Reply To An Open Letter to Jason Unruhe

Ed. Note:
The following has been exposed as not of having come from /r/communism. It came from Aidan Xavier of Crimes of Colonialism who I thought was a friend. Now people are claiming that I made up that it came from /r/communism.

The following is a response to an open letter that is claimed to have come from the /r/communism community. (See the letter here). Obviously I cannot know for certain if this actually did come from them, I do know it was posted there. If this did not come from the /r/communism community then please take my response accordingly. The post is supposed to be a response to this video I made.

In a brilliant piece of coincidence I received a message from a group of people on /r/communism on Reddit. “We are a group of Marxists who adhere to the thought of Mao Tse-Tung who have viewed your channel for some time now”. This letter makes clear the intent to open a positive dialogue with me over certain issues that have come up recently. I was taken aback by this because I was about to record a video asking for this kind of dialogue in an hour or so. Sometimes life hands us strange coincidences, some of them welcome. I whole heartedly accept such open communication. Since we’re already on the same wavelength here, let us get started and just jump right into it.

The letter expresses concern that I have allowed the vitriolic (and outright idiotic) nature of internet debate to affect how I “interpret and handle criticism”. A vast majority of it has been slanderous, childish, completely illogical and almost always lacked even a most basic understanding of Marxism itself. (TheSkepticalHeretic, AnotherGayAtheist, Warcorpse666 as primary examples). They also correctly note that at times this has been almost overwhelming, which it has. There literally is only so much a person can say back when an assault contains 50 different false assertions of Marxism. It’s one thing to take a criticism of it and show how that criticism is wrong, it’s quite another when that criticism contains 50 false assertions of it. You have to waste a ton of time explaining why they’re misrepresenting the Marxist position and then go back and show why the criticism is wrong. It’s a common right wing and Creationist tactic, bombard the opponent with a necessity to make corrections exhausting them.

To return to the topic at hand I would be a fool if I didn’t think that this overwhelming poisonous atmosphere didn’t have an effect on me. Of course it does, I’m certain that it has contributed to my already held heavy Third Worldist leanings. Can this cause added stress that can exacerbate an already frustrating situation? Certainly, it has contributed to my already short temper. This is about as a plain-to-see fact as anything.

I would I disagree for the most part about this criticism of me. I would say that I have very little in the way of ego. I have repeatedly said that I don’t do anything that anyone else couldn’t have done. I’m nothing special, I’ve literally referred to myself as “some douche bag” or “jerk off” on the internet that is not important. So I don’t see how I’m all concerned about my ego or how it may or may not have affected my ability to “interpret and handle criticism”. I understand that I do have influence, it is however, my assertion that this influence, to whatever degree, is unearned. Other times I have said that it is a criticism itself, that I do have it and not a real public figure.

As I had anticipated, the topic of the “faggot” controversy came up. Their position is that the handling of it by other Marxists was incorrect, which I would agree, but perhaps not entirely for the same reasons. They maintain that unfriending me, making antagonistic posts were acting in a reactionary manner. This is true and would agree, some of these very people being out right hypocrites.

The Espresso Stalinist and Mike Ely are primary examples. Both made an entirely unanalytical comments and exposed their true nature. Espresso Stalinist specifically made no real criticism and just cried about it supposedly being reaction with no argument as to why. He then proceeded to ignore the fact his leader (of the APL) is a known racist who not only frequently uses the word “chink” during Skype calls, but was also fired from his job at Denny’s for repeatedly calling Latino customers “Spics”. Yet in these deliberate acts of racism he never criticized his “Party” leader. (Although five people hardly counts as a party). His reactionary and unscientific nature is laid bare by these acts. I could go further by pointing out his belief that Maoists think the five heads of Marxism are Mao. While he claims Hoxha, a man with no contributions to Marxist-Leninist thought, is. Apparently Espresso Stalinist and the APL missed the part on being anti-revisionist and anti-racist or acknowledging that “Stalinism” isn’t a thing, its Marxism-Leninism. To say nothing of the childishness and cowardice of attacking people hiding behind a “Dr. Doom” mask.

