IRAN WINNING! | DEFEATING ALL ENEMIES

Rolling, ones if we're rolling, ones if it's a rollin', ones if it rolling, ones are for rolling, ones if it's all good, ones if it's all good, ones if it's all good.

Ones are just all good.

One's my mid mic is you uh working.

Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Welcome cult members.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Welcome, welcome, welcome.

We have a lot of shit lined up.

We have a fucking debate lined up right off the bat.

First thing I want to know: who the fuck is an IGG debating?

Who's debating and what is it about?

I'll literally bring them up right now without an introduction.

Who is it?

Tell me who they are.

I'm just dragging these people up straight up.

I have no patience for nonsense.

We're just gonna get right into it without even thinking about it.

Who who are the troublemakers?

What the fuck is your problem?

What the fuck is your problem?

What the fuck is your problem?

Well, you pulled in the wrong person, probably.

Who am I supposed to pull up?

Um, I don't know, I was talking to someone in the wrong chat, I guess, sorry, but

They both fucking left.

There was ten people debating before this fucking stream started.

And uh, you know, and then everyone scatters to the wind when I go live, I guess.

Holy shit.

And it's fucking crazy.

That's quite crazy, actually.

Okay.

Well, we'll get to the debates.

I could do the TikTok thing again.

Next time it's going to be with Jackson, by the way.

Uh so let's uh get right into it guys.

Uh today we are going to be doing some coverage some exclusive coverage of the Iran war actually but we're also I'm also going to be talking about some very

We're going to take inventory of where we are right now.

And it's in tandem with the latest post that I put on X.

And we're just going to have to talk about that.

We're going to have to talk about MAGA communism, social progressivism, all the hot topics that we seem to be in hot water about.

And I'll tell you why there's an upsurge of cope and screaming and shitting about ACP and about our movement.

First things is the Reddit outcry because apparently we're stealing subreddits, and that's that's worse than Israel killing children.

That's worse than the Holocaust.

Okay, apparently, it's worse than the Holocaust that someone is taking over subreddits.

This is all Astroturf shit by the fucking federal government.

We all know that.

Okay, so there's that, and then there's also, I don't know if you guys have been noticing.

Did you know we've been popping off on X?

Not just the ACP account.

I just see gorillas popping off all the time now.

Jesus Motorcycles, his edits are going super viral.

Ruslan made an account called Fentcom, which overnight got like 30,000 followers.

We are, yeah, Dane, we are like popping off every other day.

We are extremely outsized influence relative to our numbers.

Straight up.

We are like really popping off big time.

Our influence is starting to be felt.

by a much wider circle and stratum of people than ever before.

It's never it's like they're really feeling pressure from ACP and everything.

But at this so this is why we're getting a new wave of these like old recycled reactions to ACP that have we've been we've been pretty much accustomed to for four years, five years, even before ACP started.

Our movement was targeted by this shit.

It's like, well, the reason is because a much first of all, there's a few things happening.

More of the left are becoming tankies because of the Iran war.

So these new tankies think that we're, oh, you're a government psyop.

I was a Stalinist while you were in diapers, you fucking retards.

Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

People don't know that we have OG status, that we've been here for a very long time.

And the reason they don't know that is because we are just kind of not in the spotlight of H3H3 subreddit.

We're not in that milieu.

We don't fuck with that.

So they think we just came out of nowhere or some shit.

We've been here.

We've been here.

Okay.

And yeah, there's just like we've been fighting the Groipers and fighting the right for a long time.

Now that that was still going on for sure, but now, you know, from our left flank, it's not really our, it's still a right flank.

But now we're starting to get, you know, a lot of cope and seething from that direction.

And I don't have patience for it.

I'm not going to change.

I'm not going to be more accommodating.

I'm not going to be more friendly.

I am not Zoran Mamdani.

I am not Kate Abu Ghazala.

I am not one of these.

House Arabs, whatever you fucking call them, these house Muslims, these house Arabs.

I'm not like that.

I'm a fucking asshole.

I'm gonna tell you the truth.

And if you have a fucking problem with it, go grab a tissue and cry about it, you little bitch.

That's my fucking take.

I don't have, I'm not Zoran Mamdani.

I'm not gonna smile and make you feel wholesome and warm and shit.

I'm gonna slap you across the face and tell you what a fucking retard you've been for decades and how much you got to get your shit together and wake the fuck up.

That's the type of A-rab Muslim that I am.

You understand?

I don't give a shit who that offends.

I don't care how unwholesome that is to people.

I don't care how.

Brutal it is to people, I literally don't give a shit.

I don't have patience for you.

I will tell you the straight truth, this is why the white workers and the black workers and the Latino workers of America fuck with me.

Because I tell the truth I tell the unfiltered truth.

Do you understand?

So, today we're going to be talking about Iran.

So, basically, Netanyahu, Netanyahu, building the third temple, and basically, the red cow and the new Hitler will rise in Malaysia.

And a lot of people don't know that the Gnostics wrote about how Iran and Russia, the Jewish Bolsheviks, took Russia for.

Sorry, I just had to do that.

I'm a little bit schizophrenic.

Uh 'cause I'm not gonna be on some Professor Jong shit, you know?

But uh

Uh I want to talk about some things that have been on my mind.

Um

And really, where we have to begin is.

We have to actually

We actually have to um

When I talk about giving the brutal straight and honest truth.

I think about what it is that everywhere I go, I divide.

I am a disaster for this space.

In terms of people's mental health, I admit that.

You know, almost every other party member or gorilla that I meet, who are my brothers, by the way, I'll take a bullet for y'all, by the way.

They tell me, you know, Haas, you saved my life.

And uh so i the sword cuts both ways though.

The the amount of benefit that I bring by giving you these sober, brutal truth pills or whatever, uh also causes a lot of coping and mental devastation and psychological issues for other people.

I inspire the same devotion that you have in this cause, the same devotion you have that I inspire you with, to an equal extent and in equal proportion, I inspire hatred and I inspire opposition.

And that just comes with that's just the price of having a very powerful message.

Frankly, this is why we are so contentious, by the way.

And so it leads people to say, you're coins all pro, you're feds, you're disrupting the movement.

And this is the crux of what I want to get to, to be honest.

Your so-called movement has had decades to get its shit together.

And I understand there's this vague idea that this is the left and you just don't quit.

This is the left.

This is everything else is right wing.

This is the left.

And I understand there's this vague.

There's this Obama psychological mental dome people lived inside, this bubble, where the line kept going up, oh, gay marriage and transgender, all these things, oh, how wholesome, Ellen DeGeneres and all these things, how wholesome.

Obama, black people are equal now.

There's no more racism and and everything is just getting better and better and we're progressing and so wholesome and so loving and everything is becoming so great.

And then the the dark forces.

These reaction, so to speak, right?

That represents the resurgence of neo-fascism.

Because we were on course for a normal trajectory before the neo-fascists came.

You know, the people who are contradicting this hegemony in some way, with these really brutal, ugly, dark things, racism, sexism, all these dark, evil, really bad things.

And our default is that we're a wholesome progressive society.

We're a wholesome, loving, progressive society that is left-wing inherently, right?

Because we all put a smile on.

I'm crazy, sorry.

I'll calm down.

We are a wholesome, progressive, left-wing society and

There's a neo-fascist menace and threat, the dark enlightenment, the neo-reaction.

This was all an aberration that just came out of nowhere.

Totally unnatural aberration.

It's neo-fascism.

And we need to go back to our Obama safe space where we're all normal.

We're all normal here.

We're in our Obama safe space.

We work in human relations and a corporation or something.

And you work for the New York Times.

I work for The Daily Show with what's his name?

Stephen Colbert, right?

Whatever.

Jimmy Kimmel, whatever.

It's like this, just like this Hollywood facade of just wholesomeness and happy, wholesome chungus that people live and dwell within and live and die by.

And it's the source.

Yeah, Ellen DeGeneres.

It's just the source of people's mental health and stability and sense that they're living in a stable, normal world and everything's fine.

And then apparently, if we want to be communists, it's that.

I love Pokemon.

It's that.

Like Brandon Torres.

I love Pokemon.

I love Donkey Kong.

I love Mario.

I love.

You love all these things.

And then in addition, we're so wholesome.

We're going to take the Obamunism to the next level and we're just going to all hug each other and then become part of.

And then here I am pooping on the party.

And apparently that makes me a fascist.

I just have a few objections.

That's all.

That I would like to get out.

And you were Haas, why the fuck are you talking about Obama?

It's 2026.

Because believe it or not, people still haven't left the bubble from the Obama era.

Their sense of social progress comes from the Obama era.

Their sense of where everything went wrong was after Obama.

This is implicitly what these people believe.

This is how they've measured progress so far.

Sometimes I see these people say we're in an era of global counterrevolution.

I wonder why they're saying that.

We're living in an era after 1991, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

After Libya.

And then I realized you're talking about the Trump era after Obama, that that's this is just the era of darkness, and everything was light before.

I hate to poop on the party.

I know part apparently being uh a party pooper is right wing now.

Fuck, I don't know what I could say to get through to people.

I don't know what I could say to get through to people.

I gotta get through to these kids, you know, I got like like in South Park, I gotta get through to but instead of kids, it's like grown twenty-five-year-old autistic people.

But why the fuck do I?

Because I'm trying to get through to them.

Even these retard furries and these disgusting people.

Because I know.

If I bother you this much, I've caught your attention.

There's something about what I'm saying that bothers you, right?

And I would just like you to listen to that worm of doubt a little more intensively.

And uh

The truth is, is that I used to be like you.

I used to be a bog standard American leftist.

Wouldn't say bog standard, but I definitely understand that point of view a lot.

I remember the sense of revulsion and fear and shock upon being confronted with

The illiberal tendencies

Believe it or not, harsh, what's up?

I I had a conflicted reaction to Trump's presidency for sure.

But

There was something about it I found very, very dark.

And

I I remember learning about Curtis Yarvin and then Nick Land.

I remember learning about them and I remember how much anxiety it would cause me.

Believe like I used to be a shitlib in a way, right?

I remember when I was in college I'd be sitting on the couch looking at the wall, thinking about um

uh land on numbers, you know, his understanding of his kind of debasement of numerology and and stuff.

And and I I just was losing my fucking mind.

I just there was just this overwhelming sense of anxiety that I had that like

Why should we be biased and believe that the material world is inherently left wing?

What if it is true, you know, that all these things that the right is saying

Uh in addition to all of the fucking memes, it's like it's like what if you know what what leads us to believe that the progressive Obama society we live in is actually a reflection of reality?

And these doubts bothered me.

They bothered me.

I felt an immense sense of anguish and anxiety.

I remember it.

I understand the reaction we elicit in the so-called liberal leftists.

It's probably the same thing, when they see us be so politically incorrect, when they see me so casually deal with.

Thinkers and ideas that come from the right in a way that just like I show no fear and I'm not intimidated by it.

There's this instinctual revulsion that what it really is is they have this security system that they call the left, and they see a breach in the system.

That you know, the reason we get fedjacketed all the time is because people see us as an infiltration in this kind of mental psychological security system they have, which ultimately comes from the Obama era.

And they still haven't learned why the Obama era is past us.

They still cling to this delusion.

That there is a continuity of social progress and democracy and all these kind of things that has merely been detracted from the rise of a neo-fascist right.

And um I spent a lot of time

Uh isolated and thinking about what all this meant.

And the more I started to really psychologically come to terms with the direction that we're taking.

As a society

As a world, what does it mean existentially, metaphysically?

I mean, like, is land right?

Is are the nihilists correct?

Um

The more I realize something, uh

I really became disgusted with leftists.

I became disgusted with them because

While I was being exposed to the hideousness of the right-wing ideas, and what bothered me about right-wing thinkers wasn't that their ideas were compelling, it bothered me that people

thought this way, that this is how people reacted to existence, to life and to the world.

And with the rise of big tech, I observe that, okay?

The reason why I scoff and brush off people talking about big tech and Palantir in twenty twenty six

is because I was freaking out about it in twenty fourteen.

Nobody gave a fuck.

D S A people did not re they thought I was a schizophrenic lunatic when I would talk about how big tech is like neo fascist and like they didn't give a fuck, they just kind of looked at me like I was crazy and and were like, Well, you know, Facebook's pretty wholesome.

Now every other YouTube video

is uh one of these shitlib

Vox or something talking about uh the dangers of big tech, and I just it's you're too late.

You're way too late.

Yeah, they used to love you, Elon Musk.

Absolutely.

I was the crazy.

I had Trump derangement syndrome before Trump was elected.

I was fear mongering about it, and I fell on deaf ears from leftists

who were living in a bubble.

They couldn't imagine it.

It was like they lived in this bubble where the world was inherently wholesome.

And don't worry, these are just some nasty, bad, bigoted people, and love will prevail, and Hillary will win.

And then after Trump won I felt betrayed a little bit.

I felt betrayed by the sense of complacency and delusion.

and falsehood that had been created by the left.

The way that they would lie to themselves that there wasn't a fundamental shift happening.

that they just weren't equipped to respond to in any kind of way.

This way they would just dismiss any attempt to bring it up and be like, Hey, this is a fucking problem.

I you want to know how I got these scars?

Well, that's how it started.

I used to be a s bog standard lip tard retard leftist.

But uh

I just had the courage of a little self-awareness.

I didn't get taken for a ride after all these horrific things and the breakdown of our overt customs and manners and ideologies happen at the public level.

Oh, I didn't, I never had this reactive, knee-jerk reaction because I had the foresight to see where things were headed.

I was sitting here thinking about what direction are we going in.

And it's almost as if to think in a long-term way.

was to speak a language that was alien to these so called leftists.

And then as time went on, this was during the Tr Trump one point zero by the way.

Time went on I I began to grow mm just more uh bitter in a way.

looking at leftists and seeing

Their hypocrisy.

That's what killed me.

I became instinctually disgusted by the worldview that leftists lived in, the world they lived in, the bubble they lived in.

Because wait a second, all of this shit was happening under Obama.

Under Obama, we were killing and blowing up kids with drones.

We devastated entire nations like Libya.

Big tech was consolidating first under Obama, this techno fascism people now talk about.

And we were entering a very ruthless, brutal fucking world, a really ugly, dark, brutal fucking world.

But we just weren't allowed to reflect that in our vocabulary.

Because if we did that, we would somehow be accused and be culpable.

Just by passively reflecting it, we're reinforcing it.

The more we just create a bubble and insulate ourselves from the ugliness and brutality and darkness of the world, the more we get a self-satisfactory sense that we're no longer culpable in it, but you are.

There's nothing about the Trump era that was more hideous than the Obama era.

Actually it was just more honest.

And what does that say about these liberal leftists?

They are not more left wing than Trump.

They're just liars.

They just sanitize and purify their fucking language.

They create a mental safe space and they isolate themselves from the ugliness and brutality and ruthlessness of the world.

And they think that makes them morally superior, as if they're not equally culpable in the state of the country.

But the fundamental question remained.

I mean

How can you maintain faith in the communist cause, in Marxism, in the broad left-wing tradition?

Without this copia mental safe space security system.

Which was not reflective of reality.

So, how can you embrace the real?

The reason I spent so much time in contemplation and introspection and stuff is because I wanted to know what does it really mean to give way.

To the real.

You know, liberal leftists, these Redditors, they believe that there's

That like ultimately they do reflect the truth of reality.

You know, like, oh, well, the science, Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with us.

And they just never question it.

And so there's this kind of passive guarantee in the institutions that rule society, it's fundamental trust in them.

Sophia, what's up?

Thank you for the five.

And uh

There's no authentic encounter with the real, with nothing, without any mediation, in a sense.

You know, like, okay, what about outside of your safe space?

Can you just honestly face the truth of the reality you live in without a filter?

And this is what I tried to do for years, you know, and

Uh I guess the you know origins of

The the

The restored faith I I have in the revolutionary tradition and in Marxism and in the good, really more broadly, this is what we're talking about.

Is that I started to understand and accept.

That

The reason there is an alignment between the innate sense of justice and good and whatever that we aspire toward and the real, the world as it really and truly is.

is because

That's where it comes from.

It doesn't come from these institutions.

It doesn't come from these institutions that protect our democracy.

It doesn't come from these fake, inauthentic, safe spaces we create.

It comes from the real.

And it's on us to rediscover that.

And uh

When I really embrace that fact, when I embrace the fact that, you know, we need to face reality without a filter and still have the faith and the confidence that reality aligns with

Even at the most vague possible level, our deepest human aspirations.

Um which to me was the whole secret of Marx's materialism.

All that anxiety and fear I had about the far right disappeared.

Um totally disappeared.

I started

I s I know I was no longer intimidated by the right.

I mean, it was just like I kind of now could understand what it was.

What was the vital source of power that that it drew from.

And some people say that, you know

You guys are part of the far right's cultural hegemony.

And I'm like, you're a fucking retard.

What you're t look what you're looking at since twenty sixteen has been the breakdown of liberal hegemony.

The absence of political correctness and the absence of these guardrails on acceptable forms of thought is not the positive consequence of some ideology.

Ideologies are not materially real.

That's fundamentally idealist.

There's nothing neo-fascist or far-right about emancipating yourself from the liberal Obama safe space copium bubble that you live in.

There's nothing far right about that.

You're embracing the wilderness.

You're going out and embracing the real, the wilderness.

If you don't have the faith and the confidence that as a consequence of this encounter, you cannot read, you cannot discover the essence.

Of the revolutionary tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

You're unworthy of the name Marxism.

Stop calling yourself a Marxist.

You're not a Marxist.

Not honestly at least, you don't believe in it.

And so

I'm trying on a very good faith about the source of people's problem because it's not rational.

It's something deeply psychological.

We are coded as far right because we are outside of a safe space.

We're not trapped within a discursive and semiotic prison.

And for this reason, outside of the prison, they say that's only the far right is there.

But it's not just the far right that's there.

It's also the potential and the possibility of a real left wing.

The real left wing.

The one that Lenin was a part of.

The one that Robespierre was a part of.

The one that Che Guevara was a part of.

It's outside of the safe space, not within.

It's outside.

And the potential is there.

It's not just the far right.

The far right is filling a vacuum that the left should be occupying.

But it's this abominable, disgusting, liberal left safe space that they dwell and live and eat and breathe within.

That is the far right, objectively.

You are the far right.

You are the sanction, you are the veneer, you are the justification.

You are the kind of fantastic whitewashing of an extremely hideous, brutal reality that you are culpable in for no other reason than the fact you're unwilling to be honest about it.

You're not anti-racist because you're unwilling to confront the reality of racism through humor.

You're more of a racist.

You're unwilling to confront the reality you're part of.

You haven't created some avant-garde society devoid of the evils that our society

Uh is victimized by you're more culpable in them because you're repressing them, you're ignoring them and denying them.

You're a liar.

You are the far right.

You are the right wing.

And all these alt-right, whatever people.

Uh

They're just fake revolutionaries.

I mean, Logo came to understand this himself.

These are people you could qualify in the same way.

You know, like reactionary socialists, utopian socialists, whatever.

These other varieties of people who

Had a problem with the system.

And I just want to make it clear that we haven't broken ranks from the left.

Because we've left this semiotic and discursive safe space that they live and breathe and reside within.

An ordinary person doesn't automatically live in that safe space.

An ordinary person is very politically incorrect, says bad jokes and tells it how it is, how they really feel.

The burden is not on us to prove that w you know w we've adopted some far-right ideology.

The burden of you is to prove what is so left-wing about your Obama safe space that you live inside.

And um I want to talk about

I try to be patient with God.

You know, I try to be patient in the sense of, you know, I ask God that.

