DEBATE BLOODSPORTS

What is up, American Step with the five?

Thank you so much, brother.

I appreciate you.

What's up, guys?

We are going to be doing our confront the chairman space.

Today uh we do it weekly.

Um we're gonna be doing that again.

I know it's really late.

And if you're asking about, you know

How come you're late?

Well, I'll just say how come you didn't reach the goal?

You know?

And it's it's a get out of jail free card for me.

And I hope it's an inspiration for you.

Of sorts.

Sleeper Cell with the ten.

Thank you so much.

I am not too confident that this confront the chairman space is going to be eventful.

I hope it is.

I hope it's interesting.

I hope it's entertaining.

I hope it's insightful.

I hope it's fruitful.

I'm going to make some predictions about what I anticipate.

I think Rambly might show up.

And he's going to talk about uh women's genitals again.

I think that

Uh, there's gonna be someone who is not from the US, who is not interested in anything that I'm talking about, come up and talk about.

their unfiltered opinion on something completely random and they're just gonna say that.

I think there's gonna be yappers that come up and say, Haz, I'm a really big fan, but I'm just gonna take up the microphone to plug my own dumb shit.

They're gonna try to do that for eight minutes and if I interrupt them, I'm rude.

I think that Grant, thank you so much.

I think that there's a chance that uh

I think there's a chance that there's gonna be a lot of nothings.

So I'm I'm very pessimistic, but we'll see.

We'll we'll just try it.

So let's uh let's open up the space.

Okay, started the space.

Without any further ado, I don't really have.

Many announcements to make tonight.

But let's just.

I'm going to guys spread the space, I guess, and let's see what we have in store.

I need someone to co-host by the way, so if you can co-host, let me know.

I'd like to, I need.

Ah, you know, guys, I have also something to tell you about.

So, remember my debate with Truth Teller?

So, RTSG researched and they laid out every single claim Truth Teller made in that debate.

Every single claim.

And they compiled

Some images containing every single claim he made and debunking every single one with sources.

So every single and there were about oh my god, there were about

Oh wow, the kick fucked up.

There were about, I think, uh like a hundred claims.

So that's something you can look for.

So they keep asking, where's your sources?

Where are your sources?

It's mathematically proven.

I could not have gone down each and every claim he made.

With the sources, within the two minutes you know, it's like it's not possible.

So they they literally took this guy, he was machine gun spitting out dozens of claims and they every they tracked down every single one and realized it was all bullshit, you know?

So

I don't know if that will be useful for you, but I will make that available to you pretty soon.

So, you have that to look forward to.

So, let's start the

Space, I need a co-host.

I definitely need a co-host.

Uh can Kayla co-host?

She's in New York so it's late.

Pretty sure it's late.

Can can Douglas Spader the very real Douglas Spader can he co-host?

He's the host of the Spader Report on Kick and Rumble Monday through Friday at seven PM Eastern.

And it's every day, Monday through Friday.

The Douglas, the Spader Report, it's on Rumble.

Can Douglas co-host the space?

Can he co-host?

I'll invite him.

Maybe you don't have to, though.

I'll invite Kayla.

Just if you can co-host, you don't have to.

It's obviously based on if you can or not.

Wow.

Oh my God.

Douglas.

Douglas, are you there?

Hey, what's up, Paws?

Yeah.

Hey, what's up, Mr.

Spader?

I know you have the new show, the Spader Report, Monday through Friday, 7 p.m.

Eastern Time.

I know you just got wrapped up with today's report, didn't you?

Yep, yep.

Just finished up.

Happy to do a little co-hosting here.

Wow, that's great, Douglas.

That's excellent.

So, guys, we want to just bring people up.

I guess beggars can't be choosers tonight because it's pretty late and there's not a lot of people lining up for today's space.

Doesn't seem like yet.

I mean, the space just started, so we'll give it time, of course.

But, guys, focus on adversarial views, and that's not because we're trying to have drama.

It's just because.

We, you know, it's it's nice to come on and talk about how you're a big fan and you wish me good luck and stuff.

But we want confrontations because I want to be accountable to the public.

That's why.

'Cause I'm a servant of the people and I'm a servant of the public.

So this person claims that they're a Whig Nat and a White Nationalist.

Let's bring up Dumer Nat, the white nationalist.

Go ahead, Doomer Nat.

Hello?

Oh, he's Australian.

Who would have said that?

No, I'm not Australian.

Oh, okay.

You know, to be honest, I'm a little jumpy because when you said hello, it kind of really sounded Australian.

And then something fired in my brain that connected all the dots.

Yeah, I'm from American South.

Oh, okay.

Got it.

Yeah, I have a.

I listened to your debate with that truth teller guy, and I had a couple contentions with some things you said.

Okay, go ahead.

So, you think you think communism or Marxism is compatible with Christianity?

Yep.

Doesn't that contradict like most of the things that the popes have said?

Now

So, like, when Pope Pius XII or like Pope Leo XIII called like communism wicked and said that like socialism isn't compatible at all with Christianity, you think they were just wrong?

Yeah.

Well, I would take what the Pope say is compatible with the Church way more than what you would say.

Would you?

Yeah.

So you really

Attribute great weight to the words of the popes to the point where it would define your whole worldview.

Um I mean, yeah, I mean I think they're like sitting in the seat of Peter.

Interesting you say that.

So what do the Pope say about racism?

Um like which pope?

Well, what is the papal doctrine currently about white nationalism and racial discrimination and racism?

Yeah, Pope Pope Leo excuse me, not Pope Leo, Pope Pius XII called for something he called he said that we the Catholic Church position is not a type of a pagan worship of race, but it's not a denial.

He specifically called for a healthy racism.

And then in his encyclical critiquing the Nazis, he said that race is a fundamental value of humanity and is something that God ordained.

What about what Pope Paul VI said?

Yeah.

You know that, um Do you think those two things contradict each other?

Well, I think they kind of do.

I think that is the Vatican II has been pretty absolutely clear on, you know, it's now possible to remove the curse of ignorance.

You know, we need to ensure the recognition everywhere of everyone's right to human culture without distinction of race.

Racial discrimination possesses at the moment a character of relevance by reason of the tensions it stirs up.

Racism is a sin, a sin that divides.

I don't disagree that this type of vowel ignorant, unjustified discrimination and racism.

Racism is a sin.

They just said it directly.

I don't disagree with that, but when they say racism there, they're talking about a type of vile, ignorant discrimination that treats people worse than others.

The Pope said it themselves.

Pope Francis.

Yeah, that's just Pope Leo XII not the Pope during Vatican II?

Okay, so which Pope do you recognize, only that one or or all the popes that came after?

No, when I gave the quote about healthy racism, that was the exact same pope during Vatican II.

The sixth

No, it's Pope Pius XII.

Was he not was he not the Pope during Vatican II?

Well, I'm talking about after in 1971.

Well, anyways.

Yeah, it's the same thing.

I mean, you can go through the catechism right now.

The popes absolutely rejected racism.

And they reject it within the church, and they reject it within society.

I mean, it's literally in the encyclical that Pope Pius XII wrote that race is a fundamental value to humanity.

And the same Pope who was the Pope during Vatican II said that the Catholic position is not this type of racism that should be condemned, but it's also not ignoring the differences between the races, but to acknowledge and value that God-ordained differences between the nations, and that is something that's actually a gift from God.

But this is this is a pivot away from racism is a gift from God.

I don't know what you're they're just saying that the diversity of different peoples is a gift from God.

That's not the same thing as saying they support white nationalism or tolerate it.

I didn't say they said that.

I didn't say that now, did I?

That's a different claim.

I mean, all the popes rejected racism.

