Discord is Now NUKING Pro-Russia Servers

what's up everybody uh today i don't

really have a lot of um

i don't really have a lot of end and let

me see let me see those uh sun gorillas

by the way i want to see those sun

gorillas because as you can see we can

now see them right so i spent a lot of

time

uh working on the youtube chat and

making sure

um you know we could

actually see our emotes

and use them right

so that's cool

that's what i spent like you know 10

minutes doing that looking up how to

fucking get the css and get it custom so

yeah super bass super bass we can get

those and it's still like it has that

fucking cringe youtube shit where it's

like a little bit delayed or whatever

where it's like it lags but whatever

ludwig's apparently fixing all that

but anyway um

what we're here for is and i wanted to

like shame shave and

i didn't really get a lot of sleep it's

been a nightmare you know you want to

know why i'm streaming so late

i've been dealing with a lot of shit you

know and uh it's like been emergency

mode at the infrared hq we're kind of

it's like that episode in spongebob

where they're just burning all the paper

oh we're panicking no i'm kidding but we

really are

you know doing a lot

to make up for what happened because i

want to i want to talk a little bit

about um

what we're facing here as a community

because it seems like it's not that big

of a deal it actually is it's a big deal

so

today i woke up from bed

and then i was literally on my phone i

was i had like i have two phones right

so i was talking

to someone on my fucking iphone and i

had my discord on my uh other phone out

and i opened discord and i'm like what

the fuck happened to the server is this

a glitch or something so

idm

a few people and

like we're dealing with

apparently

the server got banned the server got

deleted and ezra who was the server

owner

and it was a big secret for a long long

time we kept it there's 11 of us and we

kept it secret who the owner was and it

was ezra

and he got banned ezra got terminated

and the reason they gave us was like

glorifying violence or something

promoting or glorifying violence we

don't allow any of that in our server if

anything like that is

thank you green appreciate you

they can delete our discord but they

can't delete our spirit slavas yeah so

um

you know they they uh

they they banned ezra they just

completely terminated his account

and everyone who was modding and who was

a shore runner for that server got a

warning

now going forward i was gonna just uh

this is why i think i was also a little

late

i was gonna announce to you guys uh

something um

that

look first of all join our telegram

right now mods spam that telegram link

in the chat i'm sure all of you here are

already in our telegram

join our telegram

join our telegram join our telegram join

our telegram

join our telegram right

um

but

we're actually not off the hook

just with being able to have a telegram

because

telegram is going to be able to ensure

that i always have a secure line of

communication with you guys that's all

it's gonna be

so discord is community

and telegram is communication and the

telegram chat that we have is it's

pretty lit and it's pretty fun

but at the end of the day that's not

going to be a substitute

for having a community um

base of operations i mean in our discord

we had original content we had

we had it was perfect right it was a

perfect kind of hq and that and that

needs to be fulfilled in a new kind of

way so there was a few options we were

thinking about and the first one i was

thinking was well that was ezra's server

and that was the ezra server and i can

make my own server because i'm my own

person right so i can make my own server

and that's what i am planning to do is

i'm going to make my own server

it should be done by tomorrow

just going to invite everybody to the

server right

the thing is

that server is probably going to get

banned

well here's the thing

started thinking i was like you know

what we could actually try and replace

discord's core functionality on our

website

and if we could have that ability to

have different channels and like you

know

the voice chats and all that stuff on on

our website then

you know that would be perfect right

it gets better right it gets better

because not only is that possible

i don't want to get too hyped up about

this because it just sounds too good to

be true but i i just discovered

something

just recently and this changes

everything now i want to give you guys

the downside is that that's a a year

that's a community we spent i spent a

year building

5 000 members that's not going to be

easy to replace okay it's just not going

to be easy to replace

but

with that being said there's a kind of

trade-off we're dealing with here

and that trade-off just so happens to be

the fact

what if

we could have our old discord server

back

without the members because everyone has

to rejoin but what if we can have all

the core functionality back

we could have everything we used to have

on that discord back

and it can't be censored at all and we

can say

literally whatever the fuck we want as

long as it's legal

now there's like one drawback to that

the one drawback is it's going to be

isolated from the rest of the internet

and how are you going to get people to

well that that that would be a difficult

predicament admittedly that's going to

be a little difficult

um

but it's still doable

except

except

apparently

they have already developed

a way

to

self-host

discord servers

that are

that they cannot ban and they cannot be

platform

we will be able apparently i don't want

to get too worked up over this to get

too excited but apparently

we can literally self-host our own

discord server

that's going to be compatible with the

main discord client which means you can

keep all of your old discord accounts

all of your old discord friends and we

can get people from discord to this

server and they cannot censor it and

they cannot touch it

now i'm going to preface this by saying

if this is actually possible

then that discord getting banned was

worth it

yeah it's going to be hard getting back

all of the old members we used to have

the thing is

um

never having to worry about being

de-platformed while still being able to

be connected to discord's main servers i

mean that's worth it to me oh my god do

you know i mean modding work will be

reduced to a minimum we won't have to we

will just have the bot uh ban the n-word

and then everything else is fine

literally everything else will be

uncensored

and and it's like it's gonna be ugly oh

it's gonna be ugly it's gonna be ugly

uh but it's gonna be beautiful right i

mean oh my god we could do anything we

want we can literally do anything i

don't know if this is

i still have to check with and see how

this is going to work

um because i don't want to get too

excited over it worst case scenario

we're just going to have our own thing

not connected to discord but i'm pretty

sure this one's possible i'm pretty sure

it's possible so what discord does they

don't actually kick you out of their

client they kick you out of their server

so the only thing they could do is ban

people individually but they can't ban

you for things done in a server that

they're not hosting

so they can ban you from their servers

but they can't ban you from being

connected to the client as a whole

that's what i'm being told i mean that

is just incredible

that will be a new age of infrared and

um

we had to hold back a lot because of

their censorship policies

that's gonna be gone where it's gonna be

uh

you know we're not going to be gripers

at that level but

our enemies i would hate to be our

enemies if this is possible i would

really hate to be our enemies

um

we are going to become the most feared

community on the fucking left wing

internet

that much i can guarantee you if this is

possible if this works we will literally

become the mongols of left-wing internet

and there will be no holding back there

will be we will be fully unleashed

we will be fully unleashed

and that's oh my god that's gonna be

fucking wow

wow i'm literally excited

and it that that alone was worth it if

that's possible

them getting rid of that old discord

server fuck that

that was worth it if we could even if we

start out with only like

300 people

that we'll just build our way up

back again even if it takes another year

to build it to where we were again this

one can't be de-platformed so that

anxiety is gone forever of being

deplatformed

and i am willing to pay i already

messaged some people and who know how to

like do the programming and the coding

and shit but it's going to be on our

website as well

accessible on our website

um

this is beautiful i mean but in the

meantime

we're in a pretty dangerous situation

okay in the meantime we're in a pretty

dangerous situation because

the main hub of the community is gone

so this is the situation we're facing

the telegram is basically a one-way line

of direct communication from me to you

and that is very important to have

regardless of whatever happens here

right so everybody needs to join and

spread that telegram far and wide you

know we need to get

at least 2500 people on that telegram we

need to really spread that telegram far

and wide okay

and then once we can do that we'll be

i'll be able to communicate you with you

um

in real time with no problem

and

you know that we used to always have to

worry about wreckers coming into our

discord and if this would have happened

a year ago if this would have happened

last summer i would have been fucked i

would have never been able to grow i

would have been done and buried like

that that easily and last summer it was

like

life and death that i had to preserve

that discord server

but after the the huge community that we

built and all that shit

um

we're fine now i mean we built a really

uh committed and loyal community and so

it's it's it's a loss and it's a bad

thing what happened but

it's still something we're gonna be able

to survive

it's still something that

you know we'll we'll be able to um

i wouldn't have been able to survive if

this happened last year so yeah it's

really bad that this happened

but this is something we could survive

this is something that's i mean and we

knew that this was coming anyway you

know we all knew that this was gonna

fucking happen

you knew it i knew it whatever

and

you know i'm just a little shocked that

it happened now because i thought this

was going to happen like last month

everyone was anticipating as soon as

they and we thought it was going to be

for misinformation not supporting russia

but

i mean this new server we're going to

make if it's if it works i mean we could

literally do whatever the fuck we want

on it i mean we will have no

repercussions except we just have to

follow the law and that's it

just the law

and then i personally

we don't want the n-word in the server

we're going to still ban the n-word

because

you know that's just to me that's

kick this toward anyone who helps get us

an unbannable discord infrared stay

rising

thank you so much

thank you so much

i don't even know how

that's still a lot of money that's still

a lot of money thank you so much man

appreciate you

yeah and i'm gonna pay for people to to

work on this

because it's worth it right and then

we're gonna also host it and pay for the

server itself

um

this is gonna be beautiful if it works

if this works holy shit you know

holy shit this will be i know we have to

look into it can they still de-platform

us are there still ways for them to fuck

with us or do it so we're gonna look

into all of that but um

i missed a big dono earlier what

what did i miss

oh eyes on green with the the 18 thank

you so much man i appreciate you

yeah i mean

look

this was bad but it's it's survivable

and you know i don't know why our

enemies keep trying to de-platform us

because it's not like we're going to

leave the internet guys what is going to

happen the more we're de-platformed

what's going to happen

the more we get de-platform what's going

to happen

in terms of

i mean this is the issue this is the the

one mistake these fucking disgusting

degenerate scum

are making and by the way i have

something to say

about a very pertinent topic in that

regard

beto thank you so much man

appreciate you thank you so much

um

let me tell you what it is okay

thank you so much beto for option b you

can try internet relay chat i can help

yeah we'll we'll put everything on the

table

um in the meantime i am making my own

discord server

uh for tomorrow and it's just my own

personal server it's just my own server

right we're not uh banned evading it's

just my own server

and then i'm gonna invite everyone to it

tomorrow and then we'll have that

temporarily at least

but

um i want you guys to know something

though

you um

you have to understand that these

disgusting degenerate scum

got used to so easily being able to d

platform their enemies like you know the

gripers they de-platformed all the

gripers they deplatformed all of these

thank you so much i appreciate you thank

you so much man appreciate you so much

they d platform all those gripers they

deplatformed all those other people that

hurt their feelings and made them feel

bad about themselves and then they were

like oh i know how we're going to stop

these infrared guys we're just going to

de-platform them and then they'll be

gone

now we're not going to be gone you're

just going to make us more ugly and more

vicious period you're just gonna make us

uglier and more vicious you're not

actually gonna deplatform us we will

always have a presence and

you're just gonna make us angry that's

all you're gonna fucking do right you're

not going to actually uh accomplish what

you think you are we're not gonna

disappear we still exist we are a thing

we're not going anywhere and we're still

in the cpu usa

infrared keeps rising thank you so much

to our story and we're still in the

cpusa by the way and by the way we have

one month to join the cpusa for next

year's

elections by the way so join the cpusa

as soon as you can so you can be a

delegate for next year's elections

and web 3 is all about that

decentralized

more peer-to-peer type of self-hosting

thing and that's what we're here for

we're here for that web 3 type of

internet in the first

step you know the one drawback to

alternative platforms is they're not

compatible we can literally have our own

fucking discord server thank you so much

orville appreciate it

holy fuck

christ

christophel thank you so much man

appreciate you

holy fuck man thank you so much man

christopher

infrared will rise cpus thank you man

thank you so much

appreciate you so much man

um yeah guys join that telegram join our

telegram

uh to get communication and and stuff

like that web three is false

consciousness you know you i feel like

you

over analyze shit and i'm just here

saying hey we just want to

be able to have a pipeline to get more

like to reach normal people without

getting de-platformed if that's all we

want we want to be able to have a

pipeline where we can reach normal

audiences

thank you sun seven and not to get the

platform so we can actually grow and

have a pipeline for growth

what i don't i don't know you know what

i don't really care about

having a that's all we want we just

don't want it to be the platform right

um you're saying it's false

consciousness

what do you have now i'm open to

whatever the fuck is gonna change this

fucking bullshit right

i why i don't know why web3 sucks why

does it suck as far as i know web3 is

just

not being able to get d platform so why

is that bad we should welcome that we

should be happy about that that's

that's what's going to sit that's what's

going to allow us to be able to persist

and have longevity

take back our party

absolutely thank you so much

z8 ch thank you so much

holy fuck max hassan thank you so much

man

appreciate you

now speak of the devil um

you guys might be wondering

why i

had to delete the last stream

well first of all the relevant parts

about meghan markle they're gonna be

re-uploaded and when i'm done with this

stream i'm gonna raid into um

gonna raid into the premiere for that

video right

so yeah the relevant parts um

the relevant parts are being re-uploaded

but the reason i had to delete the

stream our haters will thank you so much

knox we always come back stronger it's

because sophie

from

and don't make any comments guys because

apparently we're dealing with some

bullshit um

uh

solely fuck tereshi

jesus christ

holy fuck man

holy fuck

holy shit

thank you so much to russia appreciate

you the most important thing too is

never lose heart gorilla sun gorilla sun

thank you to reshi so sophie from mars

actually made a tweet so if you remember

sophie from mars yesterday

um

thought slime and uh sophie from mars

that's what they go by um

they made a video trying to talk shit

about me and in that video thought slime

was trying to laugh at the fact that i

said oh we believe in work is life's

prime want that's literally ad verbatim

from marx's critique of the gothic

program and he was mocking us like these

guys are marxist and it's literally ad

verbatim from marx so that guy's clearly

um not a very smart person

but as a response to some of the

comments i allegedly made

which i will not confirm or deny

sophie decided that they were going to

actually um

they were actually going to deep

platform

me

um or try at least to d-platform me

um

bye let me just get this

so sophie says

at the timestamp linked i've reported

for harassing me based on a protected

characteristic and said by youtube's tos

his channel should be suspended and i

encourage others to do the same so you

know 330 people like this this is a form

of brigading

and you know no one was harassing

this person uh they were harassing me in

their fucking video and also i think

youtube should also take note of their

islamophobic attacks against me i'm an

afro-asiatic mediterranean male uh under

assault from islamophobic attacks

um by sophie from mars and also i just

want to tell these people hey elon musk

is buying twitter and we're shifting to

an internet that's going to be

increasingly censorship free so i wonder

how you're going to how you're going to

fare in that censorship free internet

because i'll have a lot to say

once we start not getting censored for

the truth

but anyway we don't we don't encourage

the harassment harassment of anyone

especially under protected

characteristics i was merely responding

to a video

you made about me insulting me and

trying to demean and attack me and and

what you i respond and you go ahead and

say go and fucking report him

interesting

interesting but that's okay

we will be waiting

as the internet starts to

decentralize and speech becomes less

regulated and the effects of woke based

censorship

we're going to be here and we're going

to remember everyone

we are going to remember everyone we had

to hold our tongues in regards to we're

going to remember them aren't we chat

aren't we chat

i want you to go ahead and thank you z8

will prevail over the lackeys of shaytan

i want you guys to go ahead

and give me some sun gorillas if we're

going to be here and we'll be waiting

and we'll remember everyone

go ahead and spam those sun gorillas if

we're not going to forget

we are not going to forget how are we

no we're not

no we're not

we are absolutely not

we are absolutely not

no shot no chance

we're not gonna forget

so

that's all we're gonna say

you know you these people hide you know

you know what i find interesting is that

not commenting on anything in particular

but it's like

i find it fascinating how people live in

this world of delusion where you know

all for ideological reasons everyone

around you is lying to you all of your

friends are lying to you

and then in addition

you literally have to get platforms to

enforce

banning people who tell you the truth so

it's like you've rigged this world of

fantasy and delusion to be able to

sustain

a completely false view of of yourself

on bond of literally like the

platforming and censoring others

so that's interesting i i really worry

for these people when they're going to

be exposed to an environment which is

coming very soon where

the truth is going to be told without

any censorship i just wonder you know

what these people

how they're going to cope with it i just

wonder how they'll be able to cope with

it because you know you you're not going

to be able to mass report us when that

time comes and we're still it's not like

we're going anywhere even the gripers

are still around

even the gripers are still they've been

de-platformed for years and they're

still around and they're still kicking

you think we're going to be gone and

we're just going to scatter to the wind

and we're not going to be a thing

anymore

all those d platform people i i don't

know i personally don't know that many

communities i just know of the groipers

that's just the people i know of they're

still here

they're still around and they're

everywhere they're all over twitter

they're all over everywhere

they're they're even on twitch they're

everywhere right

you think that's not gonna be the case

with us you think we're just gonna

fucking go away we're not gonna fucking

go away

you can you can ban us all you fucking

want we're still gonna be a thing

we're still gonna be a thing and by the

way all the people you deplatforming

they're all waiting like wolves

they're all wait they're watching elon

musk

they're watching the transition to web 3

increasingly decentralized and

self-hosted and they're all waiting like

wolves because when the time comes

that they all come back they're going to

come back very strong and very prominent

and it's not going to be fun

for all the d platform andy's it's not

going to be fun for all the lefties it's

oh it's going to be ugly it's going to

go even farther than i would i'm a nice

guy i don't want it to go that far but

it is

it is it's gonna be ugly it's gonna be

ugly ugly ugly

i'm a nice guy i don't want that to

happen of course not

of course not but that is what's going

to happen

that is absolutely what's going to

happen

you know the thing is

we're not going to have a chinese style

internet because we don't have a real

state it's going to be a warlord era of

decentralized chaos

thank you true story appreciate you

we are living in the age of the chao

complete deception on all levels

censorship is yet another manifestation

of that tajal system absolutely thank

you so much true arab yeah we're heading

for a a chaotic warlord europe and it's

not that we like it it's not that we

want it it's that we're at peace with

that fact we're gonna adjust to that

warlord era that's coming for on the

internet and oh boy it's gonna be fun

oh boy

oh boy i mean you look at the lame

stream media's cope their fucking cope

their ratings are down the drain tucker

carlson joe rogan all those people

they're exploding in popularity that

side of the internet that you censored

and then you canceled and is gone

they're gonna come back they're gonna

come back and we're gonna be with them

we're gonna be with them

we're all coming back all of the scary

people are coming back

by the way i personally i'm a nice guy i

don't really want it to be that ugly i'm

just telling you it's going to be really

fucking ugly it's going to be really

ugly and i don't want it to be ugly i'm

a nice guy i'm a nice guy i'm a humane

person but

they ca like they came after us we're

not hateful people

they came after us for what

oh you got a little bit greedy just like

an obese person eats too much and they

they get a little greedy with how much

i'm a hamburger and fries and fried

chicken just you had the hamburger you

don't need anything more than that but

they got greedy they banned the gripers

they banned the conservatives they

banned

everything they banned um

fucking trump from twitter they they

started banning everybody and everybody

and they came across the infrared the

300 spartans

at the battle battle

that they s with stood right they came

across us and then you're like huh i

disagree with you about this niche

leftist subject matter we're gonna smear

you as an anti-semite we're gonna smear

you as a hateful person we're they do

this to caleb we're gonna smear you as

this and that and we're gonna platform

you

oh

it's gonna all explode in their face and

then all the ugly people that they the

platform are just gonna come charging

through the gates and we're like hey

guys you shouldn't have gotten so greedy

you shouldn't have gotten so fucking

greedy you got a little too comfortable

thinking that you're just gonna fucking

literally d the d platform everyone you

disagree with we are literally marxist

leninist we are marxist leninist

communists

we're not hateful people we're not

politically correct but we're not

hateful

i've never

um condoned hatred against lgbtq people

uh lgbtqi

plus right that's what it's called i've

never condoned i don't hate anybody and

then

by the way

when it comes to race

how could you say we're fucking racist

we're not fucking racist

we're we're um

very diverse as a community with our

racial backgrounds we're not we're not

white nationalists we're not

stupid to even address that

potential criticism it's stupid it's

just fucking dumb i'm literally known

for the guy who went on a rant about

fucking anglos

that's what i'm known for of how are we

fucking racist we're not racist

and then what else oh we were

misogynistic where my thoughts and

instinct i'm not massaging this thing

i'm just a man and you want the female

perspective

go listen to female creators i'm not

going to give you the female perspective

because i'm not a female so how you can

say i i hate women i'm just not a woman

i can only give you

personally a perspective coming from a

man i can't give you the woman's

perspective go listen to women if you

want their perspective i can't give you

that

so that's why they call us misogynistic

why do you call this misogynistic why

why because i'm just a man

i'm a man what do you want from me

what do you want from me it takes two to

tango to make a human being there's a

man and a woman that's what makes a

human being

i'm one half of the puzzle you don't

like the one half of the puzzle go to

the other half

or what you want me to be uh

you want me to be androgynous and just

be both at once that's not possible you

have to be one or the other i mean i'm

not saying that i'm not saying that of

course non-binary people are valid

youtube they're very valid

i'm just saying like

i can't be both personally i'm not both

personally okay personally speaking i'm

not both okay

um anyway yeah i'm pretty sure our last

video did not violate any of youtube's

tos

but i deleted it anyway because i'm not

taking any chances after what's going on

with the discord i'm just not going to

be taking any chances

um

but if you want to know the actual

reason why our discord was d-platformed

plain cut dry and simple

it was over the ukraine shit

we didn't receive any warnings

it was plainly over ukraine it was

ukraine related stuff holy fuck jackson

thank you so much for the raid thank you

so much for that raid

jesus

yeah it was over um

it was over the ukraine

russia stuff that's why we got

our discord got deleted and there was no

other reason they were saying that we

were glorifying violence against the

community which they meant ukrainians we

were glorifying russia's military

victories which means we're glorifying

violence meanwhile you have discord

servers dedicated to cheering on the

azov nazis

and the ukrainian nazis and their you

know butchering of russian soldiers and

stuff and they're not going to get the

platform for glorifying violence but

that's okay because we have a little

trick up our sleeve instead of just

complaining about it we just have a

trick up our sleeve that's going to

allow us to weather this and the truth

is you just need to be platform

independent in general

i mean look if we get that

self-hosted discord going

potentially speaking even if our youtube

gets the platform we'll still be fine we

will have always have the hq center of

operations

that will glue this community together

and it's going to be fucking fine it

will be fine okay

um

welcome all the jackson viewers we're

just talking about how the infrared

discord

which was a huge discord of 5 000

members

was built in a year that's where the

guerrilla army was born that was our

central headquarters in space of

operations they they de-platformed us

and they banned us over russia

so in the meantime i want to ask all the

new viewers as well if you like the

content

join our telegram we have a telegram you

can find it in our youtube channel

join our telegram we're trying to grow

our telegram because our discord got

severely wiped

and where all of our guerrilla soldiers

of our guerrilla army

are scattered they're all looking hey

guys i can't find you it's like our ship

got sunk and everybody's just on the

ocean drifting away and we're all

looking for each other we're all looking

to be able to find each other and stuff

so that's basically join our telegram

join our telegram

and um

yeah that'll be great

now um

i think those are the only announcements

i wanted to make yeah so sophia from

mars

has been trying to mass report our last

vod so we got rid of it and too bad

didn't work

they've also been talking a lot of shit

on twitter and i've i've been

restraining myself very much uh because

i am not uh you know i'm a well-behaved

person i'm restraining myself

it's interesting sophie responded to one

of my tweets posting like pornography

posting like a picture of um female

uh

private parts and

i was just um i'm not going to say it

actually i'm actually not going to say

it because i'm not allowed to say it

right but i just there's a lot of things

i could say that you know

and specifically in regards to the irony

of posting that

um

from that person

right but anyway um

oh yeah yeah we

yeah go ahead guys like the stream

please like the stream if you can i had

to get rid of that poll

that dupes people into liking the stream

because

um

it

interfa it interferes with the uh

the chat the stream chat

but yeah

we live in a country of free speech

yeah it's like

yeah we it's totally a freeze but we're

going to be able to get around this and

i'm super excited about this new

development if elon musk is serious

about making adjusting twitter to web

three

you know more decentralized i mean i'm

so excited for that that is super that's

the that's the american way as a matter

of fact the american way is

wild west and that's what we're gonna be

dealing with right

the wild west the wonderful wild west

uh and if the internet in america

becomes the dream of those silicon

valley guys that they used to have of

making it the wild west i mean that'll

be a beautiful thing that'll be a

beautiful thing indeed you know

that'll be a wonderful thing

um

but anyway

let me um

give me a moment

yeah let me go ahead and say we also

have other content lined up for today

which is specifically going to be about

a debate

so i'm going to be a i'm going to have a

debate where

um

let me go ahead and set this for uh

what is today the 10th

and

do it just

all right

um anyway yeah we're gonna have a debate

about the whole land back issue and that

was the one last thing we're gonna

have before we do this discord um

[Music]

