🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

The I'm going to be. I'm going to

be a lot of in the Ching

Long-Lu-Trentang

Eighty-know-ta-lang

Not-paw-shawn

To-pain-n-n-n-farm To-pion-tank Mewscien not I'm not Don't I'm Don't Conchance

D'

I'm

Miser

The

Man

Rhyr

On the Lings Lian Lian Lian Lian Fing D'

T' I

Cang Cang

Cork Poh Bong G Gong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kuk, kong kong koo chang fang fang kong kong kong koo kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong you can you is for we're low gentle I can't

Kang Kang

Kang-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-gou-chang-chang-gwong-goyang

Beasu-gall

Beasurkongue and I

You're

your

I give you

For-you-the-chue

I give you ten-trial, I'll give you ten-trak. and so uh...

I'm

I'm so I think

The Chong-road-Trentang

Your

Stand-Lews

Not-p

To-p To-p To-p

No

No No

No No No So on, I'm On the Don't

Conchiong Misher

Fonging And

Quang

Thee

Inquen Thee

I'm

On the

T'

I'm

Kank Kank

Kong Kong

Kong

K Kong K

Kong Be and I say Let me say Let me say Let's I kank kank kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong koo chang fang fang kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong kong k-k-k-k-k-gou-chchang-gwong-gwong-gwang-gwang-gwk-gwk-gwk-gwk-gwk-gwk-gwk-gwk- give you ten-chang.

I'll kong-kong-kong-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-gok-goyang, don't, fang-gall-goyang.

Don't let me say you're going to

with you're going to bea choucheon and young.

Just can you is for will shun dear and young just can you is

for we'reo shan-yang

I'll kind

I can-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-cc-ccccccccc-ccccc-ppong

fang-pppppppphea-cong bea- you if true I give you

so think I

If I think

I give you

I give you can't

You know

I'm going to

think

I give you

I give you so sound

You're

I give you

I give you

ten chong

I'm I'm I'll give you to my children, I give you ten chow. I'm going to be. I'm going to

I'm going to I'm The world was't fire, no one could save me but you.

Strange what desire will make foolish people do.

Oh, so. will make foolish people do I never dream that I meet somebody like you

I never dream that I lose somebody like you

No, I don't want to find out.

No, I don't know. go with you know

oh

I don't want to

throw in love

With you

What a wicked

game

You play

Don't make me feel this way?

What a wicked thing to do to let me dream of you?

What a wicked thing to say you know i've all said this way do a wicked thing to do you know oh You know, tonight we dream of you.

You know, I don't want to fall in low.

You know, I don't want to fall in love

With you

Why do we can't get me play

To make me see this way

What a wicked thing to do?

What a wicked thing to do?

Try to let me dream of you.

What a wicked thing to say?

You never felt this way what a wicked thing to do to make me dream of you I'm Oh Yo, I ain't here for the money, I ain't here for the money, I ain't here for the fame, though it might be nice to own a jet plane, I'm gonna do it off with you, come along to see it's true, but the world is pretty cold, you might need a sweater too, I'm gonna put her ride on you Get from California

Trying to make it in life

It's golden and ever taught you

Dreams on my own

I've been working from home

I can do it on my own

But sometimes it gets called

Like

Because it's cold

Because it's cold outside And I don't know I'm not just going to be able to be

Because it's cold outside and I don't know why I'm just living my life

I'm going to tell my life

No one's got pockets of my dreams

So it's love that a place

So enjoy your life

I'm just sleep of my buddies I'm just

my life

yes my life

there's nothing to want more

nothing else I want to see

they grab a mic

in the stage and kill it on the scenes

persevering from my team

so they can acquire a cream

find out what the words pays off really need breathing life to a dream my peers wouldn't believe when i'm running out of breath or i forgot how to breathe it's been colder than never nothing like i remember like spring is the winter and every day is like December so bring out your coats bring out your

sweaters there's no tell when this weather is gotta get better because I remember the moments when I was

thought is a joke now they're giving me handshake saying it was a joke but I ain't joking around

I'm trying to give you a hope you can do it if you want it man you drive your own road

yeah I know full of raps by the end of every class

That's my formula for life not the formula to act like

Because it's cold outside

and I don't know why I'm just living my life

I'm just looking at my life

and nothing's going to see that

I can move the train so

it's a full battle freeze

when you're just looking at my life

I'm just

I'm just

I'm just I'm just I'm going

It's

It's too come and

I'm

at all and Oh Oh, uh,

I'm I'm The I'm a lot of

I'm

I'm The I'm Oh, Oh, Thank you. I'm Oh, yeah. yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. The Thank you. I'm going to

I'm The The

The

The

The

The

The

The

The

The

The He The It In We Our We We Our Our Our We Our in the sky and is the mouth's Mothoonged He'll bring our

Our country

We're all right To give us

To be

To be the government

as a

So-do-er-e You-a-e-sue

freedom

Ah-i-Sue

Ah, freedom you are, I don't ban on on everyone everyone people people people red, and the In the The sun's Thee

Thee

We're

We're We're

We're We're

We're

Ae European Redo,

E

E, a

free

You are

freedom a world

A

New New

A

New King

on A King

on A Poon You know, I'm free of war, The King's The King's I. I'm going to the

I'm

I'm and the uh...

uh...

I'm going to be. I'm going to be. Oh. Oh.

Oh. you know. You see the sky, Oh, and Tongue,

Oh, Tung,

uh,

In the sky

is the mowcoteau

He,

he led to

our get-bye,

uh,

get by the

return

back in

as a

leader,

and to

be a

free,

yeah, freedom, yeah, freedom, ah, freedom, ah, and to be the way of free of freedom

all right freedom

all right

in back and in people people people and in people The Sun, The

Sun Torn Torn

The

In the

Torn

The In Mauts

Dome

We

Rue

To

We

Rue

We People We People People People

We

The

Rue

Rue Rue

Rue

Free You and freedom And You You So The You know a year a year home Ely and a free

Go to

I'm a few more

A few more Aung Aung I'm going to be. Oh, Oh,

Oh,

Oh, Oh, I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm Yeah, Yeah sun, the air The

Wind

Wind Pong

Tung Tung

The

In

the Maut

Torn

Maut

Dung

We We

We

We bring people people

The Mug Gion Rue Rue Rue Rong Sond but people who are young chenjeehury, and a million to chagny's shangy,

y'a, y'hong'a.

So lau lau lau y'i,

y'a,

e'a, e'huehah, You know, B. You know, and the The The Union

the Union,

the Regulnerable Republic

Slovaking,

has gottile,

the great ruse. their lives, the world

Great Roos

Ony

stras

from

people

Of course and the

people

Univ We're might

power

Soviet So the United States, Soviet Soviet

the

state

of the

world

nation our

government

of our common

of the friendship free We're Dries

of the

people

Of course

Fulner

Pactria

Lenin

Siva

Nena Nava Nava reina the power

national

our

our country

communism

commuress

through the

through the

light it was suns suns sun so sol men. Slash trotry, it,

it,

suns

solos

and Lennie

Vennick

and God

God

us

on

But right

and

he he he called on the road,

and the country, on the ordinary, on the body,

and on the king, and the world, and the world,

God's God's God. our state of the country's our freedom of our freedom of our freedom of the people people from the world from from

the of course

of Lenin

Lenin

Silla Nels Nava

and Nost national We're We're

We're

We're

Communism

We'll We've

In defeat

Of course

Of course

Communists

We've

We've We've next next us communists we see the future of our country.

We'll see the next country

and,

we're in the United States

We will always

always, without without any other.

We're always without our own civil society.

Our nation, our own world's our own. our freedom

in

friendship

of the people

and the

party

Pernia

Pernina Sina The Party of Lenin,

The Milo-Noronan,

On the chancest of communism, communist communism

and joy The One of the other than you know, I'm going to

I don't

I don't

I'm a I'm not I'm

I'm

I'm I'm I'm not I'm I'm and you know

and

I'm going to be able to be able to be able to be.

I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be.

I'm going to be.

I'm

a

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm going to be. I'm not I'm

I'm going to I'm and The

The Thank you. Welcome. Welcome to the infrared webcast Thursday night edition, and actually technically

the last webcast of the week

until we start Sunday

all over again

actually

welcome everyone

we have a lot of things to talk about

I have just gotten out of the theaters and by just gotten out i mean got out

two or three hours ago of watching alex garland's civil war that's right i watched it before

almost any of your favorite posters did because my take is going to come out before

theirs does and i can't wait to talk about that film but actually i've been a little busy because

yesterday i watched dune two and i wasn't planning on watching Dune 2 until it released to home video.

That's a knee-slapper, isn't it?

I mean, streaming.

It's actually going to be released to streaming next week.

But I decided I have to see it because

Grayson saw it, Jackson saw it, they all told me about it,

I'm like, all right, I guess I have to see it.

