 it was like blessing policies and stuff like that there have been uh for it's

it's called forced and 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

growing 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 misfortune. The problem has nothing to do with getting rid of segregation. 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 republic people were divided by their race

it's nonsense

so black people overwhelmingly

didn't like that they didn't like forced

separation

if you say so

well the fund

we're skipping the part 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, 90% of the taxes with 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 it became president.

And over a million black people died between 1866 and 1900 as share cropping and starving to death.

Rapid integration is not good for blacks or white.

In the late 1800s, 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 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... Well, what caused them be poor in the first place

was yankee bankers withholding capital no they were on the south they were well well that

was one of the causes but they were poor under the slavery as well.

Seven states for the two richest states that have 11 before the war

and the poorest after.

For the planters, sure, not for the ordinary white people.

For the planters who were a ruling class, yeah, they were filthy rich.

The poor whites that were in the South had nothing.

I think you're misunderstanding.

Places like Atlanta and Columbus' entire cities were burned

to the ground. Everybody.

That's war. Not just the planters.

Not just the plant. No, everybody lost

everything. That was... Because Yankees

invaded. Well, that's war.

Well, yeah, it is not disagreeed.

I'm saying the reason for poverty was a physical invasion where they set the crops and

fire and burned the houses down.

There wasn't because of 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-

Who was treasoned?

Look at the history of every single state.

Wait, who invaded who?

The Confederates.

No, which army went into which territory first? the confederates no

which army went into which territory

first the confederates

seceded what right did they have to do that

every right was the united states

plural not the united state

there was a succession of news before that

which lincoln was supported in te was supported in Texas and in the Northeast.

One United Republic.

If you can keep it.

And they kept it.

States freely entered into the union and could freely leave the union.

That's why nobody was

nobody was convicted to

freedom. They did keep it.

Lincoln put blockades on his own

states that had not even succeeded. North Carolina

and Virginia. That's why they succeeded.

If these were sons of the soil that's

trevenous putting a blockade on your own states why did britton can collect the revenue why did britain in

france uh prop up the south they didn't'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.

Now, defend the South.

He just had a war in Mexico.

I wasn't doing anything.

South had a whopping

two

two revenue cutters they bought

before the war from the Brits.

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 finish

There 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 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

everywhere they absolutely did

look at national relations at the time, Lincoln was called a

tyrant and compared to the czar by the British press.

He was.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

He did 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 topp tackle CNN.

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 micro-states, or we could be a great...

No, without Lincoln, wanting to have the high tariffs,

they could just lowered that down,

and there wouldn't have been secession,

and 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 U.S. 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.

That doesn't fuel industrialization.

You need to understand to have industrialization.

I know if you're making the Hamiltonian argument

that if they didn't block

goods from Europe, then the North

wooden, they're all the ton of factories.

I've heard that plenty times.

But the South

never industrialized.

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, they didn't hate North was industrialized. There wasn't such...

They didn't hate the North or anything.

It wasn't until Lincoln decided before that was a rail tar.

It was the country back.

They were not.

They were the ones bringing the wealth in.

They're the ones exporting goods.

Tobacco and 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?

Other than 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 were far more industrialized than

anyone else.

Britain was far more industrialized than the

U.S. South. Are you kidding?

For textile industry, specific things, but you talk about infrastructure, rail lines, canals, things. They did not have to. No, they were not.

The South was incredibly underdeveloped.

No, they were not.

That's the stereotype from Hollywood after the war.

They got destroyed.

No, this is the lost cause myth that they, you know.

Oh, it's not a myth.

Look, the South would have turned America into medieval Europe.

And thank God for Lincoln,

that was prevented.

Damn, you're dumb. No wonder you're a communist.

Look, it's just a matter

of fact. You look at any great state

in history. Every great

state in history was built on top of

burning cities and all this

stuff. Every conquer in history, Cyrus

the Great, the Babylonians, the Egyptians,

you name it. That's'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 so 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 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 very long, were they?