uh

let me see this is okay this is the one

um

all right

all right

um

okay this is good

all right

so we're gonna have this guy join our vc

uh let me just make sure this is all

good okay

just have to add this browser source

and we're going to have this debate

about the land back issue

and because this guy wants to debate

so let's just get this here

that

all right

all right so i'm going to go ahead and

get in this

right

and then

tell him to join

we message him on

my cellular device

all right they're in the lobby

and

all right so we're going to bring them

over in here

hello

do you hear me and

do you want to uh cam up

over in here yeah let me put on my

camera hello

can you hear me and get rid of that

feedback delay do you want to uh my bad

my bad

all right

so

all right so i'm gonna just add this pop

this out

source

window capture

alright perfect

and dispense

okay

so you wanted to debate

yeah

specifically

specifically just land back and

the entire problem that i believe

patriotic socialists have on land back

there's a severe misunderstanding about

what it is what type of politics it has

and also

the obvious oh this is just an ethno

state ethno state project which is

completely ludicrous

um if you want me to give an intro to

myself before we start just so people

know who i am

i could go for it

go ahead

yeah so

my name is neil malta

uh i do indigenous politics history and

philosophy across

across the americas so from everywhere

from canada all the way to

um

at argentina i don't divide between the

anglo and latino

cultural borders

the whole point of my uh my projects

basically on twitter and on ig

instagram

is to educate people's indigenous and

not about indigenous politics of

decolonization from the initial point of

colonization in 1492 all the way to the

present so i've gone into topics like

flurry nationalism um like land reform

during the

from everywhere from the 40s to the

70s across latin america i've also dealt

with um indigenous politics in the

united states

so i've done the whole cavalcade and

if i'm going to be honest i i saw a lot

of problems with patriotic socialists

but i also saw some problems with the

people defending land back as well so i

want to correct the record i think it'd

be disingenuous to believe that though

that the folks who are well-meaning but

not very well read on the issue are the

ones who should represent

what land back is

and also

let's be real

land back is not just um it's not just

the ndn collective

okay so what is land back

basically land back is the politics of

returning land back to indigenous

peoples um there are two sets of land

back you could say the first one would

be the um

the one that's more commonly known as

like oh this is the ngo like indian

collective land back

essentially

um the effort of trying to use uh

non-profits again

um to gain lands back to

to either into the hands of the ngos or

back to native tribes and then you have

the activist ones that are separate um

these would these would be everything

from lawyers who are working on behalf

of the tribes these would be um

indigenous activists like uh marxist

anarchists um

people outside of the european um in the

uh european political binary or

structure

who are all fighting for

essentially people who like would resist

pipelines or would

um would occupy space so what what is so

you said the goal of land back is to

return indigenous land

yeah but according to the land back

advocates all

the territory of the united states is

stolen indigenous land so what does it

mean to advocate for land back when all

lands supposedly

there's no legitimacy of the united

states owning any land

essentially that's not even that's not

all of the land backers by the way yes

the united states is all based on stolen

land but there are many land backers who

also have a very pragmatic view of the

situation where

we're not gonna we're not gonna throw

out like non-native peoples the whole

point uh the whole goal is to have the

united states recognize its treaty

obligations

the united states wrote treaties

before um from the inception of in 1776

all the way to 1871 when it finally

revoked that

revoked the treaty writing system

no longer recognizing indigenous nations

as separate internationally recognized

nations

these treaty rights protected everything

from hunting

fishing

mineral rights rights to sovereignty as

well as the lands accorded to indigenous

peoples indigenous peoples would uh

were defeated in wars however these wars

were in essence invasions

and those types of settler colonial

invasions are extremely or

were the foundation for the inherent

violence that you would have now in the

united states we don't accept cellular

colonialism as a legitimate structure

okay

so i'm a little too american i have too

much settler ways in me so i'm pragmatic

i'm an american pragmatist

so for me i have to ask the question

that's all well and fine but

with the way i look at a people's

rightful claim to land today is not

going to be from

you know injustices from you know three

two one three two hundred years ago i'm

looking at things like

okay what amount of land would

adequately satisfy a given people's

um developmental cultural

um

and

[Music]