It's just a fact.

He literally called for a healthy racism.

Like, I can show you the quote.

He said healthy racism.

Yeah.

But what does this have to do with communism being compatible with?

Well what does this have to do with communism being compatible with Christianity?

This is a big pivot.

Well, because you said that for you, Christianity is the Pope and that the Pope defines your world view.

And that means well, that's exactly what you said.

I asked you directly, and it's what you said.

Okay.

Not really.

I mean, the Pope the Pope is infallible on certain issues, and I'm going to take what the Pope says about what's compatible with Christianity way more than what you say.

Right?

That seems like the reasonable thing to do.

Well, why don't you do this why don't you apply the same when it comes to racism?

I just I just told you the church is very uh my opinions on race are exactly in line with the church, is that you value your race, but you shouldn't treat other people differently because they're a different race.

It's an important characteristic of humanity, but you shouldn't exalt it over than what it what it should you know, the role it should play.

Well, when when w that that's what you claim, right?

But for example, in the US you claim you're a white nationalist, so what does that actually mean in practice?

Well, I believe I believe people should have the freedom of association.

So if white if white people want to cultivate together and form their own communities, maybe it's already something that happens.

So what do you know?

No, it's not.

Not on the basis of race, at least.

And most of the time, even when they do it by like de facto, they get hit with bolsters.

People should be able to create a town and that just says no black people and no non-white people.

Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I do.

And I mean, well, how could you justify that if under the law, unless you're creating a different state?

Yeah, well, I think we should change the law.

I don't think the law is the inhibitor of truth, right?

Or, you know, just because something's the law doesn't make it what people ought not to do.

So what gives someone the right to move somewhere just beyond the fact that they have a certain racial origin?

How do you determine that?

Gives someone the right victims that determine.

I mean, how do you even decide that, you know?

Oh, that no, that would just be up to the people who are forming the community.

I wouldn't be the one who's dictating it.

So do you think that any kind of exclusive community should be able to form?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, America's not just being aware of.

America's not really in.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I just believe in freedom of association.

I don't believe people should be forced to cultivate.

That's a joke, right?

I'm asking you, should these communities still have to be able to do that?

Do you think tax dollars is what funds government programs?

Do does the central federal government or the state governments for that matter, which are who have a multiracial constituency, is it their job to fund these exclusive racial communities that you're talking about?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, I don't think that's who's gonna fund them because they they themselves okay, so how are they gonna be completely autarkic in a state, for example?

I didn't claim they would be completely autarkic, right?

They can still engage in commerce and whatnot, and they can get their own, it would work almost like an autonomous zone, except it's more private, like chaz.

No, not like Chaz.

What's the difference?

It's not some gay hippie commune.

Yeah, it's just a gay white nationalist commune.

Why would it be gay?

Do you think do you think no, you're the one why would I tell you you're the one who accused it of being gay?

No, I'm just using your words.

Well, Chaz was filled with homosexuals and degenerates.

So was the Nazi Party under Ernest Rahm.

And he was murdered during the night of long knives, right?

He wasn't too open about it.

Anyway, look.

No, he wasn't open about it at all, actually.

Like, that was, and by the way, even like when people figured out that he was gay, like Goebbels, Himmler.

I could tell you're really invested in this topic.

What do you think about Hitler?

You're the one who mentioned, you're the one who mentioned that.

Just use your own words.

What do you think about Hitler?

Um, I've mixed opinions about Hitler.

Do you think Hitler was a Christian?

I think he probably considered himself a Christian, but he was a heretic.

Because this is the quote from Hitler: Pure Christianity, the Christianity of the Catacombs, is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts.

It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.

It is merely wholehearted Bolshevism under a tinsel of metaphysics.

That's what Hitler said about Christianity.

Where's that quote?

Where's that quote from?

Hitler's Table Talk, 14th of December.

That's a joke, right?

Have you read Table Talks?

Why is it a joke?

Yeah, because there's multiple historians like Richard Carrier and a couple other people that, I mean, excuse me, the autistic, I'm not that good with saying some words.

Don't judge me, please.

But the reliability of table talks is something that is up extremely of debate.

There's been entire books written about it.

But even if you read table talks, like I would, I would ask, what is this precedent German there?

Why did he put the pagan swastika as the flag of the country rather than the cross?

That's a meme, right?

You can go find swastikas on tons of churches.

Like, in fact, a lot of people don't know where it comes from, but like one of the most accepted places where Hitler first saw the swastika was on the gravestone of his parents in a church, in a church cemetery.

Why are we playing stupid here and denying the origin?

You're the one who pivoted to Nazism.

I wanted to talk about communism.

No, I'm not sure.

Well, here's the thing.

You said that you just go with what the Pope says, but Hitler was a pagan and you like Hitler and white nationalism.

I said I have mixed opinions about Hitler.

I never said I liked Hitler.

I have very mixed opinions about Hitler.

Like I said, he was a heretic.

He did a lot of things.

The truth is that you're not a very consistent follower of papal doctrine and Christianity in general.

I literally quoted the encyclical that Pope Leo XII wrote against the Nazis.

What are you talking about?

White nationalist enclave.

I didn't say they had to fund it either.

I said it should be more private.

If you're going to go out and fuck off, right, and do your own private sector.

Listen, we all know that there's no such thing as a private sector at scale.

At scale, there's no such thing as a private sector.

There's no that's why we need more state inter okay.

The reason why a private sector is what you're saying, there's no such thing as the private sector at scale.

When it comes to infrastructure, right now, when it comes to all of the things that require like the total resources of the country or giant volumes of materials and construction and labor and skills, the private sector doesn't even fucking exist.

Elon Musk's ex, it's a government DOD pro or not ex, SpaceX, it's a government DOD project.

Tesla was subsidized by the government.

Every large-scale project at scale that's owned by the private sector was created thanks to the government and owing to I don't disagree with any of this.

So when it comes to all the things that small communities depend on, if they want to live in a modern civilization, they depend on a centralized government whose constituency in the USA is multiracial.

So why should a multiracial constituency prop up, help, and fund a group of people who want to exclude people on the basis of race?

Well, I guess a couple of things there.

Number one is that, well, it doesn't, first of all, all I said is that people should have the freedom of association to associate with who they want or who they don't want to, which is which happened in this country long before the Civil Rights Act.

So, I mean, if we could do it back, then it if you want, I don't see if you want the resources and money from a multiracial, centralized policy, you cannot set up barriers that say you can't come here.

You're not allowed here if you're from a certain race.

The government doesn't have to fund the creation of these communities unless you're saying that the specific money that they're using, the state has a monopoly of.

That's true.

Every community that wants to participate in modern civilization has to depend upon the government one way or another, every single one.

Okay, so what?

So, unless this is a group of people that want to go live in the woods naked and not shower ever, then what you're talking about is not plausible and definitely probably would not be.

Well, I don't think this is going to be plausible.

Probably not acceptable from church doctrine.

Probably not acceptable.

Dude, you're a communist, bro.

Like, your entire ideology isn't acceptable off of church doctrine.

Now, all I said is that if people...

He just said that communism is Christian.

That's what he said.

He got it.

No, he said Marxism is wrong.

Like, that's a quote for quote.

He's got a opinion.

He's allowed to have that opinion.

Yeah, but don't say he said communism is Christian when the whole because I know the quote you're referring to, it's not exactly communism is Christian, but he literally has a hammer and sickle from Evo Morales who forced him to do that.

Why did he accept it?

I don't know.

He probably just accepted it as a gift.

Wouldn't he say, like, would he accept a swastika, do you think?

I mean there I think there's a big stigmatization around a swastika compared to hammer and sickle.