Through the duration of the war and after

and after until Lincoln was dead.

They were still New Jersey and Delaware

and Kentucky had slaves all the way until the

13th Amendment.

Yeah, well... They weren't fighting about

slavery. I know you think that's

what it was the truth is the war is about slavery if you look at the songs

they're worrying about revenue

well for the soldiers that were fighting

and on the why is there at west virginia

they had slaves they seceded

but they're not affected by the

tail because they're not on the coast.

Why were the soldiers,

why was, uh,

same with Kentucky? Why was John Brown revered as a hero by the

soldiers in the Union Army?

John Brown was laid

in a slave rebellion

was what they wanted because we'd go against Southern

labor and undermine their war effort. I think that the abolitionists were empowered by

the war and were their morale and they were

They were abolitionists on both sides. There were more

abolitionist groups in the south.

The abolitionists were on the side of the union army.

And when Lincoln was coming up,

he supported the war against Mexico,

which turned the Texas territory into a slaveholding

away from non-slaveholding

because Mexico ended slavery in 1821.

Yeah, I agree.

And he didn't have a problem with succession then either.

He supported that succession.

We admit to the legality of it like, oh, you can't succeed, except when he wants you to.

Secede from Mexico.

No, Texas was going to independent country

but it wasn't

and it was Mexican anyway

it was Camachic territory

if you really want to get to it

wasn't secede from

that

and he supported secession he supported secession he supported secession and They didn't control that.

And he supported secession.

He supported slavery. He was indifferent to it when he got older. He didn't support secession.

But he didn't mind slaveholding states that joined in war blue uniforms and pointed guns in the south to go to war.

He didn't support secession against

the union.

We supported secession within the union.

That's why there's a West Virginia.

Yeah, he did.

That wasn't secession from the union.

This recession within the union.

Created a new state out of a state.

So you can do that.

It's not secession from the union.

Oh, yeah, you can keep that part and not the other half.

But he drove Virginia out by putting blockade on them before they seceded.

Yeah, and what's the

underlying cause? They were underdeveloping

and holding the U.S. back.

Well, the unlining cause was no,

because the North needed revenue.

All their cities were in debt.

Boston and Philly, New York, wanted that money

from the South.

He said that his first address to Congress,

I did it to preserve the revenue.

Indian slavery was not a popular

idea. It caused race riots in the north

when it ran around hanging black people in New York City.

The abolitionists were a very prominent phenomenon in the north. We're going to run 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...

...their-southed new hamster, 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 have segregation.

His home state wouldn't allow

black to the, and they enforced the fugitive slave

laws throughout the duration of the war.

I'm not saying. I was like, oh, you're up

here behind the U.S. How about

Grants' contraband camps, forcing

black people to death?

Yeah, I'm not saying... I'm not saying the war was fought for

moral reasons, all right? I'm not saying... It's delusional.

They're like, oh, the North

were just a bunch of anti-racists and they were trying

to end slavery. That's bullshit. They didn't put in

money. I'm not saying that. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the war was fought

for moral reasons, but I did have a

You just said a second ago was fought to moral reasons, but I did have a... You just said a second

ago it was fought to end slavery.

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.

Now, who didn't make emancipation proclamation to the middle of the war, not the beginning

of the war?

It doesn't matter.

And there's nothing in deciding reasons for the war.

And all I got to know is to get the revenue.

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 them was copied.

Which ones were copied?

I think you don't know what you're talking about at all.

Saying is about slavery.

That came out in the 1960s.

During the civil rights there,

they started covering the award in the 1860s

to be about ending slavery.

It wasn't.

They didn't care where they had slaves or not.

And they continued slavery, like I said, 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 would another form of slavery.

It was going to work at a 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 they,

it was about slavery.

Lincoln wanted,

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 break up.

They still wanted to destroy.

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 slavocrats.

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. He didn't want slavery. 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...

When Lincoln ended slavery in Washington, D.C., the capital of the north, which had slaves from 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 it?