economic needs what do they need to

preserve

and also reasonably expand their way of

life okay

and then

so when i see the the the question of

so all of so to the extent of my

knowledge

some of the treaties that were violated

encompass huge swaths of territory that

encompass millions and millions of

people so millions and millions of

people are us citizens that now live on

this territory

for generations right

i don't see how it's reasonable that all

of that should be returned to indigenous

people

or that should be a position that people

should act because i don't think it's

possible in the first place

um you know if if if indigenous people

were going to make it possible somehow i

wouldn't stand in their way i'm a guy

who's working with how to

build a movement so this is not

something i find it reasonable to

advocate for

now

what we have consistently said

is that

if

we don't disagree that indigenous people

if they demand it should have more

autonomy

and have more land right

but

when you can't define that in clear ways

and when you have this maximalist

position of just

you know entire swaths of territory that

encompass millions of

non-indigenous people

um i just find that unreasonable

well here's the thing on your first

point

we uh we shouldn't just view native land

back as just what's effective for

indigenous peoples no these are legit

treaty arrangements and

uh treaty rights are themselves

international law

you wouldn't violate a treaty with

france or you wouldn't violate a treaty

with um

let's say it was like mexico and expect

the consequences to not be severe or

expect the trust between the two

different nations to not be um broken

this is why this is one of the issues at

hand this is not just it is not an issue

of oh this isn't just merely economic

development or national development

these are

these are fundamental treaties

that undergird what um

what the arrangement of the united

states two indigenous peoples are

supposed to be for a harmonious

structure on your so i think that takes

precedent um if we're if we're to live

up to our legal rights plus it's in it's

constitutional these are constitutional

rights that you can find i believe in um

in section five

these are on the level of the federal

government these aren't like state these

aren't state rights these aren't on the

level of the legislature or in some

levels they are

but these are all federal level

treaty rights so the only relationship

that indigenous peoples have are to the

federal government and in a one-to-one

relation the same the same way mexico

and canada or bolivia

and venezuela have to other countries

like russia the us france the uk etc

now onto your second point

indigenous

when we consider

how like indigenous peoples would have

land we're not saying throughout

throughout the white folks throughout

the settlers what we want is a

recognition of indigenous sovereignty

over

those territories and there are

legitimate there are examples of that

happening now

um i'm not sure if you're familiar with

this but the mcgert v oklahoma case in

2020 um this was a supreme court case um

in instituted um

or that had the uh that had the opinion

that

indigenous the

indigenous nations or the quote unquote

five civilized nations the um in

oklahoma

have a right to maintain their own

judicial and um

criminal criminal justice system yeah

well that's because that's the place

that they're living

yes but those those places that they're

living in are not their original

homelands they were thrown out they were

originally from the americans uh from

what is now the american south in

ireland right but that was too

see you're talking about all the broken

treaties let's just be frank

that's a lot of broken treaties

yes and that's a lot of that's a lot of

things that have happened after where

people live there now generations of

and this is also a question i want to

ask you is

go for it this is a more philosophical

issue so i want to resolve the pragmatic

stuff first but

no worries you have people who have

settled in these areas and have become

accustomed to these areas for

generations and generations

and

while in general it's important to honor

treaties and it's important to obey laws

you know when you have these outdated by

hundreds of years

i don't think it takes precedent anymore

i think you prioritize living human

beings instead of dead

texts in the dead letter of of old laws

and i think most i mean

most people agree that

you know people things change the

demands of living human society should

not have to be constrained

by injustices and and violated treaties

of the past so if we were to try and

rectify those injustices in the past

it would produce a result that doesn't

actually go back to the

um prior state but which actually leads

to a scenario a chaotic scenario in

which a few indigenous people become the

landlords of tens of millions of people

um i don't just i just don't see how

that that's reasonable whatsoever now

the question i want to ask you though is

because i'll answer that a bit but go

for it yeah the question i want to ask

you from a philosophical perspective is

how do a people become

indigenous how is that possible for

people to become

indigenous

so what does it what does indigenous

mean and how do people become indigenous

well let me answer that question because

i think it'll be very interesting use

claim to be an expert on heidegger and i

think i and i take a lot of inspiration

from him because it's very easy to

then insert a lot of the indigenous

tradition through him to make it

illegible essentially i would define

indigeneity as basically the first

people on the land who then revealed the

essence of that land through its

sacredness

through its sacredness

so

and this is the thing

with indigenous with indigenous peoples

they're not just people who just settled

on the land and thought

these lands are now

to be made into structured to be made

into structures that we just exploit

there's a sacred relationship that

indigenous people have that undergird

how the communal

communal economic systems develop

mother earth uh the land itself is

is the uh is

the outgrowth of mother earth the two

are the the two are essentially the same

when one interacts with the land with

agriculture with hunting with fishing

you're interacting with mother earth and

it's not just woo woo let's uh let's

just go back to d growth and let me

avoid that first there are ways to

develop industrially

that

are approaching how to be harmonious

with

nature but the problem i find with this

is that

the people the settlers from europe who

came to this country

it's a myth that they simply came here

from a perspective of

a pure modernistic kind of outpost in

which nature is to be treated only as a

resource for

exploitation for the use and the

fulfillments of higher ends that follows

the british utilitarian tradition which

is actually alien to this country this

country has the pragmatic tradition

and you can clearly see the um

more sentimental implications of this

pragmatism

in the works of people like um

thoreau and people the

transcendentalists like hen emerson and

thoreau who clearly did have a a a great

appreciation for nature now

i think the difference with indigenous

people is that that appreciation did not

lead to the development of a determinant

specifically determinate relationship to

the land

defined by specific ways of interacting

with it and specific ways of defining

yourself in relation to it however the

american um

way so to speak

precisely

is defined by being open to the um

uh

to the possibilities of how people can

interact with land without preemptively

um making assumptions about how that has

to be and with the rise of technological

modernity i don't believe it's possible

for a people to define themselves

by one um a one-sided relationship to

nature in which they confine the extent

of their activities to hunting in a

certain way and

scouting the land in a certain way or

even farming in a certain way

technological modernity which entails

constant revolutions and the forces of

production which redefine man's

relationship to nature

um i i think are irreversible we cannot

go back to the period in which

um we bounded up our communal identity

with specific

uh methods of production the methods of

production

china for example

you can say is an indigenous

civilization

but

it's still able to maintain the constant

of what the chinese identity is while

continually revolutionizing the methods

of production

so china doesn't just they don't just

hunt in a certain way so to me

i'm confused about how americans have

not become indigenized in their own way

because for me indigeneity

is when your relationship to land is

dictated

by morse by unwritten customs

and mores that don't have to be um

artificially reproduced from the top so

for example israel

israelis are not indigenous to israel

and the reason for that is because they

have no relationship to the land

dictated authentically by cultural moors

it's just one artificial project from

the top down

and they basically cope that they're

indigenous to it but they're not it's

clearly their foreigners to that land

americans however specifically

understood through the lens of the

pragmatic tradition do have some

indigeneity

in relation to the land

so i don't think it's possible to begin

a conversation of how we can have a just

relationship

with

rectifying the

crimes of the past and doing right by

indigenous people

if we are simply committed to this view

that

americans are all settlers who have an

illegitimate

presence in in this

land mass

yeah well let's go with let's keep going

with heidegger because

as you um because of your affinity to

dugan i think it'd be a great way to

undergird how even with your own idea of

civilization

that

um that heavily relies through duke and

on heidegger and it's actually more

accurate to use um that it's actually

more apt for indigenous peoples to be

the quote civilizing force on the united

states

across the americas in general and it's

not to say

like i like i read dugan or i like dugan

i think he is completely illegitimate

his types of his type of philosophy that

uh has pop apologia for fascism

is unacceptable

we don't need but then again

how does dugan apologize for fascism

his acceptance that there needs to be a

fusion between the uh a type of

nationalism which doesn't actually

excuse that doesn't separate itself from

fascism no

he does dugan rejects nationalism if you

didn't know this if you follow his

telegram he makes it very clear

that the nation is a european construct

that dugan is not a nationalist and he

considers nationalism a symptom of

modernity and liberalism so he rejects

nationalism

but if you see his model of

multi-polarity it's that nation-states

themselves uh are themselves working in

tandem or as satellites to the larger

civilization civilizational nation or

civilizational like it's not a nation

it's a it's a not old yeah it's it's a

civilization or it's like a pet is like

a a pan cultural um it's a narrative he

calls it

another

but if we look at it in terms of that

even within your own framework you can't

actually accept indigenous uh you can't

accept that settlers or non-uh you

wanted to know why you're saying he's

has an affinity to fascism because i

hear that spread around a lot then i

don't see why i think that's a unfair

kind of slander

because dugan every time he's written

about fascism he's rejected fascism

because he tries to sublate it within a

fusion between uh within a fusion

between communism and marxism and um

nationalism that it somehow must fuse

with marxism to become its own fourth

political theory

so even when are you getting this

because

doesn't talk about nationalism at all

that's his whole fourth that's all part

of his fourth political theory that

there needs to be a fusion between the

nationalists and communist forces

against liberalism

the existing um national as they were

called in russia nationally that that

was his um popular front ideas but as

far as his own ideas he doesn't believe

in nationalism

i'm not saying he does he believes in

nationalism but he tries to push it

through as well as his acceptance of the

new right that exists within europe um

theorists like alain de von uh

in the east what what else what

alternative was there in europe as far

as anti-nato and anti-establishment

forces dugan was capable of working with

because all of these so-called

communists are completely dogmatic and

um

are not open to new ideas at all so who

is what what was left on the table for

him to reach out to and work with but

things like uh the new rights he can

have he has dialogue with anyone

but that already assumes that marxism

itself is played out

you can in practical terms if we take

that if we judge that by the criterion

of the self-proclaimed marxists

that dominate in europe of course it's

played out it's completely bankrupt the

communist parties in europe with the

exception maybe of greece are completely

yes completely played out uh you had

syriza in greece as well you have all

these kind of you had jeremy corbyn and

ian mel and sean and his kind of

shit-lib version of of communist it's

come it's totally bankrupt and totally

played i don't think i don't see how

anyone can

say anything otherwise they have not

proven their worthiness or capability of

adjusting

to i that's my goal is to be able to do

that but

how can you blame dugan for the failures

of so-called communists

in essence because you uh if you look at

the how the soviet union felt there was

a lot of intervention coming in from the

west to essentially ins uh insert a coup

which is what happened with uh which is

how boris young they do that to any

communist state they can get their hands

on china can't exist that excuse because

china despite that fact still exists

exactly no one would say that china is

not a is not a viable model of marxism

or there are some but yeah but that

china is not europe none of the european

parties

uh have anything to do with china

ah so we can go back to the americas if

we see each each multipolar space as

having constituting a different type of

ontology or historical model we can see

how

the americas is not europe

so if you go back it's not terrible i

agree that's not true go back to the

americas we have to see how what the

quote civilizational force is

indigenous peoples are not liberal

they're not marxists they're not

nationalists

here's the problem civilization

is a specific interface

between

the so-called universal state

and the so-called civil society and

civil society basically refers to

the authentic existence of human beings

uh beyond the way they're deaf defined

formally by the state so in that

interaction that's there you have

civilization

the problem with saying only indigenous

people represent civilization in america

is that it's very clear

there is some kind of uh

it's not taken form yet and i agree with

that but there is the roots of a

civilization

uh of the united states it does have the

roots

it has the embryo the it has the uh

seeds of a civilization and the reason

for that is because on the one hand you

have the universal american state

and on the other hand you have the

morse of the american culture

principally defined by having no

determinant culture but that in itself

is some kind of culture and it's called

pragmatism everywhere else in the world

so there is some real

openness to a real american civilization

now

since indigenous people have been living

here

even if they have a culture they're not

indigenous

because if you actually looked at how

indigenous why not

under like let's look at it through a

heideggerian perspective in his um in

his essay building dwelling thinking he

argues that

building is really dwelling and the

dwelling is a manner in which mortals

are on the earth

and that the way mortals are on the

earth is that the human being quote

consists in dwelling and indeed dealing

in the sense of the sky

in the stay of the mortals on the earth

but the earth already means under the

sky both of these

uh

both of these also mean remaining before

the divinities including a belonging to

men's being with one

with ones one another by a primal

oneness the four earth and sky

divinities and mortals belong to a

higher one

this is not a this is not a form of

indigeneity that is accessed by white

settlers there's always a view that the

land itself is somehow separate and if

you look at the early writings of

missionaries they viewed the land as

somehow dangerous and

um filled with the devil that's why

there's such a spiritualist view of

heaven and of transcending the body that

was across the entire spectrum of

christianity throughout the 16th 17th

and 18th centuries whereas for

indigenous peoples there was an honoring

and a relationality that concept all our

relations in which indigenous peoples

connected with earth and sky with

themselves and the divine beings

under a high targaryen lens so even

within a

a like a

civilizational and multi-polar um within

any more let's say obscured and

um distorted view of multi-polarity

indigenous peoples are the ones who gain

indigeneity settlers do not

there is always uh because even within a

christian lens

there's a separation between finding

divinity in the land

the divinity can be found in jerusalem

but not in the americas

as well as a worship of the earth and a

worship of the sky

you're taking what heidegger said to too

literally

you're taking you you're making it as

though he literally means the earth

literally means

the sky or literally means divinities he

doesn't mean that oh my god you haven't

read heidegger all right let me bring it

let me bring it up if you want to say

something else i'll bring up the quote

but he literally says earth is the

server bearer page 351 of basic writings

of heidegger earth is the server bearer

blossoming and fruiting spreading out in

rock and water rising up into plant and

animal when we say earth we are already

think of the other three along with it

but we give no thought to the simple

oneness of the four when you think of

relation again he is not talking about

like everything from the earth beast uh

grass and trees

yeah but again you don't know how to

read heidegger for heidegger he's

specifically talking about the way in

which the da sign is grounded

yes all right before it can um

decide to artificially ground itself in

some kind of way as in the case of

modernity it is always already somehow

grounded in and um

distorted in a determinate way so that's

the essential point

that does not and i don't agree with

that

but that does not necessarily have to

take the form only

i'll concede to you that most

of the contemporary readings of

heidegger are from ecologists type of

perspectives where it's literally nature

and heidegger himself was completely

skeptical of modern technology in

general but as a marxist this is not my

hydrogen this is not how i have uh

interpreted the truth

this is however in his limitation

and i don't and i agree

but this was not the main emphasis this

is the conclusions after people

afterwards draw but the main emphasis

for heidegger is not

indigeneity as defined by being one with

nature which is basically what we're

talking about here it is through

dwelling which requires as prerequisites

a relationship a relationality to nature

no and

does not define violence

use this to define indigenous people

he uses it to define human beings in

general

so

critique of modernity is not that we

lost our indigenous roots

it's that we are becoming post-human

we're losing our humanity basically

so that's a

he's not talking about indigenous people

he's talking about the prerequisites to

the possibility of uh dasa

no he's talking about dwelling which

means having yeah that's the same

in a place which settlers don't even

have dwellings the ground

and it

grounds the disclosure

of uh

of being itself that is what dwelling is

dwelling is the way in which docine

uh possesses a specific relationship

with being

so if you actually look okay go for it

no go ahead and say what you wanted to

say oh okay yeah so uh did you like

indigenous peoples have a much more

accurate way of grounding cell and

grounding themselves within

the for the four-part system of

relationality that the four becoming one

which should be familiar to familiar to

a lot of folks there having a

relationship to the three that is one i

um father son holy spirit

but with the land but this is

specifically towards the land and if you

were to hide

how it is um

a collection of her essays she's a

hickorilla hickorilla

she argues that the concept of using use

by the hecarilla apache is a

relationship to that to that which is

prior substantial

and mysterious within all of existence i

this is the this is the hecaril apache

version of being that which proceeds and

grounds all things within uh within not

existence but within being

and

she uh she quotes joseph campbell which

uh who is one of the famous um religious

scholars

in the 20th century

and campbell says

that out of the vastness of the mystery

of space the experience frightens us and

awes us at the same time but out of that

terror we make a metaphor the metaphor

is the term god we call it him give it

desires needs and purposes and even

claim to talk to him

okay we're we're kind of getting off

this is a form of instrumentalizing

the concept of the sacred so that it

becomes so that it's really terrain so

that we reify it and separate ourselves

from the power that the uh from the

power

um of quote god's creation which

indigenous peoples don't lose so if you

have one here

marxism

here's the problem

a settler ontology will never work

um

do you not hear me right now

the native's response to the terran aw

universe is to call it sacred its

mysterious qualities are maintained it

is sacred precisely because it's beyond

reification

so you're missing even so indigenous

peoples

are the only ones who can access land on

an ontological level and as we see wait

are you talking to yourself what are you

talking about

um are you just giving a lecture now

vancouver around that area

um they're trying to build what is going

on dude it's a debate you're not you

don't just talk you don't just give a

lecture it's a debate energy but also um

use many of the native plants what is

this what is going on i don't have to be

so within

you don't have to reject industrialism

you just have to do it in a way that

relates to the four-part um ontological

structure of of being in relation to the

earth the sky your um the divinities and

all the mortals which includes animals

and plants

and this is like already land back

atlantis it's like a video he

pre-recorded ontologically viable if

you're trying to create a civilization

yeah

can you hear

what the fuck is this

can you hear me

did you run did you run off

can you hear me

what

oh he couldn't hear me that's why

all right hold on

hello

hello could you could you not hear me

the whole time

hello

what the fuck is going on

yo i can't hear you can you hear me now

can you hear me

yo i can't hear you can you hear me now

can you hear me

can you hear me

are you there

can you hear me

can you hear me dude fix your fucking

settings fix your settings

hello can you hear me

can you hear me

just go to your set

go to your settings

go to your settings

go to voice and video

and put your um

out just get the right output something

happened to your output

the fuck man hello

hello

god damn it hello

hello

why do you keep leaving

yeah i don't know what's happening with

my internet can you hear me now can you

hear me

i can hear you you can hear me right now

yeah can we go to the other one

uh which one showdown

showdown uh

okay can you hear me

hello

yeah can you hear me yeah can you hear

me

yeah i can hear you okay

all right i'm not sure what that was all

about okay yeah am i bad if that was on

my part the pro okay the problem is that

i don't see why this is a privileged way

of defining indigeneity

because then it because then it creates

the ontological foundation for all of

the other legal stuff and for all of the

other

um

material relations that are material

reconciliation that indigenous peoples

are um

uh deserve as a form

but you seem to be misunderstood you

still have the presumption and this is

what i'm trying to address you still

have the presumption that american uh

americans are just european settlers who

have adopted the fully modern

british utilitarian view of the

relationship between human beings and

nature which the enigmatic one hasn't

accessed it but pragmatism is not

utilitarianism pragmatism is a merely an

openness to possibilities and outcomes

by way of work right pragmatism that's

why it at the same time that it

corresponds to this ruthless form of

uniform standardization and

industrialism also corresponds to

emerson and thoreau's kind of

elevation of nature to the status of the

sublime of infinite mystery and infinite

possibility and as a matter of fact

indigenous theory and this is the

provocation i want to bring up

indigenous uh romanticism is itself a

unique american creation

my critique of your position is that in

order for you to reference true

indigenous authenticity you have to take

as your starting point and your

reference point

uh

it's loss

and

i reject the view that its loss can

simply be something that uh okay we lost

it now we can just return to the past no

this way of grounding ourselves first as

some kind of modern subject

uh who has lost all of our roots and so

on and so on is itself a crucial way a

crucial part of

god's sign that's my

provocation

well that actually doesn't make much

sense because

indigenous peoples haven't just uh

aren't just lost or like white people

haven't lost something they just never

um settlers never had it the ontology

that settlers brought was that of

conquest was that of always fearing that

the indigenous peoples will take back

the land it's a one-sided view that's a

completely one-sided view that is part

of it sure but then there's also the

other side of people genuinely settling

on the land and establishing some kind

of authentic

relationship to it

already you already you've just like

forgotten everything i said about what

it means to authentically dwell within

the daw sign that expresses itself

through land if you actually

european traditions have failed to

access

the quote uh

no you're you're mistaken what i'm

saying now indigenous people have i

would say develop the science of the da

sign

they have the the poetry and the mythos

of sky earth

uh etc etc

water et cetera et cetera they're like

we have science we have the science of

constructing too

you

misunderstood what i just said i said

indigenous people have the science of

the da sign

they have the knowledge of the da sign

americans have the doll sign but they

don't have the knowledge of it

from that perspective they are

completely unawakened

my what i'm trying to say is that

america has not yes it has not awakened

to its determinate civilization but it

is still some kind of determinate

civilization how we live on this land

how we interact with it does obey some

kind of

um

law

now this law does not just amount to an

arbitrary way of um completely treating

the land as an expendable resource no

there is a specific way in which

americans dwell

they just don't know they don't have the

language they don't have the mythos they

don't have the

science with which to describe this

and you know what the solution for that

would be

land back just give back don't agree i

think indigenous people

i have always held the view that

indigenous people have a unique role in

the development of the american

civilization

and a privileged role i should say in

defining its mythos and they always have

by the way

in the history of this country

it's not a one-sided history of just

settlers

having complete

genocidal views toward indigenous

there's also the role of indigenous

people as

the um source of folklore about the land

which is not just by the way in the form

of horror stories

scary stories spooky stories so there's

a specific folkloric significance of

indigenous people within

american culture i am simply trying to

say i reject the paradigm that everyone

the people here are just illegitimate

settlers and then you have the

indigenous people i think that is not a

starting point

for which um

the settlers as you call them

should meaningfully uh

justly engage with indigenous people

it's not possible

i mean my if i if i believed what you

were saying

i would sincerely advocate for all

europeans to go to europe in amer all

people of european descent just go to

europe don't even live here

i would sincerely advocate for that if

that's what you're saying because

they have no legitimate basis here

there's nothing about this land that i

mean it's just it's like israel it's

just a complete project and it's a

failed project so go back to europe i

don't believe that

it's not about like

it's not about throwing back the white

folks on like a boat i think that's

absurd the politics is indigenous people

should have the sovereignty and the land

and be able to do so with uh within our

own legal structures within our own

forms of like autonomy if you actually

look at the like the pragmatics no one's

against that we're just against the

unreasonable

yeah in which that's being

stretched to encompass tens of millions

of non-indigenous people why should a

few why should a minority of of people

based on their dissent

have sovereignty over tens of millions

of people that's just

that's like a reps it's like that's like

the fantasy of a

ridiculous form of feudalism it's

maybe it would be interesting if it was

possible but why should anyone spend

their time fighting for that

why should we spend our time fighting

for it the union was able to do that

like if you actually look at the

pragmatic reunion they were able to

divvy up the autonomous regions across

different socialist um

they gave

no i can hear you okay the soviets gave

ethnic groups

uh autonomy yes they gave them autonomy

according to the standard of their

cultural economic spiritual and

developmental needs

they didn't give

they didn't give for example tatars

jurisdiction over all the russians and

ukrainians they didn't give

they didn't give people they didn't give

the settlers in

[Music]