Unless I'm missing out on this zeitgeist in American culture.

And I have some things to say about Dune 2 as well.

I'm going to save the best for last and save Dune for last.

Actually, I'm going to reverse it.

We're going to talk about Civil War first, but before we do that,

it seems that my tweet has garnered some controversy about how under communism or socialism,

the way you get a PS5 is just by pressing a button it's kind of unbelievable people are a little bit on the right wing side of things that is the so-called libertarians they find it a little bit unbelievable.

And we're gonna, I'm gonna address the criticisms.

Tipo, thank you.

I just banned you from the Discord, and then you got unbanned because it was a misunderstanding.

So thank you for making me feel like shit.

No, thank you. Appreciate it.

But first things first, I want to address some of the criticisms that I think are worth addressing because they're fair questions, maybe.

And I think there's only one fair question. Yeah, there's a few fair questions, actually.

So someone said something along the lines of, so you're saying communism, which was created in 1850. Spoiler, it wasn't. But nonetheless, you get the idea. Communism is an an outlook something that has been well oh thank you so much appreciate

you brother it's something that has been regarded as a possibility before the advent of AI and computer.

So they're saying, so you're saying all this history.

Red Saffron! What's going on, man?

What's up?

So I'm basically being reproached with the argument that's like, okay, so you're basically saying that all of this history of communism, since Marx's time, let's say, was totally pointless and only now, conveniently, only now,

with computers and

AI communism as possible, why wasn't

it possible 200 years ago?

See, there's a few problems with this stupid

argument.

And I already said it's a fair argument, but I'm...

I think once you think about it in some more depth, it becomes stupid, right?

The issue is this.

You know the PlayStation's also a computer

it's kind of the it's kind of in the ballpark of the issue i'm talking about here

which is more or less that at the same time that traditional conceptions of how communism worked which is just this kind of

top-down direct state planning was being discredited with the rise of light

industry and consumerism that was also the same exact time period in which we witnessed the advent of computers and computational technology. And it's not a coincidence, actually.

Because corresponding to the era of consumerism and the rise of light industries and the kind of the rise of corporate America or whatever you want to call it came the necessity of of of more complex forms of accounting and planning, economic planning at the level of

corporations and enterprises. And that also corresponded to the need for more advanced forms of

computing and calculating inputs and outputs of production.

I think the most stark example of this,

and I did discuss this with Kantbot in our talk,

was the oil industry.

The oil industry, I think, don't quote me on this, I think that was really where a lot of the advanced form of utilizing the most advanced and complex forms of mathematics, planning started to really kick off. Also, the U.S. military is a big one as well, right? But no, the things are not unrelated. The rise of light industries and consumer economies where the tastes and the preferences of consumers start becoming very important economic factors is also the exact same time in which computers start being relevant. Now, the reason I'm saying this is because socialist economies did not have an issue with being better than capitalism when it came to traditional forms of modern industrial economics, which were more or less about providing a basic standard of living, a basic kind of standardization of the economy.

This is what industrialization is understood as, a steel industry, an iron industry, what have you, you know, producing engines and producing, you know,

basic, basic things and the foundation for light industries, but not light industries quite yet,

right, at least of tremendous levels of scale.

Now, the proletarians of the industrial age,

that was not a consumer economy.

Those people lived a pretty standardized life.

They were hoarded into kind of slums. And if they were lucky,

factory towns and everything was just kind of provided to them. And a lot of the dystopian things

that we associate with 20th century communism was actually a relic of the older form of industrial capitalism before the rise of light industries you know um the kind of standardization and then the fixed fixed degree of choice that you, I mean, that's company talents, right?

Heavy industry monopoly cartels were actually a source of inspiration for Soviet economic planners. Lenin said it explicitly,

that German imperialism, if you're not familiar with how the terminology is used, imperialism,

not as a foreign policy, but as a kind of a form of centralization of capitalism.

He said that is basically where we're going to begin with our socialism, right?

The most advanced form of monopoly capitalism lays the foundation for socialism.

And that was the paradigm that Soviet planning was based off of.

And it was heavily inspired by Fordism and Henry Ford and Taylorism and so on and so on.

And for its part, it was able to it was able to

reproduce

the 19th century

more efficiently

and in a way that was

better for the standard

of living for workers

than the capitalism of the 19th century. I think I was

talking to my good friend. He has such a vulgar, vulgar name. I'll just call him CD. First guy to come on the infrared webcast

when it was in a podcast format.

He told me something.

I think it was like there was this guy who made the observation.

I think it was Kojev.

I could be wrong.

That the Soviet Union at its peak basically accomplished the, like it accomplished almost a utopian version of 19th century modern industrial civilization. And it's almost like it was stuck in that paradigm of modernity,

but in a way that was obviously like more advanced technologically and better for the average person.

But it's almost like it attained the ideal of the 19th century.

It was like what utopians in the 19th century dreamed, that's what it achieved.

It was from a paradigm of 19th century modernism you know and that that was also related to the fact that Marx was writing in that time period. That's where Marxism was born. That's the context of where it came from, right? Not to suggest this is an inherent or necessary limitation of Marxism, but rather just to say that, you know, when I say that AI will bring communism easily, that's not to negate previous understandings of, you know, what communism would amount to for society.

It's actually a logical elaboration of it.

Because before, there wasn't such a thing, when Marx was writing, there wasn't such a thing as PlayStation's.

There wasn't such a thing as a consumer economy. There wasn't such a thing as an information economy.

I mean, he gets close to kind of speculating about what that might look like in his famous fragment on machines but more or less

he was not beginning from that perspective uh should kind of go like this okay he was beginning from the perspective of 19th century capitalism

to the question of of how socialism should adapt to the information age, let's say, was an open question.

And I think the most robust answer I found to this is that, well, it seems simple.

Computers need to play a role in central planning.

Now, if you don't understand Soviet central planning,

it involved a lot of mathematics,

and computation, you have to understand this, is a branch of mathematics computers are an application of mathematical theory actually they seem like they're out of this world and they're super complex or whatever, but that originates in kind of like abstract sphere of mathematics, advanced mathematical kinds of theories.

And, you know, the advanced part of it comes from for example the you know perhaps like advances in physics which allow us to detect particles at such a small level like electrons and kind of, I don't know the exact term for this.

Basically, the ability to create small chips smaller and smaller and you know understand the chemistry

that's involved in that and so but it begins with mathematics actually the idea that communists weren't aware that

a very complex level of mathematics would have to be involved in planning the entire economy is just a little ridiculous

so so yes uh, they're like, well, so you're saying communism wasn't possible in Marx's time?

I'm not saying that I think Marx and Engels are the ones who said that.

They lived during capitalism, and they said that society is transitioning

into a new type of society, which they made it seem like it was going to take a while, actually,

that the proletariat would assume state dictatorship and oversee this transition,

not implement the transition, not force it to happen, but oversee it to happen. And I think a lot of

the confusion when it comes to, you know, oh, so we implement socialism or we oversee the transition, I think that confusion comes from the Soviet experience. Why is it that in the Soviet experience they were implementing the economy from the top down and almost like they were creating a totally new type of economy from the top down.

That wasn't because they had a different conception of socialism.

That was because Russia was not a modernized country technologically or economically.

So just in order to create the prerequisites for the transition into socialism, let's say, they actually had to, in an alternative way, create all of the things that modern capitalism had already created for Europe.

So Russia didn't have electricity.

It didn't have plumbing.

It didn't have, you know, huge industries and so on and so on it

didn't have a standardized industrial economy of any kind it actually had to create those things

from scratch and that and that's and it created those things in a socialistic way. Yes. But but you have to understand socialism is not what they were creating out of thin air. What they were creating out of thin air, let's say, is a modern industrial economy. They just did it in a socialist way, and it had to be a socialist way. Otherwise, they wouldn't have one at all. Now, the U.S. and Britain and France and Germany already had

modern industrial economies just from capitalism, let's say. I know it's Germany, it's a little more

complicated, but get the idea. And Russia did not have that.

So you have to understand, it's a very, it's a very important kind of subtlety here, which makes it

it impossible to have like a one-sided view where you're just like, all right, there are two competing systems, capitalism versus socialism.

It's like, well, no, Russia was not a modern industrial economy at all before socialism.

So socialism for Russia meant a tool or a method or an ability to create a modern industrial

economy because there was no profit motive to do it.

There was no market-based logic that was leading in that direction.

So they had to do it from scratch intentionally.

And for them, that was the content of what socialism was.

And while they were doing it, they were creating a different prerequisite for civilization

altogether, which they did not think had to be capitalistic in nature. So you need to put that into perspective when we're talking about the history of socialism and the history of communism and so on and so forth.

