Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 10, 2023 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

02:32:13

The Culture War #37 - MAGA Communism VS Classical Liberalism w/Haz Al-din & Trevor Loudon

Host: Tim Pool Guests: Haz Al-Din @InfraHaz (X) | Infrared.gg Trevor Loudon TrevorLoudon.com Connect with TENET Media: https://www.tenetmedia.com/ https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552169295417 https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150 https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/ https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

42:22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to the First Culture War on Tenet Media on YouTube.
		Thanks so much everybody for hanging out.
		We're gonna have a fun one today.
		We're hanging out with Haz Aldean and Trevor Loudon.
		I'm pronouncing that correct?
		Yep, that's correct.
		And we're gonna be talking about, I guess, MAGA communism and classical liberalism.
		So this should be should be very fun.
		Haz, do you want to introduce yourself?
unidentified		My name is Hazal Dean.
		I consider myself a comedian, a geopolitical analyst, and a political philosopher.
		And I technically coined the term MAGA Communism, although it started as a kind of meme within my community.
		I run a show called The Infrared Show, which you can find on YouTube.
		And, you know, I'm here to present and I think give a proper introduction to what MAGA Communism is all about.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Alright, well it should be really interesting, MAGA communism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And I think you also have a thread that we'll get into about how Marxism is not woke?
unidentified		Right, yes.
		I also plan on releasing a book soon which is going to be kind of a complete overview of my philosophical foundation for my views.
		Including that thread that you mentioned.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And you work with Jackson Hinkle?
unidentified		Yes, yes.
		I work very closely with Jackson offline, coordinating and also discussing these ideas and so on.
		So yeah, I would consider Jackson's views as the same as mine.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on.
		Cool, should be fun.
		Trevor, would you like to introduce yourself?
unidentified		Yeah, look, my name is Trevor Lowden.
		I'm a New Zealander, but I live in the United States.
		My specialty is really exposing and exploring communism.
		I've written several books.
		I focus a lot on the Marxist influence inside the Democratic Party, inside the government, inside the social movements.
		And I have a blog, TrevorLoudon.com, and a website, KeyWiki.org, which has got 160,000 files of leftists, communists, socialists, radicals.
		From all sorts of areas.
		And so, so I consider myself, I would have, I would have started out as a pretty much a classic liberal, but I have a very strong social conservative bent and a very strong national security focus.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, right on.
		Let's just, we'll get started then.
		What is MAGA communism?
unidentified		So MAGA Communism began as a meme, and the origins are actually interesting.
		So around a few months earlier last year, so around August 2022, there was this big meme going around, I don't know if you heard about it, the Dark Brandon meme, remember that?
		And it's this kind of...
		We we took it as a kind of like this is an example of some neo fascism because we regarded the support for the neo nazis in ukraine by the democrats the increasing.
		Crackdown on classical liberties as an example of not the only.
		Can't do it, but a significant avenue for the growth of fascism in the United States.
		So, the Dark Brandon meme, we saw it as an acknowledgement of that, so we created this counter meme, it wasn't like that intentional, but it was spontaneous, called, well if you're gonna have your Dark Brandon, we're gonna have our MAGA communism, as like a counter, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it seriously meant to convey communist ideals?
unidentified		Yes, I think one of the reasons I don't focus too much on the, and it's confused a lot of people, the meme aspect of it, is because for me I don't actually see a clear distinction between meme and something serious.
unidentified		I think that actually comedy and ironies and things like this convey and express truths more profoundly and correctly So let's just start here then.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I guess when I hear MAGA communism, it sounds like you're saying you're voting for Donald Trump and you want a communist system of governance or social order.
unidentified		No.
		No.
		MAGA communism has little to do with the person of Donald Trump besides him as a kind of mascot.
		We see Trump as a meme, basically.
		But the truth of MAGA communism is that we believe that 2016, for the first time in decades in the history of the United States, introduced real political distinction and the Schmittian sense of enmity.
		Because for decades, the Democrats and Republicans, that was not really a political distinction.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Agreed.
unidentified		It was a distinction on the basis of a mutual recognition of the fulfillment of the same interest.
		And miraculously, somehow, this kind of clown, Donald Trump, I mean, let's remember this guy's from The Apprentice.
		I mean, it was very funny he got elected, let's be honest.
		He kind of drove these two camps insane.
		You see the same George W. Bush Republicans and the good old Democrats, they suddenly are united in the face of this threat.
		And typically the leftist characterization of the MAGA movement has been this is the ground of a neo-fascism.
		To me, I don't see MAGA as inherently fascist.
		I don't see it as inherently communist.
		I don't see it as inherent.
		It's just American politics, but articulated in a grassroots and non-institutionalized form.
		So of course anti-communist ideas prevail among MAGA, of course many other GOP and Democrat conceptions prevail among MAGA, but the key thing is that the foundation of these ideas is no longer based in the hegemonic institutions.
		It's authentically based in what these people actually believe and therefore it is a fertile ground for the propagation of ideas Which for a long time could not be propagated because of an institutional barrier.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So then what, is it America First Communism?
unidentified		Well, I'll put it this way.
		Marxism-Leninism, and this is what the origin of Communism with a capital C in modern times is, right?
		We can go into the history, but basically everyone was a Social Democrat or called himself a Socialist before the October Revolution of 1917, which reintroduced the term Communism and repopularized it.
		And it was Stalin who canonized this into an ideology called Marxism-Leninism.
		And if you read Stalin's Foundations of Leninism, he says the key contribution that Lenin introduces for Marxism is the national question.
		So you see with socialism in one country, which is kind of Stalin's interpretation of the construction of socialism, Marxism-Leninism is already in the American context, MAGA, it's already America first when applied to the American context.
		The reason there's been a confusion about this among leftists who call themselves communists is because they are influenced by the Trotskyist strain or the kind of CIA-funded, compatible left, as they say, type of Marxism.
		But Marxism-Leninism, foundationally, is patriotic and national in form.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me let me throw it to you, Trevor.
		What do you I mean, you were talking about communist influences of the Democratic Party and things like this.
		So how would you respond?
		What's your view of communism?
unidentified		Well, my view of communism, see, as Haz says, you know, What I see Margaret communism as is basically an Americanized form of Duganism.
		So this is a movement.
		See, there are two strands in modern American communism.
		There's what I would call a feminine strand, which is wokeism, which is, you know, like, let's just accept everybody.
		Let's just break down the barriers.
		Major emphasis on anti-racism.
		You know, transgenderism, all these isms, these all come out of Marxism, but it is the feminine side, and Haas is right, there's a big Trotskyist influence there.
		What we're talking about here is more the masculine side of communism.
		This is Stalinism, Stakhanovite communism.
		This is a masculine, nationalist form of communism, which overlaps to some degree with fascism.
		Dugan was basically trying to unite Almost the right wing of communism with the left wing of fascism.
		So what I'm seeing here in this Margaret communist movement is something that draws on Stalinism, uses the national question and national question means That the old original Marxism was, you know, you use the class struggle, you know, the workers will rise up and take the control of the means of production from the bosses.
		The nationalities question or the national question is where you find minority populations or or racial minorities or religious minorities, and you foster a sense of revolution amongst them.
		And that will be patriotic.
		They will play on, you know, they use the, like in Ireland, they would use the patriotism of the Catholics against the Protestants.
		And, you know, the Stalinists for a long time tried to create a black republic in the south of America by using this sort of nationalist sense amongst the black population.
		So they're doing that with Native Americans now, with La Raza, this kind of thing.
		So what I see here, MAGA communism to me is an amalgamation Of traditional fascism and communism using nationalism and a strong masculine emphasis, which appeals to the young guys who are just sick of the feminine pansy wokeism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		But both wokeism and market communism come out of the same root.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Alright, there's a lot of isms here and a lot of proper names and nouns.
		So let's start from the beginning.
		Haas, do you think that the public, the workers, should own the means of production?
		How do we begin?
unidentified		Yes, I believe in sovereign ownership of the means of production.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you mean like the state controls it or what?
unidentified		Of course, yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And your view is good, sir?
unidentified		I think the state should be minimally involved in the economy.
		The only real role of the state is in the judicial system and in national defence.
		So, no, I absolutely oppose state ownership of assets.
		I don't like public ownership of assets.
		And that would be, I think, the defining difference between me and Haas.
		He sees the role of a strong state, a strong, vigorous state that directs production.
		I see the exact opposite.
		The individual, the local, should direct production and own property.
		Well, I actually believe sovereign ownership of the means of production precludes two things.
		One, what Lenin calls, and what Marx actually originated in his
		18th Brumaire is the smashing of the state machinery that we cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state that exists, the insane bureaucracy that corresponds, and Marx actually talked about this to the capitalist society, but the state must be remade anew, simplified, made efficient, and to an extent, yes, minimalized, because it is the aspiration of communism.
		To basically relegate the state to its bare necessities and for the eventual dissolution of the state, obviously, and into free association.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're saying absolute idealistic communism is people all just agreeing and working together or something?
unidentified		No, no.
		There's still a centralized oversight of production, but it's what Frederick Engels calls the administration of things and not people.
		So you have a centralized oversight of production, but the necessity of the forceful suppression of opposition, for example, disappears.
		And this is projected to be at the time when the material foundation of the state As an organ of class dictatorship withers away.
		Now, many people doubt that this is possible and it's somewhat of a theoretical and philosophical question, but as relevant now, I don't want the current American government to own more.
		I don't want the current American state to control more.
		What I want is a completely remade state, a state fashioned from the ground up based on, yes, local forms of power, amalgamated and centralized to authentically represent the interests of the overwhelming majority.
		And this is where it may surprise you.
		It is a goal for the state to be minimally involved in production.
		Sovereign ownership of the means of production just means that foreigners, that private interests, cannot gobble up the resources and land of the country.
		But as to who manages that land and who sees to its...
		Production.
		This is something, ideally speaking, should be as local as possible.
		This is China's kind of household responsibility system, which did delegate production down to the lowest level, the family level.
		And I think this is true to the aspiration of communism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We'll start with a very simple question.
		What does means of production mean?
unidentified		The means of production basically refer to the fundamental basis and conditions for the production of things.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Only material things?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What about intellectual property?
unidentified		There's no such thing in the Marxist view.
		Basically, I view, personally, intellectual property as...
		A scam, basically.
		Even in terms of classical liberal values, I think it's a transgression of... I think it's completely illegitimate.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Intellectual property?
unidentified		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So what's the incentive then for invention, if you can't own what you've invented?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You have to hide the secrets and make sure no one ever finds out how you did it?
unidentified		I believe credit can be given to people, and notoriety and fame and due...
		Glory can be given to inventors and creative geniuses.
		But one of the things I dislike about intellectual property is that one's product should be good on the merits.
		If someone can simply replicate your product, I don't think this steals anything from you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think they're just... Well, I mean, let's try this.
		If it was...
		If it was legal within the current system for people to take all of my content that I produce and immediately re-upload it wherever they wanted, I would cease to exist overnight.
		So, for instance, my morning show, the Tim Pool Daily Show, I produce four segments per day, and they're not allowed to be taken, right?
		It's my opinion, my commentary.
		There is fair use arguments, so there's a limit to people are allowed to take it, play the video and talk over it, because it's not a replication of the work, it's something different.
		But if there was no intellectual property controls, as soon as I uploaded the video, 70 other channels would upload the exact same thing.
		It would decentralize my ability to generate ad revenue, attention, and make money, and I'd stop doing it instantly.
unidentified		So for content creators, it is a necessity right now.
		I'm not going to deny that.
		But I think with two things, the advances of technology and a transformation of the financial system.
		See, one of the reasons that content creators rely on intellectual property is They needed to generate revenue.
		The means of generating revenue for someone who's uploading your content to their channel and your channel seem to be the same, right?
		But with, for example, innovations in the sphere of software technologies like blockchains, there are ways to verify and authenticate the original source of... But what does that mean?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if I can't control the revenue generation for a piece of content, it doesn't matter if people know it's mine.
unidentified		I think it can matter because if we, for example, entering into the fourth industrial revolution in a kind of post-commodity money economy, your acquisition of wealth could very well be tied to your signature, your blockchain signature, rather than simply some kind of exchange of views for dollars.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying that That signature is intellectual property.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So no matter where the content is posted, the revenue comes to me?
unidentified		Well, I wouldn't say it's intellectual property because there's nothing preventing someone, just like an NFT for example, there's nothing preventing someone from downloading the JPEG and doing whatever they want with it.
unidentified		What they can't do is fake the signature.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But what does that do for the person who made it?
unidentified		It gives you a signature.
unidentified		It confirms that it's yours, that this is the original thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But how does it buy my milk?
		Right?
		Milk, bread, and eggs.
		Are you saying, would the state just give me free food?
		Is everyone going to get free food?
unidentified		No, by the way, to be clear, the version of the communist system of the 20th century, with rations and with standardization of Basically, what everyone gets based on what they do.
		That was a requirement for the goals of those circumstances, which was the immediate modernization of the productive forces from a backward agrarian and feudal economy.
		In a dynamic information-based economy, an increasingly decentralized consumer economy, for example, It's much more similar to China, where there isn't this kind of uniform compensation for what you do.
		It is measured based on some... So for example, it can be profit, for example, as a form of the measurability of...
		How successful you are.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let's go back to that point then, specifically on the intellectual property question.
		If I put up a video that takes hours of research and I record a live 30 minutes, and then as soon as it uploads, a hundred other people re-upload it to their accounts, how do I profit from that?
		Are you saying that because the content is verifiably mine, any revenue generated from anyone else just comes to me?
unidentified		You have to ask the question.
		When we're entering into this new type of information economy, it's currently outdated how it works.
		We get revenue in dollars for a form of capital that I think is more...
		Worth more than money, right?
		Basically, I think clout is more valuable than money today.
		I don't know if you agree.
		Yeah, but it is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But how do you eat, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You need money to buy food.
unidentified		Yeah, that would be a question of a... I mean, again, we want to innovate everything.
		We're basically talking about a fourth industrial revolution.
		So we must also think about how to innovate the entire financial system, how money works, how currency works, and so on and so on.
		And yes, I do think that would be connected with things like blockchain technologies.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm just not sure I understand, right?
		If you don't believe in intellectual property, a signature that I guess I'm trying to wonder, how would I make money?
		I don't think you've answered it.
		How do I make money in a situation where I don't own the content I produce?
unidentified		I think how it would work is that if you have an enterprise, and by the way, enterprise is not a dirty word, there were Soviet enterprises, you will be compensated with resources necessary for what you need to do based on your performance.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, resources?
unidentified		Is that money?
unidentified		So, if you're successful at reaching people based on your content, Then you will be compensated with some kind of, you could call it money, you could call it, Marx theorized about labor vouchers, you can talk about tokens.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Labor vouchers is effectively currency, restricted currency.
unidentified		Yeah, it can be called whatever, but yes, effectively you can be compensated with some kind of means of acquiring more based on what you put in.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Money.
unidentified		Sure, sure, you can call it that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the one- So then, if the signature only applies to me personally, that means I own that signature, and have ownership of the content that I produce, because if it's reposted anywhere, but it all reverts to my signature and compensates me, that means I own the intellectual property.
unidentified		Right, but this is a form of effective ownership.