No, I think he would say this is a profane evil symbol if it was a swastika, but when it's a hammer and sickle he was cool with it.

Also he said what I just said.

He said Christians and Marxists should work together to fight corruption.

I'm cool with that.

I agree.

Well I agree with that.

If you want to just be a Catholic and you and you think that Marxism contradicts your Catholic worldview and you want to just form a you know s some Catholic thing, we communists are willing to work with anyone who wants to fight corruption and you know but we reject racialism.

That's our issue is the white nationalism thing.

Yeah, you don't like white people.

I agree with that.

But wh when you say when you say that that the papacy is like endorsing communism, that's not at all what's happening.

I don't have a problem with white people.

I just have a problem with you do.

You s you don't want us to associate with each other.

You don't care if we become a minority in our homelands.

I mean well, white people can associate with each other and white people can marry each other and have as many kids as they want.

Can they form communities that exclude other people?

No, not in the USA.

No, they can't.

Why not?

Why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Because the constituency of the central government is multiracial and you need a and without the central government and without government, such communities can't exist.

So, why should the only thing you're saying here is there's roads and shit that they have to use in these communities?

Like, I don't think there's roads, there's the light, there's roads, there's electricity, there's energy, there's uh law and the last resort, there's all sorts of things.

I'm not even mentioning all the subsidies, all the federal projects, all these things, all the state projects for that matter, all these things that go into urban planning, sewage systems.

You know, people don't just come out of nowhere, a group of 20 people, and say, We're just gonna go from scratch.

You know, it's not how it works.

But if you were to be fair, most of the infrastructure that we're talking about here was built by white people, right?

And it's just like white people are the majority of the population, but they're not the and that's changing right because of the Marxist influence that is you know, that has influenced policy around race and things of that nature.

Marxists care about making white people a minority.

Can you explain that?

No, I'm saying that Marxists were responsible for like the shifting of views around race and immigration and things of that nature.

And so that's that's where you get things like the Civil Rights Act and the Hard Seller Act.

But MLK rejected Marxism.

Did I explicitly say MLK?

Do you think M.L.K.

was the only civil rights leader?

Even if he rejected Marxism, he was still a leftist.

He was the leader of the civil rights movement, wasn't he?

He was a leftist.

I mean, he was probably the civil rights movement had its own ideology.

It wasn't Marxist.

Although I don't know if you're not...

You don't think they were influenced by Marx?

Do you think the New Left people and like the New York intellectuals and like the Frankfurt School?

The New Left people.

Well, it really depends when you say...

It really depends when you say New Left.

But, I mean, it's either the 70s or the 50s.

But it's like...

The 70s was the civil rights movement.

That's why I said it was either the 70s or the 50s.

It's kind of hard to pin when these student bodies started protesting and that type of stuff.

But look, obviously there were communists in the civil rights movement.

I'm not denying that.

They played an important part.

But what I'm actually trying to say is that the point is not about making white people a minority or being against white people.

The point is the fact that communists had a theory, which I agree with, which is that the U.S.

never became a full democracy because black people still didn't have equal rights.

Well, America was never supposed to become a full democracy.

It was definitely supposed to be a republic by for and of the people, like Lincoln said.

And, you know, the Reconstruction era and the American.

Don't look before Lincoln.

Don't look before what the founding fathers had to say.

Just look at.

The founding fathers had no idea what the country would eventually look like or evolve into.

Neither did Lincoln.

Right, but he definitely created a new benchmark for the future of the U.S.

A completely fucking revisionist one.

I mean, that's like kind of stupid to bring up.

Without Lincoln, there's no such thing as a USA.

So what are we talking about?

Yeah, that that's I I mean for better or for worse, I don't really know, but like the the the point of like bringing up Lincoln and all this stuff is like no man America was never supposed to be a democracy and like even when you say it's like a republic you could we don't have to get in the details of the electoral system well no even a republic that like this like America was supposed to be like this some type of aristocratic type of system where modeled off of like the ancient republics of Rome and Greece.

But like this kinda all this kind of diversion here.

I'm gonna be right back.

Give me one sec.

I'm gonna be right back.

Yeah, hold that thought.

What's up chat?

Do do do do do do

Anyway, what were you saying?

Go on.

Well to try to wrap it back in I guess I mean would you agree that white people have an interest in like um staying a majority and remaining like the dominant force in the country in the political process that their forefathers kind of when you talk about white people being the dominant force or the non-dominant force you're already framing politics and power in terms of racial division and balkanization why why is it that white people have to either be dominant or subordinate what if the actual power relations in this country are not actually rooted in race because white people don't actually really have any power

Only a minority do.

I agree with you there.

That's 100% true.

So, only a minority of white people actually have power.

And black people definitely don't have power.

I don't know about that.

Well, they really don't, though.

I mean, there's way less black people that have power than white people.

That's a fact.

Okay.

So.

Not really, though.

I mean, black people's interests definitely get represented more in the political process than white people's.

And when and obviously I'm not going to be able to do that.

There's more lip service, but the way that it translates into reality, it's like a nothing sandwich.

So they talk about a big sandwich, they talk about a big burger, and then in reality, they're delivering a nothing sandwich, and nothing changes for black people in America.

That's not true.

Not a lot of changes.

That's not true.

I mean, the material well-being of black people has been improving, while white people it's been going down, I'd argue.

It's well, it's been m marginally improving, but in terms of black communities, they have not really improved.

Significantly.

Well, I mean wealth, income and things of that nature is definitely going up.

And then if you look at white communities specifically into the uh so it's it's getting better for black people, but it's getting worse for white people.

Not overall.

I mean it's pretty much the same for everyone.

I don't know.

I don't really agree with that.

But when you ask me if, what did you say?

You said the political process, what happens if it's not about race, but it's about something else.

Assuming you're alluding to this type of class warfare.

Well, does national and ethnic and even racial identity, do these things have to contradict a type of class division?

I don't really think so.

Well, the thing is, is that America is one nation.

I don't agree with that.

Well, it is.

Well, then you don't believe in America.

America is one nation.

No, I think America resembles more of a civilizational state that encompasses multiple different cultures and nation and similar in a way to other people.

There are cultures and subcultures, and that's fine, but it is one nation.

And the notion of race is just because a lot of people from a bunch of different nations all came here simultaneously who were very far apart from each other for hundreds of years, thousands of years.

So that is why we have this big continental category of race, because race is not a continental category.

It's Europe, it's Africa, it's Asia.

And that's just because America is a new nation, and the whole point of an American nation is building one people.

So what you're talking about is racial division and balkanization.

Well, there's always been racial division in the country.

Then everyone should just go back to their well, no, you're basically saying, you're telling like the founding fathers and like all the most of the important people in this country.

If you need to understand something about the founding fathers, they did not have a clear idea of what the long-term consequences of building this kind of republic would be.

It was a bigly clear, though, they only wanted white people to be in it.

That's pretty clear.

Yes, but there's a reason they didn't put that in the Constitution.

They made a lot of the naturalization.

The preamble.

No, the preamble says for ourselves and our posterity, meaning for ourselves and our descendants.

And if you look at who the descendants are, it was only white people.

It's a bit more broadly interpreted, you know, and there were so many thinkers among the founding fathers who were not of the view that of any kind of racial exclusion.

So which ones?

Benjamin Otis.

Benjamin Otis.

What did he say about race?

He said.

That he loved everyone.

I'm just kidding.

Well, I don't know.

I don't know.

No, I'm putting you on the spot, man.

My bad.

James Otis.

And literally, it's just vocal.

I was going to say, I've never heard of Benjamin Otis.

No, me neither.

It was James Otis.