Communism is not necessarily one specific type of system. Rather, communism is a movement within history, a development within

history, let's say a threat of development within history, which communists seek to recognize, clarify, and articulate, and that's the basis, that's their mandate to actually seize power, because they understand this historical force within society, transforming and developing it in a certain direction.

And the direction identified by Marx and Engels was a direction in which the economy was increasingly becoming more centralized. It was increasingly becoming more centralized

it was increasingly becoming more

socialized it was increasingly

becoming more

even a site of political

contention right

the economy was not this

spontaneous accident anymore. People have expectations about, you know, a minimal standard of civilization and a way of life and a quality of life and health and things of that nature which they wanted the economy and expected the

economy to do so economics was no longer this accidental you know amalgamation of a bunch of private

self-interested individuals but rather a sphere which was being recognized as something that was of social and common concern, right? And Marx and Engels was identifying how the development of capitalism and of history in general was leading into a direction in which for the first time we could recognize that aspect of the economy explicitly, that economics is ultimately rooted in something which is social and common in nature, and it revolves around that.

And that thus far we just weren't able to recognize it, right?

So this is a really important understanding.

Now, when we understand communism as a different system, which no longer

requires institutions exclusive to capitalism, such as banks, you know, and such as institutions of finance in general, right?

Then, including money, right?

Then we're getting into the territory of something we are already rapidly accelerating into now,

which is AI, right?

Marx and Engels saw that society was transitioning into a qualitatively different form of society,

sorry, a different mode of production, which was and it did right it obviously did but they didn't expect this to happen they didn't expect the the destruction of all of the vestiges of the institutions of capitalism to disappear overnight

because that's also a political question the institutions of capitalism their status their ability to continue to exist is also a political question.

It's a political question because when, you know, economics, let's say, becomes an increasingly social site of contention.

And when markets are no longer the driving force of the content of the economy itself when they begin to fail,

like they did in 1929, for example, or the long depression, for that matter, as described by

Marx and observed by by marks then you're

looking at a scenario in which the institutions of capitalism have to be

artificially maintained by force at the expense of technology, history, and civilization itself.

So it becomes political then.

It becomes a political history.

The working class movement, the labor movement, becomes political.

It's the whole premise of the Second International, actually, right? And then later the Bolsheviks, obviously. These institutions become tied to imperialism. So direct political force and cohesion colonialism slavery

etc etc etc etc right so nowhere in Marxism does it say all those things are just going to

disappear overnight by themselves.

It's a struggle of humanity against the forces which are standing in the way of the real progress of humanity.

Progress of humanity in terms of attending to the basic material

premises of our existence, unleashing the forces of production.

Right? So that's the first question I wanted to address like oh so you're saying that you know

communism never worked until a i and it's like no no that's not what i'm saying

i'm just saying that now i is going to make it possible so that we don't need markets. Eventually,

I mean, we don't need markets, we don't need money, and so on. That was always something

communists understood was going to be in the future. And they didn't really have an understanding of how that would work exactly.

They just understood that as society advanced technologically, as the productive forces advanced, that the material prerequisites for this would exist right and lenin you know went so far

as to distinguish socialism and communism and talking about how there's different stages to how it will

develop and so on.

But again, there is no such thing as a PS5 without computers already existing.

There's no consumer economy without the development of computers.

The two are inexorably connected

and related. So it's not just an accident,

a happy accident. That, oh, now

we have AI, so communism is possible

for the first time. No, there's a general

arc in which history bends,

which includes the development

of computers, which includes the development of AI, and which

includes the transition from capitalism to communism.

And all of those things are actually inexorably tied together and related.

The same things that are responsible for the inevitability of communism are the same things that are responsible for the rise of computer science and cybernetics and AI.

These are, this is all one historical. and and AI.

These are,

this is all one historical force, right?

It's all one history.

One mode of production.

A mode of production is not just the relationships of production and management, as Richard Wolfe seems to want to imply.

A mode of production also includes technology. It also includes why technology is developing in the direction that it is. I mean, if you ever thought of that, why did computers come into existence, right?

How was that a logical consequence of the development of industrial society?

I don't think you've asked that question if you think it's an accident, that it's also part of how communism comes into fruition.

The second thing I heard that was reproached was something along the lines of, okay, well, how do you choose

whether to produce food or

PlayStation's when people want both?

And I just

kind of have to mock

and scoff at such a

lack, not of imagination,

but of thought. if you can somehow find that question

significant that there's a distinction between food and a PS5 don't you think a computer

would be able to like no it, it's somehow impossible for us to code in, so to speak, that, yeah, people seem

to be consuming food with a degree of intensity and regularity that they are not when it comes to PS5s.

Like, it's almost like the, it's almost, like, you think AI can't somehow register as data, you know, algorithmically that maybe this is something that is actually necessary for these

living beings to continue subsisting, you know? I'm not saying AI is actually a mind,

like a consciousness. It's not what I mean. I mean, I'd rather mean to say whatever

Oregon of plan

or I would say

organs of planning

and I don't want to get too far off

envisioning how this would work

although I can

for the purposes of debate

organs of planning would not just be like a runaway AI arbitrarily just doing everything by itself.

It would actually have to be coded.

It would actually have to be implemented and designed.

There would be a need for it to be designed by people,

okay, to work in a specific way. Not only designed by people, but also fixed when, you know,

it's not working in the right way. And how I think such a thing could be rolled out probably would be that it would be a seamless

and logical development of how the current market economy is developing.

Not an abrupt

kind of, okay, we're abolishing money

and we're abolishing markets and we're

just going to, no, no, no, it would be a seamless

transition. It would probably

work where you have a

proletarian dictatorship, just like China

where you own all the land and you have a proletarian dictatorship, just like China,

where you own all the land,

and you have sovereign control over the means of production

at the bare,

most minimal level.

But then,

you know,

you kind of experimentally

implement communities and living spaces, you know, where money or currency is no longer used.

I would rather just say money isn't used, right?

Money is no longer used.

And that would scale up based on its efficiency, right? It would scale up based on its efficiency, right?

It would scale up based on its superiority.

It would work better.

And if it doesn't work better,

it would have to be constantly tinkered with

so that it eventually co-ops.

I mean, this is effectively what China is already doing as a country when you think about it.

It's assailing the signals and forces of the world market and bending them in the direction of China's plans, right?

China's developmental goals and so on and so forth, which, and I also find the argument a little bit ridiculous, if I'm being honest, because money, for example, and markets don't distinguish use values.

So if it's not a problem in your view for a society where, you know, a dollar doesn't make a distinction between food that people need to eat and shelter they need over their heads and, you know, furry porn created by a

created as intellectual

property which which is

I guess an NFT that's worth

$100,000 like I don't know what to tell

you it's not a very efficient system

probably it's probably not

an efficient system if furry porn can sell for $100,000, and that's the same

unit of currency that we use to measure, like outputs of uranium mining or something.

I don't think that's a very efficient system.

People are like, Haas, what you're describing with AI is already how markets work.

And I'm like, well, and it's already how money works and how capitalism works.

And I'm like, well, like well actually no it isn't because

money does not measure and is completely blind and indifferent to the actual material premises

of production there's no inherent priority given for, to the actual material premises of how we continue to subsist and basically live and survive and completely abstract, like, parasitical, even destructive kinds of commodities, let's say, such as

derivatives and other kinds of financial abstractions, which quite literally contribute nothing,

nothing whatsoever to the actual premises of wealth.

So that's the issue, right? The issue is there isn't actually an ability for us to distinguish, you know, the importance of things when we're

just talking about a profit motive, period, right? There's no ability to do that, actually.

So what I'm talking about at least is a nice start,

to maybe be able to do that.

And people are like, well,

Hans, what about the,

what about the ECP and the,

and it's like, dude,

you need to understand the intensity at which algorithms are operating.

Not in the future, but today.

Just understand how intensely they're collecting and harvesting data and how intelligible they're able to make the most minute, the most minute details of the most minute and microscopic of microscopically observable patterns. They are able to make intelligible.

So I understand at the immediate level, we can't comprehend how that would work.

But you're not appreciating the scale at which artificial intelligence is operating at. It really is able to make

data we don't notice intelligible in ways that are by no means immediate to us. And it actually

scares us when we realize the scale of that, right? So that's, I mean,

it's like, for example, also, this is already the direction things are going in with Black Rock and Aladdin, right, the AI that Black Rock uses, how resources are put into different enterprises. And so it's all now based in a kind of centrally planned algorithm.

And it's not based on decisions made by sovereign individuals who are doing it just for self-interested purposes or whatever.

Finally, I think the best argument that no one has made, but which I think is a worthwhile one, which is like,

all right, Haas, granted, it's very possible to do all these things. But what is going to be the incentive for anyone to do anything, to work, to get up? And like, why wouldn't anyone just, if I could just order a button, if I could just order a PlayStation with a button, why should I get up and work? If I could just have everything at my fingertips.