Lincoln was the enemy of everybody in the south.

Was he an enemy of the southern planter class and wanted to destroy?

He did not care what class they were in.

Nope.

He was a mercant list and a lawyer for 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 want to take the money from one sector and

award it to themselves.

But the southern planter class were the most degenerate, disgusting aristocracy

yeah fuck

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 the

there was the reason there was a war

that's the rhetoric

no that they were the driving

cause well you didn't have a problem in 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 Corrin 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, Ryan, let me explain what I mean by the planter class, right?

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 uh being part of uh 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.

No, it came

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, so they connected

first. The industrialists

didn't were, uh,

had a material interest against slavery. It wasn't a moral one.

Against railroad building. I'm not saying it was a moral one, all right? I'm saying it was

a material one. But the facts are that, uh, the war was against the slavercrats and, uh, you're facts are that the war was against the

slavocrats.

You're getting closer with the backpedaling, but it wasn't a war

against the slaveocrats, because they had their own

slavecrats on their own side.

And they were not expanding slavery to the west.

They already didn't give them up.

The whole slavery. 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 is stay in the union.

And they all left anyway.

That was never a primary reason for secession.

They had to stay in the union.

He had a head on the Bolsheviks, too.

Yeah, you can't ratify it if you're not in a union.

They had to stay in the union, but they had to agree that they had to compromise and not

it. So it had already passed the Senate and Congress, and you just need the governors to sign it,

and the southern governor said no listen

ryan the slave of crats had aggressive designs on the new territories that's a fact they were

not willing to give them and furthermore when he when they did come up with the thirteenth

amendment the first go around while lincoln was 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 or war to end slavery and be against the interests of the Planocrats or whatever

and then have a 13th Amendment that end slavery and they against the interest of the planetocrats 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.

Don't 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 into slavery.

It did. No, it did.

Not. I didn't. I didn't.

All the slaves in the North remained.

All the slaves in the North remained.

All right. I'll let you. And he wasn't the president in the north remain. All right.

And he didn't,

he wasn't the president of the south,

so he can't make a proclamation about country that he doesn't run.

Why won't you let me respond?

The British papers made fun of it.

They're like,

Lincoln did not see his,

he did not free a single slave

in any territory he controls,

but declared him all free

into where he doesn't control.

It did end slavery.

No, it didn't.

Oh, you got the $5,000 bet?

You wanted to do a bet $5,000 earlier, right?

We'll bet $5,000 and the next patient

and the heart nation did not inslavery.

We don't even have to

We don't even have to bet one dollar

Because your money down

The fact that you won't even let me 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.

It did not end slavery.

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

slavercrack 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 North. Even if the

North did have a so-called slaveracrat 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 Slavercats literally controlled everything.

Go ahead, Ryan. You can respond now.

Put money down on the emancipation proclamation.

Did you not hear what I just said?

I did not. So, the 13th Amendment

and slavery, the whole reason you need

a 13th Amendment is because the

emancipation proclamation

didn't in slavery.

Factor destroyed the institution of slavery,

which was officially ended by the 13th Amendment.

Did you're...

The 13th Amendment

and the Slavery, the Mancipation Proclamation

were going to attempt to create slavery

and you know what it did?

You know what it actually did?

There were no slave results in the South,

but there were black revolts in the north.

Okay. That's why he was tentative on that because it was a

unpopular idea, and Yankees were just as racist as in South,

that they had riots going around and murdered black people over it.

If slavery was alive and kicking in the North,

then why did the 13th Amendment get passed?

It didn't get passed until the second go around. What they figured was since they had taken, because they wanted a voter block.

They had taken Southern whites' rights to vote away.

And they wanted black suffrage so they could have Republican rule everywhere.

Why didn't the northern slavercrats prevented or do anything about it?

Oh, they tried.

Some of them abstained even on the second time.

Several of their states refused.

Oh, so they weren't actually, like, an actual class of slaveocrats.