		It's not a form of ownership enforced by a third party.
		It's a form of ownership that is self-evident in the product.
		So, for example, I own my personality.
		I don't need to have the government say, this is Haas's personality, no one else can have it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		As an original person, it's a form of effective... What if someone takes the content, inverts the colors, generating a separate key, and then directs the key to themselves to generate revenue?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Would there be an adjudicating force?
unidentified		I think unfortunately, I do believe in a harshness of reality where if this is what people prefer and they like it better, you have to step up your game, you know?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, right, so the issue is, in a reality where Someone can spoof a key or alter the content in such a way that it's not transformative, doesn't fall under fair use, like they're literally just trying to repurpose the existing content.
		Let's just put it this way.
		They find a way to bypass the blockchain signature by like, I don't know, dropping the pitch by a half step or altering the colors, and then they start getting the money from it.
		I cease to exist overnight, this content doesn't happen.
unidentified		Again, perhaps under the current circumstances that's the case for all content creators, but I think we should be a little more appreciative of the possibility that in the future things will not work the same way as they do now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trevor, do you want to jump in on this communism?
unidentified		Well, I think this is the main mistake of Marxism.
		They assume that human consciousness is shaped by the material environment.
		So if we can change the material environment, if we can have new technology, human behavior is going to change.
		Human incentives are going to change.
		I think that's a complete fallacy.
		You know, intellectual property is what drove the Industrial Revolution.
		It wasn't the cotton gin, it wasn't the steam engine, it was patents, it was the banking system, it was the derivatives, the stock market, that all these things that were driven by intellectual property, property rights, that were not just You know, a book or a machine or a forest or whatever, they were actually intellectual property.
		Now, so in the future, the human nature is not going to change.
		Human nature has been human nature forever.
		Humans respond to personal incentive.
		That's how we're programmed to be.
		And the problem is, whenever that The communists will say, well, we're going to change the material form of existence.
		And that's going to change the nature of man.
		And we're going to live, we can have a cooperative environment, we can have incentives that aren't directly monetary, all this kind of thing.
		It's all untrue.
		Nothing will change about human nature.
		Nothing at all.
		So you design a system of liberty where human nature can blossom, where people can build their own farm, they can build their own business, they can build their own podcast.
		It's theirs.
		They control it.
		See, if you have some, as Haz was talking about, you'll be compensated if your stuff is good.
		Well, who decides that?
		It's gonna be a collective that decides that.
		Back in the Soviet Union under Stalin, they had the writers' collective.
		And there were certain writers who were favored by the Soviet state that lived quite comfortably.
		They got royalties from their poetry.
		They got royalties from their plays.
		But only if you conformed to the state.
		If you were a dissident in any way, You either risk jail or you lost your position.
		You lost your privileged position.
		So this is the beauty of freedom.
		You can come out with an idea or a product and the state cannot interfere with you.
		But if you have any form of collectivism where people can decide what you do, how you think, whether your product or service is valuable, whether your ideas are false or true, if other people can decide that other than your customers, it is only if other people can decide that other than your customers, it is only going to be those who curry favor with the establishment or the existing social order that are
		Freedom makes freedom, gives people the freedom to be stupid, to be creative, to have any idea they want.
		And the market determines whether that idea is good or not.
		Any form of collectivism destroys that.
		And that is the engine of human progress and the engine of human creativity.
		So I want to I want to say three things that.
		The first thing is that I agree that human freedom should be maximalized to the furthest extent, which is why I oppose intellectual property.
		Intellectual property requires the state to enforce property rather than an effective form of property.
		And I think this is why even many free market libertarians believe in open source.
		Because intellectual property requires, in a feudal-like way, some kind of political authority to enforce the economic reality.
		Whereas the ideal for a free-market capitalist is that the economy works on its merits.
		It works by itself.
		It doesn't require third-party intervention to uphold.
		Even in the enforcement of property rights like land, Some libertarians go as far as to say, you know, I should be able to have a nuclear silo in my backyard to protect my sovereign ownership of land.
		So you don't need this decentralized state to enforce your property according to that ideal.
		It works just by itself.
		The second thing I would like to say is I disagree with the view That some kind of centralized legislative or political body would have to determine exactly how much someone is compensated for.
		And I think, basically, it's simple.
		AI today has the ability to kind of calculate based on algorithms you can put in.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So a human does that though?
unidentified		Right, but yes, of course, the system is designed by a human, but the system can also work by itself, that you are rewarded for how much output you produce, basically.
		So this can be measured and this can be kind of mathematicized.
		So, secondly... I gotta stop you there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It cannot be, right?
		So we've seen what happens when humans try to create an artificial intelligence or algorithm To determine output and what you end up with was Elsagate on YouTube.
		YouTube said we want long form, we want keywords, we want to put in all these parameters.
		Basically what they did was they looked at what was working on Netflix and YouTube and they said these are the key components of successful content, fed that to the algorithm, and then what happened was people started putting out videos of Hitler with a woman's body doing Tai Chi with the Incredible Hulk while someone sang nursery rhymes.
unidentified		So that doesn't work. - AI definitely has the potential to run amok and produce undesirable outcomes.
		But let's ask ourselves, what was the purpose of that kind of algorithm?
		It was just to maximize viewership and engagement, specifically targeting children.
		Is that a goal as a society we want to have?
		That children's attention is fixated on their screens and on YouTube?
		Probably not.
		So, obviously there is a human element, but when it comes to the economy, you know, we all hate BlackRock.
		I'm not a fan of BlackRock.
		But I do appreciate innovations in the productive forces.
		Already, this is how it works.
		Our retirement funds, basically, That's what BlackRock mostly manages, by the way, can calculate already.
		This is how the current so-called capitalist economy works.
		The profitability of a given enterprise determines how much is invested in it.
		So already this kind of feedback loop, the foundation and material basis of communism, We don't like ESG scores and how they're being used, but that's a question of who controls the means of production, not necessarily a question of the technology itself.
		And thirdly, this is the kind of last point I'd like to say, I actually disagree that in the Soviet Union, because of a problem of human nature, there was a lack of incentive.
		I think since the beginning of time that is recorded for human history, a true artist Aspires toward glory, recognition, and for their product, for their work to be realized at all costs.
		I believe you are a kind of fan of Ayn Rand, would I be correct?
		Well, she was a... I really admired her.
		She was a foundational thing for me, yeah.
		Well, even Ayn Rand actually can appreciate this irreducible human striving to produce the work for its own sake.
		I mean, Atlas Shrugged, wasn't it about an architect?
		Wasn't even about... No, The Fountainhead was about the architect.
		Fountainhead, yes.
		It was about an architect who was actually focused on their art above all else, right?
		So I don't actually... I think when someone engages in the production of art and creativity just for the sake of getting rich, I don't really think that's the sign of a powerful artist.
		I think a powerful artist puts their work before anything.
		And this is why Soviet artists, this is why Steven Spielberg himself said, Soviet films and cinema is better than Hollywood.
		Because, actually, the restrictions of the market and having to focus on profit margins wasn't there.
		So artists were free to actually pursue a creative vision completely freely in the Soviet Union.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but there's pros and cons to that.
		I mean, without any kind of mechanism for incentive, you'll end up with a bunch of weird, crazy garbage.
		With an over-profitization model, you end up with Marvel movies.
		These, like, Cookie cutter, bland ABC storylines that eventually people are just like, okay, we get it.
		You made the same movie 15 times.
		So there needs to be a balance.
		I wonder if the real issue is simply cultural.
		If you look back at, man, like the 80s into the 90s, there are so many movies.
		That they're trying to reboot and recreate because we loved them so much.
		And then today you look at the movies they make and it's like Transformers 12 and, you know, Marvel 16 and just cookie cutter garbage.
unidentified		But if I may say so, you know, I know I'm biased here, but at least this is my opinion and my taste.
		I think an exception standing out to this kind of nostalgia industry, the Disneyfication of all of media is Chinese cinema, particularly Chinese science fiction.
		I've watched both movies, The Wandering Earth 1 and 2, and people accuse the Chinese cinema of being bland and just kind of blockbuster disaster movies, which it has been maybe for a few decades, but I think these movies have a soulfulness.
		And have a kind of spirit to them, which authentically tries to capture the moment we're living in now, to envision the future.
		Today, what cinema and what movies really speak to...
		An embrace of the future and the present moment.
		We're trying to go back to the 80s to our childhood to the 90s and we don't have an ability to bravely see through some kind of way to make meaning and beauty out of the future ahead of us.
		So I think communism actually to me is a part of that aesthetic striving of Having a responsibility before our collective future.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think one of the big issues is multiculturalism.
		And the component of it being... You may have seen these videos on, you know, Instagram or YouTube where... Actually, Instagram, massive.
		No one talks.
		They have, there'll be like a woman, a guy will do something, maybe like a magic trick, or something like this, and the woman will have this crazy expression on her face, because they're trying to convey an emotion without language, because they're trying to appeal to the widest base, the biggest base imaginable.
		If you make lowest common denominator content, the ideas are all stripped out.
		You're not going to get well-thought-out linguistic works.
		You're going to get a guy throwing a football in another guy's groin, and then a woman going like, wah!
		And then everybody... That's going to get more shares because it's not that it's better.
		It's not that it's good artistic content.
		It's that...
		If 90% of any culture hates it, but 10% of every culture likes it, that's going to be more views, more money, more incentive.
		And so determining value is relatively difficult today.
		And trying to figure out how we make good artistic works, I wonder if the challenge is simply, this is why my focus is always cultural.
		I don't think there's a governmental or, you know, regulatory solution to all the problems people keep complaining about.
		It's totally cultural problems.
		If everybody... I tell people this, communism works 100% very easily, so long as everyone agrees with it.
		The problem is humans don't agree with everything, and you'll always end up with various amounts of dissent.
		The problem for any kind of system that seeks to have a purity within it is that there is only one solution to undesirables.
		With a system like, you know, classical liberal constitutional republicanism or these fields of liberal values, true liberal, not like modern American liberal, is that we tolerate dissent to varying degrees, which allows people and ideas to compete and then certain ideas improve.
unidentified		Can I jump in here?
		Look, look, you know, Haas is right.
		You know, in the Soviet era, there were some great movies made.
		There was great ballet.
		The Soviets put a lot of emphasis on culture, but within limits.
		You know, if you were a poet like Pasternak, who talked about, you know, lyricism and beauty and whatever, he was tolerated.
		But anybody who talked about politics or any form that was opposed to Stalin, you went to the camps, like Mandelstam went to the camps, like Akhmatova was persecuted, Sivotaeva, etc.
		The reason we have lost our way in the culture here is because we've had so much Marxist influence in Hollywood, so much Marxist influence in the churches, so much Marxist influence in education.
		That the American values that people grew up with in the 50s and the 60s that were optimistic, you know, America's great, freedom's great, we're going to lead the world.
		They have been so denigrated and so crushed That all it has left is this nihilistic, you know, gangster type of culture, these bland insipid movies that come out of Hollywood.
		Look, in the 50s and the 60s, that was a golden age of American art, of American culture.
		Now, I'm not saying we should go back to that.
		We should go back to the system that produced it.
		We should have freedom.
		You cannot make certain movies in Hollywood now.
		You cannot have certain comedy acts.
		You cannot say certain things.
		You look at Monty Python in the 80s and the things they used to say that you cannot say now.
		Because that is all cultural Marxism.
		And Haz is being just disingenuous here when he says that Marxism, that wokeness is not Marxist.
		Wokeness is 100% Marxist.
		It is cultural Marxism.
		It's drawn from the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
		So we've got this feminized Marxism that has wrecked our institutions, wrecked our colleges, wrecked our movie industry, and now Haz is coming up with a sort of masculine communism, which appeals to people who are sick of the feminist pansy wokeism.
		But it's two false alternatives here.
		We had a system that worked well, and Marxism has destroyed it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the issue is, you know, there are a lot of practical arguments for, I don't like using the word communism because it's a reference to a historical phase.
		And we can talk about maybe distributed or public ownership of the means of production or whatever that may be or whatever.
		But there are a lot of interesting questions and I'll give you one anecdote that was probably formative for me when I was younger.
		I met a homeless guy in Chicago.
		I had some pizza left over and, you know, I'm like skating down the street.
		I had like a half pizza in a box.
		And I saw this guy and he said, he's like, what up?
		And I was like, hey man, are you hungry?
		And he was like, yeah, I'm hungry.
		I was like, you want some pizza?
		He's like, hell yeah.
		And so I gave him the pizza.
		And then I was like, can I ask you a question?
		And he's like, sure, you know, shoot.
		And I asked him why he was homeless.
		The story was actually simple.
		He worked at the post office his whole life.
		Eventually, they closed his post office down.
		He was too old to find any kind of other job or meaningful work.
		He searched.
		He couldn't.
		Eventually, his savings dried up.
		He couldn't pay his rent.
		They evicted him.
		Here he is, homeless.
		I said, what about friends and family?
		He said, man, I'm old.
		They're all dead.
		He's like, my family's dead.
		I didn't have a brother and sister or something like that.
		He's like, my friends, I lost all of them.
		And so I thought to myself, here's a guy who is a trained master postman.
		He has every skill we have asked of him.
		He has done everything we as a society have asked of him.
		And then one day, we decided he was obsolete.
		And there was no mechanism by which to allow him to continue to function faithfully in society.
		And so I thought to myself, like, well, we can't have that!
		If there are people who have jobs that become obsolete, and then for that, they now have no access to society's resources, we are going to get violence and revolution and chaos when jobs start to disappear.
		I'm not saying I have an answer for this.
		I'd say that's something that gave me pause and made me wonder, like, what do we do to solve a problem like that?
unidentified		So, it isn't a problem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I have an answer to that.
unidentified		I'd like to briefly respond to actually what both of you have said regarding liberalism and Marxism and so on, and I think I can condense this into one point.
		You know, one of the things I probably disagree with, and it's maybe ironic because it's the communists in America who are thought of as utopians and idealists, I actually consider myself a pragmatist and a materialist.
		Which means I believe in getting things done.
		I believe in a sobering acceptance of reality as it is, not as I want it to be.
		And part of that means I have to appreciate, for example, I cannot accept this notion of a pure liberalism, which I think is at the root of much of this disagreement.
		It may have been true, as you said before, that liberalism promotes this Ability to kind of be outside the system maybe and disagree with the hegemony of some kind.
		But it's because of the contradictions of liberalism itself that we have entered the kind of authoritarianism, which I think you misidentify as Marxism.
		What you call Marxism is a result of liberalism's own contradictions.
		And what is this contradiction?