Mike Ely has shown himself to not only be an elitist liberal, but a complete two-faced lying partially uncritical person. I engaged with Ely over the whole “faggot” thing and pointed out how his position was not only materially incorrect, but that he was taking a completely hypocritical stance as well. Once our thoroughly unproductive chat was done he proceeded to libel me in someone else’s post on the matter and then attach the “faggot” issue to my support for North Korea. The utter childish butthurt dishonestly of the man is good demonstration of who the “beacon against Bob Avakin” really is. The act of using me (a person who supports to the DPRK) to attack North Korea is the kind of action reserved imperialists and their dishonest hit pieces.

There has been some good people who have realized the error in their attack against me on this issue. The person who wrote the originating Gonzo article has since apologized to me and said that he was wrong to do it. I even said to him keep the article up because I don’t believe in censorship among comrades. Since then he has taken it down anyway due to the amount of problems it has caused for me. He and I are friends now with a good mutual respect. I add this in order to demonstrate that not everyone has been so hateful about it. Also to show that I acknowledge that not all people have been so terrible about this.

After this the post goes onto a direct criticism of how I reacted to the criticism of “being called out for homophobic”. The writer(s) thankfully, honestly acknowledge that I am not homophobic and that I am a sexual minority myself. This is was what I mainly wanted, an acknowledgement that I was not homophobic; because this is a false criticism. If there is a criticism over the use of the word “faggot”, that is a different matter completely. My anger was directed towards the false claim of being bigoted when I most certainly am not. By all means be mad at my use of the word and attack (preferably criticize) me for it. But do not call me homophobic because this is a false claim and is slander.

“We think the primary reason you were bashed for using this term, was because you are a figure of relative importance on the internet, and that these people have an incentive, and indeed, reward in the form of politically correct, pats on the back and high-fives for writing careerist criticisms of you. This is not the basis of a criticism.

However, the way you went about dealing with these criticisms, of which some were legitimate, was individualist. Rather than recognizing the need, and the incentive to change, to grow, to really analyze one’s actions, words, to pause and to reflect on these things of such great importance, to not fear growth and self-criticism, as Mao Tse-Tung says repeatedly and repeatedly to his students, you were angry that people criticized you in the first place. Our suggestion? That you rationally, and without anger or emotion, analyze incorrect ideas you may have had or even presently have, incorrect methods you may have had or presently have, and that you try to analyze the substance of criticisms people, and especially comrades may make of you, rather than who is criticizing you. We were all at one point, the opposite of what we are now, and what we were in the past. This is the nature of change, and of growth.”

I can be criticized how I handled the criticism of it. My frustration from the lack of real honesty regarding it took over. The baseless accusation of being sexist was what pushed this over the top. I disagreed with a 23 year old woman over the use of the word and she called it “childish” after I asked for a demonstration of how it was supposedly intended as hateful. I replied that it wasn’t and that a true example of childishness was her complaining about her parents not taking her out to dinner forgetting about her. She reacted by claiming I attacked her for having being a beaten woman who had to move back in with her parents because of abuse by a partner. This literally had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and the accusation that I insulted her for it is completely false. Comrades who saw the video “Faggot and the Feminism Shield” automatically accepted this accusation without question. This is what infuriated me further, to accept a lie based on literally nothing.

(Sincere, I hope for the trouble she has caused me that she is sent to Afghanistan and is killed by Taliban forces. Preferably by Maoist guerrilla forces given her idiotic [lack of real argument] position against Mao. Nothing fits an imperialist solder more than this.)

(I was angered more and betrayed when close friends who also used the same word in the same context began denying that they did. They outright lied to my face and the face of mutual friends and said they never used the words. If your most trusted of friends will stab you in the back and be too cowardly to stand up and defend themselves… How do you not be angry and alienated further?)