You know, please, whatever outcome comes of this, just make it aligned with

Um

Make it aligned with something that's just, a just outcome.

And I try to have the patience to understand why things are the way they are.

But I can't shake off a fury and a rage I have inside of me.

No matter how patient I try to be, an extreme hatred and rage I have within me.

That we are isolated as this in we're these outside infiltrators.

We are this far-right menace.

That's we cannot tolerate you within the left.

You're not part of our left.

Anyone who hates ACP on the left, you're my friend.

You're this big problem.

ACP is this big issue.

Let's freak out about ACP.

Like, you are clearly some, you're like a thumb sticking out.

You're a big fucking problem.

The line is drawn here.

You're far right, and we're the left.

And I look at your left.

I look at your left of Kate Abu Ghazala.

I look at your left that is not even united on the basic issue of what is your attitude toward the Russian special military operation?

What is your attitude toward the One China policy?

What is your attitude to the so-called state of Israel?

What is your attitude to the key fundamental issue?

Of actually existing socialism and US imperialism.

What is your actual stance concretely in relation to Iran and to Hezbollah?

There are fundamental divisions on the so-called left that are not regarded as fundamental by these leftists.

They're non-antagonistic contradictions.

What are the antagonistic contradictions?

Transgenders.

That's my fucking problem.

Do you understand?

It's not even transgenders.

Because truth be told, we don't give a fuck about that issue.

It's how we talk about these things.

It's the callous way in which we in which we just...

Speak like normal people.

We don't have this filter.

We don't have political correctness.

We aren't intimidated by...

We don't mind making fun of and memeing right-wing ideas if it amuses us and we find it funny.

It's not like we take it seriously, but it's like we are very brutal and realistic about the world.

I mean, it's just like an extreme brutal understanding of what is reality, right?

Without a filter.

And that is the antagonistic contradiction for them, that they are paranoid about ACP inside their walls, but inside their walls are supporters of the Kiev regime in Ukraine, and inside of their walls are supporters of NATO, inside of their walls are supporters of separatism within China, inside of their walls are people who are Zionists.

That never rose to the status.

Of an antagonistic contradiction for them.

So, yes, we insist on a division.

If we have to represent the red line, so fucking be it.

But your left is fake.

Your left is a facade that comes from fucking Obama.

It's not a real left.

If you're fucking uniting NATO supporters with self-proclaimed Marxist, Leninist, anti-imperialists who are pro-trans, I guess, if you guys consider yourselves part of some vague milieu that you share that's distinct in some qualitative way with us.

You're not Marxists.

You're not part of the revolutionary tradition of history.

You're a bunch of spineless pieces of shit united very cynically by a common class interest of these petty bourgeois professionals.

Who live and work and shit and breathe inside of these fucking bubbled in, you know, safe space corporate environments that you mistaken for the real world.

Digital artists and fuck you, literally fuck you.

I don't understand it.

We're the red line.

I'm honored.

We should be honored.

Don't you fucking dare call us far right, you piece of shit.

You are literally getting fucked inside your own ranks.

You don't give a fuck, you cuck.

There's a fucking there's fucking NATO supporters in your fucking ranks.

There's fucking Ukraine supporters.

There's Israel supporters.

There's fucking Yannis Verofuckus who's against Iran.

Called for regime change in Iran.

People that fucking called for regime change inside Syria.

People who fucking denounce the actions of resistance.

You don't fucking lose your mind about those people like you do about us.

Fucking Kate, Abu Ghazala, and that fucking Zionist bitch, Zoran.

You don't give a fuck about that.

You don't lose your fucking mind and get paranoid about that.

It's only us that trigger you.

Why is it only us that trigger you?

Inside your own fucking camp, inside your own fucking ranks where you're all fucking holding hands in your fucking safe space coping together about how much you're united against the ACP.

Who the fuck are you holding hands with, you piece of shit?

You wanna be fucking pure?

Be fucking pure.

Look to your shoulders, site, to side, you're fucking NATO supporters, Israel supporters.

Enemies of socialism worldwide, enemies of the CPC, enemies of the sovereignty of the Russian people.

Enemies of the Islamic Republic.

This is who you break bread with.

Oh, we're just not sectarian.

So, why the fuck are you sectarian when it comes to us?

Because admit this, admit this, you piece of shit.

Your fucking red line is some nebulous bullshit political, correct language tone policing about transgenders rather than children being mutilated and blown up by the fucking bombs your politicians sign on to sending.

Your politicians, the ones you fucking promote.

By the way,

By the way, none of these people have been held accountable.

How many fucking Hillary staffers were held accountable?

How many of these fucking Kate Abu Ghazala Zoron Shills?

How many of these fucking people have been canceled for their past?

No, I've learned.

I've become more mature.

I've learned.

Really?

You've learned?

They dare, they dare try to denounce MAGA communism.

MAGA communism was the most vindicated strategy in the entire history of the 21st century U.S.

left.

Why?

Because the MAGA base, where has it shifted?

What is the shift going on?

Anti-Israel, anti-war, anti-Trump, anti-regime.

How has the Democrat base shifted in the past few years?

Well, they've doubled down.

increased support of NATO.

They become more Zionist.

They become more interventionist, like that bitch, Kate Abu Ghazal.

They become more in favor of the regime.

Without Trump, of course, but fundamentally, they think Trump is a troublemaker within an otherwise good, well-oiled regime that they support.

Because transgender rights are non-negotiable, right?

So we'll bomb your country and we'll invade your country and attack you.

And that's that is how they've shifted.

They have shifted more towards support of NATO and the imperialist state machine.

How has MAGA shifted?

MAGA shifted in the opposite direction.

So, tell me how MAGA communism wasn't vindicated, you fucking idiot.

The Democratic Party has shifted more pro-imperialist.

MAGA has shifted in the opposite direction.

And they'll try to pull up, by the way, if you clip this without showing this part, they're gonna pull up a poll of, oh, what about MAGA?

Yeah, everyone who still calls themselves MAGA, of course, supports what Trump is doing.

But how many people used to call themselves MAGA now agree with Tucker Carlson and Candace and the rest of them?

And he knows something.

Hassan Piker said some crazy shit recently, okay?

He's like

It's I I couldn't believe how blatant he was about this.

I know the devil man trying to find the short.

There's a YouTube short.

He calls this the worst possible outcome.

I'll explain exactly why.

You want to know the worst possible outcome for twenty twenty eight?

Tucker Carlson runs on an anti-Israel platform in twenty twenty eight, and the Democrats put forward a pro uh liberal Zionist, uh, pro defending America's military might candidate.

But why would that be the worst outcome?

Like what if it was r why why 'cause Hassan inherently believes the Democratic Party is better.

But why honestly, I want you to think about that lineup.

The fact Hassan is entertaining that as possible proves he need he should admit mega communism was vindicated.

Who saw that?

Who saw the possibility of that coming?

That there would be a significant enough electorate and base that would support that kind of platform that comes from MAGA.

Look what else he admits.

Tucker Carlson wins by Ronald Reagan numbers, not only by uh winning over the MAGA crowd, which he has complete control over in my opinion.

So apparently MAGA is no longer Trump because Tucker Carlson has complete control over the MAGA crowd.

So how are we not fucking vindicated about MAGA communism?

Veronica, try stop being retarded for two minutes and then come back.

Anyway.

Um

Because even if you even if you're a pro-Ukraine retard,

My rage is still justified because there are self-proclaimed MLs who do share formally our position on that issue, but for whom it's not an antagonistic contradiction.

If you understand what's going on in Ukraine, then it should be an antagonistic contradiction for you.

But for them, it's not.

Transgenders are.

Uh anyway, regarding Hassan Piker and what he's saying here.

Um look

I want you to understand something.

If this happens, Tucker Carlson versus Gavin Newsom, and Tucker runs on an anti-war, anti-Israel platform, which obviously, if Tucker runs, I promise you the Democrats are going to field the most aggressively pro-national security establishment, pro-imperialist candidate of all time.

The Democrats will say, ah, yeah, see, the MAGA people have become pro-Russia, pro-China.

I promise you, the Democrats will become super patriots if that happens.

And if it does, say goodbye to the so-called conventional left.

That will be the final nail in the coffin to kill the fake Obama left for the rest of our days on earth.

It will be dead forever because that political campaign, that presidential election will draw a line in the sand.

Obviously, on a principle, we're not going to endorse anyone, but objectively speaking, what it's going to do for the political alignment in this country of what is left and what is right, all leftists are going to have to make a decision.

Do I want to be in the same broad demographic and camp of people who are pretty socially conservative on the trans issues or whatever, but are simultaneously very anti-Zionist?

Or do I want to double down on the transgender LGBT obsession, which the Democrats will never abandon, but they're going to be aggressively pro-NATO and aggressively pro-Israel?

You're going to have to make that choice.

You're going to have to choose and get your priorities in order.

And that's really my message.

The day is coming that you're going to have to get your priorities in order.

And that's going to redefine what it means to be on the right versus what it means to be on the left.

Being on the left is no longer going to be defined by having a metrosexual accent and sipping lattes in a cafe with your legs crossed and being a sensitive fucking low testosterone male who is just a moral whiner all the time, whining and bitching and with an air of fake moral superiority.

Being left-wing is going to be like, I'm literally against the regime.

I'm against the Epstein regime.

We tell some bad jokes, as all working class movements do.

There's some toxic jokes here.

There's some toxic language going on, whatever.

At the fundamental level, we are against the regime, right?

Versus the Kate Abu Ghazala pro-NATO Democrats.

That's going to be the division that matters.

And people talk about intersectionality as if that that as if intersectionality makes it possible to avoid having priorities.

How is this not common sense?

You have to have priorities.

You do have to decide whether or not an effective anti-war opposition is more important than creating a safe space where everyone agrees about transgender rights, whatever that fucking means.

You do have to choose.

If you're unwilling to work with transphobes, you're unwilling to work with 50% of the population that may very well be against Israel.

You're unwilling to work with them because your priorities are not in order.

If we have, I'm going to teach you about Marxism.

Crossbread, what's up?

I'm going to teach you about Marxism.

If we live in a material world of material determinations, then our world is structured in such a way that is not intersectional.

Materialism means material reality isn't intersectional.

Material reality has a base.

It has a fundamental material base and foundation.

And then on top of this base, yes, there's superstructures and so on and so on.

But there's always fundamental, antagonistic, and primary contradictions.

Intersectionality means we're gonna put all the secondary contradictions and the primary contradictions on the same dimension.

But that's idealist.

That's just about do I have the correct ideology?

How is our material world actually structured?

Well, the way the material world is actually structured is that the system has a foundation in imperialism, in the concrete imperial global system.

Now, some so-called leftists are smart enough to understand this, which is why they support Iran.

But if they if they uh took their criticisms of us to their actual conclusion, uh they would be hard pressed to admit that they're being inconsistent.

Either it's intersectional and it's either everything or nothing, or there are priorities.

And then they may reproach us by saying, Well, you're the vanguard party.

You're supposed to be correct on every single issue fundamentally.

You're supposed to be y b I I I say, Who the fuck are you to declare that these issues are resolved?

I've always wanted to know that.

Who are you to declare?

Unanimously, based solely on ideology, what is liberation?

What's not liberation?

Who the fuck are you to declare that?

Who are you to say that there's 72 genders, and if we don't Who are you to say this?

I'm not even closing the door to you.

I'm just telling you, you don't have an inherent advantage versus a fucking random trucker who has his own opinion on that.

You don't have any advantage.

You have to prove your case according to the logic of civil society itself.

There's nothing about Marxism that is biased toward your conclusion about things.

So, for you to say that, oh, this is the liberate.

No, no, who the fuck are you to establish that?

Who are you?

What authority based on what?

They say the right-wing hegemony.

So, what's the left-wing counter-hegemony?

Where's your workers' movement?

Where are your counter-hegemonic institutions?

Because all I see on your front are a bunch of billionaire-backed NGOs and billionaire-funded organizations all aligned with the Democratic Party.

Academic institutions, media institutions.

Where is your actual independent working-class counter-hegemonic base?

You don't have one.

So, shut the fuck up about Gromsky if you don't have one.

Uh, since Trump told me they've been backtracking from the woke extremism, HCP Chan, I thought that too.

I swear to God, I thought that too.

But how come in the last week or so?

I I don't even I I'm shocked.

Have you been seeing on X

These crazy things?

ACP, uh, I saw a tweet the other ACP transphobia something, get 5,000 likes.

What the fuck is going on?

Like, we're stuck in 2021 forever.

Hassan liked a tweet that said MAGA communism was a failure.

It's so funny because he just, first of all, Hassan takes two L's.

First of all, he hosted Yannis Veroufukis.

Who himself literally endorsed MAGA communism on his own stream?

So, why didn't Hassan confront Yannis about how wrong MAGA communism was?

Second of all, Hassan here admits that Tucker, not Trump, has control over the MAGA movement right now.

And that if Tucker was president, it would be an anti-war, anti-Israel platform.

So, doesn't that mean the MAGA movement is inherently anti-Zionist and anti-war in the same way that we said they were in 22?

Doesn't that vindicate our position?

So, what a ridiculous thing for Hassan to do, frankly.

What a ridiculous thing.

Of course, mega communism was absolutely vindicated.

You think Kate Abu Ghazala represents the future of anti-imperialism?

The future of anti-imperialism are Tucker Carlson's audience.

I don't care what you think about Tucker.

You can call Tucker C, I don't care.

The people that are listening to Tucker right now, who used to be Trump fans, are against Israel and they're against Ukraine and they're against foreign interventions.

And they're extremely skeptical of everything that corporate America peddles and pushes on us.

And they are pretty receptive to socialist ideas, frankly.

Meanwhile, let's look at the opposite camp among the liberal, so-called liberal left.

How many liberal leftists are against rent control now?

Do you know how many are?

It's such a unanimous.

Oh, well, the economists, the experts say that rent control is bad.

That's literally the type of Fauci economic shit that they're on.

We gotta listen to the economic experts.

These Yimby types, right?

Let's get rid of the zoning laws and just kind of, you know.

Like that's their priority and their focus.

Instead of the obvious, which is let's proverbially, not literally, slit the throat of the speculator landlord class, uh the hedge funds and BlackRock and so on, let's fucking decapitate this parasite.

That's driving up the cost of living for uh on all levels.

They say, No, no, no, we just need to be yimbies.

What is this fucking uh metro sexual nonsense they're pushing now?

Uh

Abundance

Economics.

Abundance, the Klein and Ezra Klein, the guy who looks like the Flash, right?

Or he just has the same name.

Yeah, he the the the the Ezra Klein.

Let me just show you the this is the Democratic Party right now, you know, and versus MAGA, okay.

This is, by the way, this guy will never get canceled 'cause he doesn't have a beard like me.

And he looks like he uh he he menstruates.

So this is uh who Reddit is okay with.

And uh this is the Bible of the Democratic Party.

So tell me how MAGA Communism wasn't vindicated.

This is you.

This is your side, you know, so to speak.

You don't have your own side.

Shut the fuck up.

You don't have your own side.

You're a fucking Democrat.

You don't have your own side.

So, this is you.

By the way, if you claim that you have your own side based on what?

What resources?

What base?

What demographic?

What organization?

What do you have?

The DSA?

That's it.

Democrats.

Over the past year, has there been any independent left-wing force in American politics besides ACP?

We've had Zoran Mamdani, Democrat, we've had Kate Abu Bichbala, Democrat, we've had literally CPUSA members run for city council as Democrats, if you could believe it.

Um

So what what are you talking about?

Don't don't come at me, you little bitch.

I will slap you into the ground.

You go home crying.

Shut the fuck up.

I've been the same mean motherfucker that I was since I started this shit in 2021.

I will never fucking change you, but you have to riddle me with bullets to stop me, bitch.

All the trauma and mental pain that I cause in people, you fucking deserve it.

'Cause if you've isolated yourself and insulated yourself

As a political now, if you're some apolitical person, fine, I don't give a shit.

If you're calling yourself some revolutionary, some Marxist, some leftist, and you have this fucking safe space copium fucking circle jerk desanitized of all the brutality and horror of the world, and you think that makes you morally superior and that, you know, you encounter one of us, you know, this is a far right.

You used to be bit slapped into the ground, you call us far right, you fucking pussy.

Think about how disgusting that is.

They think that because they've created a fake safe space, which materially depends upon the hideous immoral evil of the same system they claim to be opposing, that this makes them superior.

Oh, we use we don't tell bad jokes, we don't say bad words.

Because we're we're good people.

No, this is how they think in their head mentally.

Like, I fucking understand psychology.

Like, when they're thinking in their head about how they never use bad words, they're like, We're good people.

And they have like an inflection in their voice, like the tone goes higher and they look up.

We're good people, like Superman.

We're good people.

I'm a good person!

Right, that's how they do it, right?

I'm a good person.

I look upward and transgender, and they think they're good people.

Fucking hypocrites.

They think they're good fucking people.

They materially live in the same system as the rest of us, but be well, we never use bad words.

And how can you use Discord?

Liberation for all.

And they have that Mickey Mouse inflection where they look up.

They, what are you talking?

Where's your what is materially the basis of this?

Nothing.

It's a pretension.

It's just a pretension.

It's just a fucking pretension.

There's nothing but it's based on nothing.

Um

Uh

They just they they have that thing they they look up

Do you think you're better than us because what?

Because you fucking lie to yourself about your own feelings and your own intrusive thoughts?

Um

Alright, infiltrators, how fucking dare you, you piece of shit!

How fucking dare you?

As somebody who cut honestly, I'm at the point, you come up to me and you call me a far-right infiltrator.

Base populace, what's up?

Save by the bell, honestly.

It's such an infuriatingly disgusting thing to say when in your own ranks you have Kate Abu Ghazala.

Nobody fucking raises a shitstorm over it, right?

Um

Y'all should never stop fighting.

We have to fight forever.

We're going to be doing this forever.

Yo, hello.

Once

Ones, ones, ones.

Right.

Um look guys, we're gonna have to fight forever.

Until reality gets honestly, if Tucker and Gavin have a show off in 2028, um

Everything is just going to go our way in terms of how consciousness is going to shift.

And we will never have to deal with these people ever again.

I fundamentally believe the day will come we don't have to deal with this wicked, disgusting perversion of Marxism.

That tries to gatekeep against us.

You're not real communists.

Who the fuck are you, you pissan?

I stomp on you.

Who the fuck are you?

You're not suspicious of him?

Talking head, you're kinda retarded.

Should I be patient?

Should I be patient with stupidity?

Who gives a fuck about who Tucker is?

It doesn't matter who fucking.

Oh, yeah, it's almost like we're back at mega communism.

Oh, so you're not suspicious of Trump?

Oh my god.

Guys, do you not understand by now?

It doesn't matter necessarily.

Who's occupying a space?

If I can name a space and identify that space exists, that's what fucking matters.

Okay?

Tucker can be CIA.

Trump could be a pedophile.

It there's a specific space

There's a specific space.

That's there.

There's a damp there's a there's a there's a r sizable population of people in this country.

Who Tucker represents, just like Trump used to, I guess.

Who are left wing on foreign policy.

And there's a huge convergence of the left, the traditional Obama left, with them.

And that's going to lead to a new political realignment where we will no longer have to deal with this ridiculous suspicion on the part of leftists that we are a right-wing op.

Do you understand that?

Once if you understand that, politics will be so aligned that being left-wing will no longer inherently and nebulously and vaguely, psychologically, be identified with the Democratic Party in the way that it currently is.

When that is gone, when that veneer disappears, we are not going to have this aroma and air of mystery and suspicion surrounding us.