		Liberalism, which promotes freedom, has no positive content of freedom.
		What does freedom look like, right?
		And once you have, for example, perceived sociological, cultural, even economic, political structures which stand in the way of this liberal freedom, these become enemies of the liberal society.
		The conservative family becomes an enemy of liberal society.
		The remnants of cultural differences between different groups becomes an enemy of liberal society.
		Because remember, it's a value of liberalism, radical liberalism, that all distinctions of the uh... standing in the way between individuals dissolves and one is just an individual all collective identities all collective uh... forms of existence are regarded as a as an obstacle to the realization of the total freedom paradoxically liberalism whose value is uh...
		Libertarian and, you know, letting people do what they want becomes its opposite, authoritarianism.
		And Dugan, I don't agree with the view that I am just an American Duganist.
		No, I don't say just, but I'm saying there's an influence.
		Right, the influence is there, I acknowledge that influence, and one of the influences I think he renders quite succinctly that liberalism must become itself the ultimate totalitarianism because this Abstract notion of freedom because it's not concrete freedom Befitting of a concrete existence of a people.
		It's just abstract freedom of the individual Must actually become totalitarian and enforce this freedom at the expense of our human nature I think so the wokeness in Hollywood and the kind of cheapening of also you mentioned in the 50s and 60s This is the Golden Age Of liberalism, I disagree.
		No, no, of culture.
		But I disagree because in the 50s and 60s, remember, this is fresh off the boat of the New Deal and actually the response to the failure of liberalism in 1929.
		And paradoxically, with neoliberalism, the economic liberalization of the economy, that's when we got all of this kind of cultural authoritarianism and restrictions.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Everyone knows the 80s were way better.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Your decades are wrong.
unidentified		Yeah, well, here's the thing.
		Well, I'll define what I am.
		You know, you talk about liberalism.
		I'm an American constitutionalist.
		You know, the government should be bound down by the chains of the Constitution.
		That has economic benefits and that establishes a system of property ownership, property rights protection, right to self-defense, Second Amendment, etc.
		But that is not But that doesn't mean you don't have social institutions.
		You have churches, you have friendly societies, you have all sorts of institutions.
		We're both an individual and a collective being.
		But, this is the whole point.
		You know, freedom does not lead to tyranny.
		Tyranny leads to tyranny.
		You talk about the New Deal, you know, that was when the basically the communists ran Hollywood, the communists ran the Roosevelt administration.
		They set up the Works Progress Administration, which flooded the country with thousands of left wing writers and socialists, etc, which had a very bad effect on the culture.
		Look, The economics isn't the key factor here.
		The key factor is human liberty and human liberty cannot be guaranteed in any form of collective system, whether it's fascism, socialism, communism.
		Human liberty can only be guaranteed in a constitutional system where the government is limited to its bare functions Which is national defense, suppression of crime, a justice system, etc.
		That allows the churches to flourish, that allows the social institutions, the friendly societies, the community groups, that allows the flowering of civil society.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask you, do you think that people should have a right to be obscene in their language in entertainment?
unidentified		Well, in a private setting, of course.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But you mean like a comedian should be able to go on stage and start saying all the nastiest things he wants?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, in the 50s and 60s, that was illegal.
unidentified		Yeah, in certain places it was.
		You know, I'm not saying that was perfect at that time.
		Lenny Bruce pushed back against that kind of thing.
		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		George Carlin famously arrested him.
unidentified		Exactly.
unidentified		In a private setting, in a private club, you should be able to say what you want to say.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, the reason I bring this up is, going back to the 50s and 60s and 70s, and even to the 80s, it has been a gradual transformation in our culture to allow more and more of what culturally we would describe as obscene, to the point now where we have child drag shows, children ripping their clothes off on stage for cash.
		So, I hear a lot of this, you know, both from you, Haz, and Trevor, and to me, everything just comes back to Is a group of people aligned culturally?
		Because then there's no question.
		If you had a hundred people and they were all communists, pure, genuine communists working with each other, you've got no issues.
		In fact, there's actually a commune in the United States that caps out at a hundred people.
		If someone leaves, they'll allow someone to come in.
		If people don't tolerate the communist structure, they ask them to leave and replace them with someone else.
		And it functions well because they've culturally homogenized their community.
		In the United States, we can talk about all the great works that were happening, but it was enforced cultural homogenization in that, it's not absolutely, right, there's dialects, there's different styles, you go to one area, there's different music there, but there were certain barriers of, if you do this, not only will you be arrested, some people might beat the living crap out of you.
		So you had, I mean, look, people talk about this, if a child drag show happened in the 50s, I don't know if those people who were putting that show on would make it out alive.
unidentified		Well, look, a child drag show shouldn't happen now because we have laws to protect children.
		But if the adults want to do a drag show, they can do it, whatever they like.
		Yes, there was cultural repression.
		There were laws that shouldn't have been there.
		But there's also social pressures.
		And a cohesive society will have social pressures.
		And as Haz says, an artist or someone who really is on fire for an idea or an artwork will defy those social pressures, and that drives social progress.
		But when you get legislation, which you did in the Soviet Union, which you do now in China, you know, in China you can be a Christian, but the Bible is actually changed To worship the state, not Jesus.
		You can do all sorts of things in China as long as it's within the parameters.
		I am saying, for free individual adults, there should be no legal parameters on their behavior as long as it does not hurt anyone else or endanger the national security of the country.
		But in a communist system, there is none of that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by hurt?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Define hurt in a legal sense.
unidentified		Well, you cannot steal, you cannot rape, you cannot defame, tell lies about somebody to damage their reputation, you cannot sell the country's security secrets to a foreign power.
unidentified		These are all, you know, well-established things that most societies understand.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's go back to the hot-button issue of today, which is child drag shows.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is that hurting someone?
unidentified		It's hurting children.
unidentified		You have no right to inflict a minor to that kind of thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What is that kind of thing?
		So, I'm trying to figure out how we legally define what... I obviously have my opinions on it, but I'm curious, like, what about a child, you know, putting on this makeup, acting in adult manners and pulling their clothes off, would you define as the line legally?
		Like that the law should intervene and say you cannot engage in this behavior?
unidentified		Well, you know, if you put on a show that it's exposing male genitalia, that is... But they're not all doing that, right?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The issue for me, I'll break it down, is you've got ten-year-olds On stage at adult bars, where it's 21 to enter, but they have special laws that allow children to perform and then leave, and they have little boys ripping their clothes off, revealing still more clothes, but it is the act of stripping, down to like shorts or t-shirts, as men throw money at them.
		This is a sexualized performance.
		I personally believe, I'm not a staunch libertarian or anarchist or anything like that, I believe that many of our laws are rooted in strong moral systems, Which is why there are certain limits to when parents have rights and when the state has rights.
		So, uh, does the state have a right to force a medical treatment on a child in defiance of the parents?
		That's a tough question, right?
		Depends on the medical treatment.
		If we said a kid was dying because their parents were trying to enforce veganism on them and they were protein deficient and malnourished, we would definitely want some authority to come in and be like, you gotta give the kid meat!
		You gotta give him food!
		But what if the parents are trying to The parents are refusing, say like a gender transition, and then the state decides for the betterment of the child, we are going to intervene.
		At least we here at Timcast, I'd say absolutely not.
		The state should not enforce and mandate that on parents.
		So there really is a cultural and more individually communal-based morality around when we want the state to intervene.
unidentified		And this is the beauty of the federal system, because you have different cultures in different areas.
		And certain areas they have ordinances against strip clubs, some places it's fine.
		That is best left to the local level, that kind of thing.
		But the principle that underage children should be exposed to that kind of stuff, I have no problem with the state stopping that.
		So, I actually think you're onto something when you're talking about culture and this issue of culture, because let's ask ourselves a simple question.
		In China, and in even Iran, a non-communist state, there are no necessary laws against these things.
		Why?
		Because it is already organically within their culture, and it's an unwritten rule that this is impossible.
		So these unwritten bonds of civilization which don't have to be enacted into law is actually the more fundamental premise of communism.
		What does communism mean in China for a Chinese person?
		In America, it means the totalitarianism for the average person when they hear that word.
		But in China or in Russia, communism doesn't mean the totalitarianism of the state.
		Communism means the already recognized communal existence Of the Chinese nation or the Russian nation given, elevated to the supreme interest.
		This is why it's inherently patriotic in China or even in Russia.
		Like the communists in Russia are, you know, far more patriotic even than Putin, right?
		And there's a reason for that.
		Because communism everywhere outside of the West means giving representation and political supremacy to the existing civilizational values and communal bonds inherent in a people.
		This is why Marxism-Leninism is national informed.
		Now, in the American case, we have a problem in America.
		Because we don't know how to define ourselves as a nation.
		We don't have these unwritten bonds of civilization.
		Or if we did have them in the past, they've substantially eroded.
		But to bring it back to the question of the impossible ideal of liberalism, why is that?
		And I think I would respond to it by saying, because in America we have seen the total hegemony of cultural liberalism.
		The view that any collective existence Is false is not legitimate and that the real legitimacy is only the whim of the individual and this is part of this is an extension of the liberal ideology to the sphere of culture so the question of communism in america is not just a question of The economy or policy.
		It's also a question of acquiring and building a nation.
		How do we learn how to live with each other and reproduce ourselves as a civilization?
		This is a fundamental communist question as much as the question of who owns the land, who owns the banks, and who owns the resources.
		There's also a question of how do we exist collectively or in an organic way without it having to be enforced.
		And I think this is the premier American question of the 21st century.
		America must find a way to exist as a nation or else the United States will be united no longer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not convinced that it can find a way.
		And to go back to what you were talking about when you mentioned federalism, and you know, certain rules in certain states, I think that is actually a recipe for disaster.
		It may be good in a certain sense for a certain amount of time, but ultimately it will lead to chaos.
		Abortion is a big issue.
		In the United States, it's one of the key wedge issues.
		And my position, as of today, is that it is a federal question whether or not an unborn human being does have constitutional rights.
		You don't have to agree with me.
		My point is simply this.
		We have two states.
		We have Oklahoma and Colorado.
		They border each other.
		In Oklahoma, abortion is completely illegal.
		In Colorado, it is completely unrestricted up to the point of birth.
		A lot of people I talk to, more libertarian and classically liberal, will say, this is a good thing.
		That means if you want those rules, you can go to Colorado and get those rules.
		And I say, what happens when, under one system of governance of the United States and one constitution, a man and a woman get pregnant?
		Obviously, the woman is the one pregnant, carrying the baby.
		And let's say at seven months, the woman decides, I can't be with this man.
		I don't want to have this baby.
		Now the baby can survive outside the womb, but she decides to jump the border to Colorado, taking the child with her.
		The man then says, no, no, no, wait, don't kill it.
		There's no reason to kill it.
		I'll, I'll take the child.
		It's my child.
		And Colorado says, we don't care.
		We're going to kill it.
		You have these dramatically, dramatically different worldviews where in one state, they're saying she is kidnapping a child to murder it.
		And Colorado saying, it's just a medical procedure.
		I don't I don't see how in the long term and this is I'm not trying to ignite an abortion debate I'm just pointing out one extreme example where the views are becoming so so disparate that it could lead to absolute violence and we saw this with the first civil war I say the first scary right in the United States where you had states arguing Who is or is not a person and guaranteed constitutional rights?
		And so, the Civil War in the United States was not completely just about the civil rights of black Americans.
		It was a much, much broader and complicated issue.
		However, it was obviously slavery which led to this main issue.
		Bleeding Kansas, pre-Civil War, seven years, was a fight over whether or not Kansas would be a slave state or a free state.
		And the disparate ideology of the United States were murdering each other in that state.
		And then the Civil War started, which brought in all the other states, and this was mainly around whether or not Abraham Lincoln was going to abolish slavery or suspend the expansion of slavery.
		Then when Abraham Lincoln, of course, rallies troops and conscription and, you know, makes people go quell the rebellion, it causes many other states to break apart.
		So, you get my general point here.
unidentified		I think, you know, what I would say is that One of the things Marxism, I think, is useful for is identifying that there may be a deeper cause, and this is not economic reductionism, but it's an analysis of social differences.
		So, we know in the Civil War underlying this difference of opinion were different classes, the slavocrat classes of the South, for whom slavery was the primary mode of accumulation, versus the kind of Northern industrialists who believe that, no, we shouldn't have a stagnant system of
		Accumulation we should have industrial innovation and so on and so on which was a directly opposed to slavery which was stagnating the productive forces so underlying the clash of the ideology was a class difference and I think it's the same today I think today the difference you're seeing in America is a clash between hegemonic institutions
		Which act as social engineers elevated above all of society on the basis of modern science and on the basis of expert knowledge versus the communal or get whether we agree with them or not the authentic values a people possess.
		Or at least think they possess, because I'm not gonna give conservatism such an easy, scot-free... Free pass.
		Free pass, that's exactly it.
		Because I understand also how certain capitalists also influence these kind of rural areas and completely drive opinion and...
		All the brainwashing that goes on but on the less they have a more authentic interaction with these kind of beliefs it's it's more close to their heart than say a kind of liberal who just believes this because an expert told them to believe it and they don't relate to it authentically necessarily so what what I will say is that look America.
		Amidst all of our multiculturalism, amidst all of these cultural differences, there is something that we can identify, at least in a preliminary fashion, that is common to us as Americans, American civilization, and it's pragmatism.
		We believe the ultimate truth as Americans is what works, what is sustainable, what is So what can fend for itself?
		Like Jack London's The Call of the Wild, a beautiful piece of American literature expressing our culture.
		And I think it's true also for culture.
		Look, we can have these debates about what should be moral, what should be legal, what should we put on the books all we want, but at the end of the day, What matters is what's going to work.
		What's going to be compatible with a genuine, collective human existence.
		And when I say that, I mean the ability for human beings, literally, to reproduce in existence.
		Not only biologically, that's also very important.
		Like, people need to be able to feel like, you know, they want to have kids and raise families and have family values.
		But also, Something that's not going to drive people to want to kill themselves and have a moral crisis where they get into drugs and fentanyl.
		And this is the spiritual element that is actually, if you want to put it in a vulgar way, necessary for human beings to work, just to exist.
		Like, we need to feel like we live in a society commensurate with morality, with beauty, with goodness, just to be able to function.
		So it's very American that we place an emphasis on just functionality and it works.
		But I think this may be a key to, for me at least speaking, I'm the only communist here, but for me this is key to American communism.
		Understanding the pragmatism as a kind of basis.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But you know, so really what it comes down to in all of these arguments is a cohesive culture where people agree with each other.
unidentified		No, well, no.
		No, look, we have a system that works when it's used, and that's the American Constitution, the Division of Powers.
		And you're right that federalism creates problems, and you have cases in Texas, a mother will take her transitioning boy to California because she can't transition him and You can't transition him in Texas.