When I did make the video I was angry and my emotional delivery of what I said perhaps affected people’s perception of what I said. I did make the argument why it was not homophobic and was not wrong to use the word “faggot” in that context. My rational argument was completely ignored. Did I do it out of anger and with emotion, yes. That I should not have done, I am a hot head. What infuriated me further to cause me to take the position I hold now with the “Combat Liberalism Because You’re All Paper Tigers” was the fact my rational argument was ignored regardless of the emotional delivery. This was also done to me by friends who I considered good comrades. Even when delivered to them again without emotion they continued to assert I was wrong by simply insisting, not demonstrating how, I was wrong. There was no rational debate. Debate was not possible because of their insistence that there not be. Can I be criticized for not engaging in debate that others were not allowing to take place? How do you debate someone who won’t come to the table?

International Soviet is an example of someone who tried. He failed miserably due to the fact he literally ignored the arguments that I made as to why it wasn’t wrong. This infuriated me even further still. When someone did engage in debate they ignored what my argument was. Then when me made his argument, he just said it was wrong and that it was reactionary, but gave no argument why. He did not counter my argument and did not make any of his own. What’s the point of making the video then? It appeared to me ( given the content) that it was intended to be a “White knight” action (attacking me).

How can I debate when no one will do so? When discussion takes place, slanders are used and my arguments are ignored. Yes we should engage in debate, but it doesn’t happen. I cannot force someone to debate. I attacked people for being illogical and not debating, I did not attack people for being themselves. How can I be criticized for not debating and engaging when people are refusing debate with me?

Combat Liberalism or Nihilism? Or People Just Not Getting It

Switching to the next topic the authors take hold of my recent desire to “just not give a fuck anymore”. They correctly identify and acknowledge that I am, “Frustrated with the lack of movement in the movement, lack of radicalism in radicalism, lack of Marxism in Marxism.” This is indeed true and is a real serious problem. I’ve pointed this out before in other videos and other people have pointed it out as well. Their criticism here is that I’ve decided to wash my hands of it and stop caring what the Marxist community thinks of me and stop engaging with it to what limited degree I even have. I have made it clear that I’m not going to bother anymore as it has been proven by repeated experience to be a waste of time.

To continue they seem a bit confused by my statement of “not giving a fuck”. They proceed to criticize me as claiming that I ignore the class hegemony as a reason for why Marxists are acting the way they are and instead attack my own viewers as enemies. I have done no such thing. I have not ignored class hegemony, I know that’s why things are the way they are. I know that’s why the (lack of) debate is in this current situation of overindulgent individualism, factionalism and shallowness. I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I do not identify my own viewers as the enemy. I’ve identified my haters as the enemy and those viewers who have turned away over non-important issues and childish disagreements. I’ve attacked those who do such things, my viewers or not. Most of the attacks are coming from people who were not viewers. This assertion is false, my anger is towards those who were guilty of these things, viewer or not. I have not targeted my own audience.

I decried in a video that this is going on and that I have ceased to struggle in this regard. The Left in the US has reached a very serious point of degeneration. I have pointed this out before and have struggled against it only to be ignored or attacked for it. What is the basis for this open letter to say that I am not struggling? I have tried. Where were these words when I was trying to do so? Where were the words of support when I brought it up and struggled against it? Nowhere. But now that I’ve decided that I’ve had enough and am no longer willing, its all of a sudden an issue. Again we return to the problem of not engaging in this struggle when no one was engaging with me. I can’t alone pull these people out of their reactionary mindset.

Allow me to take a closer look at what they are saying:

“Are you combating liberalism by calling your viewers, en masse, paper tigers? We don’t mean to insult you, but we believe in combating liberalism, so we will, without lenience, say no, you aren’t. Your frustration with the left, your anger at stagnation, your impatience with the youtube community, manifests itself not in a combatting of liberal ideologues, but through a reactionary nihilism. You said yourself, on multiple occasions in your videos that you honestly don’t care about the movement, nor those in it anymore. You are allowed to be angry, to be frustrated, however, Mao would look down upon such misuse of combat liberalism as “petty-bourgeois selfishness” that places “personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second“.”