And keep in mind, we're not talking about what Marx described in the

critique of the Gotha program as

the lower stage of communism

or, as Lenin called it, socialism.

We're describing a society

fundamentally transformed by communism, right?

And my response to that, which is, that's probably the best argument, to be honest, which no one makes.

But my response to that would be that um i think when we get to the point where we're out of the lower

stage let's call it of communism where there there isn't a need to kind of register people's inputs into production in some kind of standardized way.

And people can just, you know, labor does becomes life's prime one.

I think we're reaching a level of civilization.

That also implies a level of civilization. It also implies

a level of the transformation of culture

and stuff that, you know,

that is probably a little far into the future,

I think. You know, like, where

labor becomes

life's prime want,

and people are no longer working

because they have to for survival,

but they're rather working because there's an acknowledgement

and there's a recognition

that this is actually the purpose of life itself.

And I think we're kind of close to this existential...

I mean, you know what? To be honest, there's a few things I want to say about this actually.

Right now, we just understand this problem now of laziness.

I think we are getting close to an existential crisis with such a large

neat population, with such a large unemployed population, of young people especially, lazy,

just sitting around gaming all day, have no purpose in life life the rediscovery of the essentiality of labor

for human not just for happiness but for human life is an existential crisis of civilization today i

think and i think if we don't overcome it we're in some big trouble anyway right so it's not just a

problem for communism it's also a problem for us today and another thing i'd like to say is that

this is also why a communist party rule society as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

And this is going to ruffle some feathers.

But I think that the proletariat is distinguished from the lumpin in the sense that for it labor is not just something that it does purely for survival but is actually an existential modality of social existence the proletariat distinguishes itself from the bourgeoisie,

not just in terms of, you know,

a raw managerial relationship of,

oh, I have to do this, or I can't do, you know, survive or I'm going to get fired.

But that and the fact that there's a sociological difference, there's a cultural difference.

The proletariat works for a living.

Not just works to live, but works for a living. Not just works to live, but works for a living.

Like, this is the purpose of life for it.

Working class culture, blue collar working class culture today resents laziness, resents the lazy, resents, and even has wrong, I agree, stereotypes about welfare queens and bombs or whatever, but they believe in work ethic.

The proletariat also is a class that has work ethic. It is existentially defined and molded by labor being the primary object of existence and of life. And yes, that is a mark of sociological and cultural distinction.

And that's why I say that I'm not against service workers and unemployed needs and all these other people

victimized by capitalism

but the reason I think

that blue collar working class people

represent the interests of general

labor and the proletariat as a whole

is because that actually is the concrete manifestation of the proletariat as a whole is because that actually is the concrete manifestation of the proletariat's

existence. If that class is raised to the status of state dictatorship, then it's a specific

interest of labor raised to the status of dictatorship,

an interest which doesn't tolerate a lazy bum, doesn't tolerate needs,

doesn't tolerate this kind of general existential Nietzschean last man crisis of demoralization doesn't tolerate it has a

totally different philosophy and outlook on life in general and this is the class we seek

to aid and assist and join with in acquiring the supreme level of power

within society and that also means that its morale the proletarian morale the proletarian morale, the proletarian work ethic, is what's going to lead society as a whole.

Okay? So make of that what you will, but a proletarian dictatorship also means the dictatorship of working-class work ethics

and working-class morale. It doesn't arbitrarily mean the dictatorship of everyone who doesn't

own currently the means of production.

It means the dictatorship of a very specific class, a very specific class within society, a specific interest,

which, yes, is, it does amount to the universal interest of all the masses in the last instance, right?

But the difference is this.

For the proletariat, for the blue collar, let's call them MAGA, not there are not all MAGA, but you get my idea.

The blue collar industrial working class, the universal interest of labor is for it an immediate interest.

Whereas for a neat or an unemployed person, the universal interest of labor is not an immediate interest.

It's an interest that can only be mediated, for example, by the leadership of another segment of society and its struggles and its battles,

you know, I have no doubt a 90% majority will rally behind the working class. I have no doubt

service workers will rally behind the blue collar working class. I have no doubt the

unemployed will. I have no doubt all sorts of other segments of society will. But we need to

make clear which one is going to lead the class struggle.

And actually, I think this is the source of the confusion.

We're not, we meme about it, obviously, but we're not actually against baristas.

We don't hate baristas.

We don't think baristas are bad or class enemies or bourgeois. We just think that communists need to get their priorities straight in terms of who they're identifying as the proletariat, as the specifically proletarian segment of society who's going to lead the class struggle for the universal interests of labor.

And once we get our priorities straight, you know, the interests of baristas and all these other people can be attended to.

So I think I've said that many times, actually, but for some reason, you know, you know how it is.

I'm getting lied about and distorted and whatnot.

Constantly.

But, yeah, that's what I would say.

I think widespread, I think we have a crisis of morale a lack of work ethic and laziness and I don't think that's all things that we can engineer our way out of like okay well if you can just get everything at the push of a button, why would anyone get up in the morning and work?

And my answer to that would be I don't actually think that's necessarily a system issue.

I think that's a civilization issue.

I think that's an issue of the degree of

moral and work ethic of your civilization. And I don't necessarily think any system, whether it's the

current one we have now or a future one can automate that problem away

and you know that that's also you know the contribution of miles cultural revolution to the canon of Marxist-Leninist experience. Cultural revolutions

are necessary. It is necessary to, in some sense, at least, address people's consciousness, address people's morale, address people's dreams and ideas,

and what are you living for? What are you getting up in the morning for every day? What is the purpose of your

life? You know, I think actually this is why i've

also given a lot of significance to the iranian revolution and to the rise of revolutionary

islam because the iranian revolution central to it was also a kind of ontological question. Like, we are fighting for

Islam because it is for us the purpose of life. It is the purpose of our existence. It is the

meaning of our existence. It is the meaning of our existence. It's an existential kind of revolution, not just a revolution, you know, based on the demand for the specific implementation of one kind of economic policy or the other.

It's more fundamentally a kind of revolution.

And it's going a step farther than Mao's cultural revolution even.

Because Islam is not attached to a specific state it's not attached to a specific party for example

it's this kind of autonomous signifier like across history that can endure and reproduce itself at the expense of empires right

and you know when it when it came to the Iranian revolution this is this was a revolution where people were not just insisting upon, you know, we want this policy, we want that policy to do things for us. I think that's really what I'm getting at here. In the Iranian Revolution, they weren't just saying, we want this new system to do these things for us. And it's like luxury automated, whatever, because I would prefer it, and it would be better. It's like a software upgrade. It was addressing,

it was addressing the most fundamental existential level of experience for the masses and for people.

Like,

we're not just doing this because we want to dwell in some new system. We're doing this because we are insisting upon a fundamental ontological truth. And it was a gesture of partisanship that was based on the insistence of a fundamental ontological truth, a fundamental truth of being and existence and reality that made sense of the entire world for them right and I think this this relates and

let's call it this penetrates the texture of sociality the essence of, let's say, in a way that's more fundamental

than tinkering with different kinds of systems in your head possibly could, right?

What is the thing that binds us together? What is the thing we should live and die for what is what is the

ultimate horizon of our meaningful existence of our existence if it's a meaningful existence right we cannot we can't detach ourselves from reality and assume the perspective of some kind of positivist or empiricist and automate and engineer our way out of that problem.

And this is actually why I was skeptical a little bit of like, you know, the fully automated

AI cybernetic communism, Cybersyn fans.

And it wasn't because I thought AI and cybernetics and computers aren't going to play a role in the future mode of production.

That's not why at all.

The reason why I was dissatisfied with that is because I think it was technocratic in the pejorative sense of the word.

Like it really did neglect Mao's cultural revolution, or better yet, the Stokanovite revolution, which not a lot of people talk about in the 1930s.

This is actually really, you know, you should think about the Stokanovite phenomena under Stalin a little bit, right?

Where people were not just working and going to work anymore just to fulfill a quota,

just to kind of day in, day out, clock in, clock out.

Like, no, like, the Stokkanov movement was about enthusiastically, like, maxing the quotas, going way overboard, you know, doubling them in tremendous crazy feats of labor

because it was like this cultural movement,

which was trying to institute a kind of proletarian work ethic

of just work, work, work.

It's the ultimate purpose of, That was kind of also in the same category as the Iranian Revolution and Mao's cultural revolution.

It's not... The Stokanovite phenomena cannot be explained in terms of some kind of utilitarian narcissistic bentham type egoistic

interest of I just want to survive and maximize my you know energy whatever no it was was, it was a spiritual movement in a way, right? It was motivated by

a kind of, a gesture of ontological partisanship.

This is why this the Konovite movement was actually a challenge, and even maybe you can call it a revolution, or let's say, an uprising against the Soviet technocrats at the time. And that all historians admit as much, right?