		But if you have a centralized unitary state, Whichever faction gets into power can enforce their dictates on the whole country.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, of course, unless everyone had the same moral beliefs.
unidentified		And we don't.
		We don't all have the same moral compass.
		You know, there is a unifying culture in America that's getting increasingly shattered right now because you have a big polarization going on.
		And I'd say that is driven almost exclusively by the left.
		You know, this is, you talked before about You know, the communists in America, well look, parties like the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialist America, they have had a major impact in infiltrating the universities, infiltrating the Democratic Party, driving their policies, whether it's socialized healthcare, whether it's transgenderism, whether it's wokeism,
		gutting the military, you know, making America no longer energy independent.
		You know, you've got a Marxist right now who's Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, and she is cutting every energy lease she possibly can in this country.
		You've got a Secretary of Energy, another Marxist, Jennifer Granholm, who wants to make all U.S. military, military vehicles electric by 2030.
		You've got another Marxist, Julie Hsu, who's Secretary of Labor, who is helping these Chinese-driven strike wave that we have seen in the United Auto Workers Union And they almost put UPS out on strike.
		These are driven by the Chinese, just like Black Lives Matter was driven by China.
		So we have this massive Marxist infiltration of our institutions, which is fracturing the country, destroying that cohesiveness for a reason.
		They want a revolution here.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, but that seems more like our nation's being attacked with disruptive, chaotic ideas instead of someone's trying to build something, right?
unidentified		Well yeah, and this is a key point that Haas is talking about.
		You got this, you know, they talk about the unifying communism in China, or say, and I still think Russia is, as you say Haas, has still got communist forms there.
		When the communists are in control, they want to unify the country.
		They want family values.
		They want to unify their patriotic, but they spread the destructive side of communism here.
		Just like China will execute drug dealers, but they kill Americans with fentanyl every day because their goal is to destroy America and keep their country together.
		Russia We'll clamp down on gays and transgenders, but their communist friends spread it here, because the goal is to destroy us.
		To take us over while preserving themselves.
		This is the whole crux of the argument.
		Communism is patriotic when it's in control.
		When it's not in control, it's completely unpatriotic.
		Because it's goal is to destroy the existing social order so they can then establish their order.
		So, I completely disagree.
		Just because of, I think, part of is practical experience on my part.
		What you say about DSA and CPUSA.
		And also my understanding of history.
		You say that it's the communists who have infiltrated the system, but all evidence and experience on my part shows me the opposite is true.
		It's the system that has infiltrated the communists.
		So during the 1940s, for example, there was a 50,000 member strong CPUSA.
		Maximally, according to some historians, 300 of which were Soviet agents of some kind.
		Now keep in mind after the Invasion of Hungary in 56, where there was widespread disillusion with the Soviets.
		The Soviets ceased to have ideologically motivated agents.
		They would just bribe people basically with money, right?
		But, at this point, fast forward to decades later, of an 8500 strong CPUSA, 1500 of them are FBI informants.
		So the CPUSA itself has been infiltrated.
		The institutions, the academic institutions.
		Because remember, I don't mean to be too much of a Marxist, but I also think it's common sense.
		What makes more sense?
		Just an ideology being the octopus that is driving all of this, or money?
		Who funds these institutions?
		Who funded the destructive cultural left as you describe it?
		It was the CIA through Rockefeller-Ford Foundation money, the Institute for Social Research, the Frankfurt School, that was funded by the CIA.
		Specifically, and this is where I disagree with you, it's not that China and Russia are disrupting our culture with this stuff, We are doing it to them.
		We are spreading cultural color revolutions to disrupt traditional societies all across the world.
		We're not only doing it against the communists in China and Russia, because who funds the LGBT movement in Russia?
		Communists.
		It's us.
		We do it, right?
		We also do it in Europe to our supposed allies, Hungary and all of our NGOs and interest groups.
		We're the ones spreading wokeism globally.
		We're doing it through the oligarchical capitalist class.
		And let me tell you something, as someone with some experience in this regard, I am a devoted communist who does want a communist power.
		I completely, it's like, as Mark says, the communists disdain to conceal their aims, right?
		So as do I.
		You cannot keep an operation going without a steady flow of income, money, and revenue, or else the institution that the agent is planting themselves in will corrupt them.
		If you have a communist sitting as a post as a professor in a university for 40 years, the institutional culture of the university Which is bourgeois, according to Marxism, will shape their outlook.
		This is why Maoism talks about the need for a mass line.
		Even when you create a party apparatus with a bureaucracy and a fundamental organization, you're paying people a salary.
		Mao innovated the necessity that you need to actually break out of that bubble, that institutional bubble, go down to the people, rural people, the country, and hear the opposite perspective.
		So just to humble yourself, right?
		Because institutions corrupt people.
		So I completely disagree that communists have infiltrated the institutions.
		To me it seems more clear that the institutions, funded, financed and created by the oligarchical capitalist class, have corrupted the communists.
		Well this is what's outside of that.
		The foundations, the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, were infiltrated by the communists starting back in the 30s, even the 1920s.
		All of those institutions are promoting communist left-wing causes.
		The Biden administration is chock full of communists.
		That is why they are spreading this woke-ism around the world.
		That is why they're doing this.
		The FBI, which used to attack communists, is now basically working for them.
		This attack on MAGA that they're involved in, this is because they're driven by leftists.
		Comey talked about his communist background.
		Brennan talked about voting, the head of the CIA, talked about voting for Gus Hall.
		The communist movement The socialist movement has massively infiltrated almost every major American institution and this is the cause of the wokeism, this is the cause of the chaotic American foreign policy because we are being used to destroy ourselves and our allies and that has been directed from China and still to some degree from Russia.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But you're saying that wokeness is not communism?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And that's why you have MAGA communism.
unidentified		Well, it's just Marx, there's no wokeness in China or Russia, you know, there's no wokeness in a communist country.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, China is, you know, they're doing ads where they've got young men who are fit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Russia is doing these military commercials where they're ripped men with shaved heads jumping out of airplanes.
unidentified		So to me, it's like, MAGA communism is not just a response to wokeness.
		MAGA communism, the meme, if you want to know the meaning of it, is basically this.
		The fertile soil of a communist movement in the U.S.
		will have as its foundation the same people who are MAGA right now.
		To me, MAGA is trying to give America a collective Existence is trying to give identity to an American nation.
		I don't mean, oh, it's just white people.
		I mean, it is outside of the institutional hegemony, at least to an extent.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But let's pause.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So do you oppose what we would describe as like the woke left?
unidentified		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Palestinian LGBT flag.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Look, here's the thing, right?
		I don't hate LGBT people.
		I think there has been a great deal of confusion, a breakdown of the family, a rise of enmity, people are channeling their feelings in destructive ways.
		So I want what's best for these LGBT people.
		I want them to be able to find peace with what they're struggling with.
		But whether it's the right-wing or the current woke leftists showing solidarity with Palestine, I choose to believe there is an authentic reason for why they're doing it.
		Yes, of course, leftists are interpreting it in terms of the post-colonial studies and whatever whitey bad stuff, and right-wingers are interpreting it in their own problematic ways.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But my question, sorry, just to get...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The modern left that we see in this country... I don't like LGBT flag.
unidentified		I don't like any LGBT flag.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm just saying, like, the woke left is not what you would view as communist.
		Absolutely not.
		Their ideals are mostly based on weird identity-based things.
		Is that what you're choosing?
unidentified		Yes!
		Basically, look, I started my career trying to reinvigorate the CPU as, say, using modern media technology.
		And I have run up against the obstacle of the Ukraine censors, I've run up against the obstacle of censorship on all these other issues.
		I have never run up a more profound, I've never run into a more profound obstacle in my career than what the CPUSA has done to me.
		And I wasn't problematic, I wasn't bigoted, I wasn't any of these things they now accuse me of.
		Just because I wanted to reinvigorate that party and return a foundation, this is what communism is about.
		Your foundation of a communist movement, this is true, go back to the beginning of Marx, Lenin, this is Communist Organizing 101, is in the working class.
		That's your foundation, that's where all of your ideas have to authentically interface with.
		The notion of a communism based in universities and elites and professionals and intellectuals It's against Marxism.
		How can it be Marxist?
		Marxism is about the class struggle.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you have a commune?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like, do you have like a community or anything that you've built or are building?
unidentified		I don't.
		This is more the utopian socialism, which actually has a very long history in the United States, and it was critiqued by Frederick Engels and Marx.
		There was various in the 1800s, they called them utopian socialists, and they wanted new harmony and so on.
		They wanted to build these kind of A shell of what they would consider a functioning society now personally I think America's an experimental culture by nature and actually I'm not against experimental forms of association at all I just think that we should find ways to.
		Reward and be inspired by the ones that work.
		So, room for experimentation and then see what works.
		But to me, communism is not about a certain lifestyle.
		Communism is about a way of relating to the existential predicament of your nation, to your people, and most importantly, to the working class.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Describe your, like, how is communism achieved?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What would this country look like?
unidentified		If it's achieved.
		Well, I can't speak too far ahead into the future because I'm conditioned by what exists now.
		Again, I'm a pragmatist and materialist.
		But if I had to guess, I think a communist America Would embark on a very heavy emphasis on the building of large infrastructure, industry, and most importantly, rapid acceleration of the productive forces.
		Ushering in a fourth industrial revolution much faster than we currently are doing now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this would be, it would have to be a cultural thing.
		It would have to be everybody agrees, we're all gonna, like the space project, right?
		Like all America was super unified and we love the space race.
unidentified		Yes, if you understand Antonio Gromsky, who's one of the most important theorists of Marxism.
		Before political power can be achieved, some kind of cultural foundation of communism, of communist hegemony, must be built.
		But most people confuse Gromsky for the phrase, the long march through the institutions.
		That doesn't come from Gromsky.
		It comes from a West... Rudi Duschke.
		Rudi Duschke, right, who was a dissident in East Germany, who opposed The actually existing socialist system and fled to West Germany and kind of became a new leftist, third worldist and so on.
		So, uh, no, Gromsky believed that you build a foundation of cultural hegemony by having a foundation in the working class, building institutions that are funded by the working class collectively, that are upheld by them, that are maintained and reproduced by the working class.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How does the working class determine what to fund?
unidentified		Organization.
		You create organizations.
		First of all, you create perhaps businesses.
		Today, there's a ton of possibilities.
		I mean, even having a YouTube show that you can garner millions and millions of viewers of working class people, that's a form of communist capital you can build.
		You can have businesses, cooperatives.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's a private venture.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If people choose to give me money, then I use that money for what I want to do with it.
unidentified		Sure, but it's conducive to the aims of a communist movement, which is to build a form of cultural hegemony.
unidentified		Obviously, that's going to be within the system we live in now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See, that's the issue I'm trying to understand, because I don't think that's communism.
		Right, that doesn't seem to make sense.
		I think, culturalism perhaps, like the mission we have here is, we produce content, we have a show, we try to, we have our varying opinions on the show, and then people choose to give us money, we use that money towards ideological ends.
unidentified		Well, the premises of a communist economic system, those are material.
		You cannot voluntarily create communism.
		The prediction of Marx and Engels, and of Marxism in general, Is that according to historical and material laws, the capitalist mode of production within the seeds of capitalist production itself lies a transition into socialism and communism.
		And I think they've been vindicated actually, because another view I have is that Technically, I like to use terms that people understand.
		So when I say we live in capitalism, it's just I'm referring to an institution.
		But technically speaking, I don't think we actually live in a capitalist mode of production anymore.
		I agree.
		I think we've gotten rid of commodity money.
		According to Marxism, that's central to a capitalist production.
		Money must be a commodity, right?
		Gold, for example.
		Money today is fiat money, okay?
		So when currency itself, when exchange value itself is political, we can't talk about living in a capitalist system anymore.
		Also, the information economy, I think, has done a lot to accelerate a transition into a post-capitalist economy.
		I don't think enterprises are purely profit-based anymore.
		I think that there's this... ESG.
		Yeah, exactly.
		Precisely.
		Precisely that.
		So, you know, building a communist movement is going to be...
		This is what Mark said.
		The premises of the communist movement are now in existence.
		So yes, communists can open small businesses to create a hegemony and fund a movement.
		Is that a capitalist relation of production?
		Maybe, but is it one also within a wider transition, regardless of what we do?
		Yes.
		Also, Communism doesn't come from the sky, it comes from the premises now in existence.
		So, you know, Lenin said this, it's kind of an idea to get the view of what communists believe, but it's kind of gruesome a little bit.
		But it's, you know, understand it metaphorically, you hang the capitalist with the rope he sends, he sells you.
		But I don't believe in the violence, I just, you understand, it's like you're destroying the system through the system itself.
		Well, you know, to say you don't believe in the violence has, you know, you've got, you've got, you know, the evasion going in the Ukraine right now.
		You've got threatens, threats to invade Taiwan.
		You've got Russia's puppet, you know, Iran creating mayhem in Israel.
		You know, these are all violent things, but we'll get back to an area.
		You talked about the mass line before.
		People need to understand what the mass line is.
		That's a Maoist term.
		And that the theory is you go to the people, they give you the ideas and you come up with a mass line and everybody must do it.
		Well, we saw the mass line during COVID.
		We see the mass line through Black Lives Matter, which is a Maoist construct.
		We saw the black, we saw the mass line in transgenderism.
		You cannot challenge transgenderism.
		You could not challenge The masks, lockdown, vaccines mantra.
		You could not challenge that.
		That was enforced through the World Health Organization, which is controlled completely by the CCP.
		Let me finish.
		I gave you a good go.
		And so this is enforced here by pro-Chinese politicians, pro-Chinese unions in our state.
		We saw communism through COVID.
		We saw communism through Black Lives Matter.
		We're seeing communism now with the transgender movement.
		We saw communism with the fact that you cannot challenge election results.
		This is mass line politics.
		In America now, enforced through the CCP, through the big tech that depends on the CCP, through the institutions controlled by the CCP in this country.
		That is tyranny.
		That is pure tyranny.
		There can be no other result of communism than tyranny.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the famous line of, hang the capitalists with the rope they sell you.
		And that, I think, describes the issue of the CCP you're describing perfectly.
		American institutions, Big Tech for instance, they say, we want to make a bunch of money.
		How do we do it?
		In America, you can make any movie you want.
		Certainly don't offend the activists and, you know, the woke left or whatever because they'll boycott and it'll be a whole big nightmare.
		So, for the most part, however, if we make a movie with certain things in it, people won't really care.
		However, if you want to release that movie in China, you got to draw the dotted lines around the South China Sea.
		Because China is a massive market with monetary opportunity for American companies, the American companies are going to adhere to the path of least resistance, which means, in the United States, nobody cares, for the most part, if you draw seven dotted lines around the South China Sea.
		In China, you have to.
		So what do the movies do?
		They just do it.
		Which means American culture is being influenced.
		Google is banning people who say things like against the World Health Organization, not necessarily because, I mean, probably partly because they are ideologically aligned.