We're going to be recognized as what we are: legitimate communist Marxist-Leninists in the era that we live in.

The reason right now.

On Reddit and all over social media, in addition to the artificial Fed manipulation shit, which is obvious.

But the fundamental reason is because we're fundamentally just not within the spectrum of Democratic Party politics.

So they say you must be Republicans.

There's no recognition of an outside.

You must be some fringe cult like LaRouche.

You must be some far-right thing.

Now, if I'm a good leader, I am anticipating that there's going to be a shift in U.S.

politics that does justify and make sense of why we have this awkward position that we do.

Which is frankly not a lucrative one.

I'm not a grifter.

And if I was one, I wouldn't be a good one.

Because we're in an extremely awkward position.

We are left wing.

We're communists, far left.

But we just don't have anything in common with any of the other people who use those labels.

We don't sound like them, don't look like them, don't have their aesthetic values, don't have their cultural values, don't share their sense of humor, don't have their taste and culture, anything.

Like we have literally nothing in common with them.

And like that's why they call us Nazbulls.

We have we just don't fuck with those people at all and have nothing to do with them.

We're not furries, we're we just don't have the cancel culture and the woke scolding, we don't have any of that shit.

So they say, Oh, you're far right, you know.

So this is an extremely awkward position we're in.

If I'm a good leader, then this position that we're in now.

We'll be vindicated in the long run.

We're not going to be in this awkward corner forever.

Um

And I've always believed that.

I always believe there's something true about our position fundamentally that will be vindicated by reality itself.

Autistic potato, whatever.

Honesty, great name.

Um.

So, uh

Yeah.

Um

Look, I think things are going in our favor, but there's a narrative that they're building up.

uh that you should be uh uh attentive to, which is look, very seamlessly, a lot of people on the left are joining us.

We're getting flooded with support and enthusiasm, and that's why the intensity of the attacks have increased in the way they have.

But the narrative that we're this deceptive force that's infiltrated the left and we're not the real left, that's the narrative they're going with now.

We haven't changed.

We've been here for years and years and years.

Before a lot of while these people were in DSA,

We were here with the same position we've always had, and they call us infiltrators and they call us inauthentic.

And you know, the thing is really fed jacketing.

They say CIA, CIA, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, SIOP, Fed, CYAP, CIA, CIA.

By the way, anyone who says that to me in person, by the way, find out.

Please find out.

No, no, find out.

Find it.

Call me or Jackson that in person.

Find out what fucking happens to you.

No, no, because I'll fucking go there.

Honestly, how much just forget me, how much Jackson has fucking sacrificed?

How much fucking struggle I personally have been through in this fucking bitch?

And you're gonna fucking call me that, you're gonna get the prison treatment.

So please test me.

Cause in prison you can't just say shit without proof.

You can't just say shit and uh and just say shit and get away with it, right?

So fuck it, you know?

Like, and they think I won't do it.

They think I won't literally beat the brakes off of somebody who tries to say that shit to me.

Whatever.

Like nobody can look me in the eyes and say we're an inauthentic movement and that I'm not a true believer and that I'm a disingenuous actor.

Say that to my look me in the fucking eyes and say that to me.

Yeah, you're dealing with a crazy person, so sit the fuck down, fucking retarded ass Redditor.

These spiritually Israeli rats.

I look retarded right now.

Because I'm, you know, these aren't even real people.

I'm here angry and.

And and and like having this wrathful reaction to literal Mossad sock puppets, and they're fucking laughing because the real people that we talk to have never said any of these things.

Uh it's just crazy.

It's just fucking crazy.

No, the closest we got was at Emery, these bitch ass al-Qaeda Free Syria supporters.

These Al Qaeda Syria Free Syria Jolani fucking Laboobus, right?

And they would not say shit to either me or Jackson.

They would not say shit to us.

They did back channel and go behind our backs and express.

We we walked around their campus.

And nobody said shit to us, but they went and they reported that we that our presence made them have anxiety attacks.

They had anxiety attacks and they were so traumatized.

Uh, so this happened, you know.

They they never say it to you.

They go and they go to oh, my people, yeah, you know what, uh, you know, boot camp.

I don't know what to say to these fucking people.

You are.

You disgust me.

You are a subhuman filth.

A human being

Has a minimum degree of thick skin.

Minimum, minimum, minimum.

I'm talking about minimum.

Where you can tolerate the presence of people who represent worldviews that bother you.

Mentally, right?

Uh no, but it's never happened.

Were we are we wrong to cause the division and chaos that we do?

Peak peek under the floor of the so-called US left.

A culture of venality, corruption, immorality, hypocrisy.

Brown nosing career climbing?

Our positions as Marxist-Leninists aren't taken seriously.

Even the people that have them, that are opposed to us,

In the DSA, for example, like that fucking retard on X.

My DSA is adding Stalin emotes to our Discord.

Oh, they don't take it seriously.

It's just a joke to them.

They take that DNC money seriously.

When the Zorons come around, when the Kate Abu Ghazalas come around, oh, they got that discipline.

They take that shit seriously.

Oh, we gotta.

Come on, guys, let's go canvassing.

No, they take it seriously.

Oh, no, they really do.

It's that money.

That money, that com that Democrat money, they fucking worship it.

Is Stalin s is does Stalin have even five percent of the do they respect Stalin even five percent?

How much they respect money?

The way that they degrade and uh mock Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels.

In a sex in sexually depraved ways, by the way.

Are they that callous and free spirited when it comes to money and structural power?

No, they bow and they revere it and they have this unspoken respect and worship even, you could argue.

Um nobody raises nobody raises

I just wanna know this.

Why does Leninism never rise to the status of an autistic crash out?

Why is it that cultural issues will always rise to the level of an autistic crash out?

Jackson Jackson's tweets will rise to the status of an autistic crashout, but nobody has love and passion and anger and rage in their heart for defending the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.

Among their ranks, 'cause they don't take it seriously.

It never rises to the status of being a problem or an issue for anyone.

The mere presence of Jackson somewhere is an issue for people, but it's never rising to the status of an issue that there's a Ukraine supporter in your ranks.

That there's an Israel supporter in your ranks.

Never rises to the status of being a fucking problem, right?

No, they they crash out all the fucking time over uh any pet cultural issue they happen to have, not over imperialism.

It never rises to that status.

There are Zionists in the DSA.

There are Zionists in the D SA

But it's okay to be part of DSA, not ACP though.

We're NASBulls, right?

We're NASBulls, we're fake, we're a CIA psyop.

But the DSA is okay.

Just look at my face right now.

However much you guys are giving these people a hard time.

Turn the volume up by 500,000%.

They deserve worse.

They only respond.

to one language.

They wanna victimize us like they you know they wanna m they wanna make us like correct, morally correct, but victims.

Oh yeah, you guys are correct, but we're just gonna laugh and mock mock you and yeah, we're gonna be unjust, but you're just gonna be the victims who are morally correct, but no, no, no, bitch, we're gonna make it a fucking problem.

We're gonna make it a fucking problem.

Um

We are invading your spaces, you will not be safe from us, you will never know peace.

We will not be victims.

We will not be uh you know

We're gonna be a problem for you, for sure.

If your red line, you're not going to draw a red line at Zionists in your organization, but you're going to open your fucking mouth and make a problem out of ACP.

Uh we're gonna make that a problem for you.

And that's not much for these people, you know, you just gotta keep being present.

Don't be hostile.

Don't be anti- No, you don't have to be hostile.

You just have to be present.

I'm not saying be hostile.

Because they interpret our mere peaceful presence as hostility.

So just be present, that's all you have to be.

Just be present.

We'll keep being a thorn in their side.

And yeah, we will.

Because, and why will we?

Because we go our own way and you won't leave us alone.

So we come to you.

It's simple.

Maybe, maybe I'm just too spiritually Shiite.

Is that what it is?

Maybe I'm just too Shiite.

Maybe I'm just too Shia.

Supposed to kinda just shut your mouth and accept.

The wicked

Uh injustice, right?

But I just can't do it.

I just can't fucking do it.

Like, if I was a smart person, according to these people's understanding of intelligence, I would have just shut up and went with the flow.

Don't go against the flow.

Don't point out the hypocrisy and the

Corruption

I I don't have it in me to to do that, I just don't.

Uh you know, and people could say, Well, maybe the the Shiite position's a losing position and I say, Well,

Look at Iran and Hezbollah right now.

Maybe that's some of the energy we need to be channeling, you know?

Yeah guys, today at the gym I destroyed my back

My upper back.

I was uh doing bench bench pressing and um

Fucked up my back.

But you want to know what I did?

You think I went home?

'Cause I'm like you, I'm a little bitch ass?

Uh n no.

What I did is I went, I used the thing to uh, you know, kind of massage my back a little bit.

Did some stretches and then fifteen, twenty minutes, I'm back in the fucking ring, bitch, 'cause I don't quit.

I really fucked it up badly though.

Like, hurt really bad, right?

I think I sprained something.

But I respond to the injury by quitting.

I'm not a quitter.

I'm a Bolshevik, bitch.

I'm going to finish my fucking shit and then I'm going to go home.

But uh

Trying to fucking remember the shit I needed to say.

Oh yeah, I remember.

So, another thing I, you know, I don't want to keep harping on this issue, but there's another thing I feel like we're being gaslit about, which is the origin of tankies.

And all of these communities, like take the D program, for example, Hakeem and Co.

Came from the same fucking discords that RTSG came from.

Pinball.

Okay?

And I distinctly remember

In the twenty tens and uh I would say like before the D program c bec came and and Luna Oi kind of started sanitizing it.

And kind of before 2020, honestly, with the PSL and that whole thing.

Uh tankies were always like bigoted.

Were they not?

To be a tanky was to be in a community where, yeah, yeah, I mean, like, every if you were in a tanky Discord or a community, every other person was like a Nazarist, a Bothist.

There were Russian Nazbulls in those communities, for sure.

There were Paul Pot supporters, like, there were all sorts of Maoists.

None of these people were ubiquitously.

Socially liberal.

Actually, most people were pretty socially conservative.

They were pretty homophobic and trans.

I remember what tankies used to be like.

There'd be like a very harsh anti-identity politics.

Yeah, they were so fucking edgy, and like it was like it used to be like the norm.

And then, what ended up happening is that Hakeem and Luna Oi went into the mainstream and they just made it politically correct.

But before them, it was a wild, wild type of milieu.

And so, like, the idea that we came here and we're these right-wing infiltrators who are hijacking left spaces.

First of all, you little stupid bitch.

Do you even know what a tankie was an Assad support?

Tankies used to have more in common with.

Uh like a dissident right Assad supporter, nationalist, you know, like a Bulgarian nationalist or some shit who's like an ortho.

I don't know.

They used to have more in common than with a Libtard leftist.

They did.

Okay.

I remember what it was like when there were actual tankies.

Um I also remember I remember Caleb Maupin.

However, he was always cringe.

Present his presentation was always cringe.

He's a boomer.

But let's be a little honest about something.

What did Caleb Maupin actually get canceled for?

Do you remember when he debated Vosh or Destiny, whoever else?

And he was like considered a kooky, kooky wacko freak because he supported China and North Korea and uh defended Putin.

And that was enough to ostracize him.

And suddenly, I don't know how it became mainstream, but then they came and they're trying to gatekeep it.

When back in the day, to be a tanky was to be ostracized.

Yeah.

He was astride.

No, that's not true, Harold.

That was when we jumped into the scene.

Before we.

Uh you know, we always tried to look for the red line.

'Cause look, Mao said you have to draw a line.

That's what it means to be a revolutionary, to draw a line.

So we were always looking for the line to draw, so to speak, proverbially, right?

And the first line I think we drew was socialist patriotism.

We because we saw that tankies were being infected by Obama social liberals.

And we we wanted to draw a line in the sand, be like, okay, this fake bitch shit, get it the fuck out of here because

We are going back to our Marxist roots.

Dark Marxism, right?

Uh but then we realized the patriot patriotism thing was not a good red line because there were so many opportunists.

Who were pro-patriotic, who were social democrat institutional patriots.

The position we were coming from was an asymmetrical guerrilla patriotism.

And so the next red line we drew was the mecha tanky thing, right?

I guess that was around the barista discourse.

Uh we wanted to distinguish ourselves from the PMC Patriots.

And then uh

Months after that, we have MAGA communism.

And that's the lineage.

That's where it went.

This guy's a very retrospective stream, kind of a throwback stream.

Um.

Because why am I doing a throwback stream?

I want you guys to remember our tradition, our lineage, and our heritage.

It's getting to that fucking point.

And as we are running up against the same tired talking points and retarded forms of consciousness that form in reaction to us, literal reactionaries, by the way, remember the lessons of the past.

Remember where we came from and who we are.

Will we I I I you know what?

Can I can and I tell you why I'm being a little introspective.

Um, shortly after the founding of ACP, I felt some regret.

I said I was too divisive.

I was too toxic and divisive and

It's not the way to go and maybe that's why we were running into issues and I said, you know, maybe we should just be more unifying.

And we tried that for years.

But suddenly I remember why we wanted to draw red lines in the way that we did.

Because internally, there's a corruption.

And we need a wakefulness.

We need our own woke.

We need our own wakefulness.

To the internal corruption of the so called left.

We need some way to distinguish the principled line, the Bolshevik line, from this pan-leftist sludge monster of opportunists.

and corrupt Democrat pieces of shit.

Now we need to be smarter about how we do that versus how we did in the past.

Because how we did it in the past was basically we would litmistest.

It was all about litmus testing.

But the way, yes, the way we wake from Jahaliyah now is that instead of

Litmus testing, we need to just continually affirm the positive line, the party line, the positive position of our movement.

And simultaneously we need to deal with the enemy.

Only when they rear their head.

Meaning what we used to do is we used to go on campaigns, offensive campaigns against Hakeem and Luna Oi and the rest for being sellouts and stuff.

We were Maoists.

Make a critique of it.

Bathroom, what do you what do you w radius w uh Radimus, what the fuck are you talking about?

What is this like Doctor Disrespect at TwitchCon?

What are what are you talking about?

Literally, what are you even talking about?

Anyway, I just see some stupid shit all the time.

Uh anyway, um

No, we we don't we shouldn't go out of our way to litmus test people.

And, but we should, we should assert our line.

And whoever has a problem with it, we fucking stomp them into the dust.

Simple as that.

Somebody blew up the bathroom that one time.

What are you I I am really thinking hard trying to even conceive what you could be talking about and it's just blanks.

Just complete blanks.

Like, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Blew up a bathroom.

Who th who blew up a bathroom?

At one of the events

Did that happen?

I I don't I don't yeah, I don't think that happened.

What are you talking about?

Ah, my back hurts.

Fuck!

Well, in any case

Five years ago, the

Bro, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, in any case, guys, uh

I'm just I'm just so I it's it's crazy 'cause it it didn't make sense.

I'm inspired by the ACP.

I mean, I'm the chairman of ACP, but

I can't believe it.

It's like we have this red banner that we're flying, and everybody's coming for us.

Everybody's attacking us.

And it's like that shit is still flying.

Like we're still fucking here, we're still standing against overwhelming fucking odds, holding the fucking line like lions, besieged from everywhere.

Fuck, we're besieged from everywhere.

It's fucking crazy.

Besieged by these fucking shitlibred editors, besieged by these fucking right-wing retards, and our shit is still flying in the same fucking way it always has been.

And it's like I see y'all in the fucking trenches fighting every single fucking day.

We will never fucking give up.

We're gonna put our fucking symbol on tanks and we're gonna fucking mow down our enemies one day.

Like at this point, when I see the ACP symbol, it's like the logo of Hezbollah, psychologically and spiritually.

Not in terms of what we've done in action yet.

I'm talking about a Civil War scenario.

But like, it's just like the vibe.

Like, we stand defiant.

It's that defiance.

At this point, the ACP logo is a logo of defiance.

Like the Hezbollah logo, straight up.

Like the amount of faith and confidence and belief that comes with this and repping this shit unapologetically, fuck everybody who's not ACP.

Honestly.

I want you guys to understand that.

I mean, this is a fucking miracle we have this shit.

We have the sign.

I might say some blasphemous ass shit.

They say the word ayatollah means a sign from God.

We got the Ayatollah La.

You understand?

I mean, when I see our logo, I think of a giant bomb that's just dropping like a ten-ton fucking.

Uh what are they called?

Thi those those forges that you you um you beat the swords on, were they called?

Smith, like a giant fucking Smith just like slamming on the fucking ground.

An anvil, yeah.

I think of a fucking anvil, a metal anvil, smashing on the fucking ground.

Type of shit that we're on.

Like our shit just triggers people by nature.

Like seeing our shit, it's just like it's a big fuck you to everybody who deserves to be told fuck you, you know?

That's our shit is a giant fuck you to everybody who deserves to be told that shit.

So I'm very proud of w how far we've come.

I mean, it's

Oh, I want you to understand overwhelming odds, guys.

Overwhelming odds.

And if you think there's too little of us.

Think otherwise, because

PSL has fourteen hundred members.

DSA, uh its members are just passive NPCs.

They're not actual like militant cadre of an organization.

They are they are basically like random NPCs on the street in GTA that that uh that are like, you know, have a certain outfit or something.

It's like they're they're not actually like a disciplined militant cadre of any kind.

So don't worry about DSA.

They're nothing.

I'll tell you, DSA is so fluid and so loose.

I could go to a DSA meeting right now and convert 15 people to just come to ACP.

It'd be that easy.

It's just literally normies.

There's nothing.

There's nothing like they don't have an antagonistic.

They don't have a a backbone, you know, they don't have anything.

So don't worry about that.

And uh the people say them you know, I I always vacillate in between this.

Sometimes people say Haas

What about the fundamental task of getting normies and getting right wingers to convert to communism?

Which we focus a great deal of time on.

But as somebody who's focused a lot of time selling communism to the average Joe, we don't need to sell anything, guys.

We need to sell we don't need to sell anything any more than the Kizzlebosh needs to sell their tribal identity.

We're a tribe.

Let's be honest, we're a tribe.

If we get our house in order and we do things in the right way,

And we set the example and we just own what it means to be a communist by example.

People will be interested in us.

Inevitably.

Don't worry about anti-communists.

Mm no one will care.

If people see what communists look like, they open the door.

So right now, this is what's happening.

You know how you open the fridge and you close the fridge when you see there's nothing?

Right now, when people open the fridge to see what what what's behind what what is what is communism?

They open the fridge and there's a furry.

Talking about gore fetishes.

And they just kinda stare and they go

They open the fridge, it's literally a literal piece of shit on a plate, a fucking actual turd on a plate.

And not only do they close, they slam the door shut.

'Cause the first thing they want is to get their nose back, their senses back, their sense of smell back.

And

Even then, they say this isn't what.

Wait, Stalin wasn't like this.

So they're just kind of baffled and confused.

And if we can fix that and have when people open the fridge and they see a great, beautiful steak or something, right?

Oh, this is communism.

Okay, that makes sense.

This is an actual, viable, possible position you can have in the 21st century.

Uh they will come to us, guys.

Have that confidence.

People will come our way.

Communist ideas are innately and inherently attractive.

Of course they are.

What compels people and draws people to communism?

I hope you have the right answer to this.

Well

If they have a revolutionary disposition and they're angry at the system, they'll come to us.

It's as simple as that.

You say, Well, what about why have they been going over to the far right?

Because the self proclaimed Communists were sellouts.

That's why.

Why did Hitler win?

Because of the S P D.

The Communist Party of Germany came too late, before them it was the Social Democrats who tarnished the name of Marxism.

in the eyes of the German people, and so Hitler took advantage of that.