It was an extremely marginal irrelevant thing.

No, it's because Lincoln got shot.

And when the president got shot, they unified behind that.

And his, when Johnson came in, he's a Republican, they unified behind that. When Johnson

came in, he's a Republican, they had

a, of all the new

states added, they ended up with

12 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 because that is

Johnson who's already conservative

or Republican because they're the National Unionist Party

by now, but whatever.

And the 13th Amendment narrowly passed.

But during the war, when they tried intovery, 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, North Carolina

before the war, too.

Why are slavery in the north

after the Emancipation

proclamation?

The

emancipation proclamation is

in the middle of the war, and it caused

race riots in the north. And it 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 phenomenal?

New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland,

Missouri, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, all had black slaves.

All of them allowed Chinese slaves and Cooley trade in California, and that went on well after the war was over, because they were not set free by a 13th or 14th amendment.

14th amendment stipulated being born in the U.S.

Because they knew there's age and slaves weren't going to be born in the U.S.

What year was slavery?

I want to go back to put money on the Emancipation Proclamation

into slavery because it didn't.

When did slavery end in New Jersey?

You're not going to put any money on it.

You said New Jersey still had slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation?

Yeah.

New Jersey had slaves until 1866 January.

It had how many slaves?

How many slaves? It had. It was legal. That's all it matters.

It wasn't abolished in 1804?

Nope.

They tried to do a phase out saying after a certain date in the future, you cannot buy any new slaves.

That happened in 1804.

That happened all the way back when Jefferson ended the Transatlantic slave trade

for Western Territory. A lot of these places were phasing

slavery out, including the South. It was already going to end.

That was a global phenomenon.

The slavery 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.

And what's your

And I would add, you know, it's in the north, I'd

have Kentucky to that, too.

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 the new territories

because they made it because

the reason they wanted

in the new territories is because they wanted to use

slave labor to build railroad first

which is what they ended up doing anyway

because they had, they put

script pay on blacks and Irish on the eastern

side and they got ages slated on the western

side and built the railroad. The biggest damn

bullshit I've ever heard in my life. They didn't

want to expand. Oh, they didn't put people on script pay to in my life. They didn't want to expand...

Oh, they didn't put people on script pay to build the 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 were the ones in the South you asked. You said, the South. Right, but the

planters were the ones in the South 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 in campaign.

Of course, the planters who own slaves want to keep slavery.

The planters don't run everything.

The planters were having fight.

There were the abolitionist movements in the South too.

Plantsers ran everything in the states that were not involved with the railroad, like the, in Tennessee, Virginia, were already facing slavery out.

The canterians of all politics in the South. They controlled everything. Cotton was King in the South. The planters ran everything.

We ran New Orleans, which is where the railroad started.

They ran everything.

The planters ran everything in the South.

It was they controlled everything.

They were literally the rule of us.

They did not control everything.

Well, yes, they did.

They were the dominant guys.

They were in control. Well, obviously they didn't. They were the dominant guys. They were in control.

Well, obviously, they didn't. And that's why you had a 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...

It's awesome because in East Tennessee, too. And the third largest division in the North's help? Or is it because of the... It's also because of the... 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. Our west

sided with the north. This is the 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.

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

so as South Carolina attempted it in 1829.

And nobody brought up slavery back then at all.

Why didn't anybody in the North have an issue with the tariffs to secede?

Why was it only the fucking slave only?

They're not selling cash crops in the North.

They're not growing them in the North. What the hell is a damn cash crop, Ryan? What are they using to get selling cash crops in the North. They're not growing them in the North.

What the hell is a damn cash crop, Ryan?

What are they using to get those cash crops?

What cash crops?

Cotton is the main one.

Name the damn cash crops.

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

picked the cotton or not.

They just wanted the money

from the cotton, so they put the tariffs on it.

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 loved

It didn't matter how it was bought in.

Yeah, they want money.

Everything's about money.

They don't care.