		But it's because of this, they're like, look, if we want our products in China where we can double our revenue, we have to adhere to the CCP.
		It's cheaper if we just do it across the board.
		This means that in the United States, we will be subject to the pressures of the CCP.
		It is American capitalist endeavors trying to make money, bending their knee to the CCP and other dictators because it's cheaper.
unidentified		You look at why is sport so woke?
		Because Nike controls sport.
		Who is Nike in bed with?
		Look, some Libertarians say we should have free trade across the world.
		I completely disagree.
		We should be completely disengaging with China, with Vietnam, with Russia and Iran and Cuba.
		We're absolutely disengaging because they will not survive without our support.
		We are keeping them in business so they can destroy us.
		Well, I think this is part of the contradiction of liberalism I mentioned, but before I get into that, I'd like to say two things.
		One is that the mass line, I completely disagree that the COVID response in the United States, or Black Lives Matter for that matter, was an example of mass line.
		How do I know this?
		Preceding Black Lives Matter was an injection of what I believe to be half a billion dollars by George Soros.
		So it was an institutional endeavor from the top down.
		If it was a mass line, they would be going down to people outside of these institutions and having that inform their outlook, these activists.
		But they did the opposite for both COVID and Black Lives Matter.
		What they did was impose Views synthetically created in the bubble confines of universities and try to impose this on the people.
		I live in Michigan.
		Gretchen Whitmer was my governor, okay?
		If Gretchen Whitmer did the Maoist mass line in Michigan, she would go to northern Michigan, she would go to places people are living.
		And actually appraise their thoughts, their feelings, their mood, and their consciousness with regard to her lockdown measures.
		And if she did that, she would have been able to very easily understand.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like she didn't go around praising people and she did arrest people who opposed her.
unidentified		No, no, no, but that's not the mass line.
		The mass line means, let me finish, you formulate your policy and you formulate your response to a given event based on your understanding of where the masses stand.
		And the masses in Michigan stood opposed to what Gretchen Whitmer was doing.
		She was out of touch, so it's the opposite of a mass line.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, but most people were just like, it's not so much whether she's aligned with them or not, it's what are they willing to accept.
unidentified		Well, but whether they're willing to accept it or not, those policies were formulated by, for example, Dr. Fauci.
		By that I mean by out-of-touch expert institutions.
		The Chinese Cultural Revolution and Maoism bombarded these institutions.
		They bombarded the experts.
		They bombarded the technical specialists and said, no, the feeling and will of the masses is More true, right?
		So, it's the opposite.
		It's hyper-populism.
		It's not the technocracy of COVID or Black Lives Matter.
		Now, I also want to say with regard to... He wanted to respond to that.
		Well, look, this is the big deception of communism.
		They say, well, we will consult with the people, we will formulate our ideas, and then we'll do the mass line.
		That's not how it works.
		They come up with an idea, they do these fake consultations, They say, well, the people agree with us.
		Therefore, we have a mandate to do it.
		That's how they do it.
		This is the thing.
		Communists talk about democracy.
		What is democracy to a communist?
		It is the will of the people.
		Who are the representatives of the people?
		The communists are the representatives of the people.
		So therefore, democracy is the will of the communist party.
		So the mass line is exactly what we saw in Black Lives Matter, a Maoist Chinese communist operation with deep connections to the Chinese consulate in San Francisco run by the Freedom Road Socialist Organization and Liberation Road.
		It was completely enforced because real, real mass line in the real world is the imposition of the mass line from above Through Tedros and the World Health Organization, a Chinese puppet, through Susan Mickey, a member of the British Communist Party who now runs the World Health Organization's social conformity unit, what we saw
		Through the transgender movement, through the through the COVID was Chinese mass line enforced on this country through subservient politicians and Chinese pro Chinese.
		This is contradicted by a cursory examination of the facts.
		Okay, in China today, You go to a rural peasant who is more outside of the reach of the central government, and they're hanging a picture of Mao on their wall, and part of the reason of Xi Jinping's rise and his kind of Neo-Maoism was a grassroots populism.
		So I completely reject the notion, and I think expert historians will probably... Real quick, you're saying?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		...reject the notion that the Cultural Revolution mass line was synthetically created in the communist... But, just to clarify, you're saying that a rural Chinese peasant will hang pictures of Mao in reverence?
unidentified		Yes, absolutely.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it possible that it's because they killed anyone who wouldn't?
unidentified		No, because if it's the same in Russia today, long after Stalinism, even in the history of the Soviet Union and today, there's no Stalinist power ruling Russia today, right?
		There's no repression of people against Stalin.
		See what people in Moscow are saying, these liberals in Moscow.
		You go to the remote regions of Russia, those are the Stalinists.
		It's the ordinary people who revere Stalin.
		So the same thing is actually true in China.
		So the notion of the communist mass line just being the imposition of the communist party institution, that was the very thing Mao conceived, that was the very problem Mao was working against with the mass line, and his populism was authentic.
		There's a book I would recommend, it's called The Unknown Cultural Revolution by Dong Ping Han, and in it you'll find Eyewitness accounts, and this guy is some kind of dissident in China today, but he records eyewitness accounts, records, and historical data that shows actually the Cultural Revolution was a populist uprising of Chinese peasants.
		It was the imposition of a people's dictatorship over the kind of bureaucracy of the party.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you know how many people died in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution?
unidentified		There's no way of knowing for certain.
		There's the Black Book of Communism estimate.
		The problem with the Black Book of Communism is that two of the three authors who participated in compiling it disavowed it later and said that the editor was obsessed with reaching a total of a hundred million just because... Yeah, some say it could be five to fifty million.
		It was a lot.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is wide estimates.
unidentified		Regarding the famines in both the Soviet Union and in China, yes, many people died, yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe the story of the sparrows and the pig iron in China?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you think those are historically accurate?
unidentified		They may be contributing factors, but overall the reasons for famine in both the Soviet Union and China was two things.
		A combination, the most important one, I'll rank them in order, was the rapid transition to the modernization of agriculture from a pre-modern
		Agrarian society that caused a disruption in the food supply and because it was it happened in a very rapid condensed Time period right so that was a central planning changed how they were not just central planning But but see rapid modernizations of agriculture if you look historically have led to the worst calamities everywhere including in non-communist states Accompanying English industrialization we had the Irish potato famine
		Which killed more as a proportion of the Irish population than did Mao's Great Leap Forward.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're saying that the potato famine was the result of modernization?
unidentified		Yes.
		It was a result of a deliberate policy of the British to suppress the Irish.
		But look, this is the central lie of communism.
		Okay, we can debate with a 5 million, 50 million, 40 million diet, as though that doesn't mean anything.
		Of course it does.
		This would never happen.
		Did this ever happen in America?
		America industrialized more rapidly than any... On the back of British capital.
		Well, it doesn't matter where the capital came from.
		They didn't have access to any capital.
		They had to do it from scratch.
		America industrialized because America had a free system.
		That's not true.
		Where people could employ.
		Well, you see, this is where we disagree.
		America was great because America was free.
		People could invest.
		They could bring capital in.
		They could build factories.
		It was never central planning.
		Every time central planning has been, you just said it.
		Rapid transition.
		Forced rapid transition.
		Dislocation of the supply chains.
		Massive famine.
		It wasn't all accidental either.
		The Kulaks, between 6 and 10 million Kulaks deliberately starved in Ukraine.
		I completely disagree, but before we get to the allegation about Ukraine, actually you're wrong about American industrialization.
		It's a big myth that the American system of economics is free trade.
		That was actually the British system.
		Adam Smith and the classical political economists.
		I'm not saying it was free trade.
		Those were the British.
		It wasn't.
		In America we had something called the American system.
		Which originates with Alexander Hamilton and which Abraham Lincoln upheld in the apex and foundation of American industrialization, which was deliberate centralized state policy for public credit to deliberately inspire technological innovation and industrialization from the top down.
		down to a degree so so so um also regarding the view that uh it's deliberate look it was condensed within a short period but why was that the soviet union before it was even formed after their revolution literally half the world invaded uh the former russian empire to destroy the bolsheviks so stalin in 1931 he said we have 10 years to catch up militarily and in terms of our industrial economy just 10 years or we get buried by the world
		well what happened 10 years later the The German invasion happens.
		So they had, they had, it was a matter of life or death.
		They had to do this if they wanted to retain their sovereignty.
		And to say that I think there's no meaningfulness to the millions who perished, no it's, of course, it's one of the most worst calamities in the history of those countries.
		But you have to understand, Their necessity.
		But there is a context to it.
		But it's freedom or slavery.
		Do you submit to foreigners to rule over you?
		Or do you have a sovereign economy?
		Well, this is not a binary choice.
		It's not a binary choice.
		It was for them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's a reason why I asked this question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, in this period in China, are you more or less likely to survive if you are pro-Mao?
unidentified		Uh, probably yes, but that's also- More likely, I mean- But a lot of that is part of what you mentioned earlier, which is the kind of unwritten cultural kind of thing where- But that's not what I- If you go on stage, you get attacked or something.
unidentified		Right, right, right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So in the Great Leap Forward, in the Cultural Revolution, if you are directly challenging these plans and what Ma was doing, would that negatively impact your life?
unidentified		I couldn't say because there was so much chaos during that period that even people who were fervently pro-Mao, this is part of the horrible tragedy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying that those photos we have of the struggle sessions and everything, those could have been... That happened later, that happened a decade later during the Cultural Revolution.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's why I said the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
unidentified		Oh yeah, the Cultural Revolution, yes, there was a lot of violence.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So my point is, in these periods, were you more or less likely to survive if you were for communists, these revolutionary changes?
unidentified		If you were pro-Mao, but here's the thing, even during the, this was, the Cultural Revolution ultimately was, ended in failure.
		Mao himself admitted this.
		It ended in the factionalism of Red Guards because it wasn't enough just to support Mao, you had to prove it authentically.
		Right?
		So this led to an atmosphere where these student Red Guards would start killing each other and attacking each other because of a purity test.
		Yeah, but here's the thing.
		What happened to them?
		We have an American society now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When in the period of like a week, the word Womxn, W-O-M-X-N, was considered the politically correct way to refer to females.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And then that sparked a backlash Where they said it was trans-exclusionary, so the attempt at wokeness created multifactional internal wokeness conflict.
unidentified		Which is meant to do.
		Which is meant to divide.
		I agree there is a parallel, but I want to repeat a quotation by Karl Marx.
		He said, history always repeats itself.
		First as the tragedy, and second as farce.
		And I think this is an example of how the capitalist West is actually behind the history of communism now.
		We are catching up to the communists in China, because China doesn't have this issue anymore, because Mao sent the students down to the countryside.
		They learned from the excesses and the mistake.
		And I also disagree, despite all of its failures and despite the tragedy of the Cultural Revolution, there was still something there that was authentic, an authentic attempt
		to rediscover the basis authentic basis of communism based on belief based on devotion to the cause in america you know that's not what you have there's no actual real cause a real unifying belief people are devoted to when someone calls you for example transphobic they're not saying you are standing in the way of uh...
		The glorious people's triumph or something.
		They're saying, well, you're just personally a bad person.
		You're a piece of shit for being a transphobe or whatever.
		So it's not even really politicized.
		They don't even directly acknowledge that there's a level of responsibility.
		There's a stake in it.
		It's just kind of seamlessly understood or conceived to be like, oh, I'm a normal person, right?
		The Red Guards, for all their faults, right?
		At least we're devoted to one cause, one ideology, and most importantly, even if they failed in doing it, authentically giving expression to the will of their people.
		Woke people don't care about doing that.
		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So here's the bad news, I guess, for you.
		I think that, you know, I'm not gonna pretend that I know what's true or not in terms of conspiracy or stuff, but it is fascinating to me that you've got powerful interests in the intelligence agencies that are very, very pro-woke.
		And they have aligned wokeness with communism because the end result of much of the policies or ideas of wokeness is depopulation.
		I am not saying that there is a depopulation agenda.
		I'm saying if you are woke, you are more likely to be for abortion.
		You are more likely to be for practices that will result in the sterilization of children.
		Ultimately, what we're seeing now is that conservatives are more likely to have children, and leftists are substantially less likely to have children.
		The further you go left, the lower the chances of having kids will be.
		Now, the right is concerned that indoctrination in schools will help leftists overcome this shortfall generationally.
		That, mathematically, does not align.
		What we are seeing now in the polling Gen Z males, of Gen Z Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers, Gen Z males are the least likely generation to identify as feminist.
		So, clearly, you know, indoctrination in schools does not work.
		However, of the people who do align with modern versions of American Marxism or Communism, which includes wokeness, they're not going to reproduce.
		The long-term end here is going to be communism loses.
unidentified		What I would say though is that I think there is a depopulation agenda.
		It does come from the oligarchical ruling class, the Club of Rome, the Rockefellers.
		This is the capitalist class, and I think you're getting it backwards.
		These people who call themselves Marxism in the West, tracing their origins to the CIA-funded compatible left, they're just trying to give some inauthentic ideological legitimation To an already existing agenda, and the agenda doesn't originate in Marxist ideology.
		The ideology is just being used to legitimate the already existing agenda, and the agenda is obvious.
		Monopoly capital wants to stifle the growth of human beings, civilization, and other entrepreneurs in order to maintain its hold on rents, in order to maintain its power, right?
		So I think that's easy to explain actually from a Marxist lens.
		And so what I disagree with when we say that wokeism is similar to Marxism, It is Marxism.
		It's not similar.
		It is Marxism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's cultural Marxism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's economic and there's cultural.
unidentified		Well, I completely disagree because while in academia there was an exploration of Marxist ideas in the 50s through the 70s and then ran out of favor and was replaced by the kind of postmodern Foucault and so on, who were actually more influenced by people like Nietzsche I completely disagree because while in academia there was an exploration of Marxist ideas in the He ran out of favor and was replaced by the kind of post-modern Foucault and so on, who were actually more influenced by people like Nietzsche and these not-really-Marx, right?
		Marx is considered, by the way, Marx, like orthodox in a sense.
		He's outdated, he's patriarchal, he's Eurocentric, he's cis-heteropatriarchal, whatever.
		He himself is just critiqued in academia.
		But the connection to Marxism only is this very vague, very ambiguous kind of commitment to freedom.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are you familiar with the origin of critical race theory?
unidentified		Yes, but this was as a... Critical Race Theory, not many people know this, began as a rejection of Marxism, which elevated the class struggle as the principal... That's incorrect.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Kimberly Crenshaw wrote specifically... She specifically wrote in the book Critical Race Theory that Marx was right, and he didn't... But what he missed from the American context was that racial politics Played a major role in oppressor versus oppression.
		Whereas Marx's view is economic.
		She said you can't deny the race-based component in the United States.
		Therefore, building off of Marx's critical theory, we must add the component of race to it.
unidentified		But making oppressor and oppressed the fundamental basis is not Marxist.
		That comes from the legacy of radical liberalism.