So I would like people to kind of stop, this is something I get annoyed of very often.

I would like people to stop associating communism and the question of communism with, well, what kind of system would we prefer to live in?

Because what you're doing is you're conceding the ground of ontological partisanship, that we are not just fighting for a better system.

We're not just fighting for something that works more efficiently we're not just fighting for something that we think you know would would um be more efficient

we're fighting for something that we believe is true, that we believe is fulfilling a fundamental and objective historical necessity, and which represents a universal truth of humanity and all universal existence itself. We're fighting for something

which which is based on a concrete struggle, a historical struggle, which we do not regard as finished which is the struggle of the communists

against and of the proletariat against the ruling class why should we concede why should we

give up and say all right the capitalist won they got the better of us all of the crimes they committed in the cold war all the things that they've done to secure their power all the ways they've destroyed and trampled on our civil liberties, all of the ways they've assumed

status of a dictatorship, all of the ways they've gotten away with literally doing whatever they

wanted with no oversight, all of the ways they totally poisoned and corrupted every aspect of our

existence and every aspect of our society degrading it as we decay away

we just concede to them and they why should we say that why should we say they just won

why should we concede to them why shouldn't we pick up the red banner and continue fighting what our communist forefathers were fighting for?

Why should we concede?

Juzon, thank you so much.

Juzon, that's a very interesting

um

interesting analysis

and I think I agree with it.

The politicization of Christ's message.

I,

yeah, I think, I think that's kind of what it is, actually.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that

politicization of Christ's message, I should rather say, from scratch.

It's a very important caveat from scratch.

Like in the desert by nomads from scratch, right?

With no kind of existing superstructure of empire or politics to build off of as a layer on top.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into that, but thank you so much for the donation um i think that's

really what i'm getting at is uh i would prefer people stop being stop trying to and it sounds

ironic coming from a materialist, I understand, but in the correct sense of the word, not the metaphysical sense of the word, I would prefer if people stop trying to erase the spiritual dimension of the communist struggle.

It does have a spiritual, and it always has had a spiritual dimension,

and we should re- um, we should re-establish that.

And I think this community already has, you know, in many ways.

Anyway, that's the stuff.

Okay, there's one last thing.

Now, I

promised I would stop swearing.

Excuse

my French, but this faggot

Praxben

decided to, I don't know why, he

blocked me on his other account. I guess he has a new account, and he got banned on his old one. But he said that this is dumb and nothing else. And yeah, so it's not even worth a response.

But keep in mind, this guy probably uses Amazon and already does what I just mentioned

in this video, except his is mediated by fake central bank printed credit, debt, effectively, which isn't even real money, according to his own libertarian theory. And that's the only difference,

is that when he presses the button on Amazon, it's mediated by central bank printed toilet paper

instead of being directly pegged to the material premises of production and taking it directly into account things like value and resources and so on and so on.

So that's what, that's just guys just not very smart.

And he also doesn't look smart.

I'm not going to show his face because it's really hideous.

But Praxben, if you look at his face, he has the physiognomy of a stupid person.

He has the physiognomy of an NPC. He has the physinogamy of a stupid person. He has the physiognomy of an NPC. He has the

physiognomy of just some kind of ferret-looking, really, Sid from Ice Age, for real this time. Face.

I know I said Destiny has the body of sit from ice age but he has the face of

sit from ice age right uh and he just kind of looks like a blank staring npc completely unintelligent

retarded faggot.

That's what Praxpan looks like.

Every time I've ever seen a TikTok of this guy,

and every time I've ever seen his face anywhere,

where he's talking in any capacity,

he's probably, it's almost like this is a guy who's like trying to impress

bitches.

And he thinks the bitches are listening to him every time he talks.

And he's like, I'm totally normal, dude.

Really?

Because, and it's like, but you you but he hasn't accepted that you're already

a socially ostracized loser hated by all society but you're even more insufferable

than people like nick flentes or keith woods because you're just not aware of it At least those guys own it and are like, yeah, fuck, fuck, fuck society, fuck everyone, right? But you, on the other hand, are this geeky nerd sitting in the debate club at your college, detested and hated by everyone as an insufferable nerd,

but you're still trying to fit in and act cool. You're still trying to, like, act like you're a

normie, but you're not a normie. You're an autistic faggot retard who's sitting in the corner

of, uh, the lunchroom, let's say, in your little, like, political club, your philosophy club, your whatever you want to call it, Libertarian Club at school.

Hamza, thank you so much.

Never stop winning.

Appreciate you, man.

And he's trying to somehow

act like he's a normie, but he's not a normie.

Like, I'm so normal guy.

No, you're not, actually. If you were a normie,

you would just be like you would just openly

just like be a political first of all second of all at best if you were a normie actually you would

just be like your run of the mill maga white boy you just be like a frat boy, run of the mill.

Yeah, make you America great again.

Frat boy.

And then you'll chug a beer down, just like a normal dude, right?

That's not what you are, right?

You have very specific, meticulously crafted opinions about things.

So let's drop the Normie act, Praxben,

and let's drop the act that you're somehow like a cool, normal guy or whatever.

And why don't you get in VC and actually debate?

Why don't you stop menstruating and actually debate me?

You're not above, you're not above me.

You're not above debating me, actually.

You're not.

Hiding behind the veneer and the pretence that you're somehow like ha that haz guy he's like crazy

yeah well you're in the crazy circus with me you're stuck in the cage with me, Prax, Ben, and I'm a cannibal, and you're going to get

barbecued with a flamethrower and have your head chopped off and eaten metaphorically.

Okay, you're not, you're not like some, you're not just like some like random guy walking on the sidewalk.

You're somebody who's trying to start beef with me and argue with me.

So why don't you actually back up your argument with the minimum of some kind of commitment?

Why don't you back it up with something with an argument, let's say?

You can't.

This guy would get steamrolled and totally crushed in a debate.

I don't blame him for not partaking in a debate with me

because he would get decimated.

Like I said, barbecued.

He would straight up get barbecued, and he up get barbecued and he would he would get

barbecued and I mean he would he would get burned alive and his charred

limbs would be skewered onto a kebab and grilled just for good measure burnt and then fed to dogs that's what would happen um So this is what I said.

I said, okay, you're saying this.

You're calling me dumb, but you're too scared to defend your position in debate, which I know for a fact, by the way.

I know this for a fact, Praxben, because you regularly try and challenge my

random followers to debate. So you're clearly committed to debating about the topic. You just

won't debate me specifically about it. And the reason you won't do that is because I'll end your career

and your stupid smug faggot face will not be able to worm your way out of it by saying anything

there's nothing you could do there is nothing you could do to worm your way out of the destruction I would bring you in a debate.

And you know that. You know that. There's no snide remarks you can make.

There's no

whatever he does with his eyes.

I just

he's, you know, he, you know what he looks like.

In all honesty,

Praxben looks like a pedophile

YouTuber. He looks like a Minecraft YouTuber. That's what it is. That's what I was looking for. Praxben looks like a Minecraft YouTuber who's gotten caught with child pornography or more specifically actually. He looks like a predator child predator youtube minecraft

YouTuber who got caught DMing 16 year old minors or 15 year old minors and he's like giving

them emojis and smiley faces and stuff look upon his face and tell me that's not what his physinogamy betrays look upon his face and tell me that's not the type of face he has a youtube child predator Minecraft YouTuber.

They don't lie.

They don't lie. That's what he looks like.

And I have the right to call him this

because he also is starting to randomly call

my followers pedophiles for no reason i think he's doing it because

he's repeating the false claim that like stallin got with like a 13 year old you know which was a

complete lie created by an actual pedophile who was on Epstein's Blackbook.

I believe it was Timothy Snyder.

Am I wrong?

I believe that was Timothy Snyder.

In any case, let's see how he responded.

So this is his response.

And I'm not kidding when I say this.

The only thing I see when I say this is him saying,

I'm a massive pussy who is scared of debating you.

And I can't look at it without seeing anything else.

It doesn't elicit any reaction in me except, oh yeah, he's scared.

And I thought really long and hard about responding to it but i'm really satisfied with your guys's responses to be honest so good job with that i'm really

satisfied with like you know you guys what you guys said you even

ratioed him with replies i didn't feel like i had anything to add to be honest other than what

you guys already said but this is again praxben trying to act like a normie

uh

you sir he's trying

this is the reaction he thinks he's eliciting

you sir have won the internet

here kind stranger

have some Reddit gold thank you so much

I'm seeing a lot of laziness.

How are so many online in the Discord

and we barely scrape any retweets?

The Discord chat need to be

nuked every time until the RT goal is

reached. We must win the info war.

Yeah.

Yeah, true. But right now we're talking about something else for now

well yeah you're right um what was i gonna say uh i forgot i forgot what i was gonna say um oh yeah

he's like he's expecting like, some Reddit gold for saying this.