Today, AOC and so-called progressives and leftists are doing the same thing.

So this is why people originally went to the far right in the 2010s.

Mm, they went to the far right because

The so-called Marxists were not a tangible option.

Some guy wearing a scarf in some university with glasses was not a revolutionary position, you know, so they went to the most edgy possible thing, forbidden things of the Obama era.

And they uh they just kind of went with that.

If we can be

Faithful, consistent Leninists, and principled revolutionaries.

The masses will come to us.

We don't have to sell a fucking thing.

It will come to us.

We just have to articulate the revolutionary consciousness of the people.

Fuck this Epstein system.

Fuck this Epstein pedophile class.

You guys already got it.

That's the type of shit putting us on the fucking map.

By the way, we're going viral as fuck every single day.

Look at the ACP main account, we are coming for PSL now.

We've already lapped the so-called CPUSA.

We don't gotta sell anything.

We just have to get our own shit in order.

Alright y'all, you wanna do TikTok?

Alright, be patient then.

Be patient because uh I'm not gonna be able to

Uh, I'm not gonna inherently have viewers, you know, because I'm on my TikTok account.

By the way, guys, you see the pinned uh thing right now.

Join my Telegram right now.

Why am I saying this?

Because I don't shill my Telegram ever, I never push my Telegram.

But uh, we've been having a mass exodus from Telegram, I don't know what it is.

Uh mass exodus is happening from Telegram.

We have lost like fifty people from Telegram, so fucking fill that shit up.

Join it.

Telegram's a very important place to join.

So, everyone, join the Telegram right now.

Click that shit.

Not even kidding, not a joke.

And I gotta grow it more, I gotta grind that shit, for sure.

Alright, uh I'm gonna do this.

The right way.

Right.

I'm just gonna call it MAGA Communism Vindicated.

Alright, uh how do I fix this fucking camera?

Yo, Kate, what's up?

Appreciate you.

Uh hold on, let me try to fix the shit.

Alright, uh my shit is dark.

Shit is dark as fuck.

Yeah, the problem is that I have to fix this camera, fuck.

Alright, I'm gonna have to exit out of the studio and do it again.

Yep, the reason is uh you gotta refresh that camera.

Kate, thank you so much.

I appreciate that so much.

Yeah, we're good now.

Oh man.

Alright.

Nana ninene, in an ine, and an ine, and an ine, in an ine, in an ine, in an ine.

Alright, what's up?

Alright, so we're here.

That back is fucking killing me.

Somebody wants to join his guest.

What's going on?

Somebody wants to join his guest.

Yo, what's up?

Here's the book almost done, bro.

There's an echo.

It's crazy.

Yeah, that's not my fault.

It's your fucking fault.

Yeah, that's.

Oh, let me fix it real quick, please.

Is my book almost done?

No, it's not.

I mean, fuck.

Yeah.

Oh.

Um

I'm working on writings every single day.

The original book I'm going to be getting back to when I'm finished with this.

And uh

Ah, it's just been one thing after another, you know?

Kind of a pointless question though, if I'm being honest.

If I'm being completely honest, it's a little bit of a pointless question.

Alright, and guys, uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh yeah, so I don't know how TikTok debates are gonna work.

I'm totally not also

Can you imagine the people that only know I'm live on TikTok?

They're just like they join my TikTok.

They're like, What?

Jackson asleep.

Uh I don't know.

Shit.

Uh

Yeah, of course he's asleep.

What the fuck?

My back is killing me straight up.

Fuck.

Uh

Seeing the same shit y'all seein'.

Bro, I'm on TikTok.

I'm literally on TikTok right now.

You can't say swear words.

You can't say nothing.

I'm on TikTok.

No, you can't.

I gotta put on the filter for TikTok.

What are you talking about?

Mm-hmm.

Damn, can y'all not do that shit?

Can y'all not?

Can y'all not?

I can't swear, my bad.

From the long march to the long TikTok stream, proletariat is cooked.

You know what's even more embarrassing is that you have this idea

That it's not going to be like this.

No, no, this is how it's going to be like.

Because

Okay, the the Yevgeny Progozin?

TikTok, right?

Uh a barbecue, TikTok.

Like the actual people that are hur that still are fighting on the ground.

Uh, what can I say on TikTok?

Even they're on TikTok, all right?

This is just the world we live in.

It's just the world we live in.

Like, what what do you think?

Would you ever go to Cuba to give aid?

I would, but I'll tell you why I'm not going to Cuba.

uh because we probably we didn't make the effort to reach out to the influencers who organized the trip because we knew for certain that our presence there would be a problem for them because we are not well liked among left put it this way nathan j robinson is in cuba or we i don't know i mean like we're not going to be accepted by this influencer gatekeeping flotilla all right i don't know i don't know what you expect they're gonna be like then there's gonna be every time we try to do something some people like acp why are you so divisive we're not we'll try to join an event a broad big tent coalition and then there's gonna be someone in there who goes i'm this is giving me an anxiety attack this is fascist there and they and then we end up causing a problem just be just by being there by having a presence right our mere presence is oftentimes

Uh a problem.

Since when is infrared on TikTok?

Uh no one debating?

Uh not yet.

Not yet.

Yo, thank you for that.

But, you know, if you want to support me, don't do it here.

Uh because I don't get they I don't get that.

So, I don't know what that is.

Thank you for it.

If you want to support me, go to the other place that I'm at.

Right now and and support me there.

Yeah, TikTok is like 50%.

That was a 20.

No way.

It's saying, wow, it's not saying that on my estimated.

Well, thank you.

You don't get it.

I think I only get half of it or a third of it, I don't know.

On the other place that I'm at right now, if you know, you know, then I get everything.

But uh

So we should just be going there.

I'm here mainly just like a Twitter space, you know, for debates.

You think Iran will strike Europe?

Hey, we're on TikTok, everybody.

What's up?

You can't report me for something I didn't say.

What do I think about Kim Jong-un?

Unconditional support.

Unironically, unconditional support.

Unlimited and unconditional solidarity and support.

And I need

Mm-hmm.

Maybe we should put some music on for TikTok, right?

There's a new song that I like Spotify.

This is very d this is a Mali song.

This this is this is like this is like the the this

We're gonna enter the White House.

This shit's gonna be playing.

It's gonna be so atmospheric and scenic.

A prophecy complete.

I don't think anyone can request right now.

No, don't tell me that.

Uh can no one request?

Yeah, people can request.

The the guy's named Libertarian Stalinism.

People can request.

What's gonna happen next to Maduro?

Well, hopefully, he will.

This song is not good for the live.

It's actually doing much worse.

Um

Thank you for whatever that is.

Change the layout so it appears on the bottom right.

I don't know how to do that.

Uh what is MAGA communism?

So uh MAGA communism basically was an acknowledgement of the fact that there was a conventional so-called left pipeline from the Obama era.

Obama, Bernie and and whatever, right?

And then the post-Bernie disaster that ensued from the DSA and whatnot.

And there was this perception that the electorate and the demographic base of communist ideas is going to be coming from the Democrats.

And MAGA communism was an acknowledgment that there's a political realignment that happens after Trump gets elected that causes political chaos in in the country and it, you know.

the alignment of the various kind of wings, I guess, right, left versus right.

And that the future of the left wing and the future of communist politics is gonna come from the MAGA base.

And that's been totally vindicated because right now the MAGA base has shifted into an anti-Yayanist, I don't know if I could say that word position, anti-war, anti-intervention, anti-regime, anti-Trump, anti-Epstein.

And the Democratic Party for some of its milieu, there hasn't been a change.

But the only observable change that's happened within the Democratic Party is they become aggressively more defensive about the national security state.

They're more pro-NATO.

They're more pro-Israel.

They're doubling down on that.

And that is basically the shifts that are happening.

So if we have a Tucker versus Gavin Newsom lineup in 28, many people who are conventionally considered left are going to be for Tucker.

And the real right wing will be the Democratic Party.

I mean, the Democrats will field a candidate that defends, you know, in the name of a so-called patriotism, the national security state, U.S.

foreign alliances, and the kind of status quo, per se.

And Tucker will be painted as a Russian and Chinese operative.

Can you talk about how the Russian Federation is anti-imperialist?

Uh

If we're gonna define imperialism by a big country, I don't have a problem with it.

When I'm using that word, I'm talking about it in the sense of the actual world system we live in, where the Epstein regime centered in Wall Street

and London and New York and whatever dominates and holds back the development of the entire world, destroying the sovereignty of all the nations of the world basically at the barrel of a gun.

Uh locking them in a specific developmental, economic, political, civilizational paradigm.

Couldn't connect, trying to re oh, did I just get banned?

So there's like a specific global empire, okay?

Does Russia resist that global empire?

And in doing so, defend the sovereignty of all nations?

Of course.

Of course, it does.

Um

So

Some some people have a problem with Russia because it's a big and powerful country and they would prefer Russia to be a small victimized country.

And it's not going to happen.

But a lot of people they hate Russia.

They have a problem with Russia because Russia is big and they don't like big.

Countries

that are not the US and its allies.

Uh so that's my answer to you.

Um

It's like early infrared streams.

Yeah.

Yeah it is.

Why not?

How does Tuda stand against your goals?

They have no basis among the Iranian people.

They are purely diaspora living in France or the UK, and they collaborate with imperialism in order to affect outcomes in their own native country that they could not through any kind of interaction with the Iranian people themselves.

It is to change the stream name.

Yeah.

How's it now?

Ones that were good.

We're good.

Uh yeah, so um

Hasn't streamed forever?

Yeah, I totally haven't streamed forever.

You're right.

This is the only place I'm streaming right now.

You're right.

Uh yeah, in the Obama era there's been there was just a degradation, a very traumatic degradation of people's way of life since 2008 throughout this whole administration.

And while this was happening, the Obama administration united with the media to create this kind of cultural hegemony where there were just these constant feel-good stories about how love wins and how everything's great and there's no more racism.

And Ellen DeGeneres is the new Jesus Christ or something.

She's so moral and she's so good.

She's so pure.

Steve Colbert and whatever is doing his metrosexual tap dancing.

And there's celebrities are all there's fan cams and there's

Uh there's just this kind of world of happiness and progress and wholesomeness.

Unfortunately the reality was that for the majority of people this was

Just a spit in their face, it was an insult to them.

People were losing their ways of life, their jobs, their livelihoods.

And structurally speaking, society was becoming very dark and twisted with the rise of big tech and mass surveillance.

And the abominable crimes that Obama was committing.

Around the world.

Were unspeakable horrific crimes, the destruction of entire nations like Libya.

And then Trump came and he I guess he was the worst guy in the world because he just said plainly what was actually happening.

Uh without faking

And apparently, there are people that call themselves leftists and they're on the left who consider us far right because we refuse to.

Uh, confine ourselves to this Obama world of delusion that they still live in for some reason, ten years later.

He didn't say plainly what was happening.

Yes, he did.

He was

openly using the language befitting of the actual US Empire.

He was openly saying, for example, that we went into Iraq for the oil.

And that we should have taken the oil, like he said.

Is it true morally?

No, but he's just being honest about what Obama was lying about.

What do you think about the criticism that China, Vietnam, Russia are not doing anything in Palestine?

Why are you upset at Russia and Vietnam for not doing anything in Palestine and not at the so-called Muslim world?

Isn't isn't the onus kind of on the neighbors of the Palestinian people?

The Arabs?

Isn't it i doesn't the onus fall on them to do something about it?

Why is it Vietnam?

Vietnam is responsible for Palestine?

No.

The Muslim and Arab world is responsible for Palestine, and they failed Palestine.

Iran alone and its allies stand up for Palestine.

Is political realignment possible?

Yeah, it's gonna happen for sure, but in the meantime, we're gonna have to keep fighting.

Ah.

Fuck my back hurts.

What happened to internationalism?

You tell me what happened to it.

You know what internationalism is?

Have you considered giving Constantinople back?

Hello?

Yep.

Bro, communism is not good for American society and you know that.

Why you know it's not good for us.

Western society was built on capitalism.

America was built on capitalism.

Yes, and it's good for us.

It creates innovation and we get money off of it.

So wha what's the problem then?

Uh the it's just gonna keep going like this forever.

Exactly, and I'm telling you to stop.

Uh no.

Why, if you if you know communism is not good, why try to bring it to Western society?

You're indoctrinating our children.

Is this a fake fake one?

Like uh is this uh someone who's just playing a character to bring content?

I'm so serious, bro.

You have people with Communist flags.

You have people with the hammer and sickles in their bios.

Stalin killed billions.

Yeah, it's a it's a troll.

It's just a troll.

I could tell it was a troll.

It was a good effort.

It was a good effort.

You're just too.

Yeah, see, he's way too obvious.

I could tell, man.

I could tell.

I could tell.

He's just troll.

He's just trying to bring some content.

Uh he's just trying to bring some content, that's okay.

And he said billions, you know.

Well, yeah, anyway, uh f

I I I honestly, at this point, I want to talk to the so-called leftists that

Call us a psyop or call us Nasbulls just because, like, I want to know what even made you a Marxist?

If you're just going to be this conventional.

Bleeding heart liberal, why are you calling yourself a Marxist?

What about this tradition even attracts you?

I I genuinely find it fascinating.

Why even call yourself a Marxist?

Like what's the what are you what are you getting from this?

You know?

You know a bunch.

Uh bring 'em bring 'em over.

You know, what I don't know what the the delay is.

Bring him on over.

The Mad Communist Me has been off-putting to many.

I think that uh people that claim to be revolutionaries should be exposed to things that are off-putting.

Why should we

placate the sensibilities of people and reinforce weakness.

Shouldn't revolutionaries have thick skin and confront things that

Are icky to them?

And are mean and are brutal, if that's actually a reflection of how the world is.

Can someone explain to me what leftcoms are?

Leftcoms are basically f uh people who are age uh fourteen to uh sixteen and then one percent are like fifty years old who are groomers.

And basically left comms uh are basically um

There are people who think that uh real Marxism only exists in in in a fart.

So in real life, no, but in a fart, that's where communism lives.

Communism exists in a fart, nothing else.

That's basically the essence of their position.

The more farts, the more that they're close to a revolutionary outcome.

Go ahead, Tristan.

Is this Haze?

Yeah.

Uh is it true that uh that Nadia girl was a Masad Honnypot?

Uh it's just like what a stupid thing to say.

Like what an absolutely stupid thing to say.

Uh yeah this is why yeah, some people are just not human.

Is it true that is it true that it's just like something I just made up, but is it true though?

Why do they die on the hill of uh transgenderism?

I think that because a lot of them are transgender and

they're insecure about it maybe and they just you know, actually I had one of them send me a message and they're like if you guys take power, would you would you uh round round me up and send me to the camp?

For being a transgender.

I didn't respond to it, I was just baffled.

I was like

I there's just like this intense sense of um

persecution going on that I don't I don't know what justifies it in reality.

But uh

You know, I mean, for the record, if that if something like that was ever happening, we'd be against it.

Okay, if people were being persecuted for such things, we'd we'd we'd speak out against it, but it's just not happening.

That's just National Socialism.

Yeah, because everything's just like an ideology on Discord, right?

It's like yeah, there's just like all these like different like ideologies you could just choose from on Discord, and this is like the pullet ball of the forget about the context of how

The Nazi party.

Can you say that on yeah, you can't say that on TikTok.

Holy shit.

Forget about the context about how they were uh an institutional

Like fake opposition to the socialist movement.

That was the word national in that.

Um name connoted institutional allegiance to the state.

Not the asymmetrical patriotism that we get from Maoism.

Go ahead, true true losophy.

Oh, I didn't know it was gonna be accepted right away.

I I didn't quite know what's going on.

What is this a panel?

Or like that?

What are what's being discussed?

Uh, magna communism and the ACP and all the things that Reddit hates us for.

Okay, okay.

Um so what l we got let's talk about like see one thing uh what do you guys think of uh

What do you guys think of F uh Fanon?

Yes.

I I like Fanon, why?

Do you think some of his procedures are necessary for the United States?

Could that be something you guys are uh potentially lacking on?

Like a reconstruction of s of society.

Um, was it, um uh, getting rid of of settler culture, replacing it with something new, led by the colonized group?

Um what do you mean?

What does that look like in America?

Yeah, you know, in a sense, uh.

Fanon is uh

He's an interesting thinker ab about the contradictions.

Of the uh

The anti-colonial struggle, and he's kind of exploring those.

Because there is already an anti-colonial struggle before Fanon wrote a word, he was exploring the various contradictions and the ways it affected consciousness and so on and so on.

Now, translating that into the American context is not direct.

It's not a direct process of um

Uh uh trying to find some third world equivalent marginal group in America and and uh you know

Whether it's the United States or France itself or any other kind of Western society, you're talking about

Um

A comprehension of whether or not there exists, if any at all, a distinction between the state and civil society that can be meaningfully related to the relationship between the colonial core and the periphery.

I think that such a relationship exists.

I think that in many ways the federal government does act as an occupying colonial power to the American people, and that there are many regions of America, ones that are neglected by the federal government and by

by the latest developments of uh in the sphere of economics and culture and so on and so on, that are kind of like a periphery, th that are treated as a kind of um

uh population that only exists as a nuisance with respect to the extraction of resources or the extraction of financial rents and debt.

So

I think that there's it's not that there's no place for fanon in America, but it's just to understand these things would require uh

Mm, m more than just fan and I guess.

Hmm.

Uh

Right.

Um

Are are you guys going to be um paying attention to like uh parts of the of the culture that of the culture of the United States, I should say, or at least like the settling part of it that uh are perhaps like constructed to justify

the structures of extraction, you know, like that's what they're reflecting.

Uh what do you mean?

By the way, you know, when I think about it, Fannin, my takeaway from Fannin, actually, if you want to blame someone for my so-called misogyny, blame Fannin.

Fannin was all about the rediscovery of a new signifier, which he re he associated with the revival and rebirth of a new revolutionary masculinity.

And this is where my so-called misogyny actually literally comes from.

Blame him for that, by the way.

I just kind of occurred to me and it's such an irony that I remember.

No, it was Fannin actually, who just kind of um

Who's out Fannin basically psychoanaly I'm gonna simplify it big time.

He psychoanalyzed the relationship between colonized subjects and the colonial core.

And he basically said that the colonizers seek to kind of strip

From the colonized peoples, the master signifier, so to speak, if you want to put it in Lacanes, and thereby strip them of their masculinity.

And, you know, and the reason Fannin, by the way, supported the Veil in Algeria, even when the FLN didn't, the Burqa or whatever, he said, well, the colonizer wants this kind of unlimited noetic and epistemological access to colonized women.

They want to be able to kind of have this full transparency where they can kind of categorize them and situate them within their cognitive universe, right?

Their mapping.

Fannin is a very kind of toxic, problematic, masculinist thinker from a conventional liberal left perspective.

It's so funny, you know, you go back to the Black Panther Party and everyone forgets how the Black Panther Party kept promoting masculinity, masculinity.

We need to create a new man.

We need to h rediscover manhood.

And they completely, completely ostracized effeminate tendencies among men.

That was the Black Panther Party.

Uh which they got from Fannin.

Who else?

Um, so I do remember one other concern I had with uh, and is this like about the ACP in particular, or just your like anything, yeah, literally anything, okay?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll bring up like the party because I guess I mean, I don't, I guess I gotta look at how different like parties did this, but like the United States, it's very, very, you know, it's designed to be very reactionary and um and even on the liberal side, just outright misleading on how to you know fix stuff.