		Marxism is about understanding objective historical laws and social contradictions, which is not reducible to some simplistic oppressor oppressed.
		That's liberalism because liberalism was primarily focused on getting rid of explicit political structures.
		Marxism is more focused on understanding how the development of the mode of production and the relations of production actually condition the political superstructure.
		Yeah, see this is the thing, people think of Marxism in purely economic terms, and that was the basis of it, but Marxism has changed a lot.
		The Marxist movement, and I talk about the communist movement, the communist movement is transgenderism, the communist movement is Black Lives Matter, because it's a destructive movement in the West that wants to break down the social structures to replace it with their social structures.
		You look at Critical Race Theory was absolutely invented by Communist Party members.
		The concept of white privilege was invented by Ted Allen and Noel Ignatiev, two members of the Communist Party USA who then went into the Provisional Organising Committee, a Maoist group.
		You look at Ted, hey, the founder of the modern gay movement was a Communist Party member All the radical gay movements in this country now are controlled by Marxists.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But it sounds like what you're saying is that communists are using these things to destroy the system.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is not representative of what they actually want in the end.
unidentified		Well, to replace the system, to transform the system, you have to destroy the existing social structures.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What Haas is describing is, here's a system we want to make.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What you're describing is, here's how communists are destroying the current system.
unidentified		Exactly, because they might say their goal is this class of society.
		It will never get to that.
		Once power is centralized in a few hands, it only ever stays in a few hands.
		I agree.
		Communism is not about redistributing wealth or a social change.
		It's about concentrating all wealth and all power in a very, very... Let me give you an example.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, during Occupy Wall Street, in the early days, it was eclectic.
		There were conservatives, libertarians, leftists, liberals, socialists, communists.
		Some of the principal organizers who eventually took over the movement, pushed everyone else out, centralized all the power within themselves, told me that our goal is to flip the pyramid.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Or the homeless.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		said, okay, now the average person might take that to mean the bourgeois ultra elites get put on the bottom and the working classes on top.
unidentified		Or the homeless.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But that's not true.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What actually happens if you flip a pyramid over?
		The bricks crumble into a pile of bricks with someone from the bottom now on top.
		And they said, exactly.
		They said, we hope that when we flip the system, it puts us in the central elite authority positions where we can run the system properly.
unidentified		But I don't see what's specifically Marxist.
		This is just liberalism.
		If you look at the history... No, this is classic Marxism.
		Let me continue.
		The classical liberalism was precisely about...
		This kind of, uh, rebellion against the existing authority and structure.
		Vaguely speaking, there's nothing specifically Marxist about that.
		Obviously, Marxism is revolutionary, but it's not based in this kind of simplistic, we want to put the people on the bottom, on the top.
		I'll give you an example of this.
		There's also something I want to speak to with regarding the communist infiltration, but, you know, um...
		Marxism doesn't say the poorest members of society are the revolutionary class.
		The poorest members of society are the lumpen.
		If you understand, you know, the term lumpen proletariat, the criminals, the vagabonds, homeless, drug dealers, addicts, and so on and so on.
		That's the lowest.
		The working class is actually not necessarily the poorest part of society.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, aren't they the bourgeois?
unidentified		Who?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The middle class, weren't they?
unidentified		No, no, no.
		The bourgeoisie is not defined by its wealth.
		It's not necessarily defined by its social status.
		It's defined by its relationship to the mode of production.
		So it's a very important distinction to understand.
		Marxism is not flipping the pyramid.
		Marxism is about understanding a class struggle already existing before Marxism.
		I want to speak to what you mentioned about communist infiltration, so-called.
		Look, To the extent that there's the communists or the transgender movement and BLM, I can personally attest that that is only to the extent that they have compromised with the ruling class.
		I'll give you an example.
		Gorbachev was not a hardline communist.
		He was a liberal who was trying to reform the communist system.
		All of these people you mention are not communists, they're ex-communists, they're former communists, they're communists who were traitors who compromised with liberalism, and that is actually with precedent.
		Is someone who arose in distinction because he recognized the treachery of the Social Democrats who sold out to the system.
		And the same thing happened with Gorbachev, the same thing happened with the CPUSA, Angela Davis, the Committees for Correspondence, which wanted to overthrow the hardline communists and have a Gorbachev-style liberal democratic reform.
		So these people you mentioned are just the traitors who sold out to the ruling class.
		Look, you've got Michael Kinchner out in Phoenix, Democratic Socialist of American Hour, who boasts how he got inside the Boy Scouts and changed the policy.
		He did this inside the Boy Scouts to change their policy from no homosexuals allowed to admitting homosexuals.
		That destroyed the boys.
		That destroyed the Boy Scouts.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I was correct about my statement on bourgeoisie.
		I just fact-checked myself.
		It refers to the business owners in the middle class, somewhere between the lowest and highest income.
unidentified		It's a technical term.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a reference to urban charters and the merchant class.
unidentified		Right, but in Marxism, bourgeoisie refers to a specific relation of production.
unidentified		Sociologically, it may vaguely refer to All these other things middle class, but from the Marxist standpoint, the bourgeoisie is those who, uh, the capitalists who own the means of production through private property.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, but my point is, it does not mean the ultra-wealthy oligarchic elites.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It means the guy who owns the mom-and-pop pizza shop.
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it does.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's the thing... It literally originated in France relating to urban charters for people who owned businesses.
unidentified		The bourgeoisie started out small, yes, but what it has concretely evolved into is what Lenin would describe as an imperialist bourgeoisie or a monopoly bourgeoisie.
		And Lenin actually doesn't identify... he makes a distinction.
		He says there is a petty bourgeoisie, which can be an ally of the The proletarian movement, and actually should be an ally of them, because they have an interest in overthrowing the ruling bourgeoisie.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm gonna tell you the issue I take.
		The issue I take is, I use a general academic term for a certain class, you deny the definition, and then when I say, here's that least generally, you said, okay, well, Marx says something different about it.
		So look, are we talking about the same thing or... So I want to just be clear about what I think.
unidentified		I don't think people who own Ma and Pa shops are part of the same class as the oligarchical elites.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is the issue I take with modern leftism and even what's happening now is racism means something different, bourgeoisie means something different, it means whatever we need it to mean for our political ends.
		It means what the books No, it doesn't mean what the book says.
		It means a word represents an idea that we can use to communicate certain issues.
unidentified		If you want to pull up the great Soviet encyclopedia on the petty bourgeoisie, even Wikipedia will show you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, so if I say a word and then you say, my book says this word means something different, this is the obfuscation of words for the purpose of winning a political debate.
unidentified		Hold on, let's just clarify what we mean.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't mean- That's why I asked, does the bourgeoisie represent- and you said, no it doesn't.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But what you're doing is you're taking a different, altered definition of a word to change what our argument actually is.
unidentified		But the bourgeoisie does not mean this for Marxists, it has never just meant that for Marxists, and it also doesn't just mean this for the purposes of what I'm trying to say.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is what the modern left of the United States with racism and class, they say our word means something different, you misunderstood us.
unidentified		Hold on, hold on.
unidentified		You're trying to say that because I reject the view that the bourgeoisie, concretely, that we're talking about is the Ma and Pa shop, this means I'm obfuscating words.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When I said the definition of bourgeoisie, you could have said, that actually is the traditional academic view of bourgeoisie.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		In Marxism, however, instead you said, no, you're wrong.
unidentified		Okay, so you're upset that words can mean different things in different contexts?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, I'm upset that the left typically changes the definition of words to suit their political ends.
unidentified		I think anyone who just uses words in different contexts, which everyone, regardless of their political alignment, does, I just think this is just an unfair kind of characterization of what I'm trying to say.
		Look, the typical thing is racism here.
		To most Americans, racism means unwarranted prejudice against somebody because of their color or ethnic background.
		Racism to a Marxist means the power strikes, about the power structure.
		So it means that a certain segment of society, usually racially based, oppresses another segment of society.
		So you can get a black football player on $40 million a year who is oppressed and is suffering racism by some white guy on food stamps.
		Racism means something totally different To a Marxist than it does to most of us.
		Democracy means something totally different.
		And as to your point about infiltration, I'm going to do some promotion here, because I write books about Marxists in government.
		I say in these books, security risk senators, I profile 30 currently serving US senators who are involved with Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialist America, Iran, China, Cuba, and North Korea.
		Yeah, Patty Murray out of Washington State, deeply involved with the Communist Party USA for decades.
		And how powerful is this person, you're saying?
		Well, she's one of the third-ranked Democrat in the Senate.
		And you're saying that she is currently in the Communist Party USA?
		No, I didn't.
		I said she has worked with the Communist Party USA for decades.
		On what?
		On social policy in Washington State.
		Such as what?
		She has funded their organizations, she's steered state funding to their organizations.
		And she's funded them to create a working class popular movement or funded them to do what?
		To get money to take over institutions.
		Like which institutions do the communists control?
		In Washington State.
		Right, which ones?
		They control most of the labor unions in Washington State.
		Which labor union in Washington State is controlled by the Communist Party?
		Well, by the Communist Movement, SEIU.
		So you're changing the definition of words.
		Instead of the Communist Party, it's the Communist Movement.
		What does Communist refer to concretely?
		Let me finish.
		I said she is deeply involved with the Communist Party.
		How?
		Define deeply.
		They worked in her campaigns.
		She funneled money to big causes.
		How is that deeply?
		That's... What do you mean by work?
		Did someone pass out leaflets in the Communist Party?
		The Communist Party is irrelevant.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bro, bro, bro.
		Your counter to my criticism of you changing a definition is... I'm just applying your criticism to you.
		No, you're literally not.
		You're arguing semantics of the word work and deeply when I asked you to divine bourgeois and you gave me a Marxist alternate definition of it.
unidentified		Tim, Tim, to be clear, I'm a good Maoist, I will do the struggle session and the self-criticism myself.
unidentified		I repent for refusing to draw equivalence between the meaning of the bourgeoisie as it applies to France in the 1600s and the bourgeoisie today.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And the general definition used by regular people to convey an idea and you arguing the definition was wrong for the sake of your ideology.
unidentified		So by the bourgeoisie, okay, let's talk about ordinary people.
		Technically speaking, bougie... The word bougie is used in, like, hip-hop culture to refer to, like, the ultra-rich.
		It's not used to refer to Ma and Pa Shop.
		So actually, you're changing the definition to mean something scholastic and... I'd say bougie.
		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bourgeoisie, academically, has a meaning that people are trying to convey an idea to make an argument.
unidentified		Academically speaking, that's the technicality.
		If you want to be an academic, you have to consult the literature, and the literature states that the bourgeoisie, typically speaking, is referring to the hegemonic or big bourgeoisie.
		The petty bourgeoisie is a different classification.
		It's not synonymous.
		Now, you can say I'm changing the definition of words.
		Please, I implore you, read elementary Marxist literature, even the Communist Manifesto.
		It's only 7,000 words.
		It's literally in there.
		It doesn't equate the capitalist class with the petty bourgeoisie.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point I'm making is, you read a book from Marx and determined his interpretation of the word is now the universal interpretation.
unidentified		So where did the academic community get it from?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a French word.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what did the... That goes back to the 17th century.
unidentified		So you're saying the academic community in the contemporary context refers to the bourgeoisie as the 1700s French burger class?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like when we're conveying a general idea and we seek to look up a definition to better understand it and we read a general view of it, it has a meaning.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So what we often see in the United States from the left, as Trevor pointed out with the word like racism, they redefine the parameters based on their specific academic view outside the confines.
unidentified		But he's redefining the word communist to mean anyone who has any tangential association whatsoever.
unidentified		That's not what he said.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He said she's worked with the communist party.
		He said how?
		She's funded the communist movement.
		That is a one-to-one correlation.
unidentified		Okay, okay, what is a communist movement without the party?
		What is that referred to?
		Well, it's Democratic Socialist America.
		It's Liberation Road.
		It's Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
		Okay, do you know who founded the Democratic Socialist America?
		Yeah, Michael Harrington.
		So why didn't he call it a communist party?
		Because he wanted to infiltrate the Democratic Party.
		So Michael Harrington was being insincere when he talked about his denunciation of Marxism, Leninism, and communism?
		Absolutely.
		Is that what you're saying?
		What's your evidence for that?
		What's your evidence for the insincerity?
		Well, because he hooked up with the New American Movement, which came out of the Communist Party USA.
		Which came out of it.
		So these are people who splintered out of it and rejected it.
		But they were still Marxist-Leninist.
		Based on what evidence?
		Because they explicitly state it.
		I've got huge documents.
		They stated it in the past or they state it today?
		Right now.
		So the DSA is officially a Marxist-Leninist party?
		It is a Marxist organization which... Absolutely not!
		The DSA rejects Marxism-Leninism as authoritarian.
		The whole point of democratic socialism...
		Is to fool people into accepting communism.
		Was to compromise with the liberal hegemony.
		No, it was to take over the liberal.
		They explicitly stated they got there to infiltrate the Democratic Party.
		Democratic Socialists of America gave us Obamacare.
		This is the central secret of a... What's the evidence?
		I've written whole books on this.
		Look, it came through Quentin Young, who was a Communist Party member, who then became a Democratic Socialist American member, and was Obama's personal physician.
		Let me finish, let me finish.
		Virtually, open borders came through the communist movement.
		That is a communist party and democratic socialist America construct which has been used to destroy America.
		The push for the Iran nuclear deal came from the communist movement.
		The central secret of communism is this.
		The small communist party can take over labor unions.
		The labor unions influence and control the Democratic Party.
		So you're saying Joe Simms of the CPUSA and Rosanna, Joe Simms and Rosanna are the puppet masters of the Democratic Party in America.
		Yeah, I am saying that.
		The people around them.
		Joe Simms is senile.
		I know Joe Simms too.
		The Communist Party USA is led by Joe Simms, but the movement is much broader than that.
		You've got the liberation movement.
		You're saying he's the puppet master.
		Well, he is part of that apparatus.
		Who's the puppet master?
		Well, I would say Judith LeBlanc would be right up there.
		Who's that?
		Judith LeBlanc, she's the one who put Deb Haaland in as Secretary of the Interior.
		And what is their relation to the Communist Party?
		Judith LeBlanc is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
		And she herself put someone in a position of power?
		Absolutely, she did.
		She mounted a campaign called Deb for Interior.
		She ran it.
		They had Facebook pages and buses.
		She got a whole bunch of celebrity endorsements like Alyssa Milano, Mark Ruffalo, Sarah Silverman.
		Deb Haaland nominated as Secretary of the Interior.
	That is 100% documentable.
	You're saying that she originated that entire campaign?
	100%.
	She led it.
	Can you name a single Communist Party member who is in office right now?
	I can... That is not the point.
	No, that is the point, because one of the things we've been pushing for is them to field candidates instead of kissing Democrat ass, and they can't do that.
	You're trying to dissimulate here.