uh vladivostok and the russian far east

they didn't give those indigenous people

jurisdiction over all the russian

settlers in those areas

because the russian settlers were the

majority so it's unreasonable to have

them be governed by

people

with them having no sovereignty or

saying it at all

well let's look at this on one let's

look on this one level

like if you're worried for people who

are worried about land right now and i

know that a lot of y'all are worried

like oh but we're not worried

not going to happen then what's the

point of the national question

under marxism leninism even lenin and

stalin both

because the national question also has

to take into account the realities of

the people it's not drawn up based on

what we consider to be the injustices

200 years ago it's based on the people

living now

so yeah the people living now are facing

injustices

agree

let me ask you one question did settler

colonialism end

in america

yes in the united states specifically

some i mean people try to make the

argument for puerto rico and hawaii

which

i'm not sure if that's the same thing

but for indigenous peoples did settler

colonials amend

uh

i i'm not familiar with contemporary

forms of settler colonialism so explain

like

displacement of indigenous peoples the

exclu the exclusion and the um pure

economic downtrodden is that leads to

what are the examples of like the

settling are you talking about like

gentrification or whatever

no

oh this is this is going to be fun

actually

settler colonialism is a marxist

leninist theory

and if that's from where

well this is actually coming from the

from the people's republic of china

um

the chinese embassy in the united states

uh wrote the article the american

genocide of the indians historical facts

and real evidence in which the in this

was published march 2nd 2022 and this

was in response to the united states uh

united states arguing that russia is

invading ukraine

saying oh you're violating human rights

you're you're engaging in imperialism

and china responded back to the us

saying

well a genocide happening now there's a

genocide happening now against

indigenous peoples and that genocide

means you shouldn't actually engage

within this hippocratic hypocritical

human rights discourse now united states

if you want and they literally say

why are you saying settler colonialism

as a concept that comes from philosophy

and double standards on human rights

issues and take seriously decisions okay

why are you saying settler colonialism

comes from marxism no i'm not saying

marxism engages in it i'm saying settler

colonism as settler colonial theory and

marxism work hand in hand because the

specific conditions within the united

states and across the americas

is is not just of capitalism

the chinese embassy

calling out u.s hypocrisy is not

it's not a specific example of marxist

theory

really so the chinese so the chinese

official statements on u.s policy are

not actually marxist

is that which i didn't i didn't say that

it's uh they're engaging in an

end time it's not the place of marxism

to dictate how embassies are going to

interact wait so that state policy in

the in china is not marxist leninist and

maoist or marxist marxist at all how is

that

how is the critique of u.s hypocrisy

state policy

well this is how does that translate to

a meaningful state policy for example

for that to translate into a meaningful

state policy that means like china's

applying the ideas of settler

colonialism uh in the way and it's

intervening in economies and land and

all that kind of stuff so just an

embassy making comments about u.s

hypocrisy which are entirely correct is

not a specific it doesn't have to

specifically i mean why is that

specifically an example of marx's theory

iran can make that same comment and it

would be just as true and iranians are

not marxist so why specifically is this

marxist theory

because if this wasn't a problem they

wouldn't ha they wouldn't make this an

issue in the first place if this was

china doesn't make issues based on

ideologies or theories of marxism it

makes issues based on the needs and

interests of the people's republic of

china so china is not out here

china's not out here premising all of

its activities based on theory or

ideology it's doing so based on the

interests

of their state

why would the chinese go make a

statement that goes directly in the face

of its own marxist policies and its own

marxist view of the world no one's

saying no one is saying hold on no one

is saying its statement is in

contradiction to chinese marxism but

that's different from saying that it is

a specific manifestation of marxist

theory when it's not

well it can explain the entire material

conditions of the united states and they

actually

literally cannot

it does so okay how how does it explain

the material conditions of the united

states

well in terms of how national

development happened in amongst

indigenous peoples it cites in 1925

indians were were

only conditional there you go you said

1925 so the way in which you're

supposedly trying to explain material

conditions can applies to any given

moment of us history indiscriminately

doesn't make any determinant analysis of

what's actually happening in terms of

what's causing the situation

as far as the political and social

cultural situation in the united states

doesn't actually explain anything

specifically it's just this broad

statement and very vague statement about

the injustice of the way in which u.s

treats indigenous people i agree it's

unjust i agree it's criminal what i

don't agree is that it's materially the

cause of everything that happens in the

united states it's just not true it's

not purely the cos well it is materially

the foundation for how the united states

can function as a nation i don't agree

with that

i fundamentally just really like that

the national question itself is central

to any marxist leninist policy literally

like china the national question

for the folks don't believe that settler

colonialism and that believes settler

colonialism ended and i've seen some

absurd stuff i mean what does your chat

say when does settler colonials demand

don't worry about the chat okay oh

really because the chat's not debating

right now

that's some wild answers yeah so it's

some real revision it doesn't it doesn't

matter it doesn't matter the chat's not

debating right now you're debating me

okay

i'll let you slide on this one but

everyone else who is watching this i

want you to ask this question because

patriotic socialists fail to answer this

question why don't you just focus on the

debate and

when did settler colon because according

to the chinese uh the people's republic

of china it never ended in the united

states in 1925 what did settler

colonials mean what does settler

colonialism mean

okay settler colonialism and this is

something else we don't need to use um

sakai for this

yeah i know but i want i want people to

know this comes from the theorist

patrick wolf who wrote um the making

is he is he indigenous patrick wolf he's

not indigenous he doesn't have to be

indigenous to write settler colonial

theory and i think that's something that

other indigenous activists should

recognize it's interesting that the

theory you're getting from is from a

settler

not an indigenous person but go ahead i

never said it is settlers have to leave

i said they have to actually be working

in tandem with indigenous peoples under

our society okay just tell us what

settler colonialism is okay according to

differentiates itself from colonialism

regular classic colonialism

is the uh super exploitation of the

native of a native worker class by a

colonizer class

settler colonialism doesn't want a

native worker clause it wants to remove

the native worker class so as to gain

its so as to gain power over the land to

create a new nation state and thus the

goal isn't to explode that's the most

vague that's the most vague pointless

definition i've ever heard you're saying

okay you're just saying it's genocide

is

all you have to say is genocide

capturing of the land by erasing the

native people okay

that's all you have to say is genocide

that's all you have to say is genocide

that's all you have is genocide yeah so

don't say subtle or colonialism just say

genocide

no because there's a specific

relationship to material conditions that

is instead of exploiting the resources

through the native labor class which is

classic colonism settler colonialism

doesn't give a fuck about the native

folks it wants to erase them to gain

access to the land that's why it's a

materialist philosophy

because it gains

and replacing them that's what listen

you are just describing genocide that's

it

genocide is that yes because genocide is

the function is the result of so what's

the difference between genocide and

settler colonialism

well genocide can be a function it can

be

just the erasure of a people yeah

settler colonial zone specifically wants

it or specifically wants the land

as its own

this is why this is why hitler was so uh

was so adamant about erasing the slavs

and laban then almost every genocide was

almost every genocide was a subtle

colonial genocide

and does that make it does that excuse

it no and even the chinese are saying

why do you use this make it seem like

this is like some complicated niche word

we have to use when you're just talking

about genocide

because it relates to the material

conditions of the united states

specifically unlike no because the

implication from what you're trying to

say

no the implication from what you're

trying to say is that the people living

in this country are living as settlers

that's the implication

you're not just saying that the us

government

you're not just trying to say that the

u.s government which is what the chinese

embassy said is committing injustices

against indigenous people and committing

actions against them which may or may

not be defined as genocidal sure we can

get into that you are trying to apply

you are trying to imply

that the people living in this country

are doing so as settlers which i reject

as false

the indigenous culture according to the

chinese the indigenous culture was

fundamentally crushed and the

intergenerational inheritance of the

indigenous lives and spirits were under

severe threats the slaughter forced

relocation cultural assimilation and

unjust treatment the united states

committed against american indians have

constituted de facto genocides

what does that have to do with anything

i just said

because if you're saying settler

colonialism is genocide then then within

the church i'm rejecting your

insinuation which i'm not getting from

the chinese

i am rejecting your insinuation which i

am not getting from the chinese embassy

or the thing you just read

that the people living in this country

are illegitimate settlers who have no

stake or claim to the land at all

well i would say this they have stake

under an indigenous sovereign government

which one

this ridiculous scenario you're

imagining

is a handful of indigenous landlords

ruling over the american people and let

me tell you why i'm skeptical of your

phrase land back because i don't

actually believe we're gonna have

indigenous landlords i think at best

this is going to be used as an excuse to

privatize public land and privatize land

that is somehow owned by americans

living on it which is already kind of

happening with blackrock and the rest

and maybe they'll transfer some public

lands to indigenous people and then

they'll sell it to private investors

and to capitalists and financial

capitalists

to accelerate the process of um the the

rise of this new serfdom that american

not just american but the peoples of the

world are being subjected to so

i mean you're you're describing the

fantasy of like a form of landlordism

and certain and some kind of serfdom or

something

i'm translating that into reality it's

not even going to be led by indigenous

people that that thing you're describing

is already happening

and that's the perfect excuse

no getting people to if you

ideologically get people to be okay with

the idea of being ruled by like lords

feudal lords where we're guests

they're literally tribal governments

which are state institutions which you

can make socialists they already have

socialized how would that import okay so

let me get this straight you're saying

tens of millions of people should be

under the sovereignty of tribal

sovereignty they will have no state say

in the government they will have no

stake in the government they will have

no voice in the government you think

it's an ethno state no it doesn't have

to be i'm not saying it's going to be an

ethnocent i'm just saying they're not

going to have a say they're not going to

have any sovereignty themselves it's

only going to be indigenous sovereignty

benevolently ruling over tens of

millions of the settlers right that is

just

what's wrong with the benevolence that's

literally what the united states is that

because

because that's an idea

no one is going to buy this idea that a

minority can just benevolently

rule over a majority

and and it's there's just going to be

it's just going to be like entertaining

this is ridiculous because it's not

going to happen what we're talking about

now is not already happening we're not

no we're not talking about whether

nobody doesn't happen in oklahoma

because the indigenous people are not

ruling over tens of millions of

non-indigenous people

they're ruling over millions of peoples

currently if you look at the mcgirt

vehicle

the federal government still has the

federal government still has

jurisdiction there

yeah they have certain jurisdiction but

they don't have full jurisdiction like

they used to

now it's the now you're saying millions

of non-indigenous people currently

living there

are under the rule of indigenous

sovereignty

yes so look so can you please cite that

source please cite that source

yeah after the mcgirt v oklahoma case

um

the just link

the chickasaw the choctaw and the

cherokee nations all gained 80 43

percent of oklahoma which resulted in um

a jurisdiction of nineteen million two

hundred that area is already heavily

indigenous and if i recall correctly

it's like

i think a plurality or a majority

indigenous something like that

so you're trying to say that's millions

of non-indigenous people that they're

ruling over i want to source why did

they gain that land back because it's

not it's not because they're the

majority the majority this is the

constitution if you love the

constitution you would recognize that

please give me the source that millions

of people who are non-indigenous

are currently being ruled by a minority

of indigenous people

well you have to look at the the

specific map of where indigenous tribes

are located i think if you look at the

muskogee nation they actually control

about uh in terms of criminal

jurisdiction they control about a third

of this uh capital city of tulsa and the

capital city of tulsa let's see its

population they have jurisdiction who

means it's their um

it's under their sovereignty to protect

themselves um during criminal

prosecutions it's not a false so so it's

the indeed they have their own like

police and everything

yes they have they have the police force

and they can and they can predominate

over investigations because there's a

huge problem of indigenous um

of indigenous peoples being slaughtered

and being murdered and disappeared by

different settlers so let's see tulsa's

population

is 430 or 413 000 so even in this case

it's not that much but indigenous people

are there's 500 000 in

oklahoma yeah they're 500 000 and tulsa

has

in a state with a 3 million total

yes and

indigenous peoples already control 43 of

it

so all right they control about like

what um

1.4 1.3 million people

and this is just and this is because of

the treaty rights that were afforded

that

are requiring that indigenous people get

their line back

now what now your argument is actually

very interesting it's a liberal argument

which is actually pretty sad if you're

actually a duganist because

you fall and you you know who you follow

specifically

so it's not it's not

millions of people

tribal area tracked by the u.s census

has a population of

78 782 000 people

yes and so it's not that

yes but if you can say that doesn't even

mean that like indigenous peoples are

somehow like incapable of governing

like this is only just a this is just

the fact that there are less people in

this area

and even within that space um you have

the governor uh trying to

they they actually um had a scotus case

to try to disestablish native tribes um

native tribes um criminal jurisdiction

over their uh over the lands that were

afforded to them in the mcgurd v

oklahoma case so already the attempt at

this establishment is a form of national

chauvinism and it's a form of settler

colonism

it's and this is actually outlined not

just by the um by the republic of

china's uh no by the people's republic

of china this is also argued by william

z foster himself the head of the cp usa

during the 1940s and 50s

and he says that indigenous people

should rule over

uh tens of millions of non-indigenous

people no that indigenous peoples have

had their lands and their authority

taken we know under on your mission no

one denies that why are you wrong

of the americas in 1951 why are you

bringing this up because no one denied

that

well because

these are this is the violent process

that uh that keeps continuing that um

this fear of indigenous peoples getting

their land back yeah i don't think you

know what the debate right now okay the

debate we're having right now is not

about whether

injustices past or present are committed

against indigenous people the question

is what is this

solution you're proposing that we should

start advocating for because we're

trying to reach the masses and you're

telling us let's go tell the masses

we're going to be ruled by a minority of

benevolent indigenous tribes and we have

to

we have we have to relinquish any

sovereignty of the united states

we have to relinquish the sovereignty of

the american people

sovereignty of the united states it's uh

recognizing the autonomy of ind of

indigenous peoples over that land which

is

theirs as well as not throwing out

indigenous not throwing out the

non-indigenous peoples if you look at

the indian health care system it's

socialized it's just heavily

underfunded if you look at the um at

tribal government they have mining

rights they have rights over minerals in

a pseudo in a semi-nationalized way if

indigenous peoples had autonomy

and much more autonomy for economic and

political governance they can institute

a much more nationalized and socialist

government no one cares no one cares

it's not important or bolivia that's

that's not that's not what matters

that's not what matters

resources doesn't matter no it doesn't

that could be no it doesn't help no

doctor

is meaningless socialism is meaningless

without sovereignty

yes because that sovereignty needs to be

given as a as

you're saying what you're saying you're

saying a minority of people should rule

over tens and tens of millions of people

who are giving them a free candy and

it's going to be so nice that those

human beings don't primarily care about

that right now if it's capable under

autonomous uh indigenous governments

there are there are already more

institutions that are socialized under

indigenous does that have to do with

anything i'm talking about

what does that have to do with anything

okay let me ask you a question

yeah would it be okay

okay okay

sir would it be okay okay would it be

okay if we completely eliminate all

current indigenous tribal lands but it's

gonna be like under a socialism and that

is that okay then

hell no that's of course it's not yeah

you're right it's not okay because

sovereignty is important

because sovereignty is a pre because

sovereignty is a prerequisite to

socialism that's why so tens of millions

of people who are not indigenous

should not have to be ruled over a

minority of indigenous people it doesn't

matter how socialized or whatever the

hell you're saying that's completely

irrelevant

wait this is this would be an economic

boon to the socialist and marxist

movements no it's not because you're

talking about bourgeois socialism

socialism

conceives of a benevolent philanthropic

socialism of an enlightened elite

imposing a system that's not our version

of socialism we don't have that kind of

socialism

marxist communist socialism

government doing this it's not like uh

yeah and guess what okay non-indigenous

people can't vote in the tribal

government now can they well they would

be able to in an autonomous version this

is can this can be what do you mean an

autonomous so we can get we can elect

delegates to this tribal government

who are not even who are not even

indigenous

these are the things that need to be

negotiated

within a decolonized world and i mean

let's see so but then you're going to

have a scenario in which it's very

possible that the the tribal government

won't even have indigenous

representation because the majority of

people aren't indigenous so what then

well you would have to make like quota

systems like like as happened in

venezuela like it's happened in bolivia

like happens in nicaragua it's like a

system

like in chile like happens in ecuador

these are this is the model of pluri

nationalism i thought you were a pluri

nationalist

no it's just unreasonable because when

we're looking at this on a treaty basis

all the way from the founding of the

republic you have cases with like only

tens of thousands of indigenous people

but tens of millions

of

non-indigenous people and what you're

trying to say is that

this is somehow a problem

now it's been a problem

but this is this is a problem to such an

extent that the whole basis of american

sovereignty has to be overturned because

of it no it would be autonomous

structures within the united states like

let's look let's look at that nobody's

like nobody's against that but when

you're saying every single one of those

treaties that were violated that's a lot

of treaties and that's a lot of people

who are at stake now because of the

sheer extent of the treaties violated

that's a lot of people yeah now if we

could go back in the past

should the treaties have been violated

no

but it happened and we're living we're

now dealing with living people now and

you're proposing an unreasonable

situation according to the actual people

living in the present

it's not an unreasonable situation

because this is actually what was

proposed by the 10th congress of the

russian communist party in 1921. go

ahead

and himself said further the old state

the landlords and capitalists left us a

heritage of downtrodden nationalities as

the

kyrgyz chechens and ossetians whose

lands were colonized by kosak and kulak

elements from russia

those nationalities were doomed to

incredible suffering and extinction and

then he goes on to say lastly we must

save the kyrgyz basketers and certain

mountain races from extinction we must

provide them with the necessary land at

the expense expense of the kula

colonizers okay

it's not just a class basis it's a

racial basis that russia you said cool

or cossack did you say lock or cast

and call stacks okay at the expense of

the casa colonizers

yeah they were colonizers okay

colonized kyrgyz chechens and ossetian

uh but you just said you know you just

said give them land on the basis of what

they need to save them from extinction

i'm not against that

what you're talking about is

expensive colonizers that's not

important that's immaterial

that's amazing

that's literally a material basis no

because people no because because no

because

in order for oh are you disagreeing with

stalin

you're not you just cut me off why don't

you just shut the fuck up and let me say

what i'm gonna say before you you don't

even know what i'm gonna say

before

thank you felonious let me just fucking

eliminate that

what i said was that indigenous people

should be given the necessary amount of

land according to their needs spiritual

developmental etc etc right

that may very well come at the expense

of some people

but i'm just saying so that's not that's

not material to what i said i'm just

saying

it's unreasonable to not to define the

criterion not on the basis of what the

people need but on the basis of these

two centuries old treaties which are

necessarily going to come at the expense

of tens and tens of millions of people

who

who would have to be ruled by uh

indigenous fucking feudal lords that's

just stupid

they're not feudal lords these are

tribal governments you wouldn't say that

the united states government is just a

feudal landlord

you can say it maybe works on the behest

of them wait by the way are you saying

that we're not living in capitalism

i'll tell you why they're going to be

feudal lords

okay wait what the economic system are

we working under that's not relevant

you're bringing up a relationship

how relevant you're saying like you're

bringing irrelevant bullshit

transitional capitalism too socialism

irrelevant bullshit if you wanna if you

wanna talk about how the uh monopoly

capitalism leads to some kind of strange

feudalism we can talk about that another

time but that's not even

you're bringing up you're bringing up

something not relevant okay

the question is it's created real estate

these tens these tens of millions of

people exercise their sovereignty

through the states

and through congress through senate

through and then that's how they get

people

in the federal government and they also

have their state governments and that's

the organ of their sovereignty

okay it's a very specific relationship

the indigenous reserve system the native

reserve system does not possess the same

relationship to the united states

that the states do so without the states

without the states

these tens of millions of people's

ability to exercise their sovereignty

is suddenly gone

the problem the reason this leads to

feudalism is because when you put this

into the hands of the reserve system

ruling over this is stupid to entertain

it because it's never going to happen

ruling over tens of millions of people

that also gives them the ability to

start passing laws and regulations etc

etc

which

yeah which have economic implications as

well

so

it's this unity of the political and the

economic

on the basis of what is now a private

interest

because that's what it is as far as the

u.s

law is concerned

that that will be this kind of strange

feudalism

it wouldn't be a kind of well

why would it be a feudalism it doesn't

have to be a feudalism if you're working

for yourself so the owners of the land

because the owners of the land

will be a minority of people ruling over

a majority who's living on it

there is already a minority of lands

of people being ruled over by um

that have sovereignty over millions of

people these would be state congresses

but officially speaking and formally

speaking the state congresses

represent the people's sovereignty

indigenous people indigenous tribal

councils can have non-indigenous um

could can negotiate in a decolonized

world how um sovereignty is made and how

representation is done this doesn't have

to be just some type of this if you're

serious about a socialist movement you

have to not just entertain you have to

recognize that the national question is

central and that in the case of the

united states

nobody is hold on nobody's denying that

the national question is central what

you're proposing is unreasonable and

you're saying it's not unreasonable

why isn't it unreasonable

lenin argued against rosa luxenburg

saying how dare you like how dare you

this has nothing to do

with the dispute between lenin and rosa

luxembourg nothing

it does it absolutely does

you cannot even define indigenous people

as a nation and if i pressed you to

define them as a nation you wouldn't be

able to

so let's begin there

wait you never really forget because for

lenin a nation and this is why by the

way these uh indigenous groups in

siberia didn't have their own soviet

republics and were autonomous parts of

the russian soviet republic the reason

for that is because they couldn't be

defined properly as a nation according

to stalin's criteria okay the various

indigenous tribes all speak different

languages they don't contain the seeds

for their own type of um bourgeois

democratic capitalism so no they can't

form nation-states they don't have the

seeds of being able to do that so

lennon's point about lenin's point about

the national question was addressing the

specific way in which imperialism was

basically um

the rule of one nation state over

various other nations that could

otherwise be bourgeois democratic nation

states but were having their own native

bouzouzi uh repressed because of the

monopolist bourgeoisie in the imperial

core

so that's the whole thing when it comes

to lenin he wasn't talking about the

specific relationship between uh

an oppressor nation and indigenous

people he was talking about the

imperialist bourgeoisie and imperialist

nations in regards to oppressed nations

and an oppressed nation by the way it's

not defined by injustice committed

against it it's defined by the way in

which its own

um relation its own relations of

production and native form of capitalism

is being repressed by this monopoly form

of capitalism so that's what lenin's

talking about

i actually agree with you that i can

agree with you there that's why we

should read william z foster in paid in

his outline political outline of um of

the americas in page 561 under the

section national tendencies among the

indians he writes national tendencies

are also strong among the indian peoples

of this hemisphere the indians like like

black folks have fought

uh violent like valiantly to preserve

their way of life for over four

centuries they faced the overwhelming

military and economic power of the white

invaders the latter sought not to

subjugate the indians militarily or and

to enslave them economically but also to

exterminate them culturally and

physically in the united states and

canada what does that have to do with a

nation

of wiping out all indian institutions

and of absorbing the remaining indians

you know what i don't speak bleeding

heart liberal so tell me what this is

scientifically

tell me what this side i don't care

you're quoting it in a context in which

it's not appropriate what does this have

to do with the way stalin defines a

nation what does this have to do with

the way stalin defines a nation we all

agree indigenous people were fucked over

we agree they were fucked over you don't

have to keep fucking saying it because

we all agree with it and we all fucking

acknowledge it tell me scientifically

what that has to do with what we're

talking about when it comes you're

pivoting from one thing to another first

you're talking about lenin's nation

state and the fucking national question

then he said well let me look at william

c foster the indigenous people were

fucked over really hard we know what did

that have to do with what you just said

before

because he's recognizing that they have

national tendencies that that those

forms of institutions that's not what he

meant by the national tendencies what he

meant by the national tendencies to put

it in plain language is that they have

their own independent aspirations that

are separate from the united states

people we don't deny that either we are

nations that no that doesn't mean

they're a nation it means they maybe

have national tendencies it doesn't

define them as a nation according to

stalin's definition

and what were they absorbing they

weren't absorbing they

tribal treaties were not made to just

random savages they were made to

chiefs to suggest they were made to

people

distinctly

tribes and peoples but a nation follows

a very specific definition according to

stalin

not every

first of all

okay

you can't just say indigenous people are

a nation each of the separate tribes

these are multiple nations they're

multiple nations they're not just one

nation there are multiple nations which

is why you have are they a nation

according to the definition outlined by

stalin

yeah like you you can define that go for

it

yeah so yeah

so for stalin a nation specifically

arises

as a common territory a common language

and also and this is an important part a

common ability to cultivate an

indigenous form

of the nation-state of bourgeois

democracy of the bourgeois revolution

that arises with the french revolution

that's a nation

okay

and the united like indigenous tribes

are able to do that they're able like if

you think like um the indian collective

working with bezos is somehow like some

neoliberal plot then it shows that

indigenous peoples are capable of

developing capitalism whether or not you

disagree with how they're developing it

it's sure where where has the where is

the

indigenous look at the tanak development

look at how um elon musk had plans to

open up a a like a tesla retail store in

collaboration with the i believe the

navajo or hopi nation showing that

indigenous peoples are capable of that

elon musk is a monopolist he's a

monopolist bourgeoisie that's the worst

example you could have given me

bourgeoisie and yeah

but that means that means you have a

situation of a a comprador maybe

indigenous bourgeoisie working with the

um

oppressor nation's bourgeoisie which is