Here's some Reddit gold, kind stranger.

Here, have some Reddit gold.

You, sir, have just won the internet.

What an epic reply.

You know, it's like, it's like, it's like, as if it's not glaringly obvious that you're running from a debate,

you're more than willing to make comments on the things I say. You have zero willingness

whatsoever to actually back them up with anything and you know he's asking why should i

i don't care what you guys think why should i debate you because all of your followers can see your

bitch ass that's why because your own followers who you're trying to convince

praxman i'm going to steal your followers. How about that?

Do you know how many people in infrared are ex-libertarians?

I would put that number at like 5%, 5 to 10%.

It doesn't seem like it's a lot, but it's actually

a lot. And

I find that

not the

pedophile types like this guy,

but just the kind of

let's call them Normy libertarians. I think there's a difference.

The hardcore, hardcore, like Austrian, Pinochet based, Javier Malay based, you know, those kind

of libertarians, they're fucking irredeemable, right? But the Normie kind of libertarians they're fucking irredeemable right but the normie kind

who's just like an american is like yeah i don't want the government on my lawn like those type

of people are super super sympathetic to what we say and our messaging you know the Ron Paul kinds I would say

right but these these types are I mean this guy's just a rodent in general right he's

on the right but it's like he's pretty much the bitch boy of the right it's's like the far right, eat this guy for breakfast.

Put it this way.

Praxben is for the far right.

What socialism done left is on the left side of things.

Just to put it into perspective, that's like where he ranks.

You know, the socialism done left just gets kicked around and pissed and shit on all day?

You know?

Because he has a weak position, because this position is weak.

That's this guy, right?

He has a weak position.

He defends every aspect of cultural liberalism.

He pretends like he's some kind of like normie.

See, he's not canceled.

That's why he's a normie.

I'm not saying anything cancelable.

So he's such a normie, right?

Because he's not canceled.

And he doesn't scare the hose.

That's his whole personality.

Let me put it that way.

Praxben's whole personality is that

he thinks he's not

scaring the hose.

And he's trying

really hard not to scare the hose.

But he doesn't understand

that when you try so hard

not to scare the hose,

they get scared of you

because you start to look like the uncanny valley.

You start to enter the territory of the uncanny valley and everyone can see how inauthentic you are.

You know?

Anyway, that's enough of roasting, pit roasting, this pig, this swine, praxben.

That's enough roasting him.

But just, yeah, keep in mind, he's just a kind of bitch anyway let's get into the important part of the stream which is about movies

i just got done watching alex garland's Civil War.

And I'm sure you've seen the trailer of it.

Now, whenever I want to talk about and review a movie, I want to begin by giving my objective thoughts on the quality of the film.

And this is going to be things like how it was filmed,

how enjoyable the experience was, how the acting was, how the writing was,

the set design, just the overall quality of the film objectively.

And here's what I'm going to tell you guys.

And I'm not going to spoil it for you, so don't worry about that. It's very good.

It's actually very good on an objective level. So I'm not going to talk about the ideologically problematic aspects yet. I'm not going to talk about

the significance and meaning of the film and whatever. I'm just going to tell you that it's a very good film.

And there is no reason you should not see this film.

So I am recommending everyone should go and see it before I talk about it.

Honestly, go see it.

You should see it.

I think it has successfully captured the zeit for better or for worse, the zeitgeist of the current moment.

Very well.

I think it is worth seeing, actually, because I think there's a degree of realism to it which I find convincing and I think is just it I'm kind of going to get into talking about it and the things I appreciate about it. But I think you should get used to the imagery that that film is presenting you.

Because I thought it was tasteful.

I understood there's a clear ideological agenda. That was so obvious. I understand that. I understand there's a kind of purpose. There's maybe nefarious purpose of this film. But it was executed in an incredibly tasteful and non-cringy way, I think, and that's all that matters.

So I'm just going to write off the bat recommend it and say that I liked it, and it was a good film.

That being said, the film is not about a civil war, as much as it is about three journalists who are for whom that Civil War is like the context and background going on in the story.

So understand that someone just asked me like who wins in the end.

Ah, the Western forces do spoiler but that's not

that's not the main story that's going on the main that's just going on in the background the

main story is about journalists traveling to DC.

I just spoiled it.

I don't care, though, right?

The main...

I'm not going to...

Who guys grow up?

Who cares, honestly, right?

You're not even going to remember who that is anyway.

The main story is about journalists who are on their way to visit D.C. to interview the president.

So here's what I'm going to tell you ideologically. The film is anti-Trump

propaganda and anti-Maga propaganda.

Basically, what I found surprising, though, is that

it depicts a Trump-like figure who's into his third term,

who has Trump-like mannerisms, who speaks kind of like Trump and rhetorically sounds like Trump, seems like...

But it's kind of confusing, so I won't get too much into it.

But that represents the mainstream USA, and he is in the White House,

and he is laying claim to the United States of America, like the normal America, right?

The more legitimate forces who seem to be better equipped militarily, surprisingly,

are the Western forces of Texas and California, led by those two states.

They seem to have inherited the deep state and the continuity of the like deep state America, right?

They have heavy guns and they have the technology and they're advanced and they're civilized, whatever.

And the film in a brief comment,

it's very interesting,

mentions that in the northwest,

Maoists are running things.

So the other,

Maoists are a faction in this film.

They don't get featured and they only get mentioned once in an offhand comment,

but within this universe of the film,

they literally say Maoist, by the way.

I'm not just saying like, oh, I'm going to deduce their Maoists.

No, he says directly in his offhand comment.

He's like, yeah, or, you know, whether it's this guy or the Western forces or the Portland Maoists.

And then I checked after the movie to see the official map.

And like, it's something like the new people's army or whatever and all

that are the maoist the portland maoos he was talking about and he mentions maoists he mentions

maoists directly he says the word maoist okay so i i appreciate that communists of some kind word Maoist. Okay. So I

appreciate that communists

of some kind are a faction in this

film and thanks

for a shout-out because we are going to be a

faction in the American Civil War, right?

Anyway,

I appreciate this film, not because I think it's exactly how I think a Civil War will look like, but more so because I think that it depicts how a civil war is possible in terms of our ability to imagine one.

Because I think for a lot of people, a civil war in America is unimaginable.

It's like, how would that work?

Right?

Like what?

Everything is just going to be chaos and pandemonium.

And I think the film does a good job of kind of showing how, no, there's continuity and

there's regularity of life.

Hotels are still working.

There's still things up and running.

It's just that there's just all these interruptions now.

So the contrast between the normal goings of life and the violence of a civil war, I think, was the perfect mix, the perfect balance,

and reflective of how civil wars actually look like in the modern, in the contemporary context context i think it did a good job of that

and i i thought i commend it just for that reason just the ability to imagine it right

that wasn't and also i mean

the scenery was just so great

uh now i'll i guess

i haven't talked about all the good things about it i'm not just a movie reviewer i want

you guys to get something out of this

if you want just a movie reviewer. I want you guys to get something out of this.

If you want just a movie review, go fucking watch a movie critic

or some shit, right? I'll tell you

what I think is problematic about the film.

It has no bearings on whether you

should watch or not. It's a good film.

But what do I think is

ideologically problematic?

Firstly, I think there's a nefarious

agenda behind this film because

it depicts

a civil war as something so

tragic and terrifying that

I think they're releasing it to somehow convince the public guys don't have a civil war and when when the crossword when the Rubicon comes of whether there's going to be a civil war let's just rally behind the unified America to go fight China or something. And then I am worried that

this film historically will just serve the purpose of reinvigorating a false sense of morale to rally consensus for imperialism.

That's what I'm worried about.

I'm worried that this film will just be like, make us nostalgic for the rotten system we currently have.

And it's almost like the film is like fear, fear propaganda.

Like, this is what's going to happen if you don't fall in line and send your money to Ukraine, you know?

So that's what I, potentially that's something I think is sinister maybe.

But on the other hand, I find it curious that in the film the secessionists who seem like they're depicted as the good guys in part

the secessionists are not the trump people the secessionists are the kind of deep state Democrats and rhinos, let's say, right?

And Trump is the one who's actually like in the White House on his third term. That's what it says, right?

So in terms of who started the civil war like who shot the

first gun it seems like it's the western forces in the film who started it and shot the

first gun so that may be some counter evidence, let's say, to the theory that the film might attempt to serve the purpose of kind of discouraging or scaring people to fall in line. Because if that's what its purpose was,

I mean, it's clearly not made by a MAGA guy.

They demonize MAGA in the film.

And I'll tell you how.

They basically, the scene that you saw from the trailer of that guy who has he's like are you

americans which what kind of american in the film that's actually a racial question

it's not about like what faction are you part of he's actually asking like are you a real

white american or are you some kind of like, you know, uh, central or South American?