	No, they don't have any independence, they're subservient to the Democrats.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let me finish my point.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What he's saying is quite literally, if you don't declare you're a member of something, you have nothing to do with it at all.
unidentified		That's right.
		There's a communist movement.
		There's a few people in the Communist Party that direct a movement.
		The Communist Movement is why we have open borders.
		It's why we have Obamacare.
		It is why Iran is about to get the nuclear weapon.
		The Communist Movement controls the labor unions of this country and the labor unions control the Democratic Party.
		As long as we change the definition of Communist Movement.
		Yeah, the Communist Movement is anybody who has an allegiance to the Communist Movement.
		Some are party members, some are not.
		Some are Democrats, like Chris Murphy, the Senator from Connecticut, deeply in bed with the Communist Party.
		While he was criticizing Trump for Russia, he had a Communist Party member as one of his key staff members.
		And what was their key role as the staff member?
		He was running one of his offices.
		So I think what you're doing is cherry-picking cases where communists are acting as subservient to the Democrats because here's the thing I can prove.
		Look, Obamacare was completely a Democratic Socialist of America program.
		It is now the law of the land in this country.
		That's not true.
		The fact that Deb Haaland is canceling energy leases all over this country Directly put in place by a card carrying open member of the Communist Party USA, which is completely documentable.
		I have it in my book.
		I can show you all of it.
		Before we get into the book, I think what we're actually touching upon here is the simple fact that the Communist Party USA has relinquished its role as an independent political organ of the working class and has entirely subordinated itself as an institution to the Democratic Party.
		So it makes...
		Hold on, hold on, let me finish, because I let you finish.
		It makes sense that here or there you're going to find staffers of this or that person who's actually in power, who's a member of the Communist Party.
		The whole role of that organization is just to serve Democrats.
		And I know this because it's a huge point of contention within the party.
		People in the party are not happy about this, but Joe Simms and Rosanna, who are corrupt sellouts from the Committees of Correspondence era, Who are reformists from the Gorbachev era who reject Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, continue to toe this line.
		Why?
		Because they're corrupt sellouts who are institutionally subordinated to powers that are higher than them.
		And again, this has historical precedent.
		Traitors to the working class movement, ex-communists, make for excellent servants of the ruling class.
		They did in World War I, when the Social Democrats of Germany and France were at the vanguard of promoting the First Imperialist War.
		And that's exactly what Lenin was standing out opposed to and against.
		So you're completely wrong.
		All you're proving is that there's a whole lot of people who were communists at one point became shills, sellouts, and traitors, which is true, I agree.
		They're traitors to the communist movement.
		Look, when Judith LeBlanc is up there putting a Secretary of the Interior in place, when the current Secretary of Labor was put in place by two pro-Chinese communists who is actually going out there supporting Chinese-supported strikes across the country, when our energy policy when the current Secretary of Labor was put in place by two pro-Chinese communists who is actually going out there supporting Chinese-supported strikes across the country, when our energy policy is in the toilet, where Biden, who has worked with
		Some of it to China.
		That is examples of high-level communist infiltration to the advantage of China and other enemies of America.
		That is what I'm talking about.
		So if I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that the communists, who don't own any of the means of production, unlike the oligarchical capitalist class, who don't even hold any position of office and have no actual power of their own, they're the ones in power, not the actual oligarchical of the world.
		- Hold on, hold on, hold on. - Not Black Rod, not Black Rod, just explain. - So the people who own our land and our resources, those are the ones in power, Joe Simms is. - How about we clarify?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's clarify.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The point is, you don't need to say, I'm a communist to be a communist.
unidentified		Okay, so, but where's the proof that the people who owned our land, resources, and means of production, which is the fundamental foundation of power, when you use common sense, if you own how we feed ourselves and clothe ourselves and live, you have more power than anyone else.
		So where's the proof that they are communists?
		It is when they control the levers of power.
		And right now, the energy- Power is downstream from money.
		You need money to finance a campaign, where do you get the money?
		Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
		Okay, let me finish.
		Who makes the gun?
		The communist movement in this country controls the labor movement.
		I asked you for proof, you have none.
		I have a huge amount of proof.
		Name one communist who controls one given labor movement.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're playing a semantic game again.
unidentified		Look, if his point is... Democratic Socialists of America, a communist group, took over the AFL-CIO in 1994 under John Sweeney.
		They kicked out all the old gut.
		And here's a good example.
		The AFL-CIO used to be opposed to illegal immigration.
		Used to be.
		When the Marxists took over under Alessio Medina and John Sweeney, they completely reversed the policy to promoting illegal immigration to the detriment of American workers.
		So as a Marxist, does it make sense that illegal immigration has its basis in the ideology of a few self-proclaimed Marxists, or have its basis in the material incentive of the capitalist class to have cheap labor?
		Which one?
		Well, they play on that.
		It's a chamber of commerce.
		So which one comes first?
		The Marxists.
		So you think that the material... The Marxists have used... Look, get off this material stuff.
		It is power.
		It is raw power.
		You have a Secretary of the Interior who is closing down an energy industry because she was put in place by an agent of the CCP.
		That is real power.
		You don't have to own something to control it.
		Why is it that... You had 50 mafia controlling Vegas for years.
		You have a few hundred communists by controlling the labor unions can control the policy direction of the entire Democratic Party.
		We have no proof of that.
		And they're doing that.
		I have extensive proof of that.
		This is what I write my books about.
		They are all documented.
		I'm just going to go out on a limb and say I don't think your books have any proof of it.
		By any standard of proof.
		Well, I've been calling out these politicians for their communist ties for over 10 years.
		You're accusing them of that.
		It's like how Antifa accuses anyone of being a fascist.
		I have documentary evidence.
		You don't come to a foreign country and say that a large proportion of their leaders are traitors and you do it for 10 years on multiple shows to millions of people.
		What are they the leaders of?
		How have they promoted any communist hegemony?
		Well, Obamacare, open borders.
		Well, hold on, if you're saying Obamacare came from democratic socialism, Bernie's the one who repopularized that term, and he wanted a single-payer system, not Obamacare, so I don't know what you're talking about.
		Well, their goal is Medicare for all, full socialized healthcare.
		So what, Scandinavian countries have that, plenty of countries who are not communist have that.
		Yeah, New Zealand has it too, and it's a total disaster.
		So every country that has universal healthcare is because of communists?
		Hold on, hold on.
		But that is a socialist construct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look, man, I mean, people can decide for themselves, but you saying that the goal of the communists should always be to have a dramatic, hard, revolutionary implementation of policy is just not real.
unidentified		I'm not saying dramatic.
		That means like an uprising.
		I mean, have an independent party, field your own candidates, and build your own independent movement.
		The communists...
		The Communist Manifesto says the Communists disdain to conceal their views.
		This is Marxism-Leninism.
		Lenin was all about conspiracy.
		Lenin was getting people.
		It's not the gaining of power that counts, it is the keeping of power that counts.
		Lenin had to engage in secrecy because under the Tsar there was no freedom of expression or speech.
		It wasn't to deceive ordinary people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Communism is still, under the Civil Rights Act in this country, communism is still excluded.
unidentified		Yeah, but it's not enforced.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But if the argument is that Lenin was forced to conceal his views because under the czar it was not allowed, at the time in the United States when many of these people are coming in and acting subversively, they're doing it for quite literally the same reason.
unidentified		But the Supreme Court has never upheld these laws against communism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But that's not the issue, it's not socially But they were fought in court, so it's not what I'm saying I'm saying if it is not socially acceptable and people don't like the term then acting and where's that in Leninism Leninism doesn't say just said no Lenin says it be if they're gonna throw you in the Siberian labor camp under the czars Yeah, don't don't don't break the laws be secretive my point is not it's there's no element of deception of ordinary people if the argument is that
		There are people who are communists at heart and they are implementing single measures moving towards communist policy that does not negate the fact that they're communists.
		You're arguing that a communist would have to come in and say, we're abolishing private health care and creating a universal government only health care instantly.
unidentified		No, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're going to say, we need to get from A to Z, and we've got to go through every step in between.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That kind of conspiracism is not the communist way.
unidentified		It's always been rejected by communists.
		100% the communist way.
		What you see as communism is the tip of the iceberg.
		Most communist work is undone underground, in churches, in labor unions, in the Democratic Party.
		That is the real communist movement.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So to simplify this and get an appraisal of where we stand, because this is relevant to current events.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe Joe Simms of the Communist Party USA influences our politicians more than AIPAC?
unidentified		Yes, 100%.
		Way, way more.
		So you think Joe Simms in the Communist Party USA... Not Joe, because he's an idiot.
		But the movement, the key people around him, yes, absolutely.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you think these fossilized communists Who don't, they want to basically dissolve the party as their goal and retire.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're saying that these leftovers have more power over American politics than AIPAC does?
unidentified		100%.
		I think that's delusional.
		Well, how many cabinet ministers, how many cabinet secretaries has AIPAC put in power?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If any single one of them go against AIPAC's line, what happens to them?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What happened to Rashida Tlaib for having a Palestine flag?
unidentified		Well, what she should have happened... She got censored by Congress.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why did they all vote for her to be censored out of their authentic beliefs?
unidentified		No, because of social... Because they're bribed by AIPAC.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But also, I want to say, like, it's not AIPAC.
		AIPAC is a component of the lobby, but the American military-industrial complex loves the foreign wars.
		I don't believe that AIPAC is behind why the U.S.
		is invading all of these different countries around the world and why they're funding Ukraine.
		Yeah, I think that's reasonable, but there is a kind of explicit, clear, you don't need this vast conspiracy.
		If you speak out against Israel, AIPAC and the Zionist lobby openly, it's not in secret, they openly go after you and try to destroy your life.
		You're a politician.
unidentified		Hold on, that's not true.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If you speak against Turkey, or if you even speak against Saudi Arabia, the consequences and the repercussions are far less severe than if you do it against Israel.
		And this has more to do with American generalized foreign policy and conquest than just a single country like Israel.
		Israel being a strategic location for the U.S.
		to set up safe operations because they want to invade Iran.
		Securing Iraq and Afghanistan was very, very, very difficult.
		So why do we want to invade Iran, to be clear?
		There's a long, long history of the plans the U.S.
		has, particularly if you look at- Is it the communists who want to invade Iran?
		I don't know what you would call it, who wants to invade Iran, the American empirical... Who wants to invade Iran?
		The liberal economic order.
		Are communists in charge of that order?
		The liberal economic order?
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are communists in charge of that order?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I would not know.
unidentified		Communists are in charge.
		Let me ask you... There is huge communist influence in the US State Department.
		Okay, then why do we want to invade Iran?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Then why do we want to invade Iran?
unidentified		Who wants to invade Iran?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The United States.
		It's very clear we want to invade Iran.
		If communists are in power, why do we want to invade Iran?
		If communists are serving Iran, why don't we make peace with Iran instead of going to war against them?
unidentified		This is why we have a nuclear deal with Iran.
		This is why Biden just gave them $7 billion.
		This has just been revealed that there's a major Iranian influence operation in Washington that has been talked about in numerous newspapers.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the argument would be that communist elements in the U.S.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		do not want to go to war with Iran, and American imperial interests or the liberal economic order interests, international, would want to go to war with Iran.
unidentified		So who's in power?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Currently, and for the longest time, it has been the liberal economic order.
unidentified		So it's not the communists?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I would not argue that communists run the entirety of the country.
unidentified		I think it's kind of delusional.
unidentified		No, they don't run the entire thing, but they're the most influential group in America.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And yet we want to go to war with Iran, and communists don't.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But he's saying that they control the American political system.
unidentified		They control the policy direction of the Democratic Party.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the Democrats, the only reason we had that nuclear deal with Iran was because we were pursuing a strategy of A, allying with the reformist factions in Iran, which were more pro-European, more pro-Western, and this is the most important thing, they didn't want to economically couple with China.
		We did it to prevent Iran from integrating with China, which they have already done, which is why Joe Biden is not actually going back to the table with that deal, because it's not possible.
		Raisi, who's a hardliner, is in power.
		The reformist Rouhani is no longer in power.
unidentified		So we're not pursuing that strategy anymore.
		Look, the Mullahs are basically, they're all trained in Patrice Lumumba's school in Moscow.
		Iran is a puppet of Moscow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're saying the mullahs who are from the Iranian countryside were trained in Moscow?
unidentified		Absolutely.
unidentified		Patrice Lumumba School in Moscow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Was Khomeini, was Ayatollah Khomeini trained in Moscow?
unidentified		No, but several people around him were.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Was Ali Khamenei the current Supreme Leader?
unidentified		I'm not sure.
		I could check that out.
		He wasn't.
		I'll just give you the answer.
		He wasn't.
		Well, I can know many of the current leaders are, but the reason we have a nuclear deal with Iran, I can give you, provide you a list.
		I can talk to my friend.
		Okay.
		I'd be interested in that list.
		I can provide you a list.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because Iran did not pursue a pro-Soviet policy.
unidentified		Iran has always been a puppet of Russia, right from the revolution.
		The Iranian Communist Party, the two day... Then why did they ban the Communist Party in Iran?
		Because once they had taken power, Russia wanted an Islamic state... Why?
		Because it was useful to them to have an Islamic State creating mayhem in the Middle East, rather than their hand... Was it all part of the Soviet plan to dissolve itself too, or what was that?
		Well, the Soviet plan, I think, was a really strategic... Now, if you watch The Simpsons... Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, there's that joke where he's like, that's just what we wanted you to think!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hits the button and then Soviet Union comes back.
unidentified		Look, you say yourself, the Soviet Union, Russia still has communist forms.
		The Communist Party, that's what I'm referring to.
		No, no, the whole society.
		The infrastructure is still from the Soviet Union.
		You know, in the Donetsk and Luhansk, they are now People's Republics.
		They've got Soviet iconography.
		I agree.
		They're flying Russian hammer and sickle flags.
		So they are allied to China, which is a communist power, they're allied to Cuba.
		No, the legacy's there, I agree.
		Yeah, it's still there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But how do they regard people like Gorbachev and the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do they say that was all part of the plan?
unidentified		Yeah, it was.
		It was really a strategic issue.
		But the same people in power, the Soloviki, The intelligence services who are running things under Gorbachev are still there today.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the KGB was kind of opposed to Gorbachev.
		They tried to get rid of Gorbachev in that hardliner coup in 1990, I believe.
		But Putin himself says that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragedy and was a mistake.
		So how can you say that it was the plan of the Soviet Union to dissolve itself?
unidentified		It was a strategic retreat.
		They were under huge pressure.
		What created that retreat, specifically?
		Well, they were under huge pressure from the West, economically, for one thing.
		How?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I thought the West was controlled by communists.
unidentified		We're talking under Reagan here, which was a little bit different.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So Reagan got rid of all the communists in control, to be clear?
unidentified		No, not all of it, but he had a major impact, just like Trump had a major impact on foreign policy.
unidentified		You know, but when the Democrats are in power, the communist foreign policy pretty much is in play.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So would you say that Reagan was this independent populist not beholden to the interests of the oligarchical elites?
unidentified		I'd say he had more independence than most American presidents, just as Trump had more.