a monopolist whose imperialist bouzouzzi

so what are you talking about

a national bourgeois that is a national

bourgeoisie the same way a national

bourgeoisie collaborated with oh it's

not you don't even know what a national

bourgeoisie really means the national

bourgeoisie the patriotic bourgeoisie is

anti-imperialist it represents an

anti-monopoly tendency it fights the

monopoly and it's but it's fighting to

get the monopoly parasite bloodsuckers

off its back so in order so that it can

actually flourish and develop

independently as a class so that's not

the same as the comprador boudoir

that's where you get like

organizations like the red nation like

the red nation they're so they're

marxist-leninists who are trying to

remove capitalist institutions on tribal

government and tried to try to develop

them on indigenous terms

i don't see and i don't see the

tendencies for the independent

development of capitalism

on tribal lands just maybe i'm wrong

just give me examples of them

well i already explained the senok in

canada i've talked about the tesla i've

talked about tesla trying to it's not an

example of that in that in the navajo

nation you also have mining corporations

across um across native nations like

maybe maybe that's something go ahead

and tell us about that

yeah like so there are like um

throughout the 1970s 80s and 90s um up

to the 2000s the navajo nation was

suffering uh was a major producer of

uranium across the united states for

which they suffered

heavily like heavily with them

with cancer with high rates of cancer

beyond

the rates of most americans

this shows that economically that there

are oppressed but also that political

like politically and economically

navajo this was an indigenous

navajo this was an indigenous owned

navajo corporation

i and well this is a form this is

why they are not able to develop many

indigenous institutions is because of

how the united states fucks over

indigenous people you didn't answer my

question for economic development you

didn't answer my question

but we can say the question again was

the mining company an indigenous owned

and built enterprise

that would be state capitalism which it

doesn't even happen can you answer the

question please

well uh like under your own definition

no indigenous peoples don't just like

the us doesn't have state-run companies

but you know i'm not asking if it's

owned by the indigenous people publicly

is it owned by indigenous people and

built by them

no they have the health care system and

uh the mining company was a white white

people mining so it was a white people

white owned combining company is what

you're saying yeah so how is that an

example of a form of indigenous national

bouzouzzi

ah so

it's a form of coups and imperialism

that's happening on native reservations

we know i'm not denying that i'm asking

you where the national bourgeoisie is

that's that's anti-monopoly

you're muted now i don't

you're muted now i don't know what

happened

can you can you hear me now yeah i can

hear you now yeah

well

settler colonism prevents state uh state

capitalist forms of industry from

developing

this is and that the only way to resolve

this yeah

yeah but okay here's the thing

yeah the

the the czarist and uh the autocratic

nobles and the the monopolist

bourgeoisie that was

that had a foothold in the urban russian

empire as well as the nobles they were

also suppressing the national

bourgeoisie

um in the russian countryside but lenin

was still able to discern

the element of the national bourgeoisie

although it wasn't able to develop it

was still a real tendency there

you have it it was just being repressed

you have like local businesses by

indigenous peoples you have like but you

don't have large corporations because

there is a concerted effort to prevent

indigenous development on those tribal

lands and because there are i'm not

asking you if there's indigenous

development going on i'm asking where

the national woozwoz is

uh then you have like the tribal

government you have uh ins you have

organizations you have like the raven

logics in like um the seneca nation why

is that why is that a national woozwozi

well you have you have

you have businesses and like um you have

businesses who have control and like

business people who have control over

swaths of uh tribal lands

but they also have an anti-settler

colonial and anti like uh an anti-us

stance on why they're oppressed

it's not just their oppressed oh my god

is that they're actively resisting it

just like national bourgeoisies have

attempted to do across the way you're

saying there's a national boudoir that

owns the land they're business owners

owns the land because those are usu

those are owned in trust by the united

states the united states owns the land

here they own businesses on the line

for indigenous peoples so they own

businesses on the land

yeah which is a national bourgeois which

is like the national bourgeoisie

this doesn't mean that they're supposed

to just rule over they rule over with an

iron fist it just means they haven't

okay so so

the us's trust ownership of their land

is stifling the development of that

national bourgeoisie

yes and that's not me saying that that's

gus hall the next head of the cp the cpu

why didn't you just say that from the

beginning we could work with that

yeah let me read gus hall's specific

writings um he wrote this in his book

fighting racism um racism is a dangerous

toxin he says a special resolution in

this convention on native american

liberation states a crisis exists for

native americans the american indian and

nato alaskan native populations and

nationalities he recognizes them as

nationalities are fighting for their

very survival they are victimized by

wanton exploitation and destruction of

their lands and energy resources by

powerful multinationals

because you're just saying

that they're getting fucked over which

we already know

right astronomical unemployment and by

extremes can you get to the part about

the national boudoir

it says it prevents a sm it prevents a

larger national bourgeoisie from

developing or from

read that from gus hall

he says the resolution correctly states

the essence of the question the growing

struggles of the native american indian

people's movements are in the main

directed against the corporate

monopolies such as peabody coal gulf and

shell oil because of the special role of

the state in perpetuating genocide

genocidal programs based on concepts of

governmental channel these struggles

have a sharp anti-government anti-state

form

did you get to the part about the

national bourgeoisie

increasing numbers in native americans

into new reservations of poverty in the

urban centers there is a concerted

effort

you just read nothing get to the part

about the fucking national booze was he

he's saying that he's nationality that

there is a there's a concerted effort to

prevent in uh like it can like a large

national bourgeoisie where did he say

that just read the part where he says

that i'm powerful multinational this is

these are how you apply right at

readings by astronomical uh by

astronomical unemployment and by extreme

social and economic

deprivation by the united states

government's policy

already you have like already you have a

type of development that's not what he

said though you're just reading into

what he said

you mean interpreting it

yeah and yeah but why why don't you just

say you didn't have to even read gus

hall you could have just said oh

indigenous people are being oppressed by

corporations and shit we already knew

that by the way so what was the point in

reading that

because he says the new this new ward

this new campaign of genocide must find

a new response in the ranks of the

people's democratic movements there is a

crucial need for the trade union

movement to take up the struggle where

okay now gift from now now get from that

part get from before okay go ahead and

make the leap from that which no one

fucking disagrees with to the idea that

that a minority of indigenous people

should rule over tens of millions of

people just make the leap please because

you went from here all the way to there

i'm just trying to figure out how you're

getting to all the way to there because

nobody disagrees with what goss hall

just said or what even what you just

said that there needs to be a nation a

democratic people's movement that fights

the monopolist imperialist bourgeoisie

and which empowers the um in a

tribal peoples or whatever nobody

disagrees with that we're just trying to

get to how you're then going to say that

all the land needs to be returned to

indigenous people and that the people

here are just settlers who have no

legitimate

um sovereignty over the land

so he goes on to say in page 294 at the

bottom the struggle for native american

inequality is a complex one one side of

the struggle involves land rights and

old treaties which the united states

government has violated and ignored the

struggles involved fishing and hunting

rights the land rights have become more

critical because these lands are rich in

minerals and sources of energy okay he's

saying that treaty rights that doesn't

say anything that doesn't that doesn't

say anything we know this okay we don't

disagree with any of them

but he's saying treaty rights must be

upheld and by uh no he's saying he's not

saying

he's not saying all treating rights

stemming from the founding of the

republican general he's not the

distinguished he's not saying all of the

broken treaties since the founding of

the fucking republic you know one of

these i'll give you an example of the

problem with these type of treaties one

of these treaties

was formed between the the early us

government and an indigenous tribe i

forget the specific instance i just

remember the story and

settlers

mistake as they were called in the

language of what i was reading

mistakenly thought that the indigenous

people had violated the treaty which was

a mistake and it wasn't true and they

responded to that with some kind of

horrific genocide or explosion of

indigenous people from the land

and that's like i think it's in ohio now

it's just it's like ohio right huge part

of ohio so it's like

it's just shit like that where

you're gonna say okay because of that

now we're living in 2022 everyone is

who's in ohio has to fucking

forfeit their sovereignty it just sounds

stupid to me you know it just sounds

stupid

that's the same with the soviet union

it is not the same as the soviet union

it is not the same as the soviet union

those autonomous uh

they were still part of the russian

federation they were still part of the

russians sorry they were still part of

this they were still part of the russian

uh soviet republic the russian

ssr so

no it's not the same it's absolutely not

the same

well tribal governments would be a part

of the

of the united states they would just

have

like full they're not right now they are

not right now

wait what do you mean

confused they don't they don't have

people in congress or in the senate

ah

because they're not afforded those

they're afforded autonomy they're not

afforded um and therefore because

they're seen as separate entities to the

united states that's also that's what

i'm trying to say tens of millions of

people who live on these lands that were

unjustly yes taken from indigenous

people

they now

express their sovereignty through the

united states government you're saying

they should be separate as a different

entity and i'm saying that's a stupid

thing to advocate for in public

it's like it's not a matter of just

pragmatism it's a matter of recognizing

the social uh the social need for

reckoning the national question which is

at the basis of a materialist analysis

of how capitalism as well as how um

a proper a proper

um socialist country develops because it

doesn't oppress um

it's the national question does not

entail

it does not entail that everyone here is

a fucking settler that's not what it

entails

no they only said only

william z foster says that because he

understands the specific conditions in

the united states are different than

those tell me where he says everyone

here is a settler go ahead okay let me

let me look that all right so on page 53

of outline political history of the

americas he says

after the birth of the

after the birth of the united states

republic the pressure against the

indians increased they were even more

brazenly robbed of their lands and

systematically forced further and

further west then they became ruthlessly

defeated in wars on the planes and

finally by 1990 they were rounded up in

the present system of reservations or in

large concentration camps the indians

engaged in many sharp struggles in their

gradual retreat before the ever swelling

tide of white immigrants settlers and

soldiers but their resistance was futile

he's saying

that indigenous peoples were pushed back

by settlers and white immigrants

even if that's true how does that say

that the people living here now are

settlers

because they're not recognizing

indigenous

indigenous sovereignty that's not what

it defines a settler you can say the

people here are now indigenized to this

land they have a they are legitimately

americans belonging to the united states

you're calling them settlers i

fundamentally reject that paradigm just

because their fucking ancestors were

settlers a few hundred years ago doesn't

mean that they're settlers who have no

basis in this land today and if i

thought even one percent of that was

true i would be the first to advocate

for them to go back to fucking europe

no we don't need them to go back to

europe no i think they should because

nobody

nobody should subject themselves to the

indignity

of having to be ruled by a minority of

like

why should nobody should have the

indignity of being a guest they should

just go back to their homeland where

they can be a fucking human being

a prerequisite of being a a fully

fledged human being

and to be a people is to have a homeland

that's yours if you can't have that then

just go back to the one you came from

human beings

in the settlers can become immigrants if

they recognize indigenous sovereignty

that's all

they change their ontology from being

one that forces indigenous

people live in this country

okay the people people live in this

country people people live in the people

who live in this country now

see it as their country they fought and

died for that country it's their parents

country their grandparents country it's

theirs it's their sovereign country and

it's paid for in blood

it's their country okay so that's how

they see it now i am of the view i am of

the viewer that was rejected

attend congress of the russian communist

party

stalin himself rejected that they

somehow gained more authority because

they're russian because they just

claimed that land now that is what

you're repeating is is national

chauvinism no it's the great russian

myth because the russian nation was

recognized

even if the russian nation was

overreaching in some cases there's still

a russian people and it russia belongs

to them it's russia it's their homeland

yeah that's russia i'm saying the same

for americans

no you know what i'm saying the bullshit

i'm thinking of bullshit shut the fuck

up about lenin and stalin while you're

peddling you're fucking booted

de-colonial horseshit that you learn

from american universities it has

nothing to do with marxism has nothing

to do with marxism leninism stop fucking

quoting congresses from 1921 that had

nothing to do with your stupid fucking

delusional idea that the majority of

americans are going to be ruled by a

minority of indigenous people it's

stupid and it's embarrassing that anyone

who would be associated with a communist

or socialist movement is running around

advocating for this i mean for god's

sake it has nothing to do with the

realities on the ground there's no it

has no plausibility it's an absurdity

it's a comedy it's a joke it has no

factor and no part in the development of

a real communist movement in this

fucking country just stop i know you

think it's poetic justice or something

it would be some ironic poetic justice

if if most of the land in america give

it's just some stupid thing you would

get out of a book you know it's fucking

stupid it's lit

you have to realize that there are

american people they're not just

settlers that's what i've been trying to

fucking tell you yeah there are american

people who are not just

settlers they're american people they

become indigenized in some sense you

have to recognize that legitimacy

or else you're not going to fucking get

anywhere you're not going to get

anywhere

all right let's let's by dismissing by

dismissing generations of people who

have spilled their blood to fight for

this land for their civil war through

1776

you have to realize listen

this is the problem with you decolonial

people this is the problem colonial

people

the europeans who settled in the

americas committed horrific atrocities

they did horrible things genocide but

that the story doesn't end there there

was a legitimate and authentic process

in which people did establish a real

relationship to the land here that goes

back hundreds of years for you to deny

the legitimacy of that and the author

you for you to deny all of that and

dismiss all of that under the banner of

the horrific crimes that corresponded to

that

i mean there is no fucking way

because unlike nazism and the plan for

for eastern europe this it wasn't a

top-down plan it was a it was an organic

decentralized process of people moving

from europe because of pr and that

happens across the history of every

peoples every people the the turks

settled in anatolia anatolia they didn't

just they weren't indigenous to anatolia

they settled there

that's how people evolve that's how

people develop it's part of history

nobody just stays in the same goddamn

place that their their farthest ancestor

is from and if you want to say this

stupid thing guess what everybody comes

shares the common ancestor or something

from africa so it's like what are you

even saying that argument no that's

embarrassing you're smarter than this

you can't even define what indigenous is

you just misused heidegger which has

nothing to do with defining indigeneity

you said

the people who first contacted the land

well it's arbitrary why

wait why not like that because it

relates to the how you relate to the

land itself because because according to

that criterion the turks are

illegitimate in anatoly and it belongs

to the greeks is that the position you

have

well in the case of the in the case of

the americas this is true and we're not

taught and in a multi-polar world in the

rest of the world because you have to

learn from we have to look at humanity

as a whole and not just the americas

it's very rare that the first peoples in

a given territory are going to be all

the people living there now most people

are mixed with invaders and settlers and

all sorts of people who weren't

originally from the land and yet they're

still indigenously part of the soil so

defining that is completely fucking

arbitrary

because it's uh because it's a form well

when you make definitions you have to

find some type of criteria all

definitions are in themselves some

somewhat arbitrary but in the case of

the americas it's undeniable that

indigenous peoples are the uh are the

indigenous peoples that american indians

so

people have not become indigenized

well they reject their indigenous uh uh

their indigenous side like if you look

at bolivia most how do they reject their

indigenous side

because mexicans reject their indigenous

side just because they've adopted and

fused with other cultures that means

they reject all of their indigenous

inside that's an overly simplistic view

it's that so how do they reject their

indigenous side

like if you look at the development of

latin america mestizos view themselves

as anti antagonistic tour to indigenous

peoples really during the night really

about their nationalist projects in the

19th

from the next which is the source of

latin sovereignty over the anglo-saxons

and you're saying see this is how you

just gave it away this indigenous

fucking nationalism bullshit you're

talking about is just a form of

anglo-saxon imperialism against

non-anglo-saxon civilizations you're

saying the mystery civilizations and

you're saying the latin american peoples

uh created their national projects

purely in contra distinction to the

fucking indigenous people what about in

country distinction to the spanish what

about in contra distinction to the

american imperialists and their monroe

doctrine you're saying all just against

indigenous people that national project

that you're shitting on is the source

of latin american sovereignty against

european imperialism and you're sitting

on that as if that's some kind it's just

it's so it's purely in contra

distinction to the indigenous people see

you can't we can't even begin with a

square one here it's just fucking stupid

because you're coming in from a wrong

perspective especially in latin america

within latin america yes you did have

anti-imperialism against the united

states against the monroe doctrine the

bolivarian plan of the united latin

america against an anglo against the

anglo empire but in this case against

the united states specifically

but alongside that you had uh you had

authors like uh juan albert alberetti

who like wrote the argentine

constitution in 1851 where he said the

the national question is against the

civilized white argentines uh

argentinians like either one against the

savage natives who are preventing

national development which led to these

most latin americans

i can't speak on that because i don't

know the history of argentina but most

likely most latin american most latin

american countries don't have the

simplistic view where they say it's us

civilized white people on one side and

it's no they fuse together and form the

new civilization

yeah and the mestizos and you're saying

it's illegitimate and you're saying

that's illegitimate

well that's why the plural national

state was so necessary because during

the nationalist projects in the 1950s

there was a thing called mestizo

nationalism that the nation state was

developed that the nation state

itself or the national peoples were the

mestizos of each country of bolivia of

peru of like el salvador of even mexico

what does mestizo mean

bestiso means mix between black and no

between white and indigenous mainly but

also black white and blue okay what's

wrong with that what's wrong with people

being mixed with each other there's no

problem with that is there there was a

homogenizing the problem was there was a

homogenizing national project in which

indigenous peoples were forced to be

mestizos

and to renounce indigenous cultures this

was the this was the basis for a lot of

for um

for a lot of the nationalist projects

like the land reform in bolivia the land

reform was good in bolivia this was in

1954 in which indigenous peoples and all

and like peasants

the majority of peasants were indigenous

like about like 95

were indigenous like quechua aymara my

family's quechua naimara um but in those

end like guarania and aldebara and all

the other amazonian folks

by returning the land which is good

there was a specific way in which the

land was returned they were returned in

individual parcels

the project was to develop a national

state um can you hear me

yeah i can hear you

okay the the project was to develop a

national state in which indigenous

peoples in which um

indigenous peoples were forced to be

uh forced to develop an individual's

conception of themselves

and of the economic of their economic

relationship to the land which would fit

within the within this left liberal um

understanding of how the capitalist

economy worked in bolivia instead of

recognizing the communal economy which

was still alive and well they the

bolivian government the nationalist

government opted for a um for individual

parcels the same way the united states

opted for giving uh for pl um dividing

up the plots of reservation land to

indigenous peoples in the dawes act of

1887. at both points it was liberal

national development which forced

indigenous peoples to become assimilated

indigenous people you just said 95 of

people in bolivia were indigenous and

bolivia and bolivia to be like mestizos

who were at the center of this national

development

um so mestizo and mestizos didn't see

themselves as tied to traditional

indigenous cultures anymore they saw

themselves defined as modern um

european influenced people yeah which is

that there's no such thing as a purely

indigenous state

it's not about it's not about

the notion of indigeneity the notion of

indigeneity rejects modernity

so how can there be a modern state

that's indigenous

what

well

one you had ebon morales do you think

he's like pre-modern yeah like

he's he's also inheriting the bolivian

state

yes and he made it pluri national he

recognized that indigenous sovereignty

had to be recognized on the municipal

level because there were no treaty

rights like in the us like that unless

you like reject the constitution you

have to recognize indigenous treaties

put indigenous nations in the us on a

federal level within bolivia there were

no such treaties so they were put on the

local level

um so you had to recognize indigenous

sovereignty and even now in 20 like um

just this past month the head of the um

i think um the ministry but you just

said bolivia is a place where like 95 of

people are indigenous

yeah like and now it's around like 55

like around okay let's just say it's 20

then that would be a fuck ton

that would still be a fucked on yeah but

even so but the us is you're you're

saying the us

that means we have to adopt bolivia's

exact model even though the conditions

are entirely different

no we exactly adapt the the us model

pluri nationalism shows that it's

possible we just have to adopt it in

bolivia pluri nationalism doesn't mean

feudalism in america what you're

advocating for it means feudalism

no it doesn't it it means like

well indigenous peoples in the us can

have socialism okay

let's just begin here let's i'm not

going to convince you that this is like

a stupid thing so let's just begin here

how are you going to convince americans

uh that they should give up their

sovereignty go ahead

one

leg you uh legally they have to

you just enforce it with the federal

government and

i'm not gonna get in your way i'm not

gonna get in your way do it well that's

what's happening with the mcgregor v

oklahoma do you see people get behind

those and then it'll it'll come then

that's what will happen the resistance

is coming from the resistance is coming

from the pro cap from the bought and

paid for capitalist governor uh uh i

believe his name's joe stint

um how are you gonna rally the people to

be against this resistance to giving

all of the land to the indigenous people

it wouldn't be all of the land by the

way it would be gonna

what percentage of the united states

a lot of it right

yeah it could be like 200 maybe uh like

200 million acres like but by the time

let's let me explain the numbers

by 1880 by 1890 when the like uh when

the wounded knee massacre happened

indigenous lands were about 138 million

acres

with the dawes act of 1887 those

reservation lands were divvied up

by the time of

like this is what we're talking about

here right eight million acres which is

the current land now so about 83 million

acres

like 83 million acres was taken away

by um uh buy the dolls as a seller

colonel project only so i'm gonna pull

up a map does this look right to you i

just so people understand what we're

looking for

let me see i don't know where yeah just

check this out

yeah go for it

does this look right to you

for example this isn't even all of it

but this is just

like all this has to be returned

under the tribal leadership

that's what we advocate for

that could be possible i mean you have

to do this under the national question

like kazakhstan let's be real this is

depressing this is the pressing national

question a country of

three to four hundred

half of it has to be under the tribal

leadership of

less than one percent

the population that's that's that's a

serious program you're advocating for as

extensive

that's that's something that and by the

way that's the national question

can you show me an example of that uh

national question be as is you're

interpreting it being shared by lenin or

stalin when have they adopted this

unreasonable and insane view

well lenin and stalin didn't have

knowledge of the united states and of

indigenous oh so if they had knowledge

what about this one

what about this one

is this is i just pulled this i don't

even know what this means is this

is this accurate as well

um give me a sec um your video is let me

see yeah

well then it's like well i don't think

that's accurate actually no the other

one no that wouldn't be accurate let me

let's look at yourself it depends on the

trade it depends on the treaty rights on

what uh what's counting so treaty

boundaries and secessions so

this is okay so this this looks more

like it

this is more accurate

uh

give me a sec is it coming up

there's a lag on your video um yeah

yeah that seems a lot more accurate

the the point is like let's look at the

ussr in 1926 all of this

the uzbek as of uzbek all of california

3.4 7

5 million people

and they got seventy six million seventy

six point nine six million acres

we're just i'm not defining this by the

amount of acres i'm defining it based on

the people living there now in case you

didn't know

uzbekistan and kazakhstan were never

densely populated

in the first place

you could say and native nations aren't

densely populated in terms of their

native reservations because there was a

concerted effort of genocide like the

19th century like 70 so this is not like

giving it kazakhstan this is 300 300 to

400 million people

russia was about 65 million people and

three million uh was like what two

percent three percent so three million

so three million you're this is what

you're telling me three million people

gain sovereignty over 65 million

three million people gains uh gain

authority over

um

seven uh like what 76 70 almost 77

million acres

70 so that's not people that's acres

yes that's acres okay what is that

this is this is like 50 this is like

more than 50. this is more easily more

than 50

of a country of

three to four hundred million okay so

tell me how it makes sense of people

three to four hundred million people so

tell me how it makes sense that all this

should be given to

indigenous tribes and that's a serious

program for communists to take

yeah well indigenous peoples indigenous

reservations already have a development

of social uh of socialized projects

programs nobody cares nobody cares yeah

so no in that case indigenous peoples

can be more capable of giving out for

like free health care free housing um

the national development within

indigenous uh rural communities they're

already doing that that has nothing to

do with communism nothing wait no it

means that indigenous indigenous

sovereignty would allow the development

of national

national companies and industries what

does that have to do with communism

which entails what does that have to do

with communism which entails sovereignty

well nationals i'm not saying all of the

land has to do with entails the

sovereignty of the majority which means

a proletarian dictatorship ruling over a

a democratic republic not a fucking a

tribal confederation

a democratic republic not a tribal

confederation

isn't it well

what what was the soviet autonomous

system

you had the

it right rule over the russian majority

the russian majority had a democratic

republic to represent their sovereignty

they didn't have to be lorded over by

a tribal system of governance armenia as

soviet socialist republic the uzbek

soviets ssr like you have like you have

instances

the russians were the minority in these

areas and they're the ones and they have

to be called

they were the minority they were the

minority in those areas you're right

they weren't the majority they were the

minority

population is this is not a question of

population this is a question yes it is

yes it is because marxism marxism is a

human centered

paradigm so yes the amount of living

people is decisive yes

indigenous decolonization could provide

for all of the non-natives in those

territories nobody gives a shit nobody

nobody gives a shit about your empty

promises that are not backed by any

leverage

which is actual which is the meaning of

sovereignty why don't we just why don't

we just select meghan markle because she

when she runs and she wants to return

the british monarchy she's gonna promise

to be a benevolent leader and all that

kind of shit so let's just elect meghan

markle and get free healthcare right not

talk about the british crown well i'm

just saying nobody cares about your

empty promises that aren't backed up by

any kind of fucking leverage of any kind

of way

it's stupid

is it are you saying that the national

question itself already proves this

it already shows that there needs to be

it does that

okay let's run through the dialogue tree

the national question 1921 led what

lenin and stalin said gus hall william z

foster you have a select amount of

pathways on your dialogue tree and you

just loop

you just keep looping

because you stop saying the same thing

over and over again that means nothing