And then he straight up just shoots a guy is like a journalist and he's like crying because his friend just got shot and he's like, where are you from?

And the guy's like crying and he's like, Hong Kong, China, bah, shoots him right away.

By the way, the guns are very loud in this movie.

It's very realistic.

And I saw it in IMAX.

So it's, it's kind of a, that, see, on the one hand, it's a little tasteless, but on the other hand, there's something realistic about it because I literally interact with these psychos on social media who straight up say, yeah, we need to just kill every non-white person. Or if you're not white, you're not a real American. So and the guy, the age of the person who they showed doing that seemed like it would be like your average social media wignat to be honest

so it seemed a little convincing to me i'm not going to lie maybe i was sciopped but like i'm like

you know maybe i could see that happening maybe you you know, because the guy is young enough. If he was older, I don't think it would be realistic. But he was like a young punk who was doing this. I kind of found it a little bit unsettlingly realistic.

But not to say that this is Maga, but I'm just saying like, you know, they demonize Maga in the film.

That's all you need to know, right?

They demonize Trump and Maga, but not in a tasteless way.

In an unfair way, definitely.

When I say in a not tasteless way, I don't mean like, it's not like cartoonish, where it's just kind of like ridiculous, but it is, it is definitely like an agenda.

They're definitely doing it from a line malicious

dishonest purposes but like they do it very subtly and very well i think very well in the sense

of like efficiently done um so i don't know if this is actually serving the purpose of making people fall in line for the current system.

Because all signs point to Trump winning in 2024.

Is it encouraging secession?

You know, is it, is it preparing us for California to secede in the event of a Trump presidency and us to rally behind the Western forces, quote unquote?

I don't know.

Maybe it's not that simple.

I'm not sure, but that's one dimension of the film I wanted to bring to your attention. I don't think the film was nearly as scary as the real Civil War will be.

You don't really see the, you see an out, even the psychopathy that it shows is nowhere near the level I think it would actually be at.

I think in a real Civil War, people would really lose their minds, and it would be much more violent and gory and horrific than what the film depicts so that's maybe a criticism but they're

having it's rated r it's not going to be rated adult only or whatever or rated x uh which it would probably have to if they wanted to take it to that level.

I, in terms of the message of the film,

I mean, it's very liberal

in the New York Times liberal kind of way.

But I was, I think one of the things I was impressed by

is that it seems like liberals have lost their mind.

And in this case, it kind of seems like, all right, well, these guys still have head on their shoulder and they still are planning and plotting and some some sense of

rationality maybe not rationality as I would see it but on their own terms right um what else did i want to say

i think that this film

um

yes i really i don't actually know the portland mawis don't deserve a scene i'm really

scared i want to pretend in my head that the portland maoist quote unquote are actually like farmers

or something from the north because if they actually

showed us these like hipster you know chaz freaks and called those mawis i would have lost my

shit and walked out of the theater out of embarrassment.

Like, oh my God.

That's a line too far.

That they crossed it too far, right?

So I'm actually glad they didn't show them but um i always said i think this is the film that

they're making in order to prevent the thing from happening.

Like, okay, we made the film.

And therefore, it won't actually happen in real life.

But I think because it's so overtly anti-Trump, that the film will fail in its intended goal.

People will see it and see how biased it is and be like, then QAnon is going to be like,

this film is created by, you know, the deep state, which it probably is.

And this film will itself be part of the American Civil War.

Like this film itself is going to be an accessory to the American Civil War by like being a contentious battleground

where they're going to, it's going to be interpreted as taking the side of the liberals or taking the side of the Democrat deep state or whatever.

So that's a funny irony. I don't think, see, I think the guy's goal was like, I think he said something like, I wanted to make this film to have all Americans come together and kind of realize how much we've been polarized and realize the horror of our polarization.

And I'm like, but this film not only will not make us reflect on the polarization, it will participate in the polarization.

It's going to be seen, its reception will be controversial.

Let me see.

I would be surprised if the audience... Oh, the audience scored didn't come out yet.

The critics like it, 84%.

But I'm not sure

I don't know

I don't know

I mean it's

objectively a good movie.

That's the thing.

I don't have to like it ideologically to understand.

It's objectively a good movie.

There's absolutely no arguing about that.

It's objectively a good film. But I'm just saying it's even this film will not escape America's polarization.

I think that's what I'm trying to say.

It's not going to escape

the division within America

that it itself is trying to depict.

And that's what's tragic about it, maybe.

Maybe the real American Civil War will give this one a run for its money

probably right because I think I think there's this idea that like okay we depicted the Civil War

fictional no way that can actually happen.

That would be just like a movie then, right?

And it's like, well,

it's not going to be just like the movie. It's going to be even

worse. The movie's just going to be

a footnote.

But here's something I can say

to it, and then I'm going to move on to Dune.

To its credit, it did invoke a deep, to me, a deep horror in general of anticipating how scary American civil war will be.

And I think the movie did a good job of this.

Because here in America, we lack fundamental civilizational norms

that we are all united by

and the terrifying

thing about a civil war

is that it will

be it will not

have any rules every civil war in history has had rules which here or there are violated sure, but there are unspoken rules in war. I think all wars have

unspoken rules that are just based on the civilization and the culture, the common culture.

But the terrifying thing about the American Civil War is not only do we lack that,

but we are testing ourselves, it's almost like, to really see what we're made of because of the lack of that.

People, it's kind of like this nihilism of like, you know, what's stopping me.

Yeah, I can do it.

What's stopping me?

You know, we don't have a tradition of statehood.

We don't have a right of statehood.

We don't...

It's not even like where my parents were born in Lebanon, there's rights of governance and power based on tribal authority, right? We don't have that here. We don't have any kind of traditional rights of authority, power, and statehood at all. So it's just this kind of abyss that we're facing of really pure chaos, really pure chaos. It's going to open a portal to demon straight out of hell

you know

that's that's that's that's that's i think it if it could the film correctly evoke the

dread existential dread i have

anticipating and thinking about that

like it's going to get really all of the stupidities anticipating and thinking about that.

Like, it's going to get really... All of the stupidities and ignorance,

Americans and people in the West have in general,

it's going to get really, really nasty,

like really nasty,

because they're going to start acting on them.

You know, people are going to start acting on them you know people are going to start acting upon their ignorance and their blindness see i've always talked about the blindness of the west the blindness of Western civilization.

There's a fundamental blindness.

Even in terms of how we understand power, in this

Philistine way, oh, power is just based

on a utilitarian, you know,

might is right, and you know, it's just whoever can have, we have a completely backward understanding of how everything works when it comes to civilization.

And we are really conceded about that.

And for that to be put into practice somehow

and really tested and tried in a way,

I think it's going to be really scary.

You know, like, put it this way.

This is what scares me. You know, like, put it this way. This is what scares me.

You know, I think many Americans have a silly conception, for example, of how the Roman Empire was.

They probably have this idea, and they're like, no, the Roman Empire was. They probably have this idea and they're like,

no, the Roman Empire was just like,

pure Nietzsche and might is right.

And if you ruled over someone,

you did anything you wanted to them,

to your heart's content.

And they don't understand how no there's a deeper texture of unspoken rules and uh protocols of association culture and

things like that which they don't understand.

That's fine. You got history wrong. You don't understand history.

Oh, Stalin? That was just one guy. Did whatever he wanted and ruled everyone and forced his

will on everyone else. Like, yeah, this is clearly false

conceptions of how civilization works.

Right?

But imagine if those are put into practice here.

Imagine if these false conceptions and ideas,

these Philistine ideas Americans have,

of how the world works,

and they start acting upon that false conception.

How scary is that? How terrifying is that? Right? How actually terrified? I'm going to go so far as to say,

the American Civil War will be way worse than what Nazi Germany,

than Nazi Germany itself.

Like we're going to see horrors worse than the Nazis and worse than fascism.

No, I'm not saying fascism is coming to America.

I'm saying something much worse,

probably will.

And scarier, right?

Real, real terror.

And I know this

because the same thing happened in Liberia.

And Liberia uniquely.

I'm not saying, oh, just some African cat.

No, no, no, no, no.

Specifically, Liberia.

This is where it happened.

Things happen in Liberia that didn't happen in Rwanda or the Congo or other, you know, places of these conflicts.

Liberia specifically was hell on earth. Why? Because it was an American colony.

And Liberia was a real live example of, I think, what an American Civil War would...

The terror, if you understand, the Liberian Civil War, the terror of it was really that like General

but naked is rising

from the ranks. Anyone can

just start an army like any army

of killer clowns.

If it works, it works.

You know? See, for example,

traditionally in a civil war

to start an army

to be a leader

you need to have some kind of historical

legitimacy no I am the true

Pharaoh I am the true

democratic authority no I am the true democratic authority.