Because like I said, in territories that didn't grow cotton, that still hide slaves, like

coal miners slaves in West Virginia, for example.

They didn't care about those slaves.

That's not a cash crop.

Ryan.

They didn't care about the slaves in Maryland or Kentucky.

Ryan, Ryan.

They didn't care about them in New Jersey.

Listen, Ryan, when Colombians and shit, because it's not a cash crop.

Ryan, you got a house.

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 main.

If they had a problem

with slavery,

then they wouldn't have slaves at all.

Their problem wasn't

how the South made money.

It's that they made money.

Ryan, if they had done that without slaves,

they still would have to put the tariffs on them.

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

is the primary money-making?

Oh, I ain't argue morality either.

Both sides were immoral.

Both sides had slaves.

But they weren't fighting to end slavery.

They were fighting to preserve all they had to do.

One side led to the-

But look, I'm going to repeat.

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 was...

South rejected the Coral Amendment.

Had they accepted it?

Then it would have been codified

in the Constitution, keep slaves.

The only way to get rid of slaves is if the state

decided here.

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 a ball of 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 were fighting over the money.

Well, it just said and interrupted.

It don't matter what the true cause was.

The North was perfectly happy to continue slavery

within the North and the South

and in the West

if the South would stay

in the Union. Ryan, the motivations

don't mean Jack's shit. What matters is what

actually happened. The outcome is what matters.

And the outcome is that slavery got

abolished because the South won.

Earths are lost in 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 back in the South. Nobody gives a rat's ass

about what the true moral motivations were.

What matters is about

what the outcome and the results were.

They do. They were making moral claims.

They weren't fighting over slavery. See, now you're back to

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 is it freed Custer

and all these Northern generals to go west

and kill all them because like that

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. You did. The very beginning,

you just keep backpedaling more and more.

Originally what I said, it was about civil rights and how black people didn't want to be prevented from going to the polling station.

That's what I was talking about.

This got down to the south in Lincoln, and I was defending Lincoln.

I wasn't saying Lincoln. Yeah, and I was defending Lincoln. I wasn't saying Lincoln.

Yeah, and I was saying that 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.

Well, a lot of poor people are black.

That isn't what they were aiming at.

They wanted the white people. They didn't want any literates.

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, 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 a classic tactic.

And you know that damn way.

It wasn't that brainwashing from the rich.

It wasn't, unfortunately, a very common idea that blacks brought themselves.

It was.

That blacks were inferior to whites.

That is something that they thought.

They thought that way in the north. They thought that way in the north.

They thought that way in the south.

White people thought that way.

Yeah, sure.

Everybody was racist, but guess what?

Before the landowners and the capitalists.

Including blacks.

Before the land...

Everybody.

Everybody means everybody. Even the land... Everybody. Everybody means everybody.

Even blacks put themselves in an inferior position.

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 political situation by making racial politics the biggest thing.

So yeah, I'm not saying they weren't racist,

but I'm saying the racial, the political division based on race, was

100% 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...

Even today, it's still being used. into the even today is still being used

that's a fact

There 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 own

your use. Yeah, yeah. So 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 just saying

I defend Lincoln and that's it. I agree.

You know what Marx,

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 mercant-list

that used state funding to prop

up his capitalist

corporate partners

in railroad and steel foundries

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 that slavery ended, but that wasn't the aim of the war.

There's a war in Vietnam, and then we had civil rights.

The two things are not related.

It's not just good that slavery ended.

It's also good that the slavevercrats no longer controlled everything

in the South and now there is an opportunity

they just had the Slavercats

in the North Institute's script pay

and 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 go death. They didn't care. Like you're free now, go starve.

They didn't care.

At least everyone was put on an equal footing

and could unite together and topple the system now.

That's what...

We 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's brutal.

We know it's cruel. We know 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, 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 Lee.

Well, look, I don't know what to tell you.

Right now, there's nothing that's good about causing racial division in this country.

I agree about that.