In any case,.

But would you the definitely the consensus of the founding fathers and like the most important ones, like Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, John Jay, they made it very clear that they did not want

Non-white people in the country.

And if you look how that manifested in policy, only people who become citizens were white.

And it that, but that was a, it's true they were like racist and whatever.

They didn't really like black people.

Leftist, chaz, communists.

Our founding fathers are racist.

That's a 1619 project, bro.

I mean, what are you doing?

Okay, well, you just said they were.

No, I'm just, no, I'm just fucking with you.

Well, look, they were definitely racist, but the thing is, is that for them, it was not the fundamental inceptual principle upon which the Republic stood.

It was just their convention and prejudice during which they lived.

Well, if it was a fundamental principle of what the republic must always eternally be, they would have put it in the Constitution.

They would have put it in the fundamental defining documents of what the Republic is.

They wouldn't have just passed a law which can be amended and whatever and changed at any time.

I would argue they did put that in the Constitution with the preamble.

I mean, you can say that language is vague, but when it says this is for us, it's very vague language.

I don't think that is vague.

And maybe I can grant it to be vague in the abstract, but if you put together what all these guys thought, the laws that they enacted, like, for example, I mentioned John Jay, the Federalist Paper.

There was definitely a prejudice at the time in the sense that it would have been very radical, according to their conventions at the time, to make citizens, give total equal citizenship to people who have very different culture than them and, you know, and were, by the way, people that were demeaned because they were slaves, remember that.

And also the Indians or the Indigenous people who they regarded as.

Well, no, I heard that they like to be called Indians more.

That's what I heard.

No, I'm just joking.

Well, anyway, look, they definitely.

Considered them heathens, and so the you know, these prejudices weren't rooted in the metaphysics of race, they were rooted in class relationships.

Because black, I just a hundred percent disagree with that, right?

Because and I'll give an example, let me give two, let me give two examples.

If I would, I would consider the most important piece of political literature that was ever written in this country was the Federalist Papers.

And in the Federalist Papers, John Jay said that he thought it was a gift from God of how homogeneous and how racially and ethnically homogenous the colonies were, and that was a gift from God.

And he thought that we ought to preserve it that way.

And then, if you go look at Jefferson in his, is it notes on Virginia?

I mean, he's literally writing equations based off of ancestry to determine how, how, how, like, what determines if someone's white or how what determines someone's black.

I mean, he's writing literal equations.

Like, yeah, but there was a huge range of views among these early Enlightenment thinkers about what race is and how to make sense of it.

For example, I just mentioned James Otis, and we have Volk Vulture here.

The colonists, black and white, born here, are freeborn British subjects and entitled to all the essential civil rights.

You know, you are just what you're saying about their racism is true, but you're only painting one side of the picture.

There is also another side.

Yeah, but that's one guy.

Like, I can show you the consensus of the founders, and then if you look at the laws that they enacted, it was very look.

The point is, they may have had a consensus about being racist.

They were majority slave owners anyway.

Yeah, but that impacted the country they founded.

But the country was not founded upon that as a fundamental principle of what it has to be.

That was not the point.

So they weren't saying 200 years from now it's going to look exactly like this.

All they said was a shot in the dark that we're going to build one united republic in a completely new land, totally different from Europe, totally new on a fresh blank page, and let's see where it goes.

That was the idea at the founding of America.

Yeah, but a property that's a part of that is that it's for white people.

And if we ever do abolish slaves, they got to go.

And the reason why I bring this up is because...

I mean, hold on, hold on, hold on.

It wasn't, quote unquote, for white people because there was no, you know, there was all sorts of other types of white people that they wouldn't have ever envisaged, for example, Slavic and Finnish and all these other subdivisions of the so-called white race.

It was one historical sociological group, mainly Anglo-Saxons, who came to...

Oh, dude, this is like critical race theory stuff.

Like, listen, right?

Like, first of all, there were...

Race theory, it's common sense.

No, that's like.

No, it's not because there were non-Anglo founding fathers.

There were Irish and Italian and Catholic founding fathers.

There were black people who were for the independence movement.

So what are we talking about here?

Wait, can you repeat that part?

There were black people who fought for the independence and were part of the movement on the streets.

It's a different thing to say that they thought only white only meant Anglo, right?

Because that's what you were saying.

And that's like a very common thing.

In the main, yeah, that's really what they thought.

In the other case, there were Scott.

Well, well, no, because there were Scottish and German and Irish.

They were adjacent to the Anglo-Civilization.

You think Irish and Italian Catholics are adjacent to Anglos?

They were not really thinking of a bunch of Irish people.

But that's who was in the colonies.

There were Scots, Irish, Catholics, and Italian Catholics who signed the Declaration of Independence.

I'm sure there was a Lebanese guy.

There were exceptions all around.

Not who signed the Declaration of Independence.

I'm sure you'll find him.

If you look hard enough, you'll find him.

There's only 56.

I mean, oh, by the way, just a question about the James Otis guy.

I mean, I've never really heard of that guy before.

Was he like one of the 56 framers or signers of the Declaration of Independence or a framer of the Constitution?

Like, that's not really a name I've ever really heard of.

Well, he is recognized by some as a founding father, but he died.

Yeah, but people recognize Thomas Paine as a founding father, which is like bullshit.

Well, I don't think it's bullshit.

Anyway, look, to get to the main point, it is true.

Let me just finish this.

It is true the Founding Fathers definitely, you know, it would have been considered very radical for them for foreign, what they considered foreign peoples and groups that didn't share their cult.

And also, it was the same with class.

So the Founding Fathers were terrified of the so-called mob rule of the poor, underclass, and the EO men and even the white people who were working class and small farmers and so on rising up.

I think you disconnected.

Rising up to overthrow them.

I think he disconnected.

So it wasn't just they had these racial anxieties.

They had anxieties, they had class anxieties, too.

Again, if.

You know, look, um, this is the last thing I'm gonna say about this too.

The whole premise that the founding fathers are the sole people that had the authority to define the purpose of America, I actually reject that because the people who were indispensable

For actually winning America's independence was the common people.

And it was a multiracial common people.

And they had a dream and an idea of a totally independent republic.

Totally they had a dream too, you know.

So it's not just the founding fathers who should have the exclusive.

Uh although uh part it's part of our national mythology that they do, I agree.

It's just not true though, you know.

And then second of all, I'll say this again, even then they did not make it a fundamental principle of what the republic must be forever because it wasn't put in the constitution.

So

That's what I would say.

The USA was not just founded by the Founding Fathers.

That's our myth.

That's our national myth.

The Founding Fathers are the symbol of the Founding.

But who are the real Founding Fathers?

The real Founding Fathers were the masses of people that fought, spilled their blood, and made it happen.

And they were white and they were black as well.

You know?

And they were also mixed between black and white.

So that was the real Founding.

It was the Founding Peoples of America, not just the Founding Fathers.

You know, let's remember that.

Not that I'm not demonizing the Founding Fathers either, I'm just saying you can't reduce the whole vision and the whole spirit of what America is to their opinions and to their beliefs and to their point of view, because there were other points of view.

No nation is founded just because of a few people having an idea.

Okay, a nation is founded by a great movement of the masses, a great movement of development happening among the you know, the tens of thousands of ordinary people.

who are rising up and a great movement overtakes them and animates them, calls them into action.

Uh Dakota So Sorrellian, what an interesting name.

What's going on?

Well, I'll give you time to find your mic.

We'll bring the based Irish Republican.

Are we talking about me?

Who is speaking right now?

Uh Dakota go ahead Dakota.

So good discussion.

I appreciate it.

I just had a few questions and then I'll probably refocus on listening in.