No, I am the true

representative of the people.

Something like that, of the nation.

Something, right?

You need to have something that firmly

roots you in some kind of

legitimacy.

And in Liberia, they didn't have that.

They just had whatever worked.

Drugs, drug the kids, start an army, be general butt naked.

It works, it works.

Does it have to be legitimate?

No, but you have guns and you have power, so who cares, right?

I think that's what will happen here. Same exact thing, because that's our pragmatic philosophy, that's our pragmatic logos uh logos as dougan calls it here in america you know that's kind of the outlook that is at the base of american civilization now i'd like to say um American civilization.

Now, I'd like to say? Um.

So yes, I thought it was good.

Um. I did hear some bad things about Alex Garland.

I don't remember exactly.

But I struggle to understand the agenda of this film because I heard some leftists who were concerned that all Alex Garland is a Nazi and he's a fascist and I don't know who he is but that's why when i was going into the film i was expecting

it to be like pro trump or pro maga because leftists were like attacking him but it wasn't at all

it was the opposite you are made to be more sympathetic with the western forces

than you are with the trump and the maga people and the boogaloo boys or whatever right

intermission for debater which debater and where

who is who is who is this been

uh speak on the

dictatorship of the

proletariat and the

progression of garment within

I think Ben

not to insult you

but it just kind of

sounds like a guy

who has his own idea

that he would like a platform to present rather than anything to debate on.

Because what are you actually debating about?

What's the point of contention?

I don't fucking care about your unique vision of a future government. Sorry to be rude, but I also think it's

rude to want to interrupt the entire stream to present, to pitch your idea to me.

You know, I don't care.

Okay.

Um. I'm gonna just hear what this guy wants

Yo, what's up?

Make it quick.

What do you want to debate about?

Man, I'm just...

Man.

What's up, dude?

Yeah, what did you want to think about?

Oh, um, the Continental Congress and what it, and it's precursorship to the, uh, what do you call that?

Um, the dictatorship of the proletary. What? to the, what do you call that?

The dictatorship of the proletary. What do you disagree with me about specifically that you would like to debate on?

Disagree with you. I don't even know who you are, dude.

Okay, bye.

So that's kind of

a waste of my time.

You know, he's

yapping about the Continental Congress.

Like, what does that have to do with me what does that actually

have to do with me what does that actually have to do with me what does that actually have to do with me

um yeah what it just bizarre weird thing to say uh anyway he's talking about mind conff and how he's a political science in the discord what What does he want?

I don't even know what...

I gave him an opportunity to present something, and he just mentioned...

Yip yap, the Continental Congress is a prerequisite for the dictatorship

of the proletary. Okay.

Cool. That sounds like

a paragraph someone to write in serious

chat as like a

what do you call it?

Food for thought

kind of thing. Not really uh let me come and show

you and debate you about this kind of thing yeah the droplets yeah yeah really yeah

um anyway

um anyway

let me talk about

dune two uh

i have such mixed feelings. Because like Civil War, I, okay, first of all, I wanted to go into

Dune 2 hating it and cringing at the whole thing, but it was very enjoyable. Okay, let's start

there. I haven't quite said it was a good film, but I said it was very enjoyable.

And you know what?

I will say that of every single epic sci-fi i've ever seen

i'm per i'm uh prefaceing that by saying epic

terminator two like

it's no comparison

um

the pacing was the best of any epic fantasy sci-fi film i've ever seen any epic

blockbuster movie in general i would probably say the pacing was perfection it the pacing was perfection. Say for June. I was so impressed by the pacing. I was so impressed how satisfying the whole thing was. The buildup, the arc, you know, the beginning, the middle, the end, just pure perfection.

Pure perfection.

I mean, it was so satisfying how they actually ended.

I was scared that they were going to end off, and then the next film is when we're going to have the battle.

But no, no, no, they finished it up.

They finished the first book completely. And I'm very, very happy about that. The Harkininin.

The best sci-fi villains ever.

The most convincing, convincing bad guys I've ever seen ever.

They are so grotesque, so despicable, so scary and brutal and terrifying.

So, so well done.

Everything from how their planet looks with the sun and how they look.

It's just everything.

Those scary leather monster creatures.

It's such a convincingly disturbing,

scary, brutal

society and people

and also

the guy who

Paul fights

in the end

very good character arc

like extremely good character arc

how that all played out

you know it's a great

form of storytelling I have to say it was a good film, and I was

going into it wanting to hate it because I hate Timothy Chamalay. And let me be clear, Timothy

Chamalay did annoy me a few times, but you know what, only a few times.

I think I was expecting him to be more like an emotional, angsty teen.

And he was at the end, which was annoying, when he was like talking to the emperor,

you killed my father! Nobody cares, dude. But before that, the whole time he was chill. Like,

he was kind of stoic, wouldn't raise his voice that much

he's just kind of chilling

and I

I was like it made it more bearable

like okay he's not he's not an angsty

annoying punk

um I thought it was just going to be like a tic-tock teen angst of a guy like

you know nobody understands me

and i thought it would be like that and I was preparing for that

but it wasn't so I'm I appreciate

but I still hate how he looks

I still hate his face but

you know who cares right

um

now Um Now I

Uh

The second part of my commentary is just going to talk about

The vibe of

The design and costumes and the technology and the tone and things like that.

I'm very divided on this, you know, because I said this about Dune 1.

I'm very divided, you know.

So first, I'm not complaining that these movies are not futuristic or high-tech enough because one of the very

interesting things about Dune in the sci-fi universe of Dune and I think this

is something people like David Graber the anthropologist would appreciate

the late David Graber he's dead, right?

Is that we have this idea that in a sci-fi universe, like technology was a line goes up forever and that's it.

But it's very interesting because in this universe, 10,000 years before the current events,

there was something called the Butlerian jihad, where there is somehow a unanimous agreement

by all civilization that they would not use computers they would not use robots they have the capacity to do it but they just refuse to out of some kind of honor and you know that seems really unrealistic but it has

historical precedent for example Asian societies in East Asia I believe believe

it was shine I remember reading about it.

They had the ability to make weapons and use guns and things like that, but they didn't because it was a violation of their honor.

I remember recalling a specific battle, specific war, we're like, no, they had the

capacity and they knew about how to do it and they, like, it was possible, but they wouldn't do it.

This actually holds true for pre-modern, uh, the pre-modern world in general.

Technology was not lacking because of a lack of progress.

It was just unthinkable for them.

It was unthinkable. It was

unthinkable.

It was

unimaginable.

Right?

Existentially, unimaginable.

Ontologically, unimaginable.

It's possible, yes, but the very notion of some kind of pure possibility,

of acting on behalf of a pure possibility without any regard for how that's integrated with a wider holistic

cosmology and you know a wider integrated sense of moors and tradition and so on that was not

thinkable that violent level of abstraction was not

thinkable a new technology had to be seamlessly harmonious with the continuity

of tradition and the moors of life and the holistic cosmology, so on and so on.

You couldn't just violently abstract from everything and just say, okay, what can we do from

scratch, you know, which is the origin of modern science in Western Europe, right?

So it wasn't that they lacked the means to do this.

They did.

They did.

They had their raw materials.

They had a sufficient level of knowledge of how things worked.

What they didn't have is the willingness, in a way, to do it.

Because it would violate their honor.

So that has real historical precedent.

And it's very interesting that the American story of Dune, it's an American science fiction, it's like they have this ability to do it, but they refuse to.

And I think the same is probably the reason why they use swords rather than guns or something else. Yeah, you have the ability, but you use

swords, you know?

So I very much appreciate the sci-fi setting of Dune.

And I think

my issue is not

the lack of advanced technology

in general

but

I think that being

said

there's a charm to David Lynch's version of Dune.

I'm not trying to romanticize that film, which I think is lost in the recent ones.

And I think the recent ones kind of are more British style, which is just

this kind of fascination, like a Blakean fascination with the sublime, the threshold at which we reach the absolute and the sublime. And we're just, just on the threshold of it and it's piercing at us. And we're kind of enamored by it, right?

And I think that is kind of the British way, but notwithstanding the ability to kind of depict less technologically sophisticated sci-fi setting and depict a very traditional society and whatever.

I think David Lynch wasn't far off the mark when it comes to the wackiness of his costumes and the design and stuff in general.

Like, I think what Dune should have, and maybe I am not familiar enough with the books to make this statement, but I would prefer a wackier kind of tone and theme theme

more outlandish and wackier

where it's not

it's not depicting advanced technology

but it's depicting like like a car like a a truck with like you know

that it's almost like dr seuss like it's stacked together with a bunch of crazy stuff uh

uh

uh

lopped onto it

and it's just

just kind of

uh testing your ability to suspend

disbelief

I think there's an American

aspect you know, of wackiness that's missing