No, I did not call my viewers “paper tigers”, I called the people attacking me “paper tigers”. What is the basis for claiming I was speaking of my own viewers? This has been assumed on the part of the authors. Whether or not it was your intention, by straw manning me in this manner you are insulting me. I said in the video it was my frustration with the Western left, particularly the American left. The Left of the Third World is going strong, is investigating ideas and struggling for change while the First World Left is crying over words and behaving in reactionary manners. I said I’m tired of this First World Western Leftism. As you’ll recall in my video I said its stuff like this that drives me closer to the Third Worldist Camp. I have criticized the First World failure of Leftism and am no longer caring what they think of me; given their attacks against me have been pointless, baseless, childish and intellectually deficient. This has been horribly misunderstood by the authors of the open letter. I am not caring about the attacks, I am not going to be held back by them anymore. I am not going to bother combating terrible inaccurate, baseless criticisms of me. I’ll be ignoring them from now on.

I’ve said I’ve lost interest in First World struggles because of the way they act, their failures to do analysis, etc… I’m more concerned with the Third World struggles, people who have a much higher rate of exploitation, people who are being killed by the ignorance and false consciousness of First World Leftists. If the First World Leftists want to sit there and cry and moan about meaningless garbage then do so, I’m tired of trying to drag them away from it. There are people genuinely trying to fight for a better life in the Third World. I’ll throw my support behind those who want to win and try to do so.

I would accuse the authors of the letter of attacking my support for the Third Worldist position, but I don’t think they understand that’s what I was saying regardless of me specifically saying it.

How can I reach such people? I’ve tried and all I get is anti-Maoist garbage and BS for the sake of trying to build up their blog. How am I supposed to reach such people? Now consider this when these people I’m supposed to be trying to pull out of that keep attacking me in such a baseless and childish way. Ask yourself how I am supposed to be accomplishing this. Where are you? Why are you not doing this? I’ve been reaching my hand out for four and a half years, no one has been reaching back to take it. Instead I have haters and internet frauds like Espresso Stalinist and Mike Ely swinging knives at my hand.

My “impatience with the youtube community” is over the lack of co-operation. Where are you reaching out to the YouTube community? Are you the one getting assaulted by it? Are you the one being slandered? Are you the one dealing with this? No, you are not. This whole criticism reeks of two things: 1. not understanding what I am saying, and 2. What I will call “backseat driverism”. I am being attacked for what, failing at an act I’m the only one trying to accomplish? Where are the cries that people should be uniting when I was trying to unite with people? Nowhere. Now that I’ve said to hell with you, there’s something to say about it.

“…Mao would look down upon such misuse of combat liberalism as “petty-bourgeois selfishness” that places “personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second“.

The arrogance of this quite is astounding, as if you speak for Mao or are his ideological heir. What personal interest have I put first? It is those who have insisted upon being fractured and spiteful even though they have recognized this is a problem they have. When one person who was trying to reach out to all stops, there is great criticism. When the rejection of uniting goes on by others there is near dead silence. Perhaps this should have started as a criticism against other people for not uniting and then asking me not to give up, instead of criticizing me for giving up. This almost seems like a personal attack against me. I’m not sure if it is or not.

The only “selfish” actions I may have taken was to let go of these people for the sake of my own mental health which is precarious given the amount of real life stress I’m under, which I adequately described in the video.

Where is your effort to unite?

What I was saying was that I’m going to give the view and the content regardless of how people are going to react to it. I will not allow my opinion to be dictated to by parties I’m not affiliated with, nor will I care that they don’t like it.

Anti-Imperialism, North Korea and the Dialectic: WTF?

This next and final section of their open letter takes issue with my stance on several countries. Unfortunately I can’t understand what they are saying. Their words are vague and open to interpretation due to their non-specific nature. If I have misunderstood your criticisms please bear with me, you’ve not made them clear. I will attempt to address each one of them and give the best understanding and response that I can. I hope this will suffice.

First comes their part on me with regards to North Korea. I was quite intrigued to see what they had to say on it. After having read it I’m uncertain what their criticism is. They begin by acknowledging that I’ve “attempted to build a position on the topic“. I don’t know what they mean by “attempted“, I’ve made my stance very clear: they are a nation that has resisted US imperialism to the greatest degree possible, and that I’d like to see the US empire destroyed. I’ve made it clear that I agree with what they (the DPRK) say on the Juche Idea, it is a “creative application of Marxism-Leninism”. All the elements of Marxism-Leninism are there, but in the work of the Juche Idea they are just worded differently than what we are used to. The thing about the Juche Idea is that it pre-supposes Marxism-Leninism to be true. This is not to say the authors of the letter don’t know this, I’m just making sure my position on the matter is clear.