the national question does not entail

that a minority of people rule over tens

of millions of people that is ridiculous

it does not entail that well then you

would have to reject the u.s

constitution because the u.s

constitution recognizes indigenous

authority

tens of millions of people

yes well that's how it came out to be

but like they also tried to erase

remember the united states

how does by

constitution begin

what are the opening words yeah what are

the opening words

began as a like after the articles of

confederation

what are the opening words what are the

opening words though

what is it let me bring up the

constitution i don't want to mess this

one up the opening words of the

constitution the preamble

of the us constitution of the united

states

and stop there stop there yeah so that's

the center of the constitution

the preamble

yeah the preamble has a lot of symbolic

weight but it doesn't have the

jurisdiction

that is the fundamental the whole point

of the constitution it's about we the

people

that's the whole point of the document

so if there comes to be a contradiction

between the interests of the people

represented by the constitution

and treaties violated which may or may

not be unconstitutional because of their

violation the weight is going to be on

the pinterest of the people

you seem to have this view about how

laws you seem to have the view about how

laws work in the united states

we have we have a common law system it's

bullshit system of common law which

basically means judges can make up

whatever fucking reason they want for

ruling on cases they're not bound

by anything they can literally rule

whatever the fuck they want

that's common law they don't they really

there's no like black letter there's

some cases where there's like bright

line rules and black letter laws but

they're very rare most of the time it's

just them interpreting this document

however broadly that they want to so if

you're if you're banking just as someone

who's not going to stop this because it

would be interesting if this happened it

would like it would have some weird

civil war that would happen it'd be

chaotic and funny right so i wouldn't

stop you i'm an accelerationist i

wouldn't stop you but just to be clear

if you think that you're going to get

this goal of getting like

90 of all land in the united states in

the hands of indigenous tribes if you

think you're gonna get if you're gonna

think if you think you're gonna get that

through the courts

you have another thing coming it's all

i'm saying

if you have a social revolution you

would have to recognize indigenous

sovereignty on various levels and if

you're and if a in a social and a

socialist or proletarian patriot model

you either you will probably keep the

constitution but do it in a way that

fits the socialist agenda in articles

look i don't know why you're dying on

this hill i don't know you're caught

you're causing you cause division over

nothing

is made no no listen listen the dividing

line between us is this

the no the dividing line between us is

this simple are we going to sacrifice a

mass movement in the name of woke

moralism and to

stretch to an unreasonable degree

or are we actually going to build a mass

movement grounded in reality that's the

dividing line between us you seem to

want

to

have us die on the hill of saying this

maximalist position when what indigenous

people need right now in the united

states i mean they don't need 90 percent

of all land they need

the land that they live on they need

more land to live on they need more

autonomy and more sovereignty over there

because we're building pipelines over

their shit

and stuff

which we're you know we're still

building those pipelines

these are real issues they're facing and

you're you're projecting you have this

anarchistic utopian maximalist scenario

that's just stupid i'm owning the soviet

union god there and like um

keep invoking the authority of the

soviet union would have when it has no

bearing on anything we're talking about

it shows that this model is capable we

just have to translate it to the united

states which i'm showing

with okay

now let's get to the point no it's it's

not because we pointed we already got

one over the decisive difference was

that in the soviet union

they didn't have minorities ruling over

tens of millions of russian people

who weren't allowed to have their own

forms of sovereignty that's ridiculous

there's not a single case in the soviet

union

we already got over that

maps you showed there were spaces that

were not owned by indigenous or that

were not part of indigenous tribes there

were

areas that were still controlled by like

u.s states

or non ind and non-tribal governments

yeah yeah that's that's like us that's

of

it's like less than what 30 percent of

the whole united states anyway

they should not have written those

treaties so you're saying okay we

already got your position down so we've

concluded and we got your position

you're saying according to lenin and

stalin and the soviet union you haven't

argued this

successfully in my view but let's let

the audience decide you're saying

like 70 to 80 of america belongs to

less than one percent of the people so

that's what you're saying well there's

no so let's move on let's move on and

ask the question

in terms of the groups on the ground

fulfilling this who besides the ndn

collective is leading the way

you have the work uh like the what is it

the worker world party that supports

this you have the workers world party

the party that's dead in the water

because aaron wrecked the shit out of

that party because of dumb woke shit

like the stuff you're spouting now the

workers world party which is like dead

in the water are they even still around

anymore

they went through a split which

basically destroyed the whole party

by the way because because they decided

they had to get hung up on these stupid

fucking woke bullshit issues for tara

and five you can thank her for that so

what else

you have like i said you have you also

have the psl supporting this you have

this psl supporting that so so those are

not indigenous organizations is the

problem so the indian collective you

have every tribal government supporting

this you have legal institutions you

have different ngos like the what like

the let's talk about the ngos

yeah that's what well that's only one of

them but you also have tribal

institutions i think give us more videos

you tried to divert it back to

the ngos

when they're only one facet of it when

you have tribal governments fighting and

funding different lawyers there's tribal

governments there's tribal governments

that want to be able to drill oil on

their own land and they don't give a

fuck about any of this dumb

yeah because they're shit corruption

that was instituted

it's not corruption that's indigenous

people

giving the middle finger to the academic

ngo complex that's trying to claim to

represent indigenous people's interests

you understand that indigenous peoples

have a huge problem with fighting

corruption on tribal councils because

those tribal councils were developed by

the eu by the us and in many ways we're

beholden to the us bureaucracy no that's

not true because the u.s bureaucracy is

literally

how do you think these tribal

governments were developed the ones that

currently exist hold on the u.s

bureaucracy is currently preventing a

lot of indigenous people from drilling

on their own land because of

environmental regulations

under nixon that were started under

nixon so what the fuck are you talking

about

well you have like the army and uh thank

you

so

much guys

under electronics

like what's that you have like and you

have like the dakota access pipeline

which was the huge largest protest of

indigenous peoples

will pipeline access go viral though

huh what happened to the dakota access

pipeline

it still passed it's still like

indigenous peoples were crushed

and why did it get any attention why did

it get any attention

because indeed because people actually

care about indigenous people no they

don't give a fuck about indigenous

people they care about fulfilling their

avatar fantasy racist noble savage

fantasy and they went to that pipeline

and they shut up the whole thing they

trashed it and they partied and that's

all that fucking happened it was all a

bunch of white kids by the way

no you like the sacred stone camp was

majority indigenous

they hated they hated all the white kids

that came and shit up their fucking uh

event yeah there were some problems with

like white kids who like like that was

that but that is literally the

foundation of your ideology it comes

from white

universities and academies

and it was specifically funded by the

way

to turn the tide against marxism in the

60s and 70s because marxism was the the

the hegemon for a long time and they

said no let's let's look marxism is a

racist let's uh have indigeneity and

they're all white women white women with

glasses on saying indigeneity

indigeneity all

as a form of class warfare against the

working class quoted one white woman as

like an indigenous

white woman professors are the ones who

are shouldering this whole thing

citation needed is your citation a crack

pipe like it's an answer it's antidote

i trust most people i trust most people

know what the fuck i'm talking about

it's literally white people who are

shouldering this fucking stupid thing

all right all right like all right let's

talk about one white woman ruth bader

ginsburg i think we can all disagree on

her legacy as like one that has been

successful uh one has been successful

especially for indigenous peoples which

it has not um

in her case of city of city of cheryl v

oneida yeah oneida nation in 2005 she

wrote the opinion to that she sided with

the city of cheryl saying

that lands that were purchased that were

repurchased by indigenous territories or

by indigenous tribes from the us that

were former indigenous lands cannot

return to indigenous sovereignty even

though they're bought back by the tribes

why

she argued well the doctrine of

discovery that doctrine discovery meant

if you were a christian in the original

catholic uh version

it was a papal bull saying if you were a

christian you can colonize non-christian

lands because their authority wasn't

recognized their authority wasn't

legitimate because they were

non-christians they were savages and

then she quoted that to say indigenous

peoples

well their lands were taken or

seeded under settler colonialism and

were taken by

the british let's talk

american white australian

and now that the u.s americans have it

it's their land because they're the ones

who discovered it who recognized its

potential under u.s sovereignty so it

can never return back to indigenous

society

you're making that's the liberal

position that you're not no i'm not yeah

i am fully aware

you're adopting the lib no you know what

you're you and the land back people

you're all lib shits you know what i

don't know why your lip shits because

you're all like i'm a high targaryen and

you guys are shit libs you all begin

with the presumption that the legality

of the state can be established by legal

premises that's not true the premises of

statehood are not legal they're illegal

the premises of statehood are material

not legal the state doesn't

the state doesn't get to justify

its and this is a perfect example

there's no way for the courts to justify

the injustices of broken treaties

in the same way that there's no way for

the us to legally justify itself on

legal terms because the origin of

legality and the origin of statehood is

something other than the form of that

statehood so that's something i'm

perfectly cognizant and aware of that

there are material realities that

determine this

not formal ones you're a formalist who

says this was unjust what the us did to

the indigenous people 200 300 years ago

so in an anarchistic way and to prove

and to fulfill our moral sentiment and

aspiration we have to literally abide by

the law you know you're trying to make

the point that yes the state rests on

foundations that cannot be justified on

legal terms i agree with you you don't

have to throw a hissy fit and and and

have this anarchistic childish

anarchistic childish nonsense of saying

because of that we have to literally

literally

psychotically fulfill the dream of

liberalism which is to

legitimize the state which is not how

can you legitimize the state how could

the soviets legitimize their state on

legal terms you can't fucking do that

it's every revolution is illegal even

you know how could the french

justify based on what precedent

of beheading the monarchy you can cope

and say i invented this new ideology

which tells me it's unjust that has no

precedent you just invented that

you can't establish the actual material

origin of that

so what you're talking about

is just the origin of modernity now

going forward going forward going

forward

yeah i think

we need to

not

repeat that evil right of course every

communist socialist agrees with that

that's why the soviet union was very

respectful of things like formal

treaties and agreements it would form

with other people very you know they

they didn't want to go back to that

messy origin of the state i agree

but you can't we listen it's a cliche

and i know you lament hearing this

because it sounds simple i know you're

like oh but there's something unique

about modern central colonialism yeah i

get that but the truth is

the current but the current boundaries

that the majority of people and this is

includes indigenous people by the way

it's based on war it's based on genocide

it's based on pillage it's based on rape

it's based on violence it's based on

arbitrary invasions arbitrary squabbles

between families all sorts of crazy

chaotic arbitrary shit

from history is what currently defines

the majority of the boundaries and

peoples that are alive today

and in general that is true now i'm not

denying the uniquely genocidal

significance of european colonialism of

the americas because i do think that's

unique but i'm just saying you go a step

farther from just from that you are

trying to literally create

a just liberal bourgeois state which is

not

possible well you have to recognize like

indigenous peoples are looking for land

like literally you have to resist

uh what was it

indigenous peoples are using the liberal

institutions as tools

ones that are imperfect but yes but

i wish them luck i wish them luck

but the scope of your ambition it's a

little

ridiculous it's extreme it's extreme

like

the united states took over the entirety

of the us continent and hawaii and

alaska

indigenous peoples can hope for a

greater error for a greater bought

alaska from the russians we bought

alaska from the russians

the russians took alaska we just bought

it from them

yeah because the russians had already

colonized it but then there were

subsequent forms of settler colonism in

alaska as well in hawaii it was a whole

kingdom that was cooed um and then

settler colonized yeah i tell you what

if the hawaiians want to secede

if the puerto ricans want independence

i'm pro-puerto rican independence

especially because they're a colony we

shouldn't have any colonies we're not a

colonial state we shouldn't have any

colonies so i agree hawaii

i'm for hawaiian independence

so what are you talking about

well indigenous peoples are colonized

they're just in a form of settler

colonialism the rectification that is a

material return of indigenous lands

of which the uh of which the framework

is founded in not a material return a

formal return the material consequences

are going to be very different than the

formal ones okay you're gonna

it's gonna be like a crazy civil war or

something so don't say the material

you're giving them back as if you're

gonna be able to determine what that

looks like

a social revolution is also a crazy

civil war like do you think the soviets

like successfully like they just marched

in and said yeah we got a coalition

we're good no there was a a

an international civil war we're not

going to have a scenario where you're

not gonna have a scenario where tens of

millions of people

fight in a bloody civil war

so that a minority of an ethnic group

can rule over them

indigenous peoples would recognize

non-native doesn't matter

it stops with the sentence i just gave

you i'm giving you a realistic

understanding of reality

no one is going to fight a civil war of

tens of millions of people

to be ruled by a minority of people

determined by ancestry and ethnicity it

will never happen

then what is that then why even argue

that like settlers are indigenous just

just say they're settlers in day one but

that they're settlers i disagree that

they're settlers i disagree they're

settlers right now

i've already proved with uh with

heidegger you didn't prove anything

what heidegger is talking about are the

prerequisites what i was talking about

are the prerequisites

of being a human being

or properly dwelling in a place for

being a human being on a place

we we already argued about heidegger i

told you

so remember what i said remember what i

told you that indigenous people have the

knowledge and the science but in terms

of the being and the dwelling americans

are also dwelling here they just don't

know how so that's the difference it's a

matter of knowledge

indigenous on the ontological level

indigenous peoples can show them on the

legal and the material level

ruth bader ginsburg's sighting of the

doctrine of discovery to justify u.s

sovereignty shows that her relationship

to the land is one of conquest not one

of dwelling not one of expressing a

authentic relationship to all to the

relationality with the divine

what do you mean the us

you if you're saying the us is not

getting it's legal you're saying the

theory the theoretical basis of american

legal doctrine isn't coming from

heidegger we know it's not coming from

heidegger we know it's not coming from

heidegger but yeah we know it's coming

from english common law it's coming from

english common law

which is itself viewing which itself

views the uh like settlers or the united

states as having to conquer to be

outside to always be in opposition to

indigenous sovereignty she has to

reference those precedents

because according to common law it's

based on precedent and that's the yeah

and that precedent is a 1452 papal bull

yes

over treaties that were written within

the power yeah but that doesn't mean

that those people living here are

settlers

with ruth bader ginsburg

no of course i don't agree with her

no i of course i don't agree with her

because i don't think these issues can

be dealt with within the framework of

common law or bourgeois formalism it can

only be dealt with within the framework

of a proletarian dictatorship

but these are these are steps these are

issues that can only be dealt with and

rectified under the framework of a

proletarian dictatorship not a a narrow

framework of common law and i don't

believe i don't i don't believe in by

the way

i believe we need our own napoleonic

code i don't think we should have uh uh

dominance of common law in the first

place i i can i can pass you i can do

you one better look up the the 20-point

position paper by the american indian

movement also known as the trail of

broken treaties document in 1972

indigenous peoples um the american

indian movement other indigenous

activists wrote a 20-point position

paper on

what the relationship between the u.s

and native people should be

they have n in the 20 points the first

two are one the restoration of

constitutional treaty making authority

that the treaties would be recognized as

legitimate law

within a decolonizing united states and

by the way this is a preamble

what about the conflicts between india

what about people okay

let me ask you a question did indigenous

people steal land from each other

that's irrelevant now because because

why the model well the model of

colonialism now is one in which

indigenous peoples are all

against the united states where the

united states has settler colonized all

of them and has divided okay

that's an arbitrary line to make the

primary contradiction right now is not

hold on

the primary contradiction in the united

states right now has nothing to do with

cellular colonialism yes no it does if

you look at if you read what it what's

the article called again um

oh it's not relevant now because the

situation has changed that's what i'm

saying that's what i'm saying that's

what you're saying okay did you then you

just

then you disagree with the chinese uh

with the chinese embassy

when they say genocide is ongoing

they say genocide is ongoing okay the

america

the american indian genocide no the

american genocide of the indians

historical facts and real evidence i

never disagreed with that i never

disagreed with it

colonialism has ended but or genocide

has ended i didn't say genocide has

ended

you you're saying seller colonisms ended

the the people's republic of china said

no no people's republic of china didn't

talk about settler colonism they talked

about genocide

they talked about gen

they literally said the base the life

and basic political economic and

cultural rights through killings

displacements and forced assimilation

displacements moved off the land in an

attempt to physically and culturally

eradicate that doesn't mean they're

saying people are now engaging in

settler colonialism

hey indians still face a serious

existential crisis that's that's

again again you can you can you listen

in court and court you wouldn't be doing

a good job right now

this is the kicker you wouldn't be doing

a good job you're none of that language

implies the majority of people in the

united states

are settlers no none of that language is

there

they literally have they literally have

the term settler throughout like

throughout the document

and so read the part of the document

that says

americans

are settlers on this land

and they remain settled engaged in

settlerism go ahead you don't need to

say it directly you're already

understanding that indigenous peoples

are somehow

culturally like they're erased from the

land which continues to which is the

same definition as um patrick wolf when

he says

you tell me all this bullshit and i see

jeff bezos behind you and i see the city

of london behind you i see wall street

behind you i see bill gates behind you

that's the muscle behind everything

you're saying right now and all the

others would never quote the cp usa

i'm saying there needs to be a

multicultural like multi-racial working

coalition that recognizes indigenous

sovereignty you know what the chinese

said in that yeah the problem is that

you're defining indigenous sovereignty

in a way that renders the united states

totally illegitimate and

obsolete this is what the chinese the

people's republic of china's embassy

says uh in the same article the profound

quote the profound sin of genocide is a

historical state that the united states

can never clear and the painful tragedy

of the indians is a historical lesson

that should never be forgotten

yeah exactly so like it is it is a

fundamental contradiction that must be

um engaged

it's not a problem that doesn't mean

it's a primary contradiction

it's literally saying that it's the

problem you know did you know that

primary contradictions are defined by

the weight that they exert on material

reality and not on your moral conscience

they're not it's primary contradictions

aren't defined by the weight they exert

on your pro moral conscience but on the

manner by which they are involved in the

development of material reality that's

what the primary contradictions about

that's why the entirety of the united

states is built on on stolen land now

not all of that can i ask you the

question

have you followed the treaty do

indigenous do certain indigenous tribes

owe

black descendants of slavery reparations

yeah

they do their problems yeah but you know

like the the five civilized tribes i'm

going to be honest were

uh had slave owners they and there was a

slave um economy there because they

tried to model themselves after the us

government and after the us economy of

the 19th of the early

of the first half of the 19th century

this is the form of assimilation that

indigenous peoples tried to be

recognized under the united states and

even when they did that you had andrew

jackson and martin van buren leading the

cherokee um leading the um the cherokee

years even when indigenous peoples

assimilated

and even instituted slave economies they

were seen as illegitimate um they were

seen as illegitimate of actors does that

mean indigenous peoples should have

slave economies hell no it means that

indigenous sovereignty no matter in what

form has been

completely this uh um like

disestablished and unrecognized when it

is

the person has never read the soviet

constitution and like

article 20 moscow in the supreme soviet

rule over the local republics period the

general sector so did you read this

article 20 the laws made by moscow and

the supreme soviet rule over the local

republics period

the general secretary is the chief

executive

ah yeah so

there can be a model in the united

states for that uh so what is the

meaning of indigenous sovereignty then

the 20-point position paper

it would be said all indians to be

governed by treated relations this is

point six and it says the congress shall

enact the joint resolution declaring

that it is a matter of public policy in

good faith all indian peoples in the

united states shall be considered to be

in treated relations with the federal

government and governed by doctrines of

such relations relationship

meaning you know what you do you know

what you do you always you like you read

quotes i'm trying to ask you a question

you're like and then the basic and the

dolphins finn is not the same as a shark

what does that have to do with anything

we're saying you like you you the tone

of your voice makes it seem like you're

responding to something i'm saying and

you're not

there's a president of indigenous

intellectual and of writings on

decolonization that already answer your

question it's a 50 year old question

that's been answered

again and again

and even within and i'm trying to show

how indigenous peoples are very capable

of all right hold on but did you know

the ice cream man only comes at 9 30 a.m

and he blares the siren go then

so how do you

get to the fact that the ice cream man

is already driving his car well after 7

a.m

this is not an argument this is this is

lunacy

what are you trying to tell you

that's exactly what i've been trying to

tell you that's the same thing i've been

trying to tell you you're not responding

to anything i'm saying

uh you're saying that they're that the

so the supreme soviet will have ultimate

authority over yes

over the local autonomous regions

something within a unit within a

decolonized united states there would be

a recognition of a joint resolution of

joint

government but that but hold on in one

case you have a chief executive

in one case there's a chief executive

who rules over everyone else in the

other case there's joint treaties how

are they comparable again

well what i'm saying is that that would

be the specific model you can't just

yeah you can't just like copy it you

were the one who was referencing the

soviet model i'm telling you what the

soviet model was it wasn't based on

joint treaties it was based on the

supreme soviet being the ultimate

sovereign

but that like in a multipolar world you

want to accept that the soviet model

would be just hand just go be the same

why were you saying we should have the

soviet model that's what you said i

didn't say that you did

me i'm saying the soviet model you are

the one who said we should have the

soviet model i didn't

i'm saying it shows that it's possible

to have autonomous regions in a

harmonious in a harmonious like

socialist country and the same way in

bolivia you have pluri nationalism the

same way in ecuador you have plural

nationalism and you don't see separatism

in those regions either

like there are already ecuador and

bolivia are not comparable to the united

states the united states is the united

states yes

we live in a union we don't live in one

state it's a union okay that's a union

of

and it would be a greater union in which

tribal nations would have would be

autonomous this is why i want to read

the preamble today here's my problem

you're not a materialist you're not a

materialist

a materialist understands the definition

of the state in proportion to the living

people living there according to you the

definition of the state is according to

the moral conscience of the wrongs of

the past no to the material conditions

in which did indigenous people commit

injustices ever did indigenous people

commit injustice as ever against each

other

are there tribes that have

an un unequal relation to other tribes

because of those injustices

well most of them well

actually that would be something this is

your racism this is your eurocentric

racism let me explain it to you i will

explain to you your eurocentric racism

for you

the european modern state is the

ultimate

um

arbiter by which we rectify historical

wrongs but there is no organ of

indigenous sovereignty according to

which all of the pre-modern wrongs of

the indigenous people and injustices

will be rectified those according to you

are meaningless contingencies of the

past that are pre-modern and are those

are uncivilized savages it doesn't

matter what they did we don't have to

rectify the injustices of what

indigenous people did against each other

because they didn't know any better but

we europeans know better that means we

have to rectify all of the injustices

committed by europeans i don't think the

european i don't think the europeans

know better i see the modern europeans

as the savages who are not yet

enlightened and awakened to the truth of

communism

so

i have the same view of the europeans

that you have of the pre-modern

indigenous people

no look at this

their your same argument would be the

same as saying oh we should just like

italy they had slaves in during the

roman empire during their slave age um

during their like

material conditions during that

historical materialist age of slavery we

should just condemn them now i don't say

that because the conditions have changed

but so how do you how do you define that

how do you define that how do you define

that how do you define that how do you

define that where does it begin and

where does it end you're saying there's

ongoing injustices against indigenous

people those injustices can be

ameliorated without giving seventy

percent of the american land mass to one

percent of people living here

even it would be sovereignty it wouldn't

be like oh the houses are now indigenous

territory and like you can't have your

house and your toothbrush is gone no

these would be recognized under

indigenous software like indigenous you

gotta trust me what i said you know just

what i said i don't stop trying to sell

me the idea that oh one percent of

people should

i don't care if you're saying it's going

to be nice it's going to be an ice house

it's not going to be bad i don't care

it's just absurd on the face of it

there's no way you can cope your way

into trying to fucking say that this is

somehow some acceptable scenario well

this is like looks like someone saying

we should bring slavery back but we

should be benevolent slave masters dude

it's just absurd it's stupid it's stupid

your argument doesn't make sense either

all right let's bring slavery back let's

bring slavery back let's bring slavery

back but only for white people is that

acceptable

hell no no it's like slavery is itself

an abhorrent um but it's okay

slavery against um slavery against

slavery against phoenician males such as

myself how about that

no like wait you're right but the master

okay how about slavery where the

phoenician males own everyone

everyone belongs to the phoenician males

yeah but like

like that but we're gonna be but you're

you can still keep your toothbrushes and

it's gonna be like super benevolent and

like you're it's

we're not gonna we're not gonna be mean

to anyone we're not gonna be bad to

anyone we're just gonna have ultimate

say

his hair is inherently a form of

exploitation

whereas indigenous sovereignty wouldn't

be an inheritance it's a form of tyranny

is what it is

it tyranny is not a marxist

it's not yes it is yes it is it's a form

of tyranny in which people have it's

okay marxism is hegelian hegelian is

dialectic is about

recognition there is no way in which

people have

sovereignty

have any recognition in your tribal

leadership they don't have any stake in

it they don't have any

uh

uh

determinate

uh

they don't have any uh determinate

reflexivity

well you don't see like people

protesting like um the mcgruth oklahoma

case

you only see you only see the

bourgeoisie the essen like the

capitalists doing that with like the

republican governor there trying to

engage within scotus to disestablish

those uh that new jurisdiction that new

authority that yeah just wait until you

tell people

guys you're not going to be able to vote

for your congressman anymore you're not

going to be able to vote for your local

mayors or anything you're just going to

be under the rule of an entity separate

from the united states

it wouldn't be separate from the united

states this is whatever the status