I hate racial geology.

I can't stand racist.

And what I see, more modern prejudices towards South. that. I hate racial geology. I can't stand racist.

And what I see, more modern prejudice is 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, blacks, browns,

reds, whatever, it's socially unacceptable and condemned and there's rules against it.

But you can stereotype 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.

Do you have something

specific

that people could

work with?

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. And yeah,

I mean, we're not against Southerners.

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 organize in the South and organize communities and bring people together.

But the problem is that when you go down the...

See, I actually agree with Marx about his criticism of crony capitalism, but I totally disagree with him about his solutions for it.

Well, you know, you'll be surprised about the solutions that there's a lot of room for interpretation frankly marks 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 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 or if we don't take up the calling you know we're going to go into a spiral of you know of decay and

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, you know, a great uprising even.

And 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 purely

destructive way.

A lot more variables to that, but

bringing you back to Holdemar,

you have the opinion that there were all these great famines, but they did not intentionally target Christians. It wasn't some Jewish conspiracy. And what do you think the numbers were? Not 30 million, but what do you think it was? About, they estimate about 3 million people

perished in the famine

of 3233.

Just in Ukraine?

No, no,

throughout the whole thing.

And

30,

the,

you 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 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 the chaos especially with cool logs burning all the cattle and burning all the crops

to resist the collectivization.

It was an extremely chaotic,

disastrous thing that happened,

which, you know,

culminated in a famine.

And, you know,

they ended it as quickly as they could

to respond to it. And once that... Well, they ended it as quickly as they could to respond to it.

And once that...

Well, it also culminated in totalitarianism.

Well, what does that mean exactly?

You know, I mean, 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 Koologs 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 to the cost of you don't have enough food, you have to sacrifice millions of people,

then that's the wrong plan.

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, 32, 33.

But remember, under the market system, the grain was not being put to use.

It wasn't being consumed by cities.

It wasn't being, 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, you know, 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 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, a fully devised a lot of other states

industrialized and they have their growing 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 to earlier, way

earlier than the British

French Empire. People, you know, and I

are talking about picking between

putting your like R&D into

into technology

or into agriculture. Typically, nobody

should have to do. Always first.

It's only when you have 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 china taking leadership um 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 talk about. Well, that's something we can talk about too.

But here's the thing.

Everyone talks about the Huladamor, 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 Halodomor 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 propaganda because they say they

Russia committed a genocide against Ukraine and therefore, you know, Ukraine should be able to

defend itself from 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 talk 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 know, 30% of them say me too.

The other ones say, you know, it's totally normal.

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 Donbos had the right

to secede.

Yeah, they did.

They did because there was a...

Their flag looks very familiar to another flag.

Well, that's true, but that's not because they like the Confederacy.

It's because they, you know, they sympathize with, you know, the, what is that show called?

Where they got the flag on the top of the car?

What is that called again?

Duke's a hazard.

Duke's a hazard.

They like the lost cause,

rebel spirit of reality, yeah.

That came after.

It came after.

It was like the mid-20th century. That's why the Bucza Hazard was still playing 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 Skinnerd and Stone Cold

C. Voss. There's always a pop culture.

Very popular show in North, too.

And they named the car to 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.

The 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.

I think, but I don't think it was because they loved slavery or they were racist.

But it was just because... 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 errors the black panther party allied with a group called the young patriots were which

were from i think it was west virginia and it was a white organization who flew the confederate flag

and the martin ruther king formed the mississippi freedom party and used used the Confederate battle flag, which was also in the Mississippi State flag.

Well, look, I personally don't like that.

He wasn't racist.

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 all over TV and stuff. If that was an actual, like you would never

have a swastika on TV. I'm going to say, that would never be allowed, right?

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, would they ever allow a swastika on the top of a car

on a TV show? No. Not unless

they're the bad guy. Fuck, no. But they did allow

a Confederate flag, and no protests about it, nothing like that. They did allow

bases named after Confederate generals,

and they allow the statues and things. All that stuff got

to start to get taken down

to the woke era because

to get the bottom class to feed itself,

they need to foster

racial division and paint things

to start twisted history and pit blacks

and whites and everybody at each other's throats.