They speak truth when they say that Maoists have avoided taking a stance on the country. This primarily stems from one reason: They mindlessly believe the garbage that is said about North Korea. They sit there and decry imperialist lies about every country except the DPRK. It never ceases to amaze me how they will fight like hell to debunk the lies against the Great Leap Forward and many other times in China, but buy into the slanders against the DPRK so easily. This is by no means solely a problem of Maoists, Marxist-Leninists are just as bad, to say nothing of Troksyists. I just looked at the subject, researched it, asked people who can actually prove they’ve been there and worked it out myself. This is nothing anyone else shouldn’t of have done.

Now, on to their main criticism of me surrounding the DPRK:

“However, the methodology you use in building this position is not dialectical. In fact, it is analytical.

The dialectic adheres to a number of principles, one of which, is motion. Dialectically, things function in harmony or in distress with the environment around it. The social-scientists of Marx’s day would separate phenomena from the environment around it. The dialectic understands that phenomena is but the result, the sum of interrelations, of which the product is subject to these interrelations, not determinant of them.

Lets say that North Korea is a gear in a machine. North Korea turns forwards or backwards depending on the greater scheme of the machine. For example, lets say that the biggest gear in the machine is Imperialism. Lets say that North Korea is an important gear, but that it is small. How this gear affects the machine, and how the machine affects the gear, becomes the question. Perhaps this gear is purposely designed to hinder the movement of the machine itself. Perhaps the gear is missing parts that make it possible to move within the machine itself.
Dialectically, we would look at the gear as it relates to it’s environment, and how the environment affects the gear.

Analytically, we would analyze the “inherent” properties of the gear, how shiny it is, how many holes is in it, how big it is, how durable it is, etc. Without analyzing these properties within the greater scheme of the machine itself, such an analysis becomes dubious, it has no meaning.”

I’m honestly not sure what they mean by this. I haven’t done a full on work on North Korea’s position in the global imperialist structure. But I have said before that they are “a beacon of resistance against imperialism”, “they stand as the truest rejection of US imperialism” and point out how they stand in support of other anti-imperialist nations. For whatever my statements are worth.

This is very vague, “Lets say that North Korea is an important gear, but that it is small. How this gear affects the machine, and how the machine affects the gear, becomes the question.” I’ve said stuff like that before, like how the Son’gon policy (military first) came into effect due to the immense pressure the country faces from the imperialist camp. “… and how the machine affects the gear“, they’ve suffered immensely from the sanctions that have been placed upon them as well as the bombings from the Korean War ruining its soil. Is that what they are referring to? I get what a dialectical analysis is, I don’t need to be told that. What I don’t get is what they’re criticizing me for. Is it because I’ve not done a full in depth analysis of North Korea as it relates to the rest of the world in the manner they refer to in the letter? If that’s the case, how could I do the analysis wrong if I’ve never done it? I actually have this planned for the book I’m working on about North Korea (but I haven’t explicitly said I was going to put that in). If this is so important, why haven’t they done it? I don’t get what they are criticizing me for here. There’s no demonstration of how I’ve been supposedly analytical as opposed to dialectical.

“We have no problem with you saying North Korea is a worker’s state, that it is socialist, etc. However, our aim is not to have a socialist island chain in a sea, in a globe of market-capitalism. We want socialism for the goal of communism. We want the liberation of the third world from poverty, destitution, and economic Imperialism. How North Korea’s economic policies affect Imperialism, how North Korea’s military policies affect Imperialism, becomes the question.”

I have no idea what a “socialist island chain” is. Honestly, I don’t get what that is supposed to mean. The nearest I can figure is that it’s a criticism of North Korea’s desire for a united peninsula under socialism being their main goal as opposed to world revolution. If that is the case what’s the big deal? Should North Vietnam have just ignored the South for the sake of revolution elsewhere? I really don’t get what this criticism is supposed to mean. I’m only guessing.