So, with that, with that, like sort of uh labyrinth of sorts that you have to like figure out just to get to solving social issues, do you think that makes it somewhat important to start to try to posit something on social issues and the party space?

Um, I don't know what you mean by that, but I'll say this: I think the source of why people identify us as culturally right-wing comes from the Frankfurt School's idea of the authoritarian personality.

The authoritarian personality is a closed personality, they're conservative, they're not open to new trends in culture, they're more uh patriarchical or masculine or something.

And the kernel of truth is that we believe in an alternative center of political authority, an alternative center of discipline, an alternative center of power.

And in the absence of that, you will have two possibilities: you're going to be a self-proclaimed anarchist who says, I'm beyond all the power and the authority, I'm a free individual, fake, okay, or you're going to be subservient to the authority of the Democratic Party and the U.S.

regime.

So, the process of standing on business.

Which is what they call it, you're standing on business.

The process of building an alternative authority corresponds to specific cultural tendencies, ones that make you less of a free-floating jellyfish and more of somebody who is grounded in realistic and no BS type of attitude.

A harsh, brutal worldview corresponds to the principle of building a party from scratch.

Which, by the way, it's funny.

Who has built a party from scratch?

I don't hate the PSL, but can I ignore the fact that the libertine

Free tendencies within the PSL culturally.

Do these not correspond to the fact that the PSL only exists because of the beneficence of a billionaire named Roy Singham, who gives them tens of millions of dollars for free?

How can I ignore the fact that the DSA is an appendage of the Democratic Party, which doesn't have an independent center of authority and which openly promotes factionalism?

How can I ignore the fact that the CPUSA is an organization which its members have no respect for, which they collect the card of along with in their wallet with a million other cards?

There's no party discipline in there.

Nobody respects the party.

And it's just a kind of place for networking for activists who are ultimately trying to career climb and become Democratic Party politicians.

So I think that the tendencies that they associate with us, which are not correct per se, but vaguely the vibe we give off that they don't like.

They don't like we're too much like bros or something.

That is a in a Fanonian sense, that's because we're building an independent authority.

We're not colonized subjects.

And this is what.

Effectively, this is the problem.

If we put on a dress and we act domesticated and feminine, what does that actually signify in people's unconscious that you are?

You're not a threat.

You're like you're gonna roll over for the the demo the man of the Democratic Party.

You're gonna roll over and uh and and you know, acquiesce to some other authority.

It's a passive it it connotes passivity, does it not?

So we reject this and this is what has made us a problem for so-called leftists who are contend with being

Um, Democratic Party appendages.

Yeah.

Um, you know, I feel like it's um I I might I might try take this to try to segue to something.

Uh, if that's all right.

Um

I feel like what they're gonna try what what's going what the I guess the United States is gonna try to do next because I feel like it um perhaps uh climate change or um Eastern shifting geopolitics like I said I don't think that would change anything.

Sorry, I I think I think there will eventually be a boiling point where um we will uh stop w we will no longer have to be so or we will have to no longer be so.

Sorry.

Uh

Like ha um

Oh my god, I um I I'm still working this up.

Like, I uh

I think eventually the pendulum will swing on specifically immigration, and it'll be because we will be able to reprogram other cultures into just copies of like American culture on the inside, but on the outside they have the food and the d uh traditions.

Yeah, I I d I don't know about that.

I think that the immigration issue is very carefully controlled.

There's a lot of discourse about it in politics, but then behind the scenes, materially, it's a totally said and done case of the reason ICE is ramping up its efforts and becoming more aggressive is because they're trying to set the precedent for the expansion of the powers of federal agencies to be used against the population at large in general, which is a tendency that's been consistent across administrations, by the way.

And it's not actually going to lead to the h d mass deportations of tens of millions of people.

It's going to ennoble them with arbitrary police powers that will inevitably be used against uh

against us but uh thank thank you for coming on I want to bring on the next guest that requested

Uh okay, whatever.

Hi, fine.

So like I have a question for you.

Okay.

Like, would you consider yourself an American nationalist?

No.

Um wow.

Because the paradigm of the nation state is.

From the 19th century roughly,

And corresponds to the era of bourgeois civilization.

What?

So the paradigm of a nation state is a is a narrow paradigm.

The paradigm of a nation state is a more or less kind of homogeneous, universally standard state, a single nation with a kind of single nation uh language and a sense of shared uh lineage, even in some cases blood lineage in the case of an ethno-state.

But uh I wouldn't say I'm a nationalist because

Uh nations are not the fundamental and final horizon of a collective existence.

That being said.

Is collective existence concrete?

Meaning

Can we speak of collective existence solely as a voluntary community of people who simply decide that they are, you know, um

Committed to a certain ideology or something like that, and can that suffice for a collective existence?

No, collective existence is concrete.

If you read Frederick Engels' Origins of the Family, he speaks about the concrete development of collective existence.

And although we are beyond the era of nation states per se,

Uh nations have evolved, and the concreteness we associate with nations, which is a concreteness not reducible to a specific institution,

Or ideology

Um, remains there's things that unite people together culturally and sociologically and so on and so on.

They're not reducible to politics or institutions or ideas or ideologies that are materially real.

I'll finally say this: I think most liberal leftists accuse me of nationalism because they are anxious about the idea of a collective existence that is outside of institutions and.

This is why they call us Nazbulls and stuff, because they it's like uh what we're really talking about is asymmetrical collective existence, right?

Asymmetrical patriotic reality of what the people actually are

versus how we want them to be in our institutions where we can control how they speak and how they what words they use and what values they have and and so on and so on.

Uh what would you see as like an alternative to like a nation state throne?

Alternative to what?

So IP nation state.

Oh, an alternative to the American state is that we have to lay the foundations of a completely new political authority from scratch.

So we first of all we need a Communist Party or some equivalent to that.

And then we need to build dual power.

We need to have alternative forms of popular representation and expression.

That are befitting of the era that we live in, and simultaneously more directly express the popular will.

Like the Soviets in in Russia did.

And like to like add to that, like on like communism, like what's your relationship with like dialectical materialism?

Because

I see it as like kind of complex.

You see what?

Dialectical materialism.

Uh yes, so I mean I'm a dialectical materialist.

I mean, but like do you also like stand for like political struggle, I mean spiritual struggle.

Like you support like the r regimes like Iran and um Yeah, well no, it it's an interesting point.

Um the key word I think is dialectical.

And I know dialectical can't mean whatever we want it to mean and sometimes people use it to mean that, but um

I think that uh we need a new understanding of religion.

that focuses on

The religious unconscious versus the more conscious methods of explication, which are kind of secondary interpretations of religious revelation and inspiration.

So, philosophy, I think, is inherently idealist.

I think that interpretations of religion, philosophical interpretations of religion, are idealistic.

Why?

Because they associate the intangible objects of reference within religious language to be thoughts and ideas that just kind of maybe are the thoughts of God or the ideas of God, but which just kind of exist out there.

But I think that

That is not a necessary conclusion of how we interpret religion.

I think it's possible that when we interpret religion on the side of revelation, which is just this kind of encounter with a fundamental structure of reality.

And I mean nothing like inherently ob obfuscatory about that.

We're talking about the nature of

Social reality of civilization, of how powers rise and how they fall, or how to make sense of the fortune and misfortune that befalls people in their li how do we make sense of our life and our existence and how does that get expressed within our society?

I mean, this is honestly what religion deals with.

R if you read the h holy texts of the Quran, the Bible,

They're not talking about um

Like arbitrary abstractions and supernatural, like ancient aliens and reptilian space people.

No, they're talking about very concrete ways of coming to terms with why the world is the way it is.

And I think that's an inherently materialist disposition from religion.

Now, the kind of interpretation of religion, I agree, is mainly idealistic.

But I think there's a fundamental religious unconscious that is not affected necessarily by this, such that religious meaning can come to the surface even in the absence of idealism.

In the Great Patriotic War, when Soviet soldiers were fighting the Germans, the meaning of their religion suddenly made sense to them in the trenches.

Something about it just totally clicked, made total sense in Palestine and in Lebanon and in Iran today, when people are fighting, they're not thinking about.

Philosophical idealism, the religious language means something to them that I think is material.

I guess that would be my answer.

So like what do you like see like spiritual struggle as like a counterpart of like dialectical materialism and even as like a higher level in that sense?

Yeah, a higher level, absolutely.

I would say that.

I mean, but like what do you think should happen to like communism?

Because like communism like in like marked

Terms, it was like built all around the material, like rather than.

Yeah, but what is the material?

The material just refers to.

The essential, okay, the content of things material means that there is a materiality.

Um that is not reducible to form, which is ideal form, the form of an idea, an ideality.

So the material content doesn't mean necessarily things that we can, on a direct experiential level, physically interact with.

That's not what a material object necessarily is within Marxism.

For example, the capitalist mode of production materially exists.

But is the capitalist mode of production a direct physical object that we can directly experience as individuals?

No.

No.

Of course not.

There's a material reality of social existence.

That's what actually led some Soviet philosophers like Evaldilienkov to identify social existence itself with ideality.

Because social reality is not reducible to individuals, and yet it's real, right?

So he said, well, it must be that this is really what corresponds to the ideal is a social form.

But in any case, within Marxism, vulgar materialism is impossible.

So the reason it's dialectical is that it has a much more expansive understanding of what a material thing is.

And like what would you think of like

Like aside from like the right-wing views of like a lot of like spiritual philosophers like what would you what do you like think of like people like Jules Evola or like because they're like more like closely aligned with like new idealism and like Dugan who Evola yeah I'm not I don't really like Evola.

Actually I think Ev Guénon is a much more interesting thinker.

I don't fully agree with any of them, but uh Renee Guénon is a more interesting thinker to me than uh Evola.

But uh

Um, well, what can you say?

Uh uh

Evola falls within the same category as kind of Theosophists and Blavatsky and others.

Maybe even Aylster Crowley or something.

I don't know.

I d I don't uh

I don't think there's any body of thought that can within the framework of Marxism be dismissed outright.

Always there's a kernel of a rational kernel to be salvaged.

What that is in the case of Evola, I really couldn't tell you off the top of my head, um, comprehensively.

But I am wary of the notion that we can just dismiss thinkers entirely who uh

Almost everybody is always onto something.

Now, to what extent that something should be re take take Marx, any given body of work from Karl Marx will reference such a diverse array of different thinkers with whom he almost had nothing in common with politically.

But we should pay homage to people who explored the same problems we as Marxists will inevitably run up against in a different way.

That's my view.

Yeah, I agree, I agree.

Um

So like I have no more questions.

Thank you though.

Got you.

Right.

Uh we will bring on Paul.

Uh hi, how are you?

Good, how are you?

My question is that I seen your videos in which you speak against capitalism, I understand it has many flaws.

But he also supported a China economy, which is literally state capitalist.

Is Yani it if you look at their economies, like sixty percent of their economy GDP comes from private sector.

So why you are hypocritical?

Uh you think socialism is just when uh state institutions directly manage every aspect of the economy?

I guess if if you look at uh s uh Soviet and Cuba.

Okay.

Um but the Soviet Union

uh accounted for its economic

Uh units by way of prices and uh wages.

And measured the efficiency of state enterprises in terms of profits.

So is the Soviet Union also a state?

Where do we draw the line?

I mean, you can why is it that in the Soviet Union they can measure Mao made the same point, by the way, at the end of his life.

They're measuring the efficiency of enterprises through profits.

They are accounting for the value of goods through price.

They are paying laborers through wages, through monetary forms of compensation.

So why is it impermissible to make the next step and simply just decentralize the system such that it can take care of itself more efficiently than than having the state institutions directly manage everything?

If if at a fundamental level, if at the level that matters to the proletarian dictatorship, there has been a comprehensive strategic alignment of the fundamentals of the economic base, the land, the natural resources, the nation-scale level kind of infrastructure, the industry.

If all of this is under the political control of the proletarian dictatorship, why why what's wrong with decentralizing the economic system?

Why does that make it less socialist?

Hold on, there's someone in here named Lorax party on TikTok who I'm sure will feel special by the fact that I called him out.

Uh

Lorax, the only landlord communists are the CPUSA, who have 50 million in assets and have prime real estate in New York that they actually lend out and lease as landlords.

We don't have rental properties.

So, who are the FBI agents?

Do you feel smart?

Lorax, I want an actual response.

Directly respond to what I'm saying.

You're not talking about me, all right.

Anyway, Paul, go ahead.

Yeah, that was my question though.

AMR, what's up?

Hold on.

Atra, Haas.

You literally said being a landlord is fine.

I watched you say it in stream.

No, what you watched me say, and if you saw Socialism for All, the anonymous Fed, you saw him make a hit piece about me through a clip where he took out of the context when I said they're all cooperatively owned.

Every enterprise is cooperatively owned.

So I wasn't using politically correct language, but the landlords in question would be a tenant-owned-owned housing complex or something.

We don't have anything like that.

I said, Is it possible?

Yeah.

But what's the immediate?

It was an offhand comment I was answering.

I didn't say being a landlord is fine in the sense of.

what kind of economic system we're trying to build.

Do you think child labor is fine, Atra?

Because you use and depend on child labor through the iPhone or the smartphone and computer that you use.

So is African child labor is that what you're fighting for?

So, Atra, don't be saying stupid things.

Someone has to basically members can be landlords.

Okay, and the context was.

Yo.

Emmer, can you shut the fuck up for two seconds?

The context was, Atra, that every chapter enterprise is cooperatively owned.

So the Fed, Socialism for All, removed that context.

And why did he do that?

That's I'm gonna I'm gonna put that question on you.

Grifters, what what about us are Grifters?

Can you can you actually consistently can you consistently defend Howard Grifters?

The ACP is a money pit.

We don't make profit off of it.

We don't make money off of it.

We're putting all the the money we're getting in, we're not making up for that we get out.

How do you make your money by live streaming from donations?

That's how.

Yo, yo.

So, bro, I just wanted to ask, what do you think about the Green Party?

Um, I think it's for losers and simpletons.

And I'll bring you back.

I'll bring you back after I deal with Atra.

Atra's in Israeli.

No way he's an Israeli.

No way.

Atra, you realize if I sold out and joined the chorus of woke leftists, I would be a millionaire right now.

You know how fing easy it would be for me to get hired or to get promoted in the Hassan streamer network if I just followed the rules?

Don't call me a fing grifter.

You're too short.

Yeah, it's just like

So, you don't have a line of attack.

It would be easy, piss easy for me to be in that meme itself comes from the fact that they had beef with me.

That very meme that you're talking about, that you're referencing, would not exist if I just played it safe and was a conventional Hakeem leftist like you.

So if I've sacrificed this much, how am I a grifter?

You're not making sense.

Lol, do you have any response?

Do you have any actual response?

How objectively am I a grifter?

Why if I was a grifter, wouldn't I just pander to people like you?

You've already admitted that you make your money from streams.

Do you think that's the most lucrative way and the best potential I have for making money?

You realize I had a full ride scholarship in law school.

which I completed my first year while live streaming.

You realize I had a really good life set up for me.

The fact that I make money off of donations from live streams

You think that makes me a grifter with all of the potential that I not only had, but even still have?

Because if I sell out, either just becoming a right-winger or a conventional leftist, even as a streamer, I will do 10 times, 50 times better than I am right now.

You can't explain how I'm a grifter.

Nobody could explain how I'm a grifter.

It doesn't make any sense.

There's all these other ways I could be making money right now.

If I sold out on my values and principles.

And what do you spend it on?

Cigars, travel and suits?

Yeah, you're right.

I'm I'm I'm yeah, the all the travel is uh is uh right out of my pocket.

You're right.

And I'm buying suits all the time.

It's not that I have one suit.

I'm buying them all the time.

Or I'm sorry, I have two suits.

Literal grift.

Atro

I I don't know how you

I don't I don't even know if this is just a troll.

You know how easy it would be to me for me to just become a sponsored, aligned, conventional leftist and make so much money?

You know how much opportunities have been thrown my way as far as making money?

You have any idea how easy it is for me to become a millionaire if I didn't have principles?

Jackson can't even come back to the US.

Why is Jackson, by the way, in ACP?

Let's talk about that.

If Jackson's a grifter, wouldn't he just be joined the the right wing?

Wouldn't he have aligned with Nick Fuentes and the right instead of ACP?

You know ACP is the small thing, right?

This movement?

How could Jackson be a grifter if he has the positions he does?

Why would he want anything to do with communism?

The only communists that follow Jackson are the people in this milieu, this small community.

You think Jackson's winning Reddit Hassan Piker fans?

He's not.

Best news I've heard in days.

Yeah, because you're a Zionist.

Hold on.

Socialism or barbarism, there are no other options.

So you're a Zionist who supports US citizens being unable to return home because they've shown solidarity to Yemen.

You're a f you're disgusting.

You're calling us grifters, you're spineless and unprincipled and disgusting.

Elamio, ha ha ha Atra, have you actually would you would you go to Yemen?

And show solidarity with them, putting your life on the line.

He's got no argument.

Yeah, what a disgusting creature this is.

I can't.

These Redditors, for the this is what these Redditors are like, by the way.

Atra, how about this?

I'll put my height in the chat if you request and speak and show us all your face and we can hear your metrosexual voice.

Atra, just request to speak and let us all hear your voice and see what you look like.

And then I'll be happy to, uh I'll be happy to uh uh, you know, lower myself to this uh

I don't know if this is what your version of looks maxing.

Go ahead.

Let's just request and let's see what you look like.

I bet you're obese.

I bet that you are uh you know.

Go ahead, show us your metrosexual voice.

Your low testosterone metrosexual voice.

Go ahead, Atra, do it.

No, he won't.

Okay, so you're conquered and you're defeated for the rest of your life.

And I know you think you're just trolling and you're anonymous and it doesn't matter.

You're gonna go to bed tonight knowing you were conquered.

Sorry.

Anyway, just totally fucking defeated.

Totally conquered.

There's no recovery.

What's up, man?

I'm in ACP, Oregon.

So if you're just looking for ops, I can back out and wait for somebody to hop in.

We'll just wait.

Yeah, we'll wait for the ops.

You know what's funny?

Even if I was five five

Isn't that Lennon's exact height?

Like, what is the own supposed?

Even if that was true, isn't that the exact height of Lennon?

I have I how who are you owning by accusing me of being that?

I would be completely fine being that.

Do you have any line of attack that actually matters?

Comparing yourself to Lennon.

Why would it matter?

What do you mean?

What's wrong with that?

There's literally nothing wrong with it.

Um I you know, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

And famously, a grifting streamer.

You're literally an NPC.

Can you?

Okay, no, no, I'm going to be just totally like.

I want you to rationally explain how it could be possible that I'm a grifter.

Go ahead.

How could I possibly be a grifter?

Go ahead.

At least Chairman Gonzalo slime people before comparing himself to Lenin.

No, you're right.

That's totally what I was doing.

I was saying that I have the same historical significance as Lenin does.

We're trying to get to the bottom of whatever line of attack or critique that you have, and you're bringing up physical characteristics that are absolutely immaterial.

If unless oh well, Lenin, we make an exception, I guess.

How does that even work?

So when Lenin was a nobody in 1903, when he was a nobody and he had accomplished nothing, would that be a legitimate line of attack then?

What about Lenin before he became Lenin, right?

It's just going in your pocket.

Okay, how much have I given

To the ACP versus how much have I made off of it.

Do the math and then let's see who a grifter is.

Go ahead.

How am I a grifter and Hassan Piker?

Isn't it?

Let me ask you a question.

Are you a Hassan Piker fan?

Show us the receipts.

You should honestly join because I want to run a hypothetical.

If someone wants to participate or partake in the communist movement effectively in 2026, how could they do so without being a grifter in your mind?