Not much of a debater.

My first question, I'll preface with like a general, like, do you have critiques of Marx?

And then specifically, I kind of see a Hegelian bias to Mark in that he he kind of lays out this framework that he calls scientific, but he says, or more so his followers portray it as an inevitable economic rule that it's going to that history is going to see the way that he has laid out for it, right?

Now, obviously, Marxists have talked about this for decades since then, but it does have kind of like a Hegelian, like, oh, the tides of history will naturally lead to this path.

Right.

What do you have to say about that?

Yeah, I think people, it's misinterpreted a lot.

So the first question is: do I have critiques of Marx?

The late Marx.

I'm not trying to say there's a young versus old Marx hard split.

I don't agree with that epistemological break idea from El Tusser, but I definitely think that the late Marx corrected most of his mistakes that I would talk about, which are mainly about his predictions about where the revolution is going to break out and his.

his very wrong views about Russia and and uh non European civilizations.

Uh but I think the late Marx really matured from that.

And by the you know, by the time there's a late Marx, I don't think there's really much I have to critique Marx on.

I think he pretty much was coming into having the correct

View.

You know, it's an interesting question of what Marx should be critiqued on.

The only things I could think of Marx should be critiqued on is Lenin, but Lenin already did it, you know, and maybe he wasn't even critiquing Marx.

Maybe he was just applying Marxism in a completely different age than the one Marx lived in.

So now the question of historical fatalism, which is what you're talking about.

Sure.

What Marx says is that by the laws of history, capitalism is going to dissolve and socialism will be victorious.

But it is still upon living men and women to correctly respond to these laws of history.

Without that responsivity, and we will respond inevitably, because we're part of history.

Our response to changes in the mode of production and the relations of production and the forces of production, those are themselves.

Inevitable.

We can't.

There's no possibility of just standing still in the face of historical change.

We will inevitably respond to it, right?

So.

For Marx, he was himself embodying what he viewed as the correct response.

He was perceiving and he had correct insight into the laws of history.

And basically, he would say that all of the false responses are not they're not somehow escaping these laws, but they are prolonging their fullest realization or at least clear realization.

By creating, you know, uh cycles of insanity and and uh you know um

Confusion.

And that could go on for quite a while.

That could definitely go on for quite a while.

But

The fundamental antagonism for people which false consciousness is responding to falsely.

You know, it's still there.

It's not going to go away.

It's just if you don't respond to it correctly, to the laws of history, you know, you will be condemned into a never-ending cycle of just not understanding the essence of what's going on and condemning yourself to like a spiral of decay and confusion and barbarism and so on and so on.

But insofar as history picks up from where it last left off, which it is inevitable, I mean, it's a question of probability.

It's absolutely inevitable because although there are infinitely many different permutations about how you can respond to the laws of history, eventually you're gonna someone's gonna strike the right one, right?

And it's going to help continue to facilitate the development of socialism.

It's just only when this is done so consciously and on a scientific basis will so many absolutely avoidable tragedies and mistakes and so on be prevented.

But it will happen inevitably regardless, just as a matter of probability.

So, the other question is talking about the national as opposed to the economic questions, right?

And I've kind of changed it after listening to you talk to a based Doomer, bass, whatever the fuck.

Is there a valid anxiety to European peoples both in the overseas colonies as well as obviously in Europe to their demographic group?

Is there what?

A valid anxiety.

So that anxiety that exists.

No, it's a it's a let me uh let me explain on it a little bit has um obviously in the united states there's a complex history of uh racial intermixing and but take a place like ireland where there isn't a complex history it has been uh largely homogenous for centuries for a millennia or more right and you see dramatic changes happening and they are happening at the behest of a capitalist class that wants to uh significantly alter demographics because it's conducive to lower prices for them right lower labor costs um is it valid for people that do anxiety that are also tied up into their national anxieties because as an irish man your your anxiety who is speaking in that you're okay yeah yeah no no i just need ireland no i'm not so i want to base ireland or something yeah so there there's obviously like complexities that happen in america that make it a much more complicated question that's why we need the irish example because it's easier to elucidate the point yeah go ahead i'll answer you know and i your your question i know what your question is so

The problem in places like Ireland and other European countries is that there's a total loss of popular sovereignty in general.

There's a total loss of any kind of sense of uh communal belonging and national belonging in general.

And that is because of the rule of the capitalist class, that is because the majority of people, the working class.

Don't have a voice, you know.

So, with the introduction of foreigners who have a very radically different culture and way of life and lifestyle, and so on, and so on, that feeds into this resentment because it's like, but the original problem was a class struggle.

That's what I'm trying to say.

If there was a confident leadership of the working classes within Ireland, there would not be enmity between people of different racial groups.

Would mass immigration and the importation of cheap labor be curbed?

Yes.

Uh of course it would.

There was no mass immigration in communist states, you know.

And if it were to occur in wanting to retain their Irish I d I don't like being interrupted, you know.

I don't I really don't like being interrupted, you know.

I really don't like being interrupted, you know, and you're you're you're you have a very loud voice and I don't appreciate it.

In any case, uh what I'm trying to say is that

The confident leadership of the working classes can permit the possibility of different groups mixing together, on a sovereign basis,

And so the the the reason Communist states didn't have mass immigration wasn't because they believed in ethnic and racial purity, it was because they understood the flow of populations to be a matter of planning at scale.

You have to take into account the social dimension of social harmony, of planning the economy in general, you have to take into account populations.

So they were very careful about things like this.

But in any case, to attack the immigrants themselves and demonize the immigrants themselves is a big mistake.

The problem is sovereignty.

The problem is no popular sovereignty.

The problem is not the immigrants themselves.

The immigrants themselves, including economic immigrants, why wouldn't they go to some country to get more money?

I mean, why wouldn't they?

You know?

Um.

They are not the issue.

The issue is also not a so-called Marxist plot to destroy the white race.

Again, the issue has always been the class struggle.

It's always been the same issue.

It's the erosion of popular sovereignty.

In those countries where the immigrants come from,

The global capitalist class also tries to destroy their popular sovereignty, also tries to create neo-colonial governments to enslave.

So this is coming to Europe now, or has been, since the decline of um

Social democracy, at least,

And Europeans, you know, are realizing that they also are becoming subjugated by this global imperial hegemony that has subjugated so many people.

So the the thing to focus on

Is waging struggle?

Two struggles: the the struggle of the working class, the class struggle, and then simultaneously the democratic struggle for popular sovereignty.

Actually,

having control over government and expelling NATO, expelling the CIA, expelling these extra Republican, extra constitutional forces that obscure the possibility of real Republican uh you know uh governance.

And the question of immigrants should not be the focus.

Because then the struggle becomes pathological.

Then the elites can depict this as a struggle of natives against foreigners.

And they, you know, it's not our fault.

We have no part in it.

And it just becomes a stupid retard fest.

You know, it's just completely devoid of any strategic possibility of actually confronting the real forces behind.

the enmity and the the turmoil, you know, which is the capitalist class.

So this is what I'll say.

Thank you very much for coming on.

Based Irish Republican, please go ahead.

Uh thank you very much for bringing me up.

I I came on because of the previous discussion.

Um I found that conversation about my own country to be interesting.

Um I agree with very much your sentiment there and a lot of the facts and ways that you dissected it, to be honest with you Hal uh has.

And uh pardon me for my accent if you need me to slow down, feel free to I can understand you, sorry.

That's great Paul.

Um but yeah, Paul, the way I see it, uh growing up in this country a long time, you know, we didn't really have much diversity at all.

We were essentially a third world country, you know, and somewhere around the eighties around the Celtic tiger in the European Union, we kind of came up the first world level.