We want socialism for the goal of communism,” so does North Korea. They do what they can to help other countries develop, it’s not very much given their own immense difficulties. What is it I’m not saying here that is leading to this criticism? Have I not talked enough about the DPRK working with other countries? Are they saying the DPRK doesn’t do enough for others? Are they saying the DPRK doesn’t want communism? This whole part about the DPRK and dialectical analysis doesn’t seem to make any sense to me, I can’t decipher what they are saying.

Perhaps they are saying that I focus too much on North Korea as an issue? Well if that is the case I’d like to point out that that particular issue is very important to me. If you want more news on other things then perhaps you could have said so. I take the situation of the DPRK personally which is why I talk about it so much.

My instincts tell me that they’re making a criticism of me possibly having made no dialectical analysis after having complained that other Marxists just don’t. My instincts tell me that I’m being called a hypocrite, but I don’t really know.

“During the “Arab spring” the Libyan rebels had become a popular force. Knowing little about the situation, you immediately took the side of the rebels. You went so far as to denounce Muammar al-Gaddafi’s government. You later changed your position drastically, especially in regards to public opinion, to take the “side of Gaddafi”.

You hesitated to take a side in the Syrian conflict. Over time, you gradually took the side of the Syrian state, the “side of Assad”.

While apparently Anti-Imperialist, such a methodology in practice does a disservice to Anti-Imperialism. You are separating the gear from the machine, Libya, Syria, Korea, etc. from the chain of Imperialist world economy.”

I honest to God don’t know how many times I have to say I was wrong about Gaddafi. I’ve already said that I was wrong by being against him and supporting the so-called rebels. After all, Gaddafi was a killer of communists, that played a big role in my quick decision. In addition to that I foolishly sided with Kasama Project on the issue because what they were saying made sense to me. I’ve already said that I was wrong on that matter many times.

I get the criticism here as it relates to Syria, the claim is I don’t understand its role in the global imperialist system. Yes I do very well know that Syria plays an important part in Russian interests which are imperialist in itself, as well as connections to China as a rising world superpower. I’ve said this already, and I think that’s what they are trying to say in this quote. I am not a primary backer of Assad as the letter claims, I support the Syrian state over the FSA rebels as they are the ones literally fighting the FSA. I am taking the anti-imperialist stance, but I also know Syria’s role in global the scheme of things.

“Syria is not Assad, it is not the Ba’ath party. Libya was not Gaddafi, it was not the Green ideology. Afghanistan was not the Emir, it was not his monarchist, reactionary views. Syria is a gear in a machine called Imperialism, and it’s economic policies of nationalization, it’s military policies of confrontation of CIA backed contras, makes the machine slow down. The same can be said about Libya, the same can be said about North Korea.”

I’ve already explained this in videos and possibly a blog post if my memory serves me right. I’m not immortalizing the leader as inseparable from the state, the people or the ideology. I don’t really like Assad as I’ve said before. I’ve said I don’t like and reject the Ba’ath party because it’s not communist (as well as other reasons). What’s being said here? That I think the leader is the nation or something? Are they accusing me of believing in or supporting a “cult of personality” in these countries? How much do I even mention Kim Jong Un?

“From what you have said on the issue, it appears as if you are more interested in defending the image of North Korea from misrepresentations given off by media outlets in the imperialist countries. You have made plenty of videos showing a different image of North Korea which challenges the narratives fed to the public by the media. However, this leaves out the greater issue at stake: namely, the fact that North Korea is under threat of invasion and sanctions by the imperialist countries. Understand that North Korea isn’t being threatened with imperialist invasion due to its inherent qualities as a socialist state. It is being threatened due to the role it plays in the greater global capitalist system. This would still be the case regardless of how North Korea treats its own citizens. It’s more important to focus on what the US, Canada, NATO, etc. are doing to North Korea than it is to focus on what North Korea is doing within its own borders.”