Because they can't be in public, they can't live off of doing full-time spreading the message, they can't build a party that actually has resources to support itself.

What can an actual principled communist do in 2026 to fulfill the revolutionary mission of the proletariat?

Please explain.

I'll give you the opportunity.

I'll give you the opportunity to just explain that.

How could you actually be an effective revolutionary in 2026?

Please explain that.

Okay.

When you read Lenin's What is to be done, the first thing he talks about is the centrality of the newspaper.

Why is that, Atra?

Do you think it's because newspapers are sacrosanct?

Did they have any other effective means of mass communication?

Over a hundred years ago?

So in an era where you can just instantaneously communicate your message to people, you don't have to go on town squares and yell at people with megaphones, I'm pretty sure that communists over a hundred years ago would be pretty receptive to live streaming actually.

Any member of the working class can be an effective revolutionary.

Okay, hold on, Catra, are you a Marxist-Leninist, yes or no?

Because this is going to determine everything.

Do you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist?

I'll school you, do you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist, yes or no?

No way So let's go back to the basics.

What is the distinction that Lenin insisted upon that was the foundation of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split?

What distinction was the foundation of the split within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party?

Go ahead.

You can chat GPT if you want.

He called himself an MLM.

He thinks all members of the working class are simultaneously and seamlessly the same thing as a cadre of a Communist Party.

When the very distinction between the working class and the cadre was the thing that Lenin insisted upon so fundamentally that it led to the split of Russian social democracy between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

And what was Lenin's position?

The working class are not directly.

Party cadre.

There is a distinction between cadre and the class.

So if you don't know that

Why are you LARPing as a Leninist?

Oh, any member of the working class can be revolutionary.

Not according to Lenin.

Lenin distinguishes the class from professional revolutionaries who are cadre.

No, not everyone can be a revolutionary.

Only a minority of people can fully dedicate their time and effort.

to being professional revolutionaries.

So if that's what they're going to do and that's the path they choose to embark upon, how do you do that the most effectively according to Leninism?

This is the question I asked you.

You call me a landlord when the CPUSA is a literal landlord.

When your own Maoist organizations are landlords, yes, they are, that own property and rent them out, yes, they do.

When the Communist Party of Germany do you even know the story of the anthem of Yahtze Germany?

A Communist, the Communist Party of Germany literally owned a they were like a slum lord who owned a collection of apartment buildings and the landlord came and and horsed horsed whatever his name was there was some dispute and he got shot.

Even if it was true, it w your argument wouldn't stand.

But how are we landlords when we don't own any rental properties?

Why are you pivoting now?

You said first.

You said first, oh no, no, no, anyone can be a revolutionary while calling yourself a Leninist.

Now you're saying oh you're landlords.

No no no, stay on the topic.

You called me a grifter.

How in 2026 can you not be a grifter according to your definition if you're committed to Leninist principles?

Please explain.

I will happily, happily take you to

Take you to task on your own self-proclaimed principles.

Go ahead.

What okay, let's talk about my landlordism.

What landlordism exists in the ACP?

Let's talk about it.

What landlordism?

Did I say that chapters can be tenant can form tenant owned housing co operatives?

Yes, I did.

Is that the cross you want to crucify me on, Atra, really?

Go ahead.

Is this the cross you want to crucify me on?

Because I said chapters can have tenant owned housing co operatives?

Yeah, I didn't say housing co-ops because the context already had established that they are cooperatives.

Watch the video that Socialism 4AL clipped.

Watch the entire video.

I can show it to you right now.

Type Hazal Dean on YouTube.

Go into the YouTube.

Find the video where I talk about chapter enterprises and run it through ChatGPT and ask ChatBT, hey, did Haas say they're all cooperatives?

You have the video.

Okay, show me the video.

Link the video in the comments.

I could literally pull up the video right now on stream.

I will happily pull up the video right now on stream where Socialism for All clipped one segment where I responded offhand to a commenter, where the context before that question was asked had already been established.

They're all cooperatively owned.

Okay, join the live and show your screen.

Okay, how are you gonna see if I pull it up?

I'm gonna pull it up on the other place, the green place.

Go to the green place and comment in the green place to make sure that you can see when I pull it up.

I can't pull it up on TikTok.

I can pull it up on the green thing that I'm streaming at right now.

You know, I it's also this easy.

All we have to do is just look at this.

It's super easy.

Article 11, Advancement of Community Work and Enterprise, Section 2, Chapters will establish small businesses or cooperatives owned by the party chapter with the intent of funding the chapter and party.

Small businesses or cooperatives meaning these are words for the same thing.

That's literally in the ACP Constitution.

The ACP Constitution itself.

Okay, why would the video contradict what the Constitution says?

Okay, bring up the video.

Okay.

I think that's the only thing that

All w I want to clarify something before going forward, because the first uh piece of confusion I think is about the relationship between infrared and ACP.

The random person?

You need to understand that to apply to ACP, you have to apply as a chapter.

You can't just apply as an individual.

We are not here to just have individuals sitting on their ass so that we can collect dudes from them and they could just sit on their ass and do nothing.

To be a part of ACP, you already have to be in some kind of association and has demonstrated the minimum that you're capable of socialization.

Why?

Because we don't want antisocial, psychopathic individuals in our party.

For one, we want you to have already been vetted by a group of people.

We want a sense of collective responsibility toward that end.

So, this is not just for individuals, okay?

You need to prove that you can form groups and collectively work out how you want to get things done and choose a decision-making process that works.

Before you're considered eligible to join as a chapter and simultaneously as the individuals who are part of that chapter.

But we have already we already have a lot of people that we're basically going to vet who we do know who have been doing on-the-ground work, if you can believe it, for the past year.

It's just that the on-the-ground work that they have been doing hasn't been publicized anywhere because it's informal.

It's not on behalf of any official organization.

But they're all across the country there are people, whether they're former clubs of the CPUSA or whether they're people that have just been in form in an informal association organizing work.

Okay.

At the direct transcript right now, do you want to play it?

Because I can read it to you directly because the AI has a transcript of it.

Okay, it is going to be cooperatively owned by the chapter.

It's going to be chapter entrepreneurial enterprises.

This is the direct transcript right here.

It's not that you're going to generate revenue to fund your activities.

We also want to generate revenue in a socialistic way to reflect communistic values.

You know, whether it's a co-op, but it's something like, and you take, everyone takes care of each other and owns it collectively.

It's going to be collective ownership.

Okay, it's going to be cooperatively owned by the chapter.

It's going to be chapter entrepreneurial enterprises.

So first of all, before I before I pull it up, Atra, no, no, no, Atra, Atra, you're not going to worm your fucking way out of this.

You said I never said they had to be cooperatively owned.

Here I clearly establish all chapter enterprises are cooperatively owned.

Do you deny that I said that?

Yes or no?

Someone asked, I asked if chapters, when I had already established the context that chapters have to be cooperatively owned and collectively run, then if someone asks if chapters can be landlords, what they're asking is whether chapters within our legal framework could be cooperatively can cooperatively have a tenant-owned housing complex.

So what's wrong with that?

That's the context that had been established.

Okay, one's in the chat if Atra just got fucking mogged.

Big time.

They asked if an individual can be a landlord.

Okay, let's find the transcript.

Let's see if I if I said an individual can be a landlord.

No, they said can ACP businesses can be landlords.

The question was, can ACP businesses be landlords?

And I said, yes.

Provided obviously the context is established that they're cooperatively owned, tenant-owned housing complexes.

That's what I said.

You got destroyed, dude.

You will never recover from this.

Everyone, find Atra, find their account and all their socials.

They will never forget this.

Ever.

You got so mogged.

So comprehensively destroyed.

You'll never fucking recover.

I promise.

You got destroyed so fucking badly.

Holy shit.

Like, actually mogged and destroyed comprehensively.

First, he said, You said you said individual landlords.

No, I didn't.

I'm looking at the transcript right now.

Anyone can find the transcript.

It's on the infrared archive.

It's the infrared content catalog.

Anyone can look at the transcript.

It's right here.

I also have the VOD right here on the infrared archive from Rumble.

So there you go.

You got destroyed.

You got destroyed.

Did you or did you not claim we said?

That individual landlords on behalf of the party can rent out properties.

Atra, you're destroyed forever.

You'll never recover from this, I promise.

You could cope about it for the rest of your life.

You're going to go to bed knowing you got destroyed multiple times.

Rasputin, go ahead.

Hi, so I'm not here to do the whole oh, landlord thing.

I was mainly here to contest one specific point I've heard from a lot of your guys online and stuff.

The point that DoorDash drivers would not, under a Marxist framework, be considered productive labor.

Laborer.

Yeah, we'll debate about that in a second.

Hey, Atra, guess what?

Even if it's true that Halali is a landlord, which he's actually not, by the way, he doesn't have tenants.

He doesn't have tenants.

But wasn't Frederick Engels a literally exploiting capitalist who owned a factory?

Oh, you're comparing Halali to Engels.

No, it's the principle.

Can Marxists do what Engels did or not?

What are the exceptions?

Frederick Engels owned a factory.

How do you account for that?

Frederick Engels owned a factory that exploited proletarians.

But Halali isn't Engels.

So logically, give us the para.

Under what circumstances and conditions is it appropriate and permissible for someone to be a capitalist who owns a factory according to you?

We know Halali is not Engels.

So define the parameters that establish whether it's acceptable or not to do it.

If you're famous enough, if you're successful enough, if you're known throughout history, if you're well known enough.

Either Atra or this fan and idiot in my chat, establish clearly the parameters.

Under what circumstances and conditions is it acceptable to be a capitalist or a landlord to you?

Because clearly there are some that are acceptable to you.

You regard some exceptions to your principle, right?

Engels being one of them.

So define why Engels?

Go ahead, I'll give him time, I'll give him time.

He's not he's he's not Engels.

Define define the meaningfulness of that.

Define why.

Like, oh, he's not Engels.

Okay, why does that make an exception to the principle though that you're trying to stand on?

I'm not the issue.

Atra, you're fine with Frederick Engels owning a factory and being a capitalist.

Yes or no?

Are you fine with it?

Atra, are you fine with Engels being a capitalist?

Fannin, are you fine with Engels being a capitalist?

Historicism, what does that mean?

You think in the era and the time that Engels lived in, there wasn't a proletarian movement?

There was.

This is not historicism.

Oh, there was a relative.

There was nothing about the time Engels lived in that made being a capitalist less abnormal and less disruptive of the ordinary social life.

In fact, it was much more brutal and disruptive in the time Engels lived in.

No, no, I want these are people who are not bots that you typically see them on Reddit running their mouths.

I want to have the opportunity to confront them with the uh inconsistencies in their worldview.

Yeah, the factory Engelzone had brutal living conditions.

Brutal, brutal living conditions he lived off of it.

And he funded Marx was funded by it.

Karl Marx was funded by the factory that Engels owned.

You call yourself a Marxist and you're okay with that according to your principles?

Why does Atra silent now?

Just ignore.

No, why is he silent now?

I want to know why he's silent now.

Where's Fannin and Where's Atra, where are they now?

Individually owned.

Why are you not answering?

Okay, he's just trolling at this point.

Individ.

I never said that.

That's not a real quote, but I get it.

You're trolling.

Halali doesn't own rental property.

No, he doesn't.

He doesn't have tenants.

To have rental property, you need tenants.

Answer the question right now, or you get banned.

Is it okay for you for Marx to live off of the exploitation of the proletariat through Engels?

Is that permissible to you?

For Engels to be a literal capitalist to exploit it as workers?

Yes or no?

Yes or no?

You have to answer it.

You can't avoid it.

You can't run away from it.

Yes or no?

We're waiting, yes or no?

You have to be kidding.

Yes or no, Atra.

Yes or no?

Do you accept Engels being a capitalist?

Because you're crying about an accusation that Halali owns rental property, that he doesn't.

But let's turn it around on you, then why do you excuse Engels being a capitalist?

Yes or no?

There's no way he has no answer, he has no response.

I accept your defeat, you bitch.

I accept your defeat.

Actually, everyone in the chat just keep spamming him with that question until he responds.

If he tries to detract or deflect, keep spamming him with that question.

Resputan, go ahead.

So, yeah, um my main contention is uh I think I've heard you share this take, um, but I've also heard Doordash, yeah, because

Okay, Marx's theory of value, where value comes from.

First of all, labor does not produce value on the individual level.

Why?

Because there's a division of labor.

There's a division of labor.

Only when the division of labor is regarded as an integral totality.

Can we speak about the creation of a surplus value, an asymmetrical kind of relationship of value in inputs and outputs?

Only in the aggregate.

This is what Marx makes this clear in Capital Volume 3 when he tries to explain why there's an average rate of profit.

And according to him, in certain sectors and certain enterprises, the profits that are being generated, the revenues being generated,

Uh, can be the consequence of surplus value extracted from an actual productive enterprise or a segment of the economy, and that it itself is producing no surplus value.

So, this is how Marx explains the average rate of profit.

Now, this is just to establish the baseline that a relationship of employment does not inherently employment and profitability for the enterprise does not inherently mean that surplus value is being generated.

Doesn't inherently mean that.

The case of DoorDash drivers and so on and so on.

There is no way to explain how the profits of Doordash could possibly be a consequence of the creation of surplus value because the profits of Uber and DoorDash are not organic consequences of the revenue generated in the first place on the shop floor by people buying into them.

Instead, they're propped up by speculative finance, which is why they were operating at a loss for the majority of their existence.

I bet they're still operating at a loss in some level, probably.

So, no, DoorDash and Uber, Uber Eats, whatever, do not produce surplus value.

Instead, they show the existence of consumer demand to hedge funds and speculative investors.

And the demand serves as proof to get the investments they need to prop their whole enterprise and company up.

This comes from financial speculation and credit printed, by the way, by central banks from scratch, ex nihilo.

Effectively, there's a form of central planning going on where credit is being printed ex nihilo, regardless of any value, and being allocated to enterprises and firms on the basis of their demand among consumers.

Where is that value actually being produced is not a set and done clear question from the perspective of Marxism in today's economies of scale.

Okay, so my main contention with that would be I would agree with you on part of it.

Large parts of DoorDash revenue about um

I think I looked this up.

It's about 40% of it is from like IP and stuff.

I'm not just talking about IP.

I'm talking about the shareholders, the investment that comes from shareholders.

And I'm talking about the loans and so on they get from banks and financial capital.

I mean, well, one, I just looked this up.

DoorDash is profitable at the moment.

I know, but the profit cannot explain the capital.

The profit, the capital that DoorDash controls and has is not justified by the profits.

If Doordash had to live only off of the profits that they make, they could not be solvent.

But that's any company.

That doesn't.

No, no, that's exactly the problem.

You're right.

But what I would push back on is the fact that I would agree that financialization.

Hold on, hold on.

But that's the problem.

In capital, Marx is talking about a process of capital accumulation where profits are creating and initiating the creation of capital.

Profits partake in the creation of capital.

That's what capital is about.

If that doesn't explain enterprises and economic activity anymore in our economies, if the actual revenues being generated at the shop floor and profits do not justify the capital at the disposal of the enterprises in the first place, we have to rethink a lot of our assumptions about how we can apply Marxist analysis to 21st century economies.

Well, I would agree with you that financialization, it does add a new layer of development to this.

But I would say the core dynamic at the core of capitalism, and Marx talks about cases like DoorDash drivers or transportation workers and stuff, in Capital Volume 2, Chapter 6, where he outlines how, even though these workers are set in financial, in like service workers.

No, no, no, no.

Well, yeah, no, no, no.

He talks about most of the work.

Sorry, which chapter in which book is this?

Capital Volume 2, Chapter 6, Part 3.

Are you talking about the transportation workers?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

And I understand.

Transportation.

He talks about how these are productive labor.

Yes, because it adds value to the commodity.

And he defines.

Yes, but Marx also regards commercial workers as unproductive.

Yes, but commercial workers, in the sense he's saying, because he spends the entire chapter talking about multiple different categories of circulatory cost, and he singles out transportation as the one circulatory cost that does, that has a double function of also generating services.

Does it directly change?

Yeah, the physical movement of the commodity from one place to another, closer to its target or whatever.

Yeah, that partakes in the adding of value to the commodity.

But the process of marketing and selling the commodity, like a store clerk or something would or a commercial.

Oh, yeah, accountants, marketers, workers.

Yeah, yeah.

Somebody who is working at the shop and helping sell the thing off of the floor, that doesn't create any value for Marx.

So that would be a service worker in this case.

If nobody thinks a truck driver is a service worker, by the way.

Yeah, but a DoorDash driver does that on a small scale.

There's actually, no, there's a qualitative difference.

DoorDash workers do bring the goods to the doorstep of people's homes, but the actual value-added transportation labor, as per Marx's definition, is actually being done by the truckers who are bringing it to the restaurants or the facilities in the back end, the warehouses and so on and so on.

Well, it's not just one.

Commodities go through like multiple, but I don't production.

The problem is the...

The DoorDash is not actually adding value to the commodity.

What it's doing is it's helping market the commodity and the added value in the strict non-s special sense of the term is being pocketed by DoorDash itself, not the actual enterprise which produces the commodity.

So the commodity itself is not its value doesn't increase.

DoorDash takes extracts rents through IP and then also there's a fee that's given to the driver.

That doesn't go to the the commodity at all though.

Well the fact that the DoorDash driver spatially changes the commodity means he's directly changing if that led to an increase of the price of the commodity maybe you can make that argument.

Well it does they sell they sell delivery fees.

Yeah but but but you understand something.

You're paying for the service and the convenience of having that commodity whose value is not changing in this case show up right at your doorstep.

So it's a form of commercial work which is yes a kind of marketing because it's making you more likely to buy the final product than you otherwise would but it's not actually adding value to the commodity.

The service DoorDash is selling is the commodity.

I understand.

That's exactly my point.

It's the service.

It's not the good itself.

So he's not transporting a good, adding value to it as well.

But he is still generating surplus for capital at the behest of capital.

He's really not.

In the same way commercial workers don't generate surplus value, neither is DoorDash.

Well, the commercial worker isn't directly changing the use value conditions of any commodity with what they're doing.

But they are changing the conditions under which that commodity is more likely to be sold, which is the same thing a DoorDash driver does.

No, it's not.

Because, okay, the fact that transportation makes unusable commodities physically usable by spatially.

They're absolutely not.

They are finished products.

They're not unusable.

They are finished products.

Well, they're unusable by the person who wants them.

That's the thing.

Okay, but if I go to a shop and a guy who's trying to huckster me into buying something persuades me and convinces me to buy it, he has changed the use value as well.

How is value being created?

How is value being created?

Well, part of what the Dasher is being paid.

Commercial workers are also paid.

Except what the commercial worker does does not generate any revenue for the capitalist.

What the commercial worker does is noted as a loss to sell the commodity.

Yeah, they're not about this.

They're not.

But hold on.

Two things.

One, yes, they're not generating any new revenue.

They're just an expensive production.

But they're an indispensable expensive production.

Now, from the standpoint of the commodity.

Oh, yeah, they're an indispensable expensive production.

So first of all, from the standpoint of the commodity itself in this case, the commercial work that the DoorDash driver is doing would be an indispensable kind of thing for the sale of the commodity.

Now, from the perspective of DoorDash itself, no revenue is being generated that can justify the accumulation of capital in the first place.

That's the problem.

That's the hill I'm dying on.

There's no capital being generated here.

So therefore, there's no surplus value.

But how is there no capital or profits being generated when like 45% is entirely a consequence of consumer demand, only justified by consumer demand?

And the capital is...