But it was very bad for a long time.

There's a lot of immigration to the country at the moment.

It's not very popular.

You know, it it really isn't very popular across the island.

And I even see this sentiment from people who are not originally Irish or let's say mixed Irish or what have you.

You know, I hear the same sentiment because everybody would agree across the board that the way that the governments are implementing it is purely for profit.

Yeah, I mean I I think that the the the the reason for mass immigration into Ireland is clearly a tactic by the ruling classes to do two things.

One, eliminate popular sovereignty overall.

And this is a this you know it's it's not just

Well, it's mainly about, you know, the the competition of labor, harming the power of labor.

That's the obvious one.

But people also overlook there's another dimension.

Create conflict and turmoil to help erode popular sovereignty, to depict the masses of people as irrational and incapable of having a voice politically, because what they're trying to prepare Europe for is a kind of Macron style, centrist, technocratic dictatorship.

So this is something they also do, they they'll inflame and incite.

conflicts among the masses by import suddenly importing masses and large, large volumes of people who you know there's not a clear history of understanding or coexistence between Irish people and these people.

So you know and then the whole point is that the the the the the bourgeoisie or the the capitalist class will come in as the saviors of the day.

Okay, the people, you know, they're they're irrational, they can't govern themselves, so we're going to come in and be Macron and be the responsible ones to save us from barbarism.

So those are the two things going on the way I see it.

But go ahead, I see your hand raised.

So.

Thank you very much.

And again, thanks for very much for having me up.

I came up before or something and I believe I came in contact with the likes of Timmy and Harold and Burr and stuff.

But yeah, like it it's an interesting place, my country, like it's a microcosm up in the other countries, and I do appreciate a lot of things in them.

In this country here, we're after the end of the war in 1998, we are kind of

A victim now of foreign intelligence agencies, so European, American, and Mossad.

You know, so they put they put a lot of psyops on us.

Um, but it's an interesting country.

I do encourage everyone to come visit, um, because genuinely it'll change your perspective on things.

Like I said, I've been to other countries, been the America, been the other European countries, and it is very different my homeland.

I'd love to visit Ireland sometime.

So, based Irish, thank you so much for coming on.

I really appreciate it.

Walter, we have Walter, who is a state representative from Minnesota, HD30A.

What's going on, Walter?

How are you all doing?

I'm just hanging out.

It's late at night.

I'm in the final week of a very contentious legislative session and just having a good time.

You mentioned a phrase that caught my attention, which is popular sovereignty.

And the reason why that phrase catches my attention is because that was quite literally the concept that was advocated by Stephen Douglas in the historically famous Douglas-Lincoln debates.

And what he was advocating for was slavery, quite literally.

He was saying that if U.S.

territories that want to expand and want to establish themselves, if they want to vote as the people that other human beings are less than, then they probably ought to be able to because they have popular sovereignty.

And so I guess what I'm wondering is, is your conception of that out of sync with that historical analogy?

Or are you talking about the- I think it's very, I mean, the notion of popular sovereignty definitely does not originate in that.

That seems like an opportunistic use of an Enlightenment concept at the time.

Um, you know, for the purposes of advancing the interests of the planter class.

So definitely not.

For example, I you know, I'll I'll I'll give you an example of what I think uh you know is a form of popular sovereignty.

The popular sovereignty of the Palestinian people in Gaza who are fighting for that, against occupation.

It's actually something I think is similar to when the American people were fighting the occupation of the British.

You know.

That's really where you see popular sovereignty try to assert itself.

I mean, okay.

I'll take that for granted.

My question is.

I mean, why do you gotta take it for granted?

Do you not agree with it or?

No, I don't.

Because the peop because the people of Hamas look want to want to destroy the Jews.

Why would they why would they want to destroy the Jews?

Is there any reason that could possibly be legitimate?

No, I'm just it's it's really weird.

Like, you're saying, oh, they want to destroy the Jews, like, wh how?

Based on what?

What could possibly be the reason for the river to the sea?

The river to the sea, that whole concept is obviously intended to convey the sense that we should engage in genocide against the Jewish people in that area.

How is it genocide to demand a one state that doesn't exclude all non-Jewish people by definition?

The state of Israel literally does not exclude anybody.

There are Arab people who live in Israel.

So can a majority of the so-called country of Israel be non-Jewish ethnically according to their racial conception of Judaism, which is actually against the Torah and against the Jewish religion?

U are are you suggesting that the State of Israel is discriminates against who can be part of their country as long as they're peaceful?

They literally don't allow anyone to become citizens except people that have blood quantum that come it's like literally out of Nazi Germany where you have to have blood quantums of the right race in order to be a citizen.

You could literally be a guy living in New Zealand and if you have the right blood quantum they'll open the door for you.

Welcome!

You are the citizen.

Israel claims to be the state of all Jews in the world based on a racial notion of Judaism.

And it defines that state based on that.

And, you know, you could see why that would upset the people who were like, you know, already living there.

Kind of like

That that being the case, why did they accept and grant rights to people who are not Jewish?

Because they anticipated those people will always be a minority.

If they if there was a right of return for the Palestinians who were expelled in the in forty seven, forty eight, then that would no longer be the case.

So would they tolerate a non Jewish majority?

Is that even possible for a so-called Jewish state?

Would would any country tolerate being taken over by people who are not?

Associated with the nation?

So it's kind of like would it do you support uh apartheid South Africa?

'Cause that was their same reasoning, that we can't let black people have voting rights or else they're gonna take over our white nation.

Okay.

Well, absolutely not.

I mean, but that that's not the same thing at all.

Why not?

Why not?

Because the Jewish nation uh in Israel, like the Jews have been historically persecuted for thousands of years.

Like there's been no place for why is that the problem of Palestinians?

What do they have to do with that?

The nation of Israel is historically belongs to the Jews.

I mean, they've been there for thousands of years and there's no where you said you're in Minnesota.

What land what people does that land historically belong to?

Well, I mean, I pay my mortgage and I pay my property taxes.

So, just paying mortgage and property, we went from they're allowed to go and steal all this land because they had ancestors that were there thousands of years ago to paying mortgage and property tax.

What is the what legitimizes a people to just steal land, you know, if it's not they didn't they didn't steal land.

Well, like anybody, anybody, any and there's anybody who wants no, listen, brother.

Anybody who wants to live in Israel without killing people can do so.

That's not true.

If you're Jewish, yeah, according to how they define it.

But if you're non-Jewish, you can't unless you were granted the right a long time ago.

Um you ca I you know, I can't go there.

Can I go there?

I can't.

Are you Julie?

No, sir.

I would love to have you to work with you.

Even you can't go.

Why are you defending Israel?

They don't even want you in.

Because, according to them, you're not.

You're not racially allowed.

I don't think that's true.

It is I think I can go there tomorrow.

Well, not as a citizen.

Well, I i if you can if you can provide me with evidence of that, that would be significant.

They're not gonna let you in if you're not Jewish according to them.

I mean on on on what basis so on what basis does any nation have a right to determine who comes in who can't come in but in Israel it's based on race that's the problem all right what about the United States do we get to determine not on race did we get to determine bas like can what do you think about uh you know when Trump in his first term said that you know people who are coming from predominantly terrorist oriented nations should not be in the United States is that a bad thing

Again, we're talking about race here.

The the in in so-called Israel, it's a Jewish state for the Jewish people, which is a racial concept to them, to the Zionists.

Um

If the US started, you know, having racial laws, I think that would be pretty concerning.

Of course it would.

I'd be the first one to object to it as a object to it in Israel, where it's a racial apartheid state.

I I don't believe you.