Well, you know, look,

again, my parents

came to this country when they're about seven or nine

years old. I'm very, so I consider myself

new to this country.

And, you know, these kind of disputes uh 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 um but uh you know, those things I'm not going to be really involved in.

I don't think Don Bosch just like the Dukes Hazard.

I think Donbos saw a secession movement in America, 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 Bixie 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.

Well, they identify with the right to succeed.

I think it's a, I think it came from the Dukes of Hazard

stuff, frankly, if anything.

So Don Boss, the middle of 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

cold 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 uh west virginia is 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 it's mostly southern there's a lot of those flags, frankly. Go to Northern Michigan.

It's mostly southern.

Yeah.

Well, a lot of Northerners have that flag.

They agree with secession.

Well...

It's okay to like someone else's culture.

There are people who have

Japanese conduit 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 don't think your opinion is very

informed. You didn't know what the Corerman Amendment was and he

saw the emancip Claimation Proclamation

into slavery. So you're just ignorant.

I did.

Put the money down though.

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. Ryan,

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 that would not get changed until the 13th Amendment after Lincoln's Day.

It was ended by the 13th Amendment, you know.

No, not a single slave was set free by the 13th Amendment.

Not one. I don't know about that. 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 what I'm telling you.

Even if all 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. Everybody

got destroyed. The planters in particular were destroyed.

The equivalent death count of America

had a war today is like going to war and losing

17 million people.

That's how bad that was.

Ryan, I'll tell you something.

I think if you were alive during the Civil War,

you would have joined the Union side.

Not all 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 been...

I think you would have been around

raping and burning everything.

He joined the South.

I think you would have been on the union side.

I think you just lack the confidence.

Absolutely not.

If I lived,

wherever I lived,

if I lived in the South

and my state got invaded, I'm siding with my neighbors and my own.

Well, you know, here's the thing.

Here's the thing.

The reason there is, there's a bunch of reasons for succession.

The reason there was a war is because the North invaded.

There was no dream of the South invading the North and taking them war is because the north invaded there was no dream of the south

invading the north and taking them over and forcing

the race. We're not going to agree on this topic

but at the very least I'll give you this

You can't say they go

I bet you would have thought you're very angry

I left insulting as hell

I'll give you this.

At least you're not a larper and you believe what you do because I, you know, that's 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 like representing an

orthodox christian whatever perspective and is uh 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, I, I, yeah.

That came out of his own mouth.

We're not going to agree on.

That 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 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 on to tackle.

And the planter class is gone

from history.

Wipeed away.

Okay, guys.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

And we have, uh, we have civil rights because of the word of Vietnam.

Because it both happened at the same time.

Why do we identify with the planter class so much?

It's nonsense.

A lot.

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're 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.

This is crazy.

All they had to do,

all they had to do is sick.

I want to go in circles.

Correct.

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 This is going to go back on To cotton Cotonous slavery

We're going to circles

Yeah it's going on

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 cities somewhere else.

The planters didn't want

industrial laws. 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.

The money 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...

Because all they were doing...

Because all they were doing because all they were doing listen slavery was a 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, and they still had script pay. And the reason the North finally fazed 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 replaceable 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 Wade slavery. That slavery existed in the north and the

south. That slavery is that infamy. The infamy of that slavery is well known to history the abolitionist shine light on it and it was nothing like anything that existed in the north it was exactly what existed in the north.

It was exactly what it existed in the north.

Just 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 is 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 a larger population

and you can vote yourself money is why

they're lagging behind. Only the union winning

led to the destruction of the slavery. That's the behind. 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

switch from the fought to end slavery

and emancipation into slavery

and Lincoln was anti-slavery too

well consequently 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, no, they didn't give a shit, right? I agree.