Well yes I’ve put good effort into defending the DPRK from misrepresentations, I think that’s actually very important. You can try and tell the average non-Marxist about the DPRK’s place within the global imperialist class system, but all you get back is “OMG unicorns”, “billions of their own people dead”. How do you get the point of imperialism across when they just scream garbage like that? I’d like to see how you no content providing /r/communism people are doing that. They don’t listen, they’re not listening, I think its important to beat these false ideas out of people’s heads before they can even accept the existence of imperialism. It also becomes all the more important to combat it when the vast majority of Marxists believe the garbage that is spread about them.

It’s more important to focus on what the US, Canada, NATO, etc. are doing to North Korea than it is to focus on what North Korea is doing within its own borders.” I have spoken about this in the past, it was a big focus during the false claims of a missile test. I don’t even actually talk about things that go on in the DPRK outside of debunking lies that are spread about it. Do you see me reporting about a new grocery store? No. I’ve spoken in the past about the DPRK’s relationship to the world economic system and its value.

“Furthermore, much of the PR you have given North Korea has reflected poorly on you as a youtube journalist, especially one who claims to present the news from a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist perspective. Maoists are rather ambivalent about North Korea. They do not prop it up the way you have done. You, on the other hand, have given yourself a new reputation as “the communist who defends North Korea”. This is causing you to lose a lot of credibility.”

So let me get this straight, because I defend the DPRK this affects my credibility? “Unlike most Maoists, who have entirely avoided the question of North Korea for fear of “alienating people”, you have attempted to build a position on the topic, on the territory. This is good.” Well I guess not really because now you’ve just turned around and said Maoists are ambivalent on North Korea. So which is it? Is it good that I take a stance or bad that I take a stance?

It could be interpreted that I focus too much on the DPRK. Well the DPRK is actually very special to me. If you would like me to decrease my coverage of the DPRK I could consider that as something I could do. This is how I interpret what this statement is saying. It could also sound like you’re saying I’m not allowed to support the DPRK.

As for my credibility as a YouTube journalist, when did I have it and when did I lose it? My reputation is beyond my control, its already sexist, homophobic and Transphobic; based on lies for sexist and homophobic and transphoboic based on nothing. I literally can’t control that its beyond my power. I doesn’t matter what I say people just assume whatever they want. Like what your open letter has done.

“The analysis must be scientific. Reducing analysis of North Korea to Kim Jong Un, or defending North Korea just for the sake of defending it, is idealism. It would necessitate that North Korea’s orientation be unchanging, that it’s nature be stagnant, it would ignore the fact that North Korea is a base in a people’s war against Imperialism, and not some perfect country all it’s own.”

I have never reduced analysis to Kim Jong Un, I did one video on him about his appearance that was it. This is an outright lie. I have spoken about North Korea’s position within the imperialist system, spoken about the sanctions, I’ve defended it not only as a nation of Marxism-Leninism but also as an anti-imperialist resister. I’ve criticized them in the past, including the video this open letter is supposed to be based on. I’ve specifically said I don’t agree with internet censorship and how gendered the society is. I said this right in the video.

“In conclusion, we think you are a comrade, and that you, like all of us, have unmeasurable room for growth, for learning, and for refined political analysis. But to grow, to learn, and to refine, demands that one be willing to question oneself, criticize oneself, and most importantly, understand oneself.”

Your conclusion seems to indicate that I don’t do self-criticism. As you may well remember I’ve criticized myself over Gaddafi many times. In the video this letter is based on I criticized myself for not doing enough of a class analysis. If you’ll notice in the last few days I turned it around and started doing it again. Unfortunately I can’t sit down the make too deep an analysis on every video because I have to do one every day and that is extremely difficult. I’d love to see any of you try and do that. I’ve seen five people try and not even come close. I have limited resources, I have limited time, I have a lot of problems to deal with in real life that I’ve already spoken about. I can’t reduce the number of videos to increase quality too much because I am dependent on these views as income in order to survive with is very precarious at the moment.

I’m sorry that I haven’t lived up to your expectations, I’ve been trying to survive. Has the quality of my videos and analysis dipped recently? Yes, that’s an inevitable result of overwhelming stress and loss of resources, which I already explained. I acknowledge that analysis has gotten weak and have in the last week or so already begun to turn that around.

So what is the criticism here? I’ve been struck at from all directions and now I don’t want to care about what you think of me?