If you could prove that to me, that'd be I would probably change my tune, but I don't believe ya.

So do you think it's a form of discrimination that if you have a certain blood quantum of Jewish,

You can be a citizen.

But if you're non-Jewish

You barely have any chance of that.

I mean so so so the question that you're asking

Could just as easily be applied to any of the tribal nations that we have have here in the United States of America.

So, you know, I have some native blood in me somewhere deep down.

My wife is probably has more.

My her great her grandmother is a elder in the Chippewa tribe.

They you know.

No, no, no, literally, of course they are.

Like, literally, you have to prove that you are racially aligned.

They're lineage.

You have descent from the tr but that's like a tribal identity.

That's not an ethno- Okay, what's the difference between that one you're talking about in Israel?

Because Israel is a full-blown ethnostate that has a law of return.

So is literally every tribal nation in the United States of America.

They're not ethno-states.

They don't actually have real sovereignty.

They don't have sovereignty, Walter.

There's no checkmate.

They don't have sovereignty.

Plus, you're missing like a really, are you kidding me?

You're telling me that the tribal nations of the United States of America don't have sovereignty?

They would all object to that.

Pretty aggressively.

Well, I don't care if they would object.

It's the fact that they don't have sovereignty.

Okay.

Well, I don't know what else to talk to.

Nuclear weapons.

They can't have their own army.

They can't have their own anything.

It's not sovereignty.

Okay.

All right.

So apparently, sovereignty is based upon whether or not you can build nuclear weapons.

This has been a very entertaining conversation.

I appreciate it.

Literally.

You lost it.

I appreciate it.

Literally.

Literally.

Literally, that's literally it.

So okay.

Enjoy that.

Have a good night, man.

Well, why do you love racism?

That's a ridiculous question to ask you about Hapler.

That is a ridiculous question to ask Hitler.

Just answer it.

I I'm not gonna accept your stupid premise, you fucking retard.

I'm a half black, half white man.

A guy who loves Hitler.

Why do you love Hitler, Walter?

I don't, dip shit.

It seems like you're not.

And no matter how many times you say it is not gonna make it true.

So you so you support Hamas.

So you support Hamas.

No, you support Hamas.

So if you don't support it, that's how you point it out.

You're supporting Hamas.

You're the biggest Hitler lover.

Okay.

Oh my God.

You're hilarious, dude.

I love you.

I'm not laughing.

Have a good time.

Have a good time.

Why do you love Hitler?

Why do you love the racial laws?

Enjoy yourself, dipshit.

Why do you love Hitler's racial laws and worldview?

That's all I'm asking.

Oh, he left.

Well

Well, ladies and gentlemen.

We'll never know why he loves Hitler.

Anyway, let's bring Rambly.

The most enlightened guest.

Go ahead, Rambly.

Go ahead.

You have uh f fifteen seconds.

Fifteen.

Fourteen.

All right.

Thirteen.

Um twelve.

Hold on, hold on.

Ten.

Would you support the pro side in a debate about the US criminalizing homosexuality?

What?

Would you be pro U.S.

criminalizing homosexuality, Haz I mean, I see no need for that.

I mean, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I don't really think anyone about that.

I mean, really, because a lot of your party have you guys love this PF work every now and again.

You guys love the EPF work.

I don't care.

Why shouldn't I believe that you guys are pro-criminalization?

I'm disconnecting.

You believe whatever you want, dude.

I don't care what you believe.

You ask me a question, I answer.

You could believe whatever you want.

I don't really care.

Why would we.

Fuck, it's like I hear a UFO or some shit.

Anyway, um guys, is anyone else requesting?

Yeah, we got uh Showtime.

Um, twenty five years in China, hip hop adventurer.

Give me one sec, I'll be right back.

Uh, bring bring someone on though.

I'll be right back.

I I brought up um someone, but they're still connecting their real spiel.

If they don't connect, you can bring up Showtime next.

All right, I'm here.

What did I miss?

Yeah, they just pulled me up.

Peace and blessings.

This is Showtime from.

Oh, Showtime.

I know you, man.

What's up?

How are you doing?

I'm doing good, brother.

So I wanted to ask you about a really unfortunate incident.

I'm not trying to instigate.

I saw your letter, but I did see those leaks, the China leaks.

And I don't know if you want to talk about it anymore, but it caught my attention.

Just want to know, in general, like the position of the party on China moving forward.

No, our position did not change at all.

We were we had a misunderstanding with a very specific group, you know, very like with people that we know personally, right?

So this we're not talking about, you know, any big change in the principle overall, like politically.

We're talking about a diplomatic incident with a very like personal group that we know personally.

And it was a misunderstanding anyway.

But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't have changed our view about China overall.

It wouldn't have.

We were venting and we were we you know, uh i in private we don't always reaffirm our the stances that we take for granted in general, you know.

I mean, ev even Carlos

A lot of people took offense to what he said, but you know, what he meant is that we shouldn't take it personal because of the pragmatism.

You know, when there's an overall spirit of pragmatism, which is not based in ideology and stuff sometimes when it comes to, you know, business and media outfits.

So we were talking about Guan Cha, which is a media.

Not the whole, not even all Guan Cha either, just the people that we knew, you know?

So it was just a big misunderstanding, and it was also.

Like, I'm saying it was misunderstanding because it was all cleared up, like, a week or two after.

Everything was fine.

But then also, we were not talking about overall China.

We weren't talking about that, you know.

We we weren't talking about Xi Jinping and the you know, the the the C P C.

So I g I don't know if that helps at all.

Well, I hear you.

When you talk in private, when you actually know people and you're like that plugged in.

You're not gonna preach to the choir.

Like, we already take it as a baseline.

We support China, we support Russia.

It's like a it's a given to us, you know, it's not even a question.

The last question, um, are you guys back on this MAGA communism trip?

I I see the slogan popping back up.

Is that directly with the party or is that just No, it's not a party thing.

It's still if you ever see it, it's still mainly an infrared thing or maybe a Jackson thing, but uh

The party mm

I don't even know what the party would do with it.

You know, that is the party gonna be going to MAGA rallies and no, probably not.

And and repping MAGA communism?

No.

But um

The slogan I think is coming back into use because a lot of people are because we see Hassan use it and we see everybody making memes of Trump as like Hamas and we kind of feel like, you know, we made this meme, this was ours.

So that's why, honestly, it's not.

A lot of people think that there was no.

I mean, I'm not saying it was a big joke, but like, it is an irony.

You know, I was talking to a woman.

few days ago through Twitter, through X.

I think her name is uh

Mm.

I don't something

Something uh Misha.

She was like, so what what what are you guys saying here?

Like, you know that Trump has no principles, you know that he's not motivated by ideology.

Are you saying that just accidentally, you know, things if have fallen into place in such a way that he is inadvertently given, you know, assuming positions?

That are more progressive than Democrats, but are not for the intentions of pr and it's it's like, yeah, it's we're not assuming his intentions are good at all.

We're not assuming that he it's motivated by principle.

But that was always the point from the beginning.

You know, it was it's about an irony.

The contradictions of the US Empire

Being revealed so openly and nakedly that they actually open the door for giving expression to genuine opposition to the Empire, you know?

Like, and I'm not saying that like Trump goes so extreme that the opposition to Trump is what does that.

It's like, no, like Trump himself.

Unconsciously and inadvertently is starting to articulate positions.

That I think would not have been possible before, but because of the state of the heightened contradictions of the US Empire, he'll like say something and mean one thing, but the actual meaning is entirely different, how it comes out.

You know, it's like a Freudian slip constantly.

And these constant Freudian slips, if you want to call them that, I guess.