That's any product throughout all the history of capitalism.

Not true.

Not true.

Not true.

The capital that Marx was describing was capital that was generated by the profit.

So you have profit, you have a surplus, that surplus then goes into the expansion of the profit generation.

That's capital.

The whole expansion of capital rests upon that.

Today, we have centralized financial systems with nearly unlimited capital at their disposal who allocate the capital on the basis of whether or not an enterprise or a business shows promise by way of consumer demand or for another arbitrary reason.

Maybe the state decides this is a strategic sector of the economy that we need for national security reasons.

So the central banks will go and they'll pump it with liquid credit to prop it up.

But Lenin, I mean, Lenin talks about this in Imperialism.

Right.

And this doesn't undermine the fact that the actual labor...

Lenin actually doesn't he doesn't well he talks about he talks about the merger of finance capital and industrial capital yeah but I'm not I'm not even talking about that I'm talking about how financial capital has become entirely autonomous from industrial capital and represents basically unlimited it's basically central planning in a way unlimited credit uh allocated how is it how is it autonomous from industrial capital when finance capital dictates the decisions industrial capital does and makes because finance capital is fully in command and industrial capital has no independent well yeah that's that's that's what in fact to speak no no no but to speak of industrial capital is almost impossible today what industrial capital there's just finance capital capital today only exists in the form of uh yeah in the in the u.s yeah our capital has been largely financialized or service based no no not largely entirely

We have a tiny manufacturing sector, but yeah, I'd agree.

The manufacturing sector doesn't generate capital.

But I mean, American capitalists also hold capital in other countries and hold manufacturing-owned factories and stuff in other countries.

They don't generate capital.

This is all to keep the...

Wait, wait.

How do they not generate capital?

How do factories in Bangladesh and India not generate capital or surplus?

I won't speak for Bangladesh and India right now, but what I say is that in terms of, first of all, you're talking about American investors who own these companies.

That's what you're saying.

Well, yeah, because Amer, I mean, the bourgeoisie.

Basically, there's no capital being generated.

What there is is an infinitesimal degree of approximation with which initial capital loans that are given, that are the foundation of the enterprises, are being paid back to an infinitesimally lesser or greater extent.

And this is what basically, this is the new standard under which you can say whether something is profitable or not, basically.

But it's not actually profitable.

Under your framework, if everything's been financialized.

Hold on, Fannin, Fannin, Fannin.

You're such an idiot.

You're such an idiot.

You're such an idiot.

Get schooled right now and then cry to bed when you got schooled about this.

No profit isn't reinvestment, but capital is.

Anyway, continue.

And surplus value, to be clear, value, surplus value, the labor of the working class valorizes capital, not simply profit.

Profit has always existed since before capitalism.

The thing that's new is the accumulation of capital, which only proletarian labor valorizes, according to this framework Marx establishes in capital.

No, yeah, I'm not this.

No, no, no, I'm talking to Fannin.

Oh, okay.

Go read volume one again.

This guy, holy shit.

Keep going.

So yeah, so my question here would be, then at that point, if like our entire economy is financialized and all of these because is your argument that like production decisions and allocation decisions are being made like ahead of time in like a large-scale plan and this undermines the fact that the actual labor is productive and generates surplus for capital I have a theory about how we can understand today meaningfully I'm still working on it what is productive labor that meaningfully generates value and the place I thought maybe we should start is what labor

Valorizes or props up the revenues and sources of accumulation which collateralize financial capital.

So that's still a Leninist framework.

It's not even yet a Hudsonian framework.

And it's a little even outdated.

So those various monopolistic industries, like in Lenin's time, this would be the railroad industry, the Rockefeller oil industry, and other kinds of monopolistic forms of industrial capital that collateralize the issuing of loans and the creation of financial capital.

But I think collateralization is key to understanding today how value is created.

What does it mean for something to effectively be a collateral for the widespread creation of credit?

How does that fit in within the dollar system as well that Michael Hudson describes in Super Imperialism?

The kind of simultaneous dual role of the United States as a global creditor and also a debtor.

Um the role of the dollar as a um

As a reserve currency, as a kind of stable store of value, an ultimate collateral, if you will, which is basically collateralized by the US military at this point.

And then, in addition to being a reserve currency, the way in which the kind of endless expansion of credit.

in the form of printing of new money and so on and so on,

Um, what is that ultimately collateralized by, right?

So it's like I think we don't have easy solutions or answers, but I just think that the conventional Marxist analysis doesn't apply anymore.

I mean, I just hear what you're saying, and I just agree with you that you can build on it.

Obviously, capitalism progresses.

I don't think we can build on it.

I think we have to fundamentally rediscover everything from scratch.

And only we can be, we can hold it.

But why would you rediscover?

Like, the whole point of Marxism is you re-evaluate the historical trajectory of modes of production and of the social totality of capitalism and how it's developed.

So I agree with you that we can look in and we can analyze it.

But we have so much work to do at this point.

But I also since since Lenin, it's been over 100 years, and there's basically almost been no work done besides Michael Hudson and so on.

And even then, there's not Hudson is not necessarily someone who is rediscovering the implications this has for the fundamentals of Marxist theory.

So we have a lot of work to do, for sure.

I mean, yeah, I'm not denying that, but what I'm saying is, why would you scrap the whole thing?

No, no, no, no, it's not about scrapping it.

We're keeping it in mind for sure.

It's the fundamental logos of our whole position.

I get it.

But we can't lazily, one-for-one, apply it to reality.

We have to blindly, like from scratch, understand how the world works and establish the resonance between the world today and the world that existed during the time of Marx, because it's not the same world.

And is there a resonance between the two?

Yes.

But what form that resonance takes, we haven't discovered yet.

That's basically my position.

Well, I mean, I would say the resonance and the form that resonance takes is, I mean, the core contradiction still remains the same.

There's the owning class and the working class.

The owning class and the bourgeois and the dynamics of bourgeois political life have largely shifted, but the dynamics of proletarian political life globally have also, I would agree.

But the core contradiction between a class that owns, has power, owns capital, whether it be finance capital, industrial capital, and the laborer, still remains intact.

So I would say, like, I agree, but the owning class is now a conspiracy.

Meaning the owning the the structure of the of um capitalist social relations are no longer being materially reproduced at the level of civil society.

Instead they have culminated into the form of a state dictatorship which collateralizes the monopolistic rule of very very small capitalist cartels in terms of like the size of the owners that own everything basically And that is a power maintained at the barrel of a gun now.

No longer an organic material relationship of civil society as in the case of Marx's time.

Isn't that um but isn't that like the natural progression and conclusion of the body of work that Marx and Lenin put out?

That the owning class and the bourgeois class capital.

Well, can I finish there's competition over time um competition turns to monopoly but in nineteen fifteen sixteen when Lenin publishes Imperialism

I may have gotten the date wrong on that.

Um when he publishes Imperialism

You're dealing with a situation where Lenin is claiming we are imminently about to transition into socialism.

Um objectively, the economy is going in a direction of socialism.

Okay, it's been a hundred years.

So Lenin was right or he was wrong.

Well, what I would say...

I've said that there's a chance he could have been right, actually.

Making what I would say is I don't think he was wrong or right.

I think he was making those predictions based on right or wrong.

I mean, if this is the highest stage of capitalism, it's either the highest stage or there's a stage after that.

We are in a different stage than the one.

But Lenin wrote that, and Lenin developed that theory with Bukharin.

And I actually think Bukharin's side of the theory that about how the state itself functions in imperialism holds really well today.

But Lenin developed that theory with Bukharin at a time when global tensions were extremely high.

Where class struggle is not where class works.

I know you're trying to create.

It's kind of like.

No, no, I'm trying to.

I'm trying to enlighten and entrench the historical.

That's not why.

That's not why at all.

And it's not true.

It's not true.

Okay.

At the outset of World War I, these explosive tensions were not yet manifest in the way they were after the war.

First of all, second of all, the reasoning Lenin employs has nothing to do with his belief in the imminence of a proletarian world political revolution.

He was using economic logic to describe how capitalism is economically becoming socialism.

He used the German state as an example of that.

He thought the post office was an inceptual socialist institution, for example.

So Lenin used economic arguments for why we're transitioning into socialism.

Now the political question of the supremacy of the proletariat politically is a different question.

It's not the same thing.

Lenin is talking about the material relations of production changing into socialism.

That's the argument he uses.

Uh but how would the material relations of production be changing into socialism if the proletariat wasn't gaining anything?

Because the material relations of production change before the superstructure changes.

They're not the same thing.

For example, the capitalist relations of production were setting in probably centuries before the era of bourgeois political revolutions.

So there there's no simultaneous um coincidence of proletarian political revolution and the course the change of the mode of production that justifies it.

Yeah, but um and that was Lenin's that was the compelling kind of argument Lenin was making.

Hey, you know what?

The time for the proletarian revolution is now because the material relations of production now justify it.

Capitalism is dead.

Well, I would agree.

He said I would agree that he was arguing that the material base for socialism had been developed.

At least with his at least like barring the original plan, which was um

At least what Lenin thought would happen is there would be a revolution in Russia, then revolutions would not.

Lenin thought imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism because there was an economic evolution going on that had nothing to do with politics.

Yeah, that's what I said because the material base for socialism had been created.

Precisely.

But what I'm saying is the reason socialism didn't happen then

Was because the hot point it was a hot point of class struggle and um that class struggle let me ask this fundamental question.

Lenin believed, as Marx and Engels did, that there was a process internal to capitalist the capitalist mode of production that

Because of its own economic contradictions, we're driving the relations of production towards socialism.

Increased socialization of labor, the uh increased centralization of the uh forces of production, the increased role of planning in production, rational planning and so on.

Engels describes this and Lenin describes it.

It's been a hundred years.

Has there been any kind of qualitative change?

With respect to the development of that tendency?

I think it's a fair question.

Of what tendency specifically?

The tendency of capital is the capitalist mode of production to transition into a socialist mode of production.

Well,

The tendency, I mean, no, I think the material base for socialism has already been developed.

At least.

at least across all of the West, we have the material base for socialism.

What I'm trying to push back on is the idea that Lenin was making like some deterministic point about that when it was like more a

Analysis of the class struggle going on in the world.

Imperialism, the highest stage, is not a work of political speculation.

Is it a work that meant to describe and initiate the understanding that there is a new qualitative stage of the capitalist mode of production and that the next one will necessarily be socialism, not because it's making the contradictions with respect to political class struggle too intense, but because there is no way for capital or the capitalist mode of production to reproduce itself within civil society anymore because it has evolved into something distinct.

And it's been a hundred years now.

Hmm.

I mean, yeah, I would agree that that needs like Lenin thought there's no going back, and capitalism cannot replenish its existence beyond this point.

It has a point of no return in which a new mode of production and new relations of production have acquired dominance and supremacy over the old ones.

I mean, but would you still say we live in imperialism or we live in something totally different?

Because I would agree.

We absolutely live in something qualitatively different.

That's a fact.

Michael Hudson, I think, is the closest to describing what that is in his work, Super Imperialism.

Lenin didn't anticipate something like super imperialism.

What is super imperialism, by the way?

And how can we even justifiably call it capitalist?

What is the phenomena he describes in the work?

I actually, I've never looked into Hudson's work.

He's on my list.

Well, Lenin described imperialism as the process of the export of capital, basically.

And superimperialism is distinct because

It combi it establishes a center that has the simultaneous role of both exporting and importing capital.

Um which is something different.

But how is that any qual how how is that qualitatively different than what Lenin outlined?

Because the imperialism Lenin was talking about was that the j basically he was using as his model the German Universal Banks.

Do you know what those are?

So in the late 1890s, early 19th century, the the Germans pioneered this model of the universal banks.

These are basically banks that

Um, you know, uh, integrated themselves with heavy industry and traditional industry to create a permanent source of collateralization and the issuing out of loans.

So these banks would basically like gobble up like pretty much every industry you could think of to be permanent appendages of the banking institution apparatus to ensure that there's unlimited sources of credit, basically.

And Lenin was very much still describing a world where constant and steady streams of revenue from monopolistic industrial capital were still being used to collateralize the issuing of finance capital.

After 1929, the problem is that the collateral is no longer justifying the creation of credit and financial capital.

Meaning, financial capital, especially after Bretton Woods comes to an end in 1971, becomes fully autonomous, basically, from any kind of collateral industrial base.

It has this magical ability of creating itself from scratch on the basis of what?

The U.S.

military.

So you're saying that

Well, Lenin was very much still finance capital has completely divorced from industrial capital?

It uses industrial capital as a means to an end, but it's no longer collateralized by industrial capital or revenues of industry capital.

How is finance capital able to generate profit?

It doesn't.

That's the thing.

We're 40 trillion in debt.

There's no profit.

I mean for companies and stuff there definitely is.

No, there's an illusion of of in the short term there's a there's a there you zoom out, there's no profit.

The companies are in debt and the people the companies are in debt to are also in debt.

I mean, most of the Fortune 500 seems very profitable.

I don't think you could.

They're profitable in a very relative sense of the word.

Ultimately, not profitable.

How are these oil corporations, these tons of American corporations?

I would agree that largely.

There's a relative frame of profitability that they're talking about, which is usually measured by the degree to which the kind of inflationary pressures are being kept at bay and there's this kind of steadiness of...

You know, in the short term, the revenues that are being generated.

But when you zoom out and you look at the economy as a whole, you have 40 trillion in debt.

And ultimately, the idea is that there's like it's always just a bunch of IOUs.

We're going to ultimately generate this to pay back the banks on the interest rates.

And there's an infinitesimal approximation to whether that is being done to a greater extent or a lesser extent.

But to be clear, the debts are never being paid off.

What's happening is there is a greater or lesser extent to which.

The uh uh the debts are being fulfilled and and paid via interest rates.

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that because the who's in debt is like.

Fanon is truly a subhuman.

He says it doesn't mean anything if the government is debt in debt.

Okay.

It's not j it's not the government, though.

Okay, it's not just the government.

The entire world economy is in debt.

When all is said and done, it's in debt.

Uh okay, anyway, he calls it neo-Keynesian too.

It's not my fault that Marxists, besides Michael Hudson and co, have never bothered to even care about the implications of this.

Anyway, continue Rasputin.

Um yeah.

So what I would say is though these companies and stuff still are like engaging in commodity production.

They're still generating surplus for themselves and profits for themselves.

I mean most of the time.

They're not real surpluses.

They're not real profits.

They are rele it's a re what you're talking about is really just a transfer of wealth.

Yes, there's a transfer of wealth and control over material wealth happening at a rapid pace, unprecedented.

But is it profit in the traditional capitalist sense that is being accumulated uh to the extent that the wealth is being appropriated?

No.

There is a m kind of uh transfer of material wealth that is happening because the claims on the material wealth are being transferred to banks and uh and and through foreclosures and other kinds of things, which give the title to the ownership of the various m material wealth and property to uh financial institutions like BlackRock and so on and so on.

Um

But no, there are no profits that are justifying the inequalities.

But how wait, how are there no profits though?

I'm still largely the one that's in debt is the American government.

And doesn't most American debt come from internal government spending?

No, no, not y yes and no, because look, the American government is in debt because when the centr when the Federal Reserve central banks, which are not by the way, government banks, they're private banks, okay, they trace their lineage to monopolistic financial institutions.

Whenever they print credit and print money, that comes off of the dime of the US government.

The US government puts itself into debt every time for every dollar that's printed.

But it itself is not printing the money.

Uh the private sector is.

Okay, yeah, I get what you're saying here, but I still don't get I still don't get like how this displaces the fact that like I think profits don't exist because money okay Fannin, come on here and justify how macroeconomic profit exists in the world today, macro at a macroeconomic level.

Because that is the scale at which anything remotely close to capital exists now at a macroeconomic level.

I would say by the way, Resputin, you want to know where the strongest evidence in case for profit being generated is?

uh or capital, I should say.

It's really in um

The semiconductor and chip industry.

It's the only exception.

And I think the reason for that is because that is the only industry in the world today that encompasses global supply chains at scale.

And therefore is an adequate proxy for the global division of labor.

NVIDIA and these various semiconductor and chip companies like NVIDIA, you you actually do see uh like fifty-five percent or so uh returns margins, which is crazy, right?

And these are the foundation and the basis, by the way, of the entire world economy right now.

This is the whole basis of the AI hype bubble and all this kind of stuff, because this is if there's any kind of collateral underlying collateral material capital that exists that justifies the financial and speculative economy today, maybe it's that.

I haven't looked into the math and I haven't crunched the numbers myself.

Uh I would still be skeptical that that that is actually the case, but uh

Instead of thinking in the case of Lenin's imperialism that you have these steady streams of revenue from monopolistic rents, collateralizing financial capital, you have to think instead in terms of relative margins, ultimately that are still.

not truly profitable, but to a relative extent are making more and covering more versus the cost of the the capital advanced the financial industries like the oil industry or the tobacco industry or the clothing industry, which is mainly manufactured abroad, just aren't profitable at all whatsoever for capital.

Uh that would be illogical to say because of course if if we're looking at it from the standpoint of capital, if that's still in command in this way, then of course they'd have to be profitable.

But if you if you understand the dollar system and dollar hegemony and the way in which value seems to be created today or held up today,

You're very much looking at a system of relative margins of production and costs and inputs that all are calculated at very infinitesimal levels to calculate financial value.

But yeah, I don't see how this would concentrate.

Like at the level of calculus, you know, so that it's like, I don't know how exactly to explain this because I'm not a mathematician, but for example, if you look at futures.

Um the the slightest shifts in the

The price of a stock, the the the the the the um

The stock price, right, for shareholders, the slightest movements there correspond to extremely dramatic changes in the price of the options, futures, and so on and so on.

And um

Where is actual profit being made is a difficult question to answer, to be honest.

Well, I mean, for a ton of large industries it's being made in the goods still and in the exports.

I would agree with you that we financialize to a degree past Lentens.

I would say, look, the only enterprises which are truly profitable

consistently are the ones that cannot expand as capital.

The profit in this question is the same profit that that existed in the Middle Ages, where you cover your costs and then you have a little extra for yourself.

And then that's it.

When companies are profitable, production largely expands.

Yeah, but it's not because they're not expanding on account of the profit.

They're expanding on account of the financial signals the relative profitability shows to financial capital, which then almost automatically leads to the injection of credit.

Into the company.

Very different than what Marks was talking about.

Wait, can you repeat that last part?

So the relative generation of profit, which would otherwise not be able to support the expansion of capital, is detected as a financial signal

Uh buy finance capital.

Which then leads to the injection of the enterprise in question with more liquid credit and capital with which it actually expands.

But I wouldn't say that that negates the fact that that industry is still generating surplus and profits for capital.

But where?

Where?

That the question is where?

I mean within those industries commodities are not available.

Um

And even at the relative level, there's not enough profit to justify the expansion of capital.

Then what profits justify the expansion of capital?

You see, the key word is justify.

When a company generates a small degree of profit, let's say, that serves as a financial signal for financial capital to inject credit, which is then used to expand the enterprise.

But the profit didn't justify the expansion.

It was only a signal to financial capital that in the future, maybe eventually it will be able to be paid off or something.

But it's never paid off.

Well, yeah, they're trying to predict profits.

But it's ultimately never paid off.

That's what I need you to understand.

Ultimately, yes, it matters the relative degree of profitability, which is not profit per se.

matters very much for financial markets.

But ultimately, the logic behind the expansion of production and material wealth today in the twenty first century

Is not justified by profit.

It's justified by the signal that there maybe in the future will be profit, which there never is, by the way.

Yeah, but that's all that's how like any that's how most investment works.