reservations have that's what we're

going to live under it's just it's just

not realistic

of indian communities and securing an

indian future in america

you can use all this flowerly

meaningless language i'm talking about

substance i'm talking about the

substantive implications

this was implemented this would be as

much law as the us constitution because

the 20-point position paper would govern

the relationship between tribes which

are autonomous and the federal

government

this is a this is a very reasonable uh

moderate proposal for how indigenous

economists moderate for 70 to 80 of all

land in the us to be transferred to

break the united states system as we

know it at this point

you're saying it's moderate for like

almost all 50 states to basically be

dissolved in some capacity and be

transferred to indigenous tribal

leadership

so for people watching i've never said

that you can go throughout the entire

video he's making stuff up he's um what

do you think he just said 70 to 80

of land in the us would be given back to

indigenous tribal leadership that

doesn't mean that doesn't mean like the

states will now have to dissolve it

would just mean that how can you have

states and indigenous people ruling over

the same territory how can you have

municipalities and autonomous regions in

the soviet union it's possible how can

you have autonomous regions over the

same territory over the same territory

huh

regions

in santa cruz which are the main regions

in bolivia i'm not against i'm not

against indigenous people having

autonomy so stop making a strongman

you're saying 70 to 80 of all land in

the us which means tens of millions of

people have to be governed under tribal

leadership and they lose their forms of

sovereignty in which they can represent

themselves through their own elected

representatives or otherwise you're

saying they should lose all that

if you're saying common law is

illegitimate then why is that any less

any more legitimate than like

tribal rights because tribal people a

democratic republic

is not just common law

you want to

then you are then you're arguing that

like the united states is somehow more

democratic than this system when this

one over this would recognize indigenous

sovereignty yeah because the tens of

millions of people are not indigenous

and they have to be ruled over people

who are indigenous or have indigenous

ancestry which is a tiny minority of

people it wouldn't be like this is the

thing there's no like ethnocracy here

there's no like like um

ethno-nationalist project we have to

adopt a system we have to adopt a system

wait are you saying that like there are

forms of representational democracy that

are possible um you can also you can

either have like indigenous peoples like

the indigenous nations having

representatives um go to the congress

like within a decolonized world or you

can have ones where indigenous peoples

remain autonomous

and don't have federal representation

but are in america in the united states

these are models that can be debated

listen if you're talking about

indigenous people having sovereignty

over their own land in which they are

the majority

uh i'm not against that

when you're talking about indigenous

people having sovereignty over

the majority of people who are not

indigenous

you are talking insanity

this you're somehow you're somehow

thinking like oh the the system that we

like

the majority system now like where the

majority of like the congress and like

um state houses are white are somehow

more representational than indigenous uh

governance which could like you could

argue for opening up like uh for

like opening up representational

democracies amongst indigenous tribes in

this type of world

this is something you have to debate

this is something you're talking about

what are you talking about

we're not living in a decolonized world

yet these are debates that have to

happen

is

decolonization is a specific process of

states

gaining independence from european

colonial colonizers on a formal level i

don't believe in your metaphysical

decolonization that's idealist nonsense

no it's not it's not bolivia has the

ministry of the the vice ministry of

decolonization which itself governs

cultural development by the way i don't

know why you make it seem like bolivia

is my sacred cow i

oh it's not a secret

i don't really see bolivia as much of a

challenge to us imperialism as like

venezuela so i don't know why you're

talking about it all the fucking time

recognizing indigenous autonomy and

rights to land within its constitution

then talk about venezuela don't talk

stop talking so much about bolivia

all right let's talk about venezuela in

1992 the population of indigenous

peoples was 315 000 people that's 1.5 of

the population and in six years when

chavez came into power he instituted

indigenous an entire article like an

entire chapter for our section on

indigenous autonomy in the constitution

so even

we have 2.9 percent indigenous people's

independence

askers

any askers

because i don't know why that's relevant

it shows that even chop is understanding

the population why are you an npc

you don't know what is our what is our

issue what's the issue here what's the

issue here is it about indigenous

autonomy

or is it about millions of people being

under the jurisdiction of a minority

which i've consistently told you is the

problem but you're bringing up things

that aren't part of the problem

marks this analysis you would have like

like stop throwing phrases marxist

analysis soviet analysis stalin lenin

just stop using phrases you know command

authority and stick to the substance why

don't you focus on the actual dispute at

hand

in order for you to hold your own in

this debate you have to address the

issue at hand address the issue address

the point of contention you're not

bringing up points of contention you're

justifying

your position that i am contending

with things that don't justify that

position talking about indigenous

autonomy does not justify the position

that 70 to 80 percent of land in the

united states should fall under the

sovereignty of a minority of tribes

no you have inve you have in venezuela

1.5 of the population organize helping

to organize the constitution and having

an entire section so when did i say i'm

against that

you never did i say i'm against

indigenous people when did i say i'm

against indigenous people playing a role

and forming a new communist america

when did i say that

you're this is where you're this is

where you start shifting like goal posts

because do you want to know why because

the one 1.5 percent of people in

venezuela who are helping shape the

constitution are doing so in a way that

does right by their specific interests

that doesn't encroach upon

the ability for the majority to have

representation sovereign representation

but there are but they're already

imposing their law across the entire

nation

what's their law what's their law what

is their law thank you jeff harvey

the constitution itself is the governing

uh

legal system our constitution permits

laws to be enforced

that only that are for the indigenous

people so what are you talking about

that's not relevant we're talking about

sovereignty itself

well then within the constitution itself

it's already recognized that sovereignty

is is the law of the land if not the

united states shouldn't have written

those treatments

you know what dude dude you

something is like there's an emptiness

in your head and it's just very

frustrating to have any kind of

exchange with you

when you are not listening to what i am

saying

listen just fucking listen

okay it's very simple

means who is ruling over you who is

passing the laws who is passing

legislation who is governing you who is

administering you

who is actually possessing and wielding

sovereignty if indigenous people play a

role in shaping the constitution and the

constitution is enforcing certain laws

that were

given by the indigenous people that is

not the same as sovereignty being

transferred sovereignty over

tens of millions of people being

transferred to the minority it means the

minority is part actually of the people

that defines the defining document of

the country which i'm not against but

what you're talking about is only

indigenous people

having sovereignty

whereas in venezuela they have a little

bit of

they have a piece of the sovereignty

which i'm not against but you're saying

they should have all of it

no i'm not saying they should have all

seventy to eighty percent all of that

seventy eighty percent sovereignty

that is that all of the seventy eighty

percent the indigenous people of

venezuela are part of the venezuelan

state

and you're not a separate entity like

how

current law treats indigenous

reservations

well indigenous reservations wouldn't be

above the law they would have laws in

relation it like

one thing and i want you to directly

address it one thing

a minority of people

having sovereignty

total sovereignty over people who are

not indigenous which is a majority

go ahead sell it to me

what is that wait so what's the question

here

i'm explaining to me

how that's reasonable

that a minority should govern over

indigenous peoples

that a minority of indigenous people

should govern over a majority of

non-indigenous peoples

in 70 to 80 of the us's landmass go

ahead

well in essence like this is the law of

the land what are you gonna what are you

gonna do are you gonna

overturn the constitution it's not the

law of the land

the constitution is not the law of the

land

what are you a bourgeois formalist it's

not the law of the land not materially

so within you you can make the legal

opinion you could be of the legal

opinion

that it should be the law of the land

but you're not a judge hold on that's

for judges

to interpret you're not a judge so

that's your opinion

but like this is this is you you are you

can be the arbiter for what patriotic

socialists do

you can say like this is the line

i asked you how it's reasonable and you

said it's the law of the land

because you're saying and then i tell

you it's not and then you're like well

you could make it the law of the land

but tell me how you have to convince me

it's reasonable first

so to convince me it's reasonable

literally like okay the indigenous

peoples would be able to provide health

care would be able to provide socialized

media like medicine resources how uh

housing

first of all i don't believe that second

of all

that's just that's like a bernie sanders

aoc type of i'll give you free shit give

give your freedoms up i'll give you free

shit i know freedom is sounds liberal

but materially speaking what i meant by

that what i mean by that what i mean by

that is the fact that there is not

shut the fuck up shut the fuck up and

start cutting me off

shut the fuck up

that's why though

what i mean by that

is the fact that the people have no

stake

in the sovereignty there's no way for

them to carve out in existence

in a sovereign way they won't have their

own way of life you're saying there's

going to always be benefits benevolently

bestowed upon them that's a utopian

bourgeois socialism that's philanthropic

view of socialism marx and engels

derided and mocked it so tell me how

it's reasonable don't tell me it's

reasonable because of its bourgeois

socialism i don't give a fuck that it's

elitist

socialism

black and latino folks do not have like

uh proportional representation in the

congress now but yet they still feel

attached to united states

that's not true that's the worst example

you could use black people don't feel

attached to this fucking country they

they they

feel the opposite of that

they feel that they're attached to the

country in that they can change it in

that there's a model they really don't

that is why there are record levels of

low turnout from the black community

because they don't feel like they have a

piece of this country they don't feel

like they're part of this country they

don't feel like this country belongs to

them at all

they don't feel like they can change

what do you think do you think black

people think they can change this

country um

they've given up on america they don't

think they can change america what

they're doing what what they're what the

leaders of the black community are doing

now is we're saying let's go our own way

and try to make our own sovereignty but

we they're not going to fucking

uh change america they don't think

they're going to change america what the

hell are you doing

like why would so why would like things

like the flag or like a patriotic

proletarian patriotism be uh like be

convincing to black folks or latinos

because we're not because we're not

gonna lead black people

we're not gonna be the leaders of black

people they're gonna have their own

leaders we're going to make deals with

their leaders

but we're not going to lead them

why should they trust us we're outsiders

wait like no then you're saying that you

see you you think we expect you think we

seriously think you think we seriously

expect that we're going to lead the

black community

is that what you really think

like when indigenous peoples are telling

you yo land back is not just an ngo

project this is like there are

you told me it's not only an ngo project

there's also some supreme court cases

going on right now when most of them are

going to fail

not most of them going to fail but like

there have been majors yes they are yes

they are

do you don't have any statistics behind

it that's not an argument there's no

there's no relevance here what like even

with even though you don't have the

statistics i'm a marxist i think that if

some if something is going to go against

the interest of the capitalist class

like you said supreme court's not going

to

the supreme court isn't going to

endanger u.s national security because

of fucking violated the treaties from

200 years ago they don't give a fuck

about that peter ginsburg voted the way

she did she didn't want indigenous

sovereignty to return so there you go

there you go so sovereignty is itself

like is itself a form of antagonism to

the united pivot pivot

pivot pivot because i told you land back

isn't just these ngos the only other

example of it being anything but those

ngos is some supreme court cases that

are going to fail and then i then he

said well yeah they failed and that's

proof that i'm right no it's not it's

proof

it's proof that it's going to fail

that's what it's proof of

you just got to keep you got to keep

fighting what is the point of the

struggle that's it and even then you

don't have just the lawyers you have

activists on the ground you have

marxists like marx is like the red

nation you have anarchist groups you

have other indigenous nationalist groups

it's not just one fight you already know

that's that's where that's where you

lose me you say the you say you have

anarchist groups get the hell out of

here with that joy you know you lose me

you lose me that now i see you're a

federal agent now i see you glow now i

see your jeff bezos now i see you're the

fucking

you know wall street near the city of

london the

on the other side that you're right the

point is i'm trying to convince all of

the other folks look

they're trying to lose my community too

my community sees the same thing i do

you lost us you lost us

we hate anarchists we think anarchists

are scum we hate them they're our

enemies we think they serve the

democrats in the deep state

and why are anarchists so obsessed with

indigenous people i wonder why it's

almost like

why was william z foster obsessed with

the industry

he was the whole chapter he was on

indigenous peoples in north america and

south america because he saw was an

important part of the national he wasn't

obsessed with him because anarchists

defined their entire political vision

based on a bourgeois socialist utopia of

indigenous

takeover

william z foster took and took into

consideration indigenous people who

wouldn't

but

we're going to define our entire

political vision based on that no

i'm not defining the entire political

vision of it it's not like black folks

aren't going to have autonomy or what if

the if this is what they're looking for

or that like the white working class

would somehow just be completely

excluded from it they would just have to

work within under indigenous laws like

the same way like black and latino folks

like they're working on their laws right

now like the whole pieces of

patriot is that like

like you're not like you've been

excluded from this territory but you

still love the land and its people

the same way like

so even with it so you're either you

either have to say and this is the

this is like

do with me listen the truth is you're a

liberal

yeah no i'm not

like like you have a very

i've read your view of humanity does it

your your view of humanity is woke

academic liberalism

oh black and latino folks

that's not i don't really see you you

know i can't take you seriously as the

representative of all indigenous people

i just can't i'm not the representative

all indigenous i see you as an agent of

the woke ngo academic complex that's

what i see you as

and who like and i'm not

there's no argument being made here

you're just appealing to you are you are

exactly that because

you have this you have the you have the

liberal consensus view of the national

question oh well the folks over there

and we're all have one big happy family

the folks over here that's not fucking

true there is so much racial animosity

between all the groups you just

mentioned

so much of it

yeah i mean no

what about it

what is it

and how do you addre how are you

overcoming any of that how you're you're

trying to make it seem like you're

coming from the indigenous perspective

no indigenous have their own interests

they don't have this universalist

liberal moralist view of like oh all of

us holding hands together

that's that comes from the 60s

counterculture it's white quite

liberalism

indigenous people they want to drill a

lot of them want to drill their own land

and by the way they hate they told a lot

of them told me they hate this word

native they didn't tell me i heard it

that they were telling others they hate

this word native american and they would

prefer to be called indian because they

don't want to be whitewashed by the

white counter culture liberal who's

making this new family and they want to

drill their own land for oil

yeah but they should do that under a

nationalized for like under a

nationalized structure of the tribal

government where they have where are you

to tell them under what form they should

do it

wait so you're saying like under like

your own communist vision should not

advocate for a socialist model of

indigenous like of indigenous

trafficking because i actually do

believe in the national question and i

actually do believe in indigenous

sovereignty

shut

shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut

the fuck up don't fucking interrupt me

when i just when you just asked me a

question

is people this is listen you stupid fuck

you stupid fuck you ask me a question

i could not get one word in before you

decided to talk you asked me a question

and i'm responding to it

the reason is because i actually okay

i'm gonna mute you because you don't

shut the fuck up you're getting muted

there you go you did

you asked me a question how could you're

not a socialist i actually do believe in

the national question and i do really

believe in indigenous autonomy which

means no we're not gonna force a

socialist system upon a people who don't

want it that's what real sovereignty

means by the way so no they don't have

to adopt lenin said unconditionally we

support the anti-imperialist national

struggle whether takes socialist form or

not we don't have terms and conditions

the national question

anti-imperialism is the primary

contradiction according to lenin and

socialist forces should seek to gain

hegemony over that

but

you don't force anything

that's my answer to you

so at that point you're rejecting the

deterministic view of marxism which i

actually agree with you shouldn't like

you shouldn't just force people to do it

go ahead and specify

what you mean by that the deterministic

view of marxism what is that in

reference somehow marxism will

inevitably go like go from capitalism to

socialism and then like eventually reach

communism that there is a historical

there's nothing to do with premising and

conditioning

the right of nations to

self-determination

it's a struggle that isn't inevitable

it's one that's hard that's one that's

hard fought and one that must become it

is inevitable it is absolutely

inevitable

but you're already saying you can't

force these things you're just like

that's why that's why because it's

inevitable

like you're saying that indigenous

peoples once they develop like even if

they develop like a national like a

capitalist economy

are able to like would be recognized

under lenin i i actually agree with that

too that would be the indian collective

view of trying to gain um trying to

collaborate with the capitalists in the

united states

no no you don't even know what lenin's

saying that would be that would not be

the view of collaborating with the

capitalists of the oppressor nation that

would mean you have

that would mean you have that would mean

you have your own capitalists who are

actually undermining the monopoly

capitalists of the oppressor nation

that's what that would mean

but that's something that's done through

class consciousness through developing

class consciousness not really

what do you think

between socialists and anti-imperialists

for a decolonizer for a decolonized

world that there is a that national

sovereignty is important and yes i agree

nationally

i'm a marxist-leninist

i'm a marxist leninist i believe in jv

stalin's the national question you

add all of this shit about

decolonization and indigeneity and

returning to nature and returning to the

land this is

foreign to my ideology it's foreign to

my worldview and you're not selling it

to me very well

you'll notice that he is straw manning

me at every point he can't answer me

directly i think everyone in this crowd

should know

like what i'm saying is that like

at each point there is a recognition

that sovereignty must be is that

like the state the

the settler colonial state must

sacrifice

some if not a lot of its sovereignty in

a way to rectify the net to rectify the

national question so that they're so

that the nation doesn't

have to sacrifice

it doesn't i reject the view that the

united states

did not define himself amongst local

nationalism nor amongst an

internationalism that swallows

indigenous nations into like the greater

whole that's why he advocates for that

middle path

of recognizing autonomous nations

with a uh with a large standing within

uh within the soviet union within that

like federal

level structure within the soviet

socialist republic

and he disagrees with lenin on like

indigenous peoples must just be

separatists and deplore a national model

doesn't have to be separate it isn't

separatist it's much more aligned with

stalin's vision it actually developed

out of that and i think that model can

be developed in the united states if we

recognize this what is the problem what

is the what are we debating about what

is the point of contention i've raised

to you

dozens of times

what is the actual thing we're

disagreeing about

like you're giving me a lot of bullshit

about naturalism and we can all call

existing right what am i actually

disagreeing with you about what is the

substance of our disagreement what is

the substance of our disagreement just

focus on the substance of our

disagreement what is it what is the

substance of our disagreement go ahead

you're so boring it's about like can we

convince people to like accept a

minority like an indigenous minority to

somehow exploit like the um the majority

class or the majority be more precise be

more precise

isn't that it no you you can be more

precise it is whether a majority should

accept a minority

having total sovereignty over them

it wouldn't be total sovereignty there

is no there is sovereignty

that's it there's no such thing as half

sovereignty there's no such thing as

20 sovereignty there's sovereignty or

there's no sovereignty then you're being

very uncreative so there's either gonna

be a sovereignty that's inclusive of

indigenous people i agree with that i

never disagreed with that there's going

to be a sovereignty in which indigenous

people have a completely separate one or

and then um the united states people

have their own which i'm also fine with

but then the one you're talking about is

one in which tribal governance will be

exercised over tens of millions of

people

instead of the actual state they have

now

yeah but they would be autonomous and

they would be a part of the united

states they would just have to engage

through treaty relations this is not

like and then you can also negotiate can

i ask you a question can i answer your

question

please like this isn't let me let me

okay go come look at this map again

because this is the map this is the map

we're talking about so this is the

tribal leadership map supposedly right

let's just say what the force for this

what's the source honestly i just

searched it on google let's just

hypothetically

it doesn't mean anything you have to you

yourself said this is what you're

talking about

that would be that would be a potential

one but i think that would so let's

let's just for the sake of argument say

this is the map

okay

indigenous sovereignty tribal leadership

is exercised

over all of this

which is sovereignty you cannot have two

sovereigns you can't have the state of

michigan also be sovereign alongside

the tribal whatever

well this is why you would have

indigenous peoples renegotiate and both

old and new treaties

because sometimes like in those cases

you would you could argue

well indigenous peoples don't have the

entirety of michigan but

also

why like these tribal treaties let's say

it's 50 of michigan

it's 50 of michigan

oklahoma's already owned like it's

already tribal lands 43 of it's already

tribal lands

and what is the population density of

that

how many people live on how many people

live under it it's 700 000 people

yes that's seven hundred thousand people

and that's awesome

that's not happening there's no but you

don't see it but you don't see the the

fear the anxiety and the by the way by

the way it's not it's not really it's

not it's not really true so

indigenous oklahoma

sovereignty so

you're saying the state of oklahoma has

no jurisdiction in 43 of oklahoma

no they have jurisdiction actually the

um

the what is it the tribal police force

they actually collaborate with the

federal government and with the state

police uh with the state and federal

police uh agency so how does it

sovereignty then so how does it

sovereignty so how is it sovereign

because indigenous people because

indigenous peoples ask the federal

government and ask the state governments

to help with investigations of missing

murdered indigenous peoples

this is not just where autonomous now so

we just reject your authority no there

are pragmatic ways in which indigenous

peoples are solving crimes not just of

indigenous the headlines are wrong

hold on

just to be clear

okay

you're talking so i'm just gonna show it

the headlines are wrong

the court did not give eastern oklahoma

back to the tribes nobody will lose

their land or their home the decision

simply means that indians in that part

of the state are subject only to the

criminal jurisdiction of the tribes and

the united states

as is true on indian reservations and

many other states yeah so it seems to to

me that

it's not the land that belongs under

indigenous sovereignty it's the indigent

or the indians this was what this is

saying living there under indian

sovereignty

so that means this the majority who are

non-indigenous are not actually under

the jurisdiction

of the tribes

they would be under the they will be

under the jurisdiction in criminal cases

of the tribes no they're not the

districts are saying they're not this is

saying

that only the indians in that part of

the state

are subject to the crew oh yeah criminal

jurisdiction of the tribes not the

non-indians

because there's a there's a fucked up

system in which

um but you admitted that didn't you you

omitted that you kept talking you

wouldn't shut the fuck up about eastern

oklahoma but you admitted the key part

where what you were saying was false

like wait and show how it's false let's

go

because the in the tribes don't have

sovereignty over the land just the

people

of the tribes just the indian people

only the people who belong to the tribes

are subject to the criminal jurisdiction

of the tribes not the non-indigenous

people living in that land

there are there are subject to it if

they commit a crime on indigenous

peoples this is this is there's a

specific system in which yeah you're

shifting the goal post you're shifting

the goalkeepers you're shifting the

goddamn fucking goalposts

indigenous people are 14 of eastern

oklahoma

the tribes only have sovereignty over

that fourteen percent it's not even real

sovereignty either that original number

in the modern in the modern

demonstration it would be 43 percent

14 of the population 40 it's 43 of the

state is what you're saying yeah 43 of

the la of all of the land yes which

includes parties

you know what i accused you of doing

you know what i accused of doing

i accused you of doing this i said every

time i tell you something you respond

and you're like

oh yeah yeah i literally just told you

14 of the people there are indigenous

you go no no 43

and then i go no you're talking about

the land yeah

my bad

why do you mishear me so often

because you're always screaming

because you're always why am i raising

my voice

why am i raising my voice why am i being

frustrated go ahead

because you don't you can't actually if

you're getting frustrated when i'm

trying to finish a point that you think

is wrong but you're not respecting the

rules is it that the point is wrong or

is that it's irrelevant

well the point well you can actually say

it's irrelevant look uh like look at all

the framework that i've built up

but haven't built up any framework

you've never you haven't actually

addressed the substantive point of

contention you've danced around it

you've danced around it

i'm saying every other point

over like supersedes the point that

you're making

that uh on the question on like the

national question the question of

indigenous ontology versus settler

ontology

which we addressed i already addressed

all of that bullshit that time stuff

yeah we said heidegger understands a

sacred relationship to dwelling which is

a relationship we already went down that

road and we're not opening it back up

because you're not saying anything new i

had a specific response that you didn't

respond to i'm saying everything i said

already supersedes every other so this

is the this is the debate to you you

come

and just give a lecture and then i give

you responses and you don't address my

responses you just reaffirm what you

originally said without addressing how

i've challenged that because i'm saying

the challenges aren't actually it don't

actually challenge the fundamentals of

what i'm saying

like i'm already i am not actually

interested in a vague idea of the

fundamentals i'm interested in the

substance of the idea of it that's why i

gave an alternative

so you can agree that it's not necessary

so are you agreeing now that it's not

necessary that 70 to 80 percent sorry

like 60 to 70. you don't agree that all

of the land

that was violated in treaties has to be

given back

well that's up for the natives for

native tribes to decide but

all these

all the tribes and treaties have to

return their lands back okay like that's

the problem okay okay stop there stop

there so that's the point of our

contention from the beginning that was

our point of contention

and i'm already saying like if you

actually respect indigenous sovereignty

that would be the case

and it doesn't come at the exclusion of

indigenous no

no no that's not the case

no there's no indigenous sovereignty

over those lands in any functional sense

the only indigenous sovereignty is based

on the word of the white man which was

violated we all know it was violated so

the sovereignty isn't there

the double standard is already that if

there was like white like english common

law which was established over the

united states which is not itself

universal it's itself already an

ethnically like a white ethnic position

welcome to the violence constitutive of

all states

exactly and like if we can use the

liberal institutions

hold on hold on and then work with the

social you can't you can't go from there

to saying all the violated treaties have

all the land taken from indigenous

people has to be returned to them

you're making a hopscotch people yeah it

happens

that's it that's exactly it if you're if

you're seeing a hegelian struggle is

happening between indigenous people

amongst indigenous peoples and like the

working class that's won a false

dichotomy but two indigenous people like

like we just have to win uh like we just

have to win the struggle which is what

everything what this is all about the

ice cream man is coming after 10 p.m

exactly

can you try to be funnier dog please

like this is this is kind of

embarrassing there's a hot dog stand

there's a hot dog stand on

fifth and avenue

and i really you know

it's really serving up those hot dogs

this is not an argument

really

so what does what you just said have to

do with what i said it's just not

ridiculous because your subjective view

this is a substantive point of

contention is about whether all of the

land stolen from indigenous people has

to be returned to them in 2012

one question what i'm saying every other

every other framework points to the fact

that indigenous treaties are legitimate

on an ontological level on a legal level

on on a socialist on the socialist level

of national sovereignty and national

autonomy on the other hand

a socialist level the social level of

national sovereignty

in venezuela at every point there are

historical and material examples that

prove that this project is viable

can i just instill this mathematical

formula in your fucking head can i just

give you a mathematical formula so you

shut the fuck up in every single one of

those cases nowhere do you have a ethnic

minority exercising sovereignty over the

majority that means a minority of tribes

don't get to have fucking sovereignty

and own the land in which tens and tens

of millions of people dwell

that has been the only point of

contention i have raised to you

know

in none of those frameworks

does this specific circumstance apply

because it's not a because it's not a

relevant one if you're trying to find it

is relevant from a materialist

perspective because marxism is a human

centered paradigm so yes it is fucking

relevant that the majority is being

ruled by a minority yes it is

fucking

relevant

that's why you have a bourgeois view

according to which you have a bruised

view according to which the formal dead

letter of the law is all that matters

and living people and their way of life

and their living mode of production

doesn't fucking matter only the dead

letter of the law that's a bourgeois

view not a marxist one

no that's why that's why i'm showing

that like when stalin in the 10th

congress and then

is arguing look you have to give back

the kyrgyz the chechens and oscetians

over

russia okay

do you give them all of russia did he

get them all of russia did they get most

of russia

you have to give back the lands

you understand that there are 538 tribes

each one deserves a part of the land

do they get most of it yes or no

well they can't end up in a situation

where tens and tens of millions of

people are ruled by less than one

percent of the population do you get

that kind of situation as a result of

stalin's policy

that's not one percent of the population

indigenous peoples are constitute two

point nine percent and oh my god my bad

it's it's it's two point nine percent

okay because of the low count that makes

it a lot better it's better it's better

for it to be two percent because

that extra 1.9 percent really makes the

difference

and in every case and in every case

indigenous peoples have it have

exercised their authority over national

law in venezuela in uh like in bolivia

in uh what was it and even like give

example give relevant examples of how

the majority of people

have to live under the thumb of minority

give relevance

under the thumb you already assume that

there's an author that it's an

authoritarian government that's

saying like i'm saying i'm saying they

have the sovereignty right your your

framing of the question is already like

this doom and gloom situation which

might sit retard on youtube

and i say that word

it proves a cellular anxiety theory that

like um eve talking koa yang right in

their article decolonization is not a

metaphor that indigenous sovereignty is

somehow anathema to human society that

it is itself a for like that are you an

npc are you an npc

no i'm just speaking over you bro

because at the end because at this point

you're not speaking over anyone you're

not speaking over anyone

you're repeating nonsense there's no one

so you're you're an npc bro okay i'm no

one

now getting to the now getting to the

matter at hand

the tribal governance structure

is not the form of sovereignty that

expresses

the will of the people formally

in this country

because it it because it represents

indigenous people who are a minority in

1934

franklin dela roosevelt instituted the

indian uh what is it uh

the indian redistribution act where

he not only returned stopped the the

dividing of the reservation plot

under the dawes act he ended the the

seller colonial project he also yeah and

in 1835 time passed yeah

and in 1845 in 1845 a second passed

no i'm i'm i'm telling you the material

like these are the material conditions

like how law and material conditions

dialectically engage with each other

okay let me explain to you like

something very simple because i just

maybe it needs to be explained to you or

something so a state does not derive its

materiality from the forms

that it itself legislates and

establishes formally thank you jose

that's not where a state actually

derives its material power a state

derives its material power by being the

estranged form

of a given human community it's common

unity

over and against it itself okay that is

where it derives its power which means

that human community is a living

breathing community which is

specifically held together and glued

together based on some kind of in some

sense one way or another common way of

life and way of reproducing themselves

materially

the mode of production okay

so how does the mode of production so

when you're

how does what

how does the mode of production develop

in the united states

the mode of production develops in the

united states specifically through the

paradigm of the state

being a if you want to look at the

uniquely american paradigm

being used as a way of investing

into local industries through credit and

banks

through the establishment of common

infrastructure and common highways and

railway or whatever the fuck else you

want

and

through um so-called uh

small farmers developing into industrial

capitalists through

loans okay so this is like the

hamiltonian view of um economic

development for the united states that's

which is uniquely american

this is yeah this is the hammer so the

american american motor production the

american mode of production specifically

rests after in the relevant sense today

based on a specific social contract

economic implicit social contract it's

not formal between the american people

and the state according to which the

state will guarantee

a ability to maintain a plot of land a

proverbial plot of land a house a family

a job and a living

and with that a certain way of life

um

while at the same time representing

their sovereignty formally it also

represents their sovereignty

economically this is after the new deal

yeah so

and even even before the new deal by the

way it's the foundation of before the

suburban home it was the small farmer

right so that specifically is the

american way of life

is based on homesteads

united only by common infrastructure

uh and whose interests are represented

by the state

so that's where the state's power

actually comes from it doesn't come from

the the

formal

things that it's formal laws it itself

establishes and legislates it comes from

the actual material foundation of

american

way of life

yeah and you at each point you point it

to labor um wait that's a form of

capital the point um

the mo the means of production that's

another uh

form of capital there's another form of

capital you keep missing you keep

dodging

um in the development of the united

states which is land

at every point you needed the land is

the foundation of my analysis actually

yeah you you just you failed to

recognize

physical language proverbial land is

different from literal land

upon which

the proverbial land upon which the

american way of life

rested

is not literal agricultural farmland as

it had been

before forever before

before it was only one specific type of

land after that it becomes economic

space in the abstract as a category of

the managerial state projecting itself

in the form of zoning laws and housing

laws and districting laws and so on and

so on it ceases to be a specific

form of land and it acquires the

equality of abstraction

so no i'm not neglecting the aspect of

land i'm talking more broadly about how

land can become proverbial rather than

literal

and that itself is based on the material

foundation of having the land in the

first place you can't like

and once that land is taken away once

that land is taken away in the case of

like let's say

um

uh displacement from housing

gentrification or being priced out of

the market

you like you can have a tie to the

proverbial land but it upsets the

material foundation of the state

yeah no but i mean the state itself in

the united states does uh

just shifts how the land is to uh to the

capitalist class

which itself how which itself reifies

capitals unless you think we're not in

capital what do you mean what do you

mean what do you specify what you're

talking about

because at

like i said the relation we'll just talk

for no reason actually address something

relevant

because i always try to construct the

point to show that there's a solid

foundation no no don't give me a

foundation give me a point hey would

that happen

for a point give me the actual point

you keep cutting me off before i

actually get to the point so get this is

the new problem

get to the point because you've never

gotten to a point when i let you talk

i have gone to plenty so it with the

land itself it like

if it goes to the capitalist class

that's a pro that's a problem when it

goes to indigenous peoples it is

rectifying the primitive accumulation

that occurred as uh as it needs the

problem yeah sure here's the problem

i'll give you the exact problem is that

problem

the way in which land is or whether

proverbial or otherwise is distributed

to the american people

is under the sovereign statehood which

is what actually ensures their right to

property quote unquote it's through this

organ of common statehood

that belongs to them

the so-called democratic republic that

belongs to them

so when you are talking so the problem

with just giving indigenous people

economic land for example is that

that economic land would then have to

interface with a form of sovereignty

which is going to regulate how and where

they can use the land and so on and so

on in ways that are not necessarily

representative of the interests of

indigenous people therefore

they need their not in addition to the

economic property of land their rights

to be able to pass laws and legislation

and regulations

about how they use the land which they

own so this is the meaning of statehood

and sovereignty

what you are suggesting

so we have two distinct forms of the

ownership of land and of sovereignty two

distinct forms representing two entirely

different peoples

so on one hand you have a majority of

the american people through the united

states and on the other hand you have

the indigenous people now the indigenous

people are a minority who are being

unjustly oppressed

by the representatives of the majority

and specifically the ruling class of the

majority we agree

and we should do our best to have a more

just relationship to them

but you are suggesting that the

fundamental foundation of these people

the american people

should be

changed

such that it all becomes under the

sovereignty of the indigenous people who

are a minority

and the fundamental social contract

defining the american people is gone

and we are just under the so-called

benevolent rule of indigenous people i

am i have consistently maintained the

view

that that is an unreasonable stance

you have two separate

let's call them nations i don't agree

it's a nation but let's just for the

sake of argument call them nations two

separate nations you're saying one

nation should be under the sovereignty

of another nation

two different peoples require either two

different forms of sovereignty or they

somehow fuse together and create an

entirely new form of sovereignty but you

cannot have you cannot erase a people's

sovereignty

under another people's sovereignty now

are you gonna address this

one consistent point i've brought up or

are you gonna quote some something

irrelevant are you actually gonna

address this

that's the well isn't is that lenin's

form or like critique of like multi what

is it like multinational countries

is that similar to like i'm trying to

try i'm trying to like understand it

like lenin in lenin disagree that

multinational countries can exist

because he didn't disagree he

established the soviet union within his

lifetime

which was malt which had various

but different

was stalin who architected the national

project

okay i'll explain that to you i'll

explain that to you stalin believed more

in a civilization state

in which while the rights of minority

ethnicities and nationalities are

guaranteed the russians lead the

civilization state as the main peoples

of that state

and it's a civilization state in which

the russians represent the majority

and engage in this fusion and

syncreticism with everyone else

where they kind of me blend together

while also having differences and

they're not standardizing everything

where everyone becomes the same but

they're just fusing together and

interacting together

that's not the same as a minority ruling

over the that they but they are a common

people with a common form of sovereignty

which is represented by the supreme

soviet which has ultimate sovereignty

you say we shouldn't supplant this

system to the united states so stop

bringing up lenin and stalin when you

don't agree with the system uh that this

that was the soviet union

i can disagree and agree with certain

parts because i think they're applicable

to

the specific material conditions in the

specific historical or quote

civilizational experiences in the

americas

but i'm not copying copying and pasting

them um the soviet union to the united

states which is why i advocate for like

the specific treaty forms

of

like shared sovereignty and also like i

said what's the height again what does

it mean to share sovereignty

it literally means like if you can share

sovereignty it shows that there are like

forms of autonomous regions that are

under the that are under a government

under one state

have recognition i'm pretty sure this is

an ecological project right you're

trying to say the majority of the land

should belong to indigenous people

plural nationalism is the recognition of

multiple nations under one state it's

that simple

multiple nations under one state with

different recognition and autonomy to

what is a nation define it

as a nation is a people with a con like

in under the marxist view would be like

a people with a common territory uh

common language common culture

and uh com like i think about um i might

be missing one or two things

but essentially that's it

are you missing something um i'm not

sure actually i i need to like i can't

find the specific definition

but what i'm saying but like

in every case you could still have those

amongst indigenous peoples like you have

tribes and reservations now you can grow

you can like

just use those as the starting basis for

a tribal

um for a plural national state

national state is superfluous

there's no such thing by the way it's

the cheap way of avoiding the hard issue

either sovereignty

or the mending together that defines a

civilization state now the reason

bolivia has its pluri national model

is because latin america has not

resolved its unique and specific

civilization yet

it hasn't resolved this issue so

temporarily in bolivia the way they're

responding to it is just saying oh we're

just going to have

nations coexist with each other well no

there's this

unavoidable tension between either one

common civilization

on one hand and different sovereign

nation states on the other

plury nationalism

especially when it's applied outside of

bolivia specifically is like this way of

coping of avoiding this dialectic and

just saying we're just going to have

several nations coexist in one rainbow

family i don't buy it

i don't buy

it you don't buy it because you're not

actually you don't actually understand

bolivia or you don't understand

countries like um like ecuador no i

understand that these countries

are still resolving the question of

their unique and common civilization i

agree with the venezuelan i'm more of a

bolivarian i would agree more with

the venezuelan

interpretation of the model of simone

boliver one common civilization i think

that's more legitimate

i'm not i'm not interested in reifying

i'm not against what the bolivia or what

the bolivians are doing but it's like

i'm not looking at bolivia as like a

model well bolivia bolivia is not like

some model everyone the whole fucking

world should follow bolivia is not

nearly as much of an anti-imperialist

country as venezuela or cuba even is so

i don't know why you keep bringing it up

like

well bolivia what are you talking about

bolivia

bolivia nationalizes um its gas industry

it's hydrocarbon industry and two it

also it's nationalizing its lithium

industry and

i'm not against them i'm not against

them

and they also resisted the coup you had

a coup that's viewed eva morales is too

dangerous to stay okay okay okay like oh

like we're pretty they're a pretty big

danger to um on this on board not nearly

as much as venezuela

but even then even with venezuela like

it like they had their pluri national

they have a plural national model

no they don't

they do what do you like let me bring up

the constitution like this is kind of

yeah all right um venezuelan

constitution

venezuelan constitution

nineteen-year-old nationalism is a

specific model coined in bolivia they

don't use that word in venezuela

no it's not a term coined in bolivia it

was coined in the 1980s as a as like a

creature whatever that's

in the venezuelan constitution 1999

so yeah the constitution is 1999 in

venezuela do they use the word plural

national

no but there is a market that's it

that's that's it

yeah but like ecuador is a pluri

national state without calling itself

pluri national that's your view well

that's your view

they don't have to call themselves the

the plury national state of ecuador they

don't have to call themselves the plury

national state of venezuela the reason

they have to call themselves the plury

national state of bolivia is because

there's a degree of tension between the

mestizo and the indigenous

wait you don't think there is one in

ecuador no an ecuador d they call

themselves a republic because

the the idea of changing the name was

too much too far for many of the left so

they were gonna change it to the plury

national state of ecuador

oh

they were going to change it to the

plural national state of ecuador

proposals yeah but they were shot down

yeah this is what happens in the

constituent assembly this is what

happened in chile currently there are

articles for autonomy but there's not a

recognition that that chile is an

autonomous is a isn't ecuador a pluri

national state formally

it is formally but not by name which is

what i'm saying you can be formally a

pluri national state without having the

name

okay well i don't agree that

plurinationalism is a applicable model

to the united states

and you would then you would disagree

with like the model of like um

of the cpu of the cpu cpusa prior to

like um everyone from gus hall before

which wasn't that nationalism

like nationalism it wasn't glory

nationalism

you would have a chicano republic and a

black republic those would be like a

20th century form of nationals no it

wouldn't

why not

really that would be a one american that

would be just the united states and you

don't have to say blurry nationalism

it's the united states where united

states

various different states

united in one nation it's like an ethnic

federalism like if you want to use like

a crude term like that it's like it's

like ethnic federalism but within the

conditions of the americas

not hard to understand

it's a pretty simple one that a lot of

people obscure sadly enough i don't

think many people understand what blurry

nationalism is

but plurinationalism

establishes boundaries that are not too

clear in the united states

we don't have these hard boundaries

we don't have these hard hard boundaries

that's that make it such that like

sure is there a black nation that's up

to them right but

as for america

itself the project of the united states

itself we're not

are we a nation are we not a nation it's

not very clear

we dwell somewhere in between

a narod

and a nation we dwell somewhere in

between we have mixed race people we

have

people it's a so-called melting pot

there's truth to that fact

okay

you don't just have wasps you have the

italians and you got

puerto ricans and you've got

black people and you've got all sorts of

people mixing together

um it's hard to really pin it down as a

as one

either one nation or multiple nations

it's hard to pin it

down but according to stalin the united

states is one nation because of the

language it speaks english which is a

separate and it's a separate nation from

england because the people here

developed in a different way so stalin

believes there's an american

but that doesn't mean there's a white

nation

so how do you define it based on nation

we don't know

well in look at let's look at the plural

national model because i think it's very

good i don't i don't i just like th this

is why like the the conditions of

bolivia it sounds corny it sounds like

it's important

i don't buy it it sounds corny it sounds

corny i i want nothing to do with it it

sounds corny it sounds corny because you

don't actually know the materials

there's like a recognition of

blurry diabetes just corny dude i don't

fuck with that

hey

this is his own art this is the only

argument y'all

no

i made a specific argument why it's not

applicable to the united states but like

i can tell you're fixated on it because

it's like this cope of like oh it's so

wholesome it's like no it's cringe it's

the it's the

it's a recognition that there is a

diversity that needs to be right and

then it needs to create i don't share

your like liberal view of diversity

that's exactly what it is i don't share

your liberal view of diversity i believe

in determinate relationships between

peoples

harmoniously comprising one common

civilization like i do

i don't like this flowery liberal oh

it's diaper no i believe in determinate

relations between people sp

developing into

common civilizations

civilizations i believe in civilizations

being given the benefit of the doubt of

being allowed to be separate only in the

interest of establishing determinate

relations

and mutually co-existing and developing

and interact

but that's different that's different

from this like liberal

sock them whatever the fuck worship of

diversity for diverters on sake i don't

agree with it it's wait so let's let's

start let's talk about this so is

a civilization like um like india it has

to be traditional right it has to be

like thousands of years old right

india

you want me to tell you the truth about

india is that india has not resolved

its identity as a civilization it was

ruled by the mughals which held all of

india together as one state

and then toward the end you had the rise

of other

or hindu lords like the marathas and

others and the british just came

and took away all of that

and became the sole sovereign of india

the indian emperor is gone britain's in

charge instead

now britain's gone

and india doesn't know how to have a

common identity anymore and it's a

central problem of india's existence

right now that's why the bjp is one of

the reasons it's in power right now is

because they can't really are we a

hindufta state is it just hindus

something else something more they're

they're arguing over it they're fighting

over it

so

and also the ethnic minority going

they're fighting for separatism and so

no why are you upholding india as a

model of pluri nationals that's the

worst

no i'm asking i never said that i asked

is it a civilization

what is the model yeah

but it's not a civilization because of

diversity it's a it's not a civilization

because of diversity it's a specific

it's a civilization because of how all

these different diverse groups somehow

established one common

unity in one common civilization despite

being different

yeah there's a common unity all right

let me ask what is the definition of a

civilization in this case

a civilization is a specific uh

something as a legitimate civilization

what what characteristics does it have

do you want me to answer

yeah yeah please

a civilization is as a um

and

it's an entity that can organically

reproduce the relationship

between the state and the civil society

does it have to be ancient does it have

to be traditional

what do you mean

does it have to have like uh like a

century like centuries or like

millennials

okay it's not defined by time

even like either way like this type of

consciousness that develops

it happens on it can happen on multiple

levels the pluri national state is a

recognition of diversity

raising itself to the level of the state

of the uh of the national or like

federal or the countries the motto of

our country is

out of many one

so european nationalism thing has no

relevance in the united states and by

the way

i'm not i'm pro bolivia i'm pro-ecuador

but politically speaking i don't worship

them because i know they're sock dems

they have they like the nordic european

model

and their friend they you know you

notice those europeans they love bolivia

they love you bolivia so much and

they're they're big but they hate

venezuela why do they hate venezuela

meanwhile explain

because

bolivia has a very

george soros likes bolivia bolivia

bolivia represents

his rule of

harmonious rule of ngos and institutions

in the state

you know co-existing

democracy

they don't have of they don't have lyast

they don't have

the raw power of

the chavez they don't have the maduro

they don't have

they don't have those uh what are those

chavez motorcycle gangs that go and beat

the reactionaries they don't have that

i know what you're talking about i don't

have the muscle they don't have the

muscle they do like this is it's based

on the unions and there's like a a

heavily union culture in bolivia you

also have like street uh street

organizations like the ponchos

yeah they don't have the connection yes

and they enforce authority force and

authority in favor of the mosque

government in favor of the leftist

government

um the reason why

maybe i'm wrong maybe i'm wrong on this

something tells me that

don't have the big stick they don't use

the big stick they're more

peaceful

which is fine i'm for them i'm not

against them but

it's just i'm not going to uphold them

as the model for what in

because we need a movement that has a

big stick they win in this country so we

can't go the nordic socialism dsa way of

like oh we're just gonna use the

institutions of ngos and the academia of

civil society to take power i mean

bolivia is a case i'm not people think

i'm demonizing bolivia i'm not bolivia

is a specific case where the academic

ngo complex just so happened to be

because of international contradictions

positioned in in a way that happened to

benefit the forces of anti-imperialism

sure that's not the case anywhere else

in the world

they literally said they literally voted

neutral in the in the u.n vote

condemning russia which was a position

to not be imperialized by uh like

invaded by the u.s or sanctioned on the

most

voted neutral what are you talking about

ever morales

directly said like yeah and nato is a

problem uh like nato said that that's

what the pope said

the pope said that

the pope said that as well but

like ramaphosa in south africa said that

as well yeah and as what was like

they're also saying the

the ukrainian i don't mean you got the

big stick

because let me tell you the difference

ramaphosa in south africa said that

but if julius malema was in power he

would vote against

the us's resolution he wouldn't just be

new what about china is china somehow

illegitimate because they voted neutral

in the no because china is playing a

long game

exactly so libya which is primarily

known as the venezuelan vote because it

hadn't paid its dues

but

bolivia actually rejected the position

of a lot of more sock damn countries

like argentina which voted in favor of

condemning um russia

uh and i'm glad i didn't say bolivia is

not an anti-imperialist state it is you

said it just had it just so happened to

fall into that but it's still in love

with the ngos yeah that's it

it's not a yo like it the form of

nationalizations that it has the form of

like state control as well as the

they're like

they're all based things

yes and what i'm saying and also but

it's but that's but that's but they have

the privilege of not having to face

the fundamental anti-establishment

contradictions we have to hear that's

why all of these piece of shit academics

love bolivia they love bolivia and they

praise bolivia

but they're against hugo chavez and

they're against mr putin and they're

against

malama and south africa but they love

bolivia bolivia is fine

there's a reason for that

there's a reason

i mean i agree with you that there is

like this um there's a certain

fetishization of indigenous peoples and

that's mainly why it's not that they're

ngos it's that there's indigenous

peoples taking power and there's a

certain type of fascination with that

which like it's because ngos in latin

america

like to use indigenous people as pawns

for fulfilling their social engineering

vision of social change

yeah and indigenous peoples oftentimes

reject that like you have like sure

that doesn't make them

for that reason

there's this organization called

it's uh it's led by eva morales but it's

a internet like it's a pan latin

american movement to try to put and make

every country plural national latin

america as well as unite them under a

unit under the alabama tcp

the

anti-imperialist organization block

created by fidel castro chavez they're

both working hand in hand on some level

trying to reduce imperialist uh strength

in the region rejecting the oas

rejecting the lima group um as well as

trying to make blurry national trying to

create new constitutions to enforce a

national a national

nationalist economy by nationalizing

economic um key economic resources like

energy

medicine

um

i think it's mainly energy

um in different countries with deploring

national constitutions because you have

to write a new constitution to make

plural nationalism in most cases

there is a recognition that

alongside that you have to nationalize

resources in the case of

in the case of ecuador i think it was a

it might have been lands or oil

in bolivia it was natural gas and now

it's lithium and i'm not even listening

to anything you're saying what are you

saying what i'm saying is that the

national like pluri nationalism is

itself anti-neoliberal and itself

rejects the the global liberal world

order and capitalist system and no i

don't buy that it's just i don't buy

them

this is on the international level as

well

is trying to unite with unions with

black and indigenous organizations and

all forms of anti-capitalism

this is like plural nationalism isn't

just some like local anti-civilization

like even in your own

like framework of civilization

like plural nationalism is itself

continental

if you want to just end it here that's

fine it's like it's pretty late and i

think a lot of y'all folks are are tired

it's up to you haas i'm down

to keep going even though my throat

hurts

huh you want to just end it now you seem

to just be like checking out

why is this cpusa guys

what the fuck

on twitter

guys why on twitter did this guy say

someone dm me this

somebody's saying this cpusa guy got

doxxed in our discord what are they

fucking talking about

wait what's the issue happening

is that why your

your discord got brought down that's

pretty bad no it's not

what the fuck are they talking about

can i explain give your concluding

remarks

yeah um

i think i'm correct on like

in terms of indigeneity indigenous

peoples are like indigenous peoples are

the indigenous like american indians are

the indigenous peoples because they

actually

fit within heidegger definitely bye

i am not interested in hearing that

again

all right guys i'm gonna actually send

you to a video that needs views

fuck

why can't i do it

oh fuck i can't send you to the video

because i have to like premiere it or

something

um

fuck

can't can't redirect

all right guys well i will see you

tomorrow

i'll see you tomorrow

and remember what we said

remember what we said we said

um

you said

oh the patreon q a fuck i forgot all

about it

all right i'll do that tomorrow

patreon q a i'll do it tomorrow

um i forgot all about that shit fuck

anyway guys um good

stream uh

ah fuck was i gonna say yeah okay

i'll keep you up get in our discord get

on our telegram get in our telegram i'll

keep you updated

and we'll just fucking get this done

okay get in our telegram and i'll keep

you updated all right

uh about what what happens what the new

community is gonna be and i'm probably

gonna have it's a discord server for you

tomorrow okay so just

hold your horses we're gonna be back on

discord

soon because i'm gonna be my own that

was ezra server that wasn't my server

i'm gonna make my own right

all right bye-bye guys