You can actually say maybe there's a way to turn that into something principled, you know?

Not turn Trump principled, but the

Turn this sentiment of

Non-interventionism abroad, the sentiment I mean, you know, and you know, prioritizing the interests of our country at the expense of NATO and so on and so on.

What if we could give that principle?

You know, we're not expecting Trump to, but what if we could, you know?

He's opening in a lot of ways the door for that among a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have.

And no, his motivations are not good.

They're not based in any shared ideology with us, but it's still happening in a way, you know.

Shreyl Stanney, what's up?

So, I guess I don't know if that clears things up for you.

Yeah, that does.

That helps a lot.

I appreciate it.

Thanks for bringing me up.

And give a shout out to Infrared Henry and Harold down there.

And stay positive, man.

Be good, brother.

Thank you, brother.

I appreciate it so much.

Thank you.

See you later.

Alright guys, is there anyone else requesting?

Oh.

Jennifer, what's going on?

Hello?

Hello?

What is going on?

Well anyway, let's bring on safe ground.

Oh wait, sorry.

Wait.

Wait.

No, no.

Can you hear me now?

Yeah, you're still on.

Oh, God.

Fucking Twitter.

Anyway, how are you?

What's up, Jennifer?

No long time.

Long time.

Yeah, long time.

We'll see.

No here.

Yeah.

God, goodness.

I kind of just like came on here randomly when Ramley came on.

I'm like, I don't want to hear this fucking guy again.

But I don't really have, I don't think I have like a criticism, but I do have an idea.

So it's kind of weird.

It's kind of weird.

Okay, let's hear it.

Hello?

Oh my god.

Hello.

There you go.

Okay.

So I'm like, so does the date March 18th, 2022, sound familiar to you?

No.

I think I was still on Twitch.

I didn't think so.

Yeah, but I didn't think so.

But that date, you put out a tweet.

Basically, I don't have a tweet up right now, but it's basically.

Guys, if I suddenly lose power, that's why I might, I'm like, I feel like I'm getting bombarded right now like missiles.

Anyway, please go ahead.

So you put out a tweet talking about gamers.

And there was a tweet, gamers.

Gamers, yeah.

About, yes, and about how we basically need to smash their consoles.

And I was just thinking the other day, I was like, you know, like the US, like America, American culture, like I feel like there isn't a kind of tradition.

Specifically for boys to transition from like boyhood to like kind of like adulthood manhood.

Like you can kind of quasi reason like like you know sexual debut.

It's like oh yeah I had sex so now I'm not a virgin anymore.

Now I'm a man blah blah blah.

But that doesn't really, I don't know, I don't feel like it's really tangible.

So I was just thinking, it's kind of crazy idea, but I was just thinking.

that you like imagine you're out maybe in the field or something you're just in a place and you have like safety goggles on and in one hand you have like a sledgehammer and the other hand you have a console yeah ps4 ps5 whatever and you like make a speech or whatever and you just like smash that console you smash your console pieces fine everywhere you smash the console i like the idea but The one I had in mind is that I'll basically wear like a hooded robe and there won't be a speech.

It'll just be sudden out of nowhere.

I'll break into their homes and break their consoles.

But I think it's like it's kind of like you like you like you be the change, you know, Haz.

Like be the change.

I feel like it has to be a surprise.

No, like it has to have to be a taxi game with you.

Like what a great transition.

Like pretend like it's your birthday.

You're 30 years old now.

You still have that console.

You smash it.

It's not a surprise.

There'll be too much cope and like there'll be it'll be it needs to be a surprise.

It needs to hit them like a train that the gaming it's destroyed.

But like I feel like but what better way to like really put your money where your mouth is to just say like I'm not a gamer anymore.

So none of you need to be gaming.

I feel like it would be a good transition from like just adolescence boyhood to like just like smash it.

After it's smashed that's what happens.

It's like they also get an award.

They get an award that says I'm no longer a gamer.

And it doesn't have to be, it doesn't just have to be you.

It could be like other ACP members.

They just like they have their sledgehammers, they have their cycles, they just like, and then they just like go out with the robes going into the drag them out of the basement.

And then they do it.

I don't, yeah, I don't even have to do it anymore.

Then they do it to their neighbors and they wear the robes.

Yes.

It's like a legacy that goes.

It'll be a whole new like American, like just like century new American tradition of boys going into becoming men.

They're just letting go about a lot.

I like this idea.

We'll have the 40-year-old men who literally have wives and children going out and smashing their consoles and just be like, I'm not doing this anymore.

You could totally start when they come out with like GTA 6 or whatever.

It would be like the greatest thing.

That's when it will start.

As soon as GTA 6 comes out.

Yes.

As soon as GTA 6 comes out, that's when you start.

You'll be like, no, we're not doing GTA 6.

We're smashing the consoles.

I'm sorry.

We're smashing the gaming PCs.

Sorry.

Everything.

That's yeah.

Everything.

Yeah.

That's it.

Well, Jennifer, really big ideas.

Yeah.

It's already in motion.

Thank you so much.

I'm glad you listened to it.

Yeah.

No problem.

So good night.

Safe ground.

What's going on, Safe Ground?

And you're going to be the last speaker.

Planet.

Okay.

So, you can hear me?

Yes.

Ray, how are you doing?

Good, how are you?

Excellent.

So we look out at the world and we see what we see, we hear what we hear, we feel what we feel.

But sometimes, like a child getting born and and and becoming one year old, two year old, and so on and so forth, they grow up in a system that they learn how to talk and communicate.

We need to go ahead.

I don't feel smashed.

this console or smash this or shoot this.

I think we need to have I didn't say shoot anything to be clear.

I didn't say I did I did not I did not say that you did.

I just wanted to clarify it.

Okay, clarified it is.

I'm saying that I feel that we need to have some baselines, education, you know, understand this is a dictionary.

If we have misunderstandings, we go to said dictionary and like you mean it in definition number three.

And you know, we need to have clarity, but we need to have a world, I feel, I'm expressing my feelings, my thoughts here, that gives the opportunity of that belief that Jefferson put forward and before him, other people, the unalienable rights concept that we are endowed by this concept of certain liberties and a belief that we can think different ways, we can behave in different ways.

Now, when it comes to us being in a society and a realism of life, we do need to, as a society, work with our neighbors and so on and so forth.

I'll land my plane here.

I don't want to, I'm not trying to go on and on and on here.

But the thing is, I feel that whether you're talking communism, republicanism, this ism, that ism, my flag, you know, your flag concepts, I think we can sometimes be going down a slippery slope when we think we have the Bible, we have the magic book.

I hope that we live in a world and a universe that is going to be different, but we need to go ahead and protect certain things of like people hurting other people unnecessarily.

What I see happening in the wars around the world, I think so many people are being played and misunderstanding.

They're being lied to or manipulated by so many politicians.

You look out and you see the rich yachts and mansions and this and that, while you have other people actually living on street sidewalks and so on and so forth.

And I'll land the plane there.

Thank you for your ear.

Thank you, Safeground.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for your perspective.

Um

So I think we're gonna wrap up the space with that.

That that's a good uh closing.

Note

And I'll see you guys next Thursday.

Bye-bye.

So the space is done.

Great space.

Um

So let's close BlueStacks.

And I have Jimmy John's in my fridge.

I could si stay and hang out with you guys, but or I could eat.

You know?

Decisions decisions

But I'm very hungry, you know.

I'm very hungry.

So guys, I'll have to see you Sunday.

Or it might be Monday, uh, worst case, but Sunday, hopefully.

If not Sunday, then Monday.

All right, guys, good stream.

Bye-bye.

See you guys.

Sunday or Monday.

Bye-bye.