Like yes, I know, but we are a speculative, investment-driven, entirely speculative investment-driven economy, not one that is driven by profits, real profits.

Well, we are predicting the profits ahead of time and invest with the hope of gaining those profits.

I wouldn't say that profit isn't still driving the economy because these are the same.

Well, predicting, yes they do.

They predict the profits in advance and make the decisions.

I need to understand that.

There's there's a hype it's always a hype bubble.

That's all it is, it's a hype bubble.

Well yeah, 'cause the state has taken on massive amounts of this debt for itself.

I'm not denying that.

You're talking about the create the whole economy is a hype bubble.

That's all it is.

Hype is what fuels the expansion.

Yeah, but the international capitalist class is still generating surplus off of that hype bubble for themselves.

That that's what I'm saying.

No, they they have a political form of control, which is a monopoly on credit.

That's ultimately it.

Um you're saying speculation doesn't make it not capital.

Correct.

It permitted that the speculation um is eventually able to actually uh lead to a profit that justifies the initial advance of speculative capital.

But because that doesn't happen in modern economies, it's not capital.

I mean, I j I just don't see how that would negate it as capital.

Right.

Because cap cap okay, capital is M, so initial money advanced, commodity, C, right, M prime, which is uh the profit, the the more money than the one you advanced, right?

That's the basic circuit of capital.

Yeah, and that is still happening in large.

If it is, it's not happening at any local level.

Maybe at an aggregate level, somehow it's happening.

I haven't seen a convincing argument for how that is.

I mean, the U.S.

has largely served to a service sector and moved itself and shifted to a service economy, but like the commodity production is usually still being done.

I mean, we have a small manufacturing sector in the U.S.

I think that, look, this creation of a service sector is almost entirely divisioned by consumer demand, not by...

Not necess and the reason consumer demand has become so important and significant is because these are signals to financial capital about the future, potential future profitability.

So it's a hype.

It's all hype.

It's not that the services economy is too big.

It's that the attention economy has become basically a social consideration of how population is.

These are just yeah, but I what I'm trying to say is these are just early capitalist dynamics.

No.

That will constantly production has become so socialized at the level of the most arbitrary whims and fancies of populations, laboo boos, matcha, whatever.

I mean

If you knew how much is spent.

Uh why is data valuable, for example?

How do you explain because data, they said it's the new oil, okay?

Why is it so valuable?

Um

We're not dealing with the type of motor production Marx was, and I'll die on that hill.

Well, what defines a mode of production?

Precisely that.

The modality of how material goods are produced.

That's not how Marx defines.

No, you're right.

He doesn't define it that way.

I thought you were just kind of asking on a casualty.

Well, yeah, no, Marx.

Marx defines a mode of production as a definite form of life activity.

That individuals reproduce or society reproduces he largely characterizes them though by a specific relation of the worker to their means of production.

And the relationship of the laborer to their means of subsistence.

Yeah, to their means of subsistence and the means of production.

And what I would say is actually required to support any given individual's life.

Materially, um, and think about how we could plausibly.

Fit that within a mode of production.

How could we, what is the modality of how things are produced and how they're consumed?

Because that's kind of part of it as well.

Um today.

And I think that people who think that uh the mode of production Marx was describing still applies to the one that exists today have a lot of explaining to do.

So do you not say the workers, the American not the not even the American, the global working class doesn't still have no means of production and are s not still forced to sell their labor power to capital?

And capitalists

Like I would say, as long as that dynamic remains intact, we would still be functionally liberal.

My problem with this paradigm isn't that I reject the proletariat still exists.

Obviously, it does.

I just reject the reduction of relations of production to administrative and managerial relationships on the shop floor, because I think that's really the kind of source of what people mean by relations of production.

Today, I can't say actually that it's true, that the dominant tendency today is that workers have absolutely nothing and that their only sources of subsistence come from the sale of labor.

For the majority of global populations, it's not true.

Why?

Because part of the social contract that has been created on a global level, and this is a dominant tendency, is that a great deal of revenues and things that people depend upon materially to survive and live come from the centralization of wealth and of the

The products of production in the hands of the state.

Okay?

So people say, Well, are you talking about the welfare state?

Not even.

I'm talking about the welfare state, the regulatory state.

I'm talking about the social services and social infrastructure and so on and so on.

And that is very much part of the perks of being a citizen for even third world countries, right?

Where you have a high degree of socialization that so that the true proletarian who truly has nothing at all, nothing at all, right?

It's kind of, to be frank, it's kind of the pure, pure form of that, it's hard to find that.

Even by the way, even in Lenin's time, it was hard to find that because most of the factory proletariat who lived in the major cities of the Russian Empire actually had forms of subsistence in the countryside back home.

There was like a social safety net that they had in the countryside.

Especially after the revolution, which nationalized the land and and redistributed it.

So what I would say though is the fact that there's state investments and citizens get stuff from the state, I don't think that undermines the fact that the workers don't own anything.

Like even in that case, it's the state that owns this and allocates it to the workers as the state sees fit.

No, well, okay, well, that is precisely what I find a problematic paradigm.

Because we have to talk about what does social ownership look like.

Some people think that social ownership means managerial administrative control.

I disagree.

I think that, for example, in the Soviet Union, the means of production was owned by the people, by the public, not simply by the state.

The distinction between the individual and the state.

Um in this case, I would find to be problematic.

In all cases, no, there's obviously a distinction, but uh I think that if you're a citizen and you are entitled via political rights to a share of the wealth or or shares of production and so on, revenues of production, you're talking about a form of uh economic and

Yeah, but even then the USSR was not a um

I mean I have critiques of the USSR, but they weren't a bourgeois state, they were a worker state.

That's not the same as like the modern American government.

Yeah.

Uh well look, here, I I agree, I agree, but

During the New Deal During the New Deal.

And in the post-war period of Europe.

There were many concessions and adjustments even, qualitative adjustments made to um

There was a fundamental transformation that happened after 1929 that basically killed the capitalist mode of production as we know it.

But the New Deal and the rise of social democracy in Europe, which created the norm, and by the way, developmental states in the third world, which are primarily based in states that have nationalized some fundamental resource like oil or something, it serves as the bedrock and the foundation of the economy, really, for most states, actually, is really people underestimate how state-driven it really is.

On the on the one hand, the the US state uh doesn't actually it's it's curious, it doesn't really unlike Russia, for example, it doesn't actually own to any considerable extent uh means of production.

There are mainly forms of entitlement through political rights that the US citizens have with respect to revenues.

uh that are generated through taxes and and and through printing, really primarily through printing from the Federal Reserve.

And these claims and these rights on the aggregate products of the national wealth and total wealth of the economy.

Um

Do establish being a US citizen as a form of ownership of means of production, I would say.

But what I would say here is, though, I don't think the ownership is social in any sense or in the sense of the working class.

I mean, I would agree to you.

It is social, but yes, it's not led by a proletarian state.

It's overseen by a bourgeois dictatorship, for sure.

I have no disagreement about that.

Which is why, for example, the procurement and providing of services to the population by the state puts the people into debt, and it's printed by the private sector, which puts the people into debt.

And this is where you get the whole austerity economics.

And I fully agree, it's a bourgeois paradigm and state.

But fundamentally, can we say that people own nothing at all in the way that Marx talked about for the proletarianization process that was happening in Europe and England, where peasants and farmers were totally alienated from their land and literally had nothing at all except what they could carry on their back and the sale of their labor in factories?

I think it's we're living in a different world than that.

Yeah, fair.

I mean, what I would just say though is I'm gonna be.

Fannin, functionally speaking, if you are in in this chat,

As a means of disseminating information, you are functionally no different than a streamer.

If your purpose for being here is to spread information of some kind,

You're just a bad streamer, you know?

You're just in my stream chat instead of uh actually getting an audience who will listen to you.

So why are you even here?

Just go off the internet if that if that means you're a uh

A grifter or you're an OnlyFans model or something.

Anyway, continue resputing.

Um, yeah, so what I would say here to that is the fact that they've been go offline and sell newspapers.

That's the true proletarian work ethic, right?

Go sell newspapers.

Why are you even on the internet?

Go ahead, Respuven.

Um yes, so what I would say is I don't think um the entitlements and stuff that were granted by the US Yes, they were concession.

But they don't entail any actual ownership for the proletarian.

These are entitlements the government gives out and allocates and takes away as they see fit.

Well no well form formally, uh w by way of political rights.

Um yeah, no, you're right.

It's not a proletarian form of ownership.

I agree.

I don't disagree with you about that, but it it there is a kind of

On a material level, there's a fundamental shift in the nature of modern economies, which yes, can take on all sorts of different forms.

But what I'm trying to say is underlying this bourgeois dictatorship is a fundamentally new paradigm of

Production.

Uh which entails a different relationship to production than the one described by Marx.

But I mean Mark.

Because for example, in a social I consider China socialist, you probably don't.

In China, we have a similar framework.

You know, being a citizen of China, there are certain claims on the ownership, certain rights you have.

Now, because China's a proletarian dictatorship, the state is doesn't play this abusive role of constant austerity and and political jockeying in Congress to strip people of their there's a there's the logic of proletarian dictatorship where the the state is run in such a way that uh raises the interests of the majority of the people supreme, which is not the case in the United States.

But

uh so to speak, the there's a similar structure of the means of production, if we would call it that.

We live in an era where the means of production are not just passive machinery and tools and so on and so on, but somehow and also include um

the state, the nation and society itself as a kind of means of production and an object that produces things and has to be managed and and and owned or or sold in some case.

I mean, yeah, I get what you're saying there, but um in the US though, I don't think that changes or breaks the core dynamic Marx talks about.

Like Marx doesn't have to Marx addresses state entitlements.

Marx is yeah, he he he not very comprehensively.

I think he planned on it in his uh planned

uh volumes uh or chapters of capital, but he doesn't really go into much detail about it.

Doesn't he address the German Gotha program and talk about how it doesn't fundamentally change any ownership or any of the social relations of capital?

Um

He he describes the language used in the Gotha program as insufficiently reflective.

Of an understanding of what capitalism actually is, for sure.

But uh does Marx use the Gotha program as a way to be like, okay, you know, if you had this system

Uh would that change anything?

Of course it would change things, but Mark was wasn't operating from that premise.

He was saying, Are you correctly describing how things exist now?

Uh are you are you is this a program that can effectively lead the transformation of society?

That was the question.

Not w not uh i you know, if affected, would this transform society?

That's a non-starter because

Uh presuming that it's effective.

There would be no reason to call into question the programme in the first place.

What do you mean by that?

Meaning Marx is not complaining about the Gotha program because he's presuming it's going to be affected and he just disagrees with the results.

He thinks the Gotha program is not a good program for the leadership of the transformation of society.

It doesn't correctly inform the working class about how best it could potentially seize power and so on and so on.

Marx is not saying like, Oh, if this happened, I'd be against it 'cause it's not true socialism.

He's saying Well, he's saying it doesn't effectuate any movement towards socialism at all.

It just restructures capitalist ownership.

Marx is saying that the program is rephrasing existing categories of production and so on and so on, and thereby ineffectively is addressing the world today.

He's not.

Entertaining the possibility that it's going to be affected.

I mean, I got a different reading from that work, but uh sure.

I do got a dip.

Yeah, for sure.

But it's been good.

It's been good talking.

Have a good one.

Good stuff.

Bye-bye.

Bye.

We're gonna wrap up guys.

Holy F L M F A O Socialism isn't a form of ownership.

Did I say it was a form of ownership?

I all I said was that the notion that proletarians in America have nothing except the labor.

Except their own labor is just not true.

I recorded it.

Oh God, I guess I'm going to be in so much trouble that you recorded it.

Like, I give a fuck.

What I said, yeah, play it back, please.

Barnaby, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

Fannin.

Fannin is fighting a he's debating me from the live stream

Chat

By default he loses just because of that, 'cause he's too much of a pussy to use his voice.

Like Fannin's entire premise is being a streamer is bad.

Okay.

Then what does that make you a literal parasocial whatever fan of a streamer?

Uh and you don't care about lying, it's so funny.

You argued Franz Fanon was some Lacanian.

Absolutely, Fanon studied Lacan and imported various different Lacanian paradigms of psychoanalysis.

Are you denying Fanon was a psychoanalyst or was applying psychoanalysis to relations of colonialism?

Where did where what was Fanon's paradigm of psychoanalysis?

Where did it come from?

Because there were basically three main different paradigms of psychoanalysis.

There was Jungian psychoanalysis, there was the kind of American pragmatist, whatever, he had no proximity to, and then in France, there was Lacan, who was a dominant figure.

Uh he absolutely could have been yes, he was anti-psychiatry.

Do you think Lacan was a psychiatrist?

First of all, Lacan himself wasn't a psychiatrist.

Second of all, I'm a Lacanian who is anti-psychiatry.

Uh if Lacan could be reduced to psychiatry, is Slavoj Žižek a psychiatrist?

What are you talking about?

He critiques Lacan ruthlessly.

Wow.

Wow.

You know, if someone spends so much time critiquing someone, that itself establishes a proximity with the rational kernel of their position.

Like, how long did Marx spend critiquing Hegel?

The notion that because he critiqued Lacan, he wasn't influenced by Lacan is ridiculous.

You know, you left comms, the problem with your subhuman mentality as leftcoms, you're not human by the way, you're left comms, is that you think it's all or nothing.

You think that you either fully repudiate and fully reject something and annihilate it from existence.

Or you fully acquiesce.

You can't comprehend the possibility of critical engagement, and that's your problem.

He critiques the entire tradition of psychiatry, Marx critiqued the entire tradition of philosophy.

Is it impossible to say in any sense that Marx was influenced by Hegel and very much uh subscribed to Hegelian logic?

That there's a Hegelian logic within capital?

Because Marx himself said that there was a Hegelian logic in the writing of capital.

He doesn't give Lacan some special significance.

Okay, to whatever extent Fanon engages with psychoanalysis, which he does extensively, and which any student of Fanon would know he does, he very much is in proximity to Lacan.

That's a fact.

This is a fact.

Yeah, L L Lenin had nothing to do with Plakanov because he spent a lot of time shitting on him.

There's no relationship there.

You think Lacan can be reduced to a- No, I don't think Lacan is a decolonial thinker.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I think Fannin Fannin's decolonialism is intensely psychological.

And if you deny that, you're just an illiterate who's LARPing in my comments because I don't know, maybe you like the aesthetics.

Black skin, white mask is an intensely psychological text.

And it's very much informed by his engagement with psychoanalysis, to some extent at least.

Maybe he's not gonna join and we're gonna wrap the debate up.

Yeah, Fe Fanon has nothing to do with psychoanalysis.

All right.

He very much.

We got a fan and expert here.

Five hour stream guys, don't say I don't uh

Let's say I don't give you content.

You know why I love the TikTok lives?

Because all of the haters are in the comments.

Because uh all the gorillas are elsewhere, because the gorillas are on the green place, and we just can get to quarantine all the people who uh are not yet within our cult.

He rejected it, keeps straw manning me.

Okay, uh uh again you're a leftcom.

You don't understand how you can simultaneously reject s something while still being influenced by it.

You don't understand that.

It y your brain can't can't handle it.

I don't know what to tell you.

Uh Joe F uh Joe Fitucci or whatever.

Uh I don't know if you're in AI, but uh

You know, you are just a coward.

You know, you're a nothing.

You're literally not even human.

Carlos, what's up man?

You don't talk that well, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

You even know what he rejected Lacan?

Um

I could only vaguely honestly, I could only vaguely recall to memory.

Uh I didn't the extent of his engagement critical engagement with Lacan, like uh

I think it had something to do with the symbolic order's abstraction representing the uh abstract kind of substanceless universalism of the colonial core.

Something of that nature.

Uh vaguely, vaguely I could recall to memory.

Fanon's specific critique of Lacon.

Fannin uh

Very much critiqued all paradigms of European universalism.

Okay, inferentialism.

Okay.

Kinda sounds like I wasn't wrong though, so.

Kinda sounds like I was correct.

You just inferred.

No, no, he doesn't just mention colonialism.

Bannon's paradigm of.

Colonialism is something specific.

It's not just a vague understanding of a colonial core in a periphery.

It's a specific understanding of how the colonial subject is coded as substantive, material, and vital and physical, and so on and so on, and that the colonial subject is Cartesian and abstract and has a pretense to this kind of substanceless universalism.

So very much no, it's not just about a vague relationship of colonialism.

So we have a Fanin gatekeeper who just failed.

And you know what, Fanin?

You're literally a cult member in the making.

The longer you're here, you're just going to become an infrared cult member.

Every single one of the haters that are in here, you guys, you don't even know how this community was built.

You're literally being poached right now as cult members.

Good luck.

Good luck with that.

Anyway guys, we're gonna wrap it up.

Stop uh debating from comments.

Nah, I nobody wants to debate, dude.

I'm sorry, this is just as good as it's gonna get.

You just threw buzzwords and relied on inferences.

Uh well that's an extremely vague objection to what I said.

It's just completely substanceless.

I made a concrete point.

You did not engage, so you surrender.

No, you didn't.

Oh, I think I remember.

Uh

Yeah, because like on twenty four seven I'm just intensively thinking about Fannin's critique of Lacan.

It's just always the thing in the front of my mind.

And if I have any difficulty recalling uh my familiarity with that,

That's just like a total like awful weakness.

You're such a fraud, you're a fake, you're s phony, you're a phony, you don't even it's not even the fucking thing you're thinking about right now.

Like Jesus Christ, the last time I read Fanon was when?

2016.

Holy shit.

The fact I even remember what I do, you know, probably says something.

I haven't read Fannin since 2016, literally 10 years ago.

This guy's complaining that I'm like a little fuzzy about it in terms of how I how quickly and rapidly I could recall it and how precisely.

Uh, you only think of it when you need a lie.

What did I lie about?

I remember I'm retracing my steps about how I became such a toxic person.

And I remember.

It came from Fannin actually.

My entire rejection of the metrosexual left honestly came from Fannin.

And that is true.

That's something I forget all the time.

I I genuinely forget that all the time.

Right.

Well, we're we're wrapping up the live, so uh

You're West Toxified.

Bro, aren't you a fucking left comm?

Shut the fuck up for real.

Fuck are you talking about?

I'm Westox this guy's a leftcom talking about West Toxified.

Literally a LEFCOM.

Uh uh a leftcom.

You're west toxified.

Actually, Žižek was kind of right about Fannin, how Fanonians in the university are frauds, and that Fannin himself.

There is a radical proximity of Fanon to the revolutionary Western tradition.

Uh absolutely there is.

The kind of uh decolonial uh thinkers who advocate more who basically have said that the whole revolutionary paradigm is Eurocentric and that we need to kind of commune with Mother Nature and be naked and and dance and stuff with interpreted dance, and that's this is a post Fanonia Fanin was with the FLN.

Don't fucking talk about Fanin, you're a fucking LARPer.

Fannin was with the F L N Fanon believed in

You're a fucking LARPer, we're ending it here.

It's got Fannin believed in blowing shit up.

Gate Fannin

Was not some

Uh hold on.

Bannon was not some, you know Oh, you're west toxified, shut the fuck up.

Ah, yikes.

This is like such early infrared vibes.

Holy shit.

Anyway y'all, we're wrapping it up.

Hope you had fun.

I hope it was a good stream.

And literally, guys, thank you so much.

Barnaby, bro, thank you so much, man.

I really appreciate that.

Appreciate the support, bro.

Thank you.

Alright guys.

See you guys Tuesday, hopefully, right?

Bye bye.

Bye-bye.

I hope you had a good time.