Pol Pot did explicitly mention that alignment with the communists was a matter of practicality in allies. It was a result of this opportunism that they then shifted to the Party of Democratic Kampuchea, a more overtly nationalist party formation, with the conflict with Vietnam. It's crystal clear that Pol Pot was not ideologically attached to communism. In his 1997 interview, he stated the following:

When I joined the Communist Party of Cambodia, I did not know what communism was... We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way.

This is a complete admission to being, at best, opportunistic and willing to pick whatever outside ideology gathered the best allies. This is why they pivoted to western support, this was not a betrayal of their "communist values," but a logical extension of their already present opportunism. You can point to Pol Pot not saying literally the words "I am not a communist," and I'll concede that he did not sat those words. However, I stand firm in my opinion that Pol Pot was at best opportunistic and did not have an actual understanding of scientific socialism.

As for my claims of the CPK fronting a dogmatic, reactionary form of agrarian socialism, I stand by this. Having a vague plan for industrialization does not justify the assault on the urban proletariat, nor does it justify the focus on agrarian communalism. It was not the proletariat that was in power, it was arguably the peasantry's intelligentsia. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it does partially explain why they had such a disastrous idea of how to progress. You insist that I haven't proven how they've taken this stance, yet I have consistently shown how they tried to skip to classless society directly, and industrialize afterwards, which is horrendously wrong from a Marxist perspective.

As for the CPK being denounced by Marxists everywhere, it's both true and not historical idealism. It would perhaps be idealism if this was the only point I made, but it wasn't, it's supporting evidence. Consensus among the trained and educated on a topic is a helpful indicator for understanding what is probably true. It isn't the reason for something being true, but it's helpful for learning. From Hoxha to Deng Xiaoping to Vietnam to the Soviets, Pol Pot was regularly denounced by all major sides once it became evident that the CPK was not actually following any coherent communist plan but instead were violently reactionary.

Overall, I can admit to Pol Pot not literally saying "I am not a communist," that was a more clear claim than simply saying that Pol Pot was opportunistic, had a horrible understanding of Marxism, and was perfectly willing to abandon pretenses of communism in favor of gaining a western ally. What I wonder is why you seem so intent on defending Pol Pot and the CPK.

Contemporary analysis aligns with what I've been saying, that their agrarian focus and destruction of productive forces in favor of a communalist society was at best incorrect and reactionary, and the fact that they were responsible for 2 million deaths, a quarter of the Cambodian population at the time, employing brutal methods of execution like smashing heads. This is from a Vietnamese source, not a western source, so at most you could say that it's the opinion of Vietnamese communists, not western anti-communists.

Comrade, I really think it's best to call it a done conversation. I can own up to communication failures on my part, as well as to the mistaken claim that Pol Pot outright admitted to not being a communist. However, I stand firmly behind my analysis of the CPK and Pol Pot, and nothing you've presented has given me any reason to reconsider. I don't think others are viewing this conversation either, so I don't think this is productive anymore. We can agree to disagree here, as we've done before.