		I'm not saying totally.
		He still had George Bush on as, you know, as his VP.
		You know, but he was more independent and stronger against communism than any other American president.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you don't believe that anti-communism was a real policy of the Deep State after the Cold War?
unidentified		It was in some aspects.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why did we launder money to fund fascist neo-Nazi anti-communist mercenaries in Africa, death squads in Latin America, the Greek military junta?
unidentified		I don't regard Savimbi as a fascist.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, but we did fund anti-communist fascists, to be clear, throughout the developing world.
		We helped fund the genocide in Indonesia.
		I think this is missing a big picture here.
		Look, the people who control systems don't care what you call it.
		The United States is going to fund whatever they want to fund to remain in power, be it communism or otherwise.
unidentified		I agree.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I just don't think it makes- Same is true for the Soviets and China.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I just don't agree that it makes sense that communists, as opposed to the people who actually control the means of life, are in power.
unidentified		I just don't agree with that.
		Well, why have we got Obamacare?
		Why have we got a new... If you want to read, if you want to know what the Democrats are going to do tomorrow, read the Communist Press today.
		Because they were talking about socialized health care for years.
		They got it implemented through Physicians for a National Health Program.
		I disagree though.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But Bernie came out opposing the Obamacare system.
unidentified		Because it wasn't strong enough.
unidentified		Here's the question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I do agree that Obama was a popular candidate.
		He was a people's choice.
		I do think that in 2008.
unidentified		But then what happened?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He got into power and what did he do?
		Instead of fighting, he compromised.
		And Obamacare was that compromise.
unidentified		Yeah, exactly.
		But it was a step towards socialism.
		So it's incremental, you take what you can get.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But that was a grassroots movement.
unidentified		Grassroots movement completely orchestrated by Democratic Socialist America and CPUSA.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the DSA didn't start gaining traction until after Bernie repopulized.
unidentified		No, no, they were heavily involved in the Democratic Party.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look at the membership of DSA pre-2016.
unidentified		In the period where they had a lot of influence, about 84 to 90, the membership was about 12,000.
		Lenin took over Russia with 2,000 people.
		The numbers are irrelevant.
		It is the influence.
		They took over the labor unions in 1994.
		That is proven fact.
		They removed the anti-communist clause from the AFL-CIO's constitution.
		The old 60s communists came flooding in.
		Every major labor unit in the country now is controlled by Marxists and communists and Leninists and they dictate But I disagree.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think you're conflating progressives, which is preceding... No, I'm talking Marxist and Marxist liberals.
unidentified		Wait, but hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But democratic politicians since the 40s, who were not communists, who were not Marxists, drawing from the legacy of the progressive movement in the U.S., they had nothing to do with Marxism, they had nothing to do with the CPUSA, and they believed in universal healthcare.
unidentified		No, that's not true.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm just trying to say, yes, Obama did draw a new platform because of overwhelming dissatisfaction with the hegemonic Democrat and Republican positions.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Remember, he was running against Hillary Clinton, a mainstream Democrat, in 2008.
unidentified		She is not a mainstream Democrat.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, at the time she was, compared to him, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So yes, there was a lot of new ideas Obama brought to the table, but as we see, all of those ideas went into the dumpster.
unidentified		All of those ideas come out of the Marxist movement.
		Open borders.
		Not true.
		It was a Marxist movement.
		Absolutely.
		Open borders is rejected.
		That comes from Aliso Medina, a Marxist who changed the AFL-CIO's policy in 2000 at their conference in Los Angeles.
		Hold on.
		It was from anti-illegal immigration to pro-illegal immigration.
		But concretely, that meant... Obamacare was completely 100% a Marxist But hold on, hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That doesn't mean that they're the ones who created open borders.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The people who created open borders was the capitalist class.
unidentified		It was the communists who got the Democrats to flip their policy from opposing illegal immigration to supporting it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Accelerate or decrease under George W Bush?
		I'm sorry, hold on.
		The CPUSA is for open borders.
		I went to their website.
unidentified		No, no, no.
unidentified		Hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		To be clear, yes, the CPUSA is everything the Democrats believe in the CPUSA does, but I reject the view that the open borders policy originates No, it was massive.
unidentified		Look, there's two constituencies for illegal immigration.
		There is the Chamber of Commerce element who wants cheap labor.
		There's the left-wing Democrat element who wants a revolutionary base and a massive increase of votes for the Democrats.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So which one do you think is more powerful?
unidentified		Oh absolutely, the communists.
		There was always an illegal immigration problem.
		Eisenhower deported 3 million of them, it crept up, Reagan stupidly put an amnesty in for them.
		Was he a communist?
		No, but he just did a stupid thing.
		Why did he do it?
		Probably responding to business pressure.
		Well, here's a question for you.
		But also the left.
		Why is it?
		It has massively accelerated, nobody can deny that illegal immigration massively accelerated under Obama, then even more under Biden.
		And under George W. That's right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Way more than George W. And so the issue is, the issue particularly for me and what I see is, I'm not going to say or argue communists are controlling everything, but certainly their whims are more likely to be met, especially as time progresses.
		I'll give you an example.
		We're looking at Enrique Tarrio, who they call him a fascist, who was not even in D.C.
		getting 22 years in prison for a thing he wasn't at.
		Why?
		Because he posted a tweet.
		Not a tweet, it was a getter post or something like that, or a parlor post.
		Meanwhile, the people who are outside the White House who firebombed it, of leftist persuasion, the people outside of the federal buildings, Very little is done to curtail any of that.
		So there is this thing we've been seeing where I can go to a journalist we have on the show and I say, why do you think it is that the Feds are not going so heavily after the people who firebombed the White House on 5-29?
		And he goes, the what?
		He doesn't even know what happened!
		And then, uh, we actually do see this right now in all of our media institutions.
		Overt Marxist influences is prevalent.
		So I worked for numerous media organizations, and we hear it all the time.
		People who are classically liberal, constitutionally Republican, or even people who are, like, authorite nationalists, hide their views.
		And people who are overtly communist proudly state it, and they even have sickle and hammer catches.
unidentified		Unless...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're like me, or Jackson, and in which case they're censored from everything.
		So there's a reason for that, okay?
		Communists, who completely tow the line of the liberal hegemony, and I agree, they're good sellouts, they're effective at being sellouts.
		But yes, as long as you tow the line of liberal hegemony, you can be a neo-Nazi, as in the case of Ukraine, you can call yourself a communist, You can call yourself an anarchist, you can call yourself literally whatever you want, and nothing bad will happen to you.
		If you're critical of our policy with regard to Ukraine, which by the way internationally is the norm for communists, just not in America I guess, then you're also going to be censored and under attack.
		There's someone- Or critical of Israel and a communist.
		Listen, there's someone who I don't even agree with, right?
		His name is Second Thought.
		He has a YouTube channel.
		And we're like enemies, right?
		But even he is now starting to get deplatformed from, I forget which subscription service it is, because of his views on wars and because of his views on history and things like that.
		And look, if I go to academia as a Stalinist, okay?
unidentified		It's not going to be pretty for me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If I go to academia as a intersectional post-Marxist transgender theorist, everything will be fine because it's all about submission to the Democratic Party.
		Now, what I do agree with is that the Democratic Party has more hegemony than the Republican Party.
		The Democratic Party controls the institutions, they control the media, they control the culture.
		The Republicans, they're obviously corrupt and funded by lobbyists and stuff, but what they do is kind of starting to more capture dissent.
unidentified		Right.
		The Democratic Party has more hegemony.
		The unions control them and the communists control them.
		You and Jackson are a very tiny subset of the communist movement.
		Very tiny subset.
		But the communist movement of this country is probably You know, two or three hundred thousand strong.
		I disagree.
		You know, if you bring all the people, if you bring DSA into it, Freedom Road, Party for Socialism.
		Freedom Road is tiny.
		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's just make this distinction.
unidentified		What you're referring to is MAGA communism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And let's refer to what the hierarchical, more influential communists or Marxists were.
		Let's call it something else.
		Well, woke left.
		Well, yeah, I mean, I kind of agree with that, but my one problem is it's like the issue of the cause and effect.
		Because let's ask a simple question, you know, you don't have to agree with metaphysical materialism, but...
unidentified		Who is funding all this shit?
unidentified		Where does the money come from?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like, for example, me and Jackson, the reason we have a hard time and they have an easy time is because billionaires fund these people, right?
		And if billionaires fund you, you obviously have to conform to what billionaires want you to say and want you to implement, right?
		We, me and Jackson, don't do that, so we have a harder time.
		So my question to you is, if this is a communist movement, Where does the communist money come from?
unidentified		It comes through the Democracy Alliance, which is Steve Phillips, which is Tom Steyer.
unidentified		They are funding the left to the tune of billions of dollars.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying there's secret communist billionaires?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There are different kinds of communists.
unidentified		Absolutely, there are.
		Many, many.
		Steve Phillips, for instance.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is George Soros one of them?
unidentified		George Soros is a supporter and funder of the left.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is he a communist?
unidentified		This is what I'll say.
		George Soros was a little Jewish boy in Hungary during World War II.
		His father fostered him out to a Catholic family, I believe, to protect him from the Nazis.
		He used to go around confiscating Jewish properties with his foster father.
		He was effectively working with the Kapos.
		I'm aware.
		So after World War II, The Soviet Red Army took over Hungary and they were hanging Nazi collaborators or turning them to work for them.
		George Soros was allowed to leave Soviet-occupied Hungary, travel through Soviet-occupied Austria, out to the West.
		How would someone who'd worked with a Nazi collaborator be allowed to do that had they not made a deal with the authorities?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's one missing piece of that puzzle.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why did George Soros use his money to participate in the color revolution, the springtime of peoples of the 80s, which took down the communist states of the Warsaw Pact?
unidentified		No, what it did was set up civil institutions in those places to preserve socialist thought.
		We have this illusion with George Soros and his Open Societies Institute that he fought communism in Eastern Europe.
		He set up institutions which were then colonized by socialists to keep the socialist dream alive.
		In this country and everywhere around the world he supported the left everywhere you go.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I think there's this kind of gap of terminology because I want to give you my perspective.
		If I'm a Romanian factory worker And socialism for me means I have a job, there's infrastructure, there's a source of living for me, I can have some kind of family, the baseline of my needs are met, and that's the socialist system, and then suddenly all of that is overthrown, and there's a neoliberal hellscape where my daughters are being trafficked into sex trafficking, everything becomes privatized, I can't afford anything, I can't get by with any job, I have to move and migrate out.
		I mean, you can say, oh, that's also socialist thought, that's also socialism.
		Well, like, in content, materially speaking...
		Why would you call that the same thing?
		It's completely different.
		I think we've already made this point.
		It's that there are people who feel there's a means that the ends justify the means and therefore there are people who are communists who want this ideal version of communists to be implemented that are utilizing the destruction of society and the working class to create pressure which pushes them into a left or right position.
unidentified		But that's not what's happening.
		Real communism is not about sharing the wealth or building a great society.
		Real communism is centralizing all wealth and all power in a very few hands.
		It's just fluff.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, my point is, and that may be what we see practically, but even for you with a more idealistic version of a working system.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it's idealistic.
unidentified		I think on the contrary.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying an ideal version of communism in your mind.
		It's not ideal, it's the real experience.
		Okay, so there's someone who says, in order to get from here to the real experience, we have to break down the capitalist structures to create this.
		There's only one way to do it.
		You have to step-by-step erode and destroy people's lives in the process.
		So Mao and North Korea did not need to fund LGBT to have communism in Korea or China.
unidentified		Every system is different.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But they did need a culture revolution and But the Cultural Revolution was not overthrowing basic sexual norms and basic...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, it was whatever was needed to destroy the social system.
unidentified		No, no, they were in power.
		They just wanted to use the youth to eradicate former bourgeois concepts to create a new man.
		Just like Pol Pot did in Cambodia where they killed a third of the...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Red Guards targeted Communist Party bosses and leaders more than anyone else.
unidentified		Those who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, it was because, this is the actual reason, China imported initially its system from the Soviets, which was foreign imported and therefore you had a bureaucracy within China not in touch with the masses.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So the Cultural Revolution was launched in order to actually make socialism in China Chinese in content and actually humble these bosses and bureaucrats and submit them to a popular will.
unidentified		No, submit them to the absolute rule of those in power.
		This is always, communists always put this idealistic spin on tyranny.
		Well, we did it in the name of the people.
		We had to destroy these bourgeois elements.
		We had to destroy those who weren't sufficiently revolutionary.
		It is all about naked power.
		Revolution is about Whose power?
		I agree with power, but whose power?
		The leadership of the Communist Party.
		But what did that amount to?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But as Dong Ping Han writes in his book, that power concretely amounted to increased autonomy and self-governance of the Chinese peasants.
unidentified		Absolute garbage.
		Okay, well I implore you to read the book.
		Or a result in their complete control over all aspects of life by the CCP.
		The historical facts disagree.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now gentlemen, we unfortunately have gone a half hour over because I think we did have a great conversation.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, half an hour over, I think we're unfortunately going to have to wind things down.
unidentified		Can I just say where people can go?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely, absolutely.
unidentified		I'm here for a reason too, one of other reasons.
		Look, if you want to know the real Marxist infiltration of the government, go to TrevorLoudon.com.
		Security risk senators, 30 senators exposed, House Un-Americans, I talk about a hundred U.S.
		Congress members working for the communist movement or radical movements, and you've got to see Enemies Within The Church, which is all about the Marxist origins of the woke church.
		You've got to see Enemies Within The Church, the Marxist origins of the woke church, all available, signed copies, TrevorLoudon.com Haz, do you want to shout anything out?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think I'll just say, you know, infrared.gg, it's where we've centralized in proper communist fashion, all of our media, we have Substacks writings, we have our YouTube, we have our live streaming, which is kick.com slash infrared, where I live stream.
		Also my Twitter, at InfraHaz, is also where I share a lot of my writings and stuff, and be on the lookout for an upcoming book.
		That's gonna be coming out within the next few months.
unidentified		And, uh, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Just infrared.gg, I guess.
		All right, well, I certainly don't think we can hash out the entirety of the circumstances in a couple hours, but gentlemen, thank you for coming.
		I think this was an absolute blast.
		I really do appreciate it.
unidentified		Thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		For everybody who's watching, absolutely.
		Make sure you subscribe to Tenet!
		Subscribe to this channel.
		New channel, awesome stuff coming up.
		If you check out the videos, you can see Lauren Southern, you can see Matt Christensen, you can see Benny Johnson, Dave Grimm, and it's gonna be a blast.
		Really excited to bring this show to Tenet.
		We've got more coming next week.
		Next week will be absolutely incredible.
		I hope to see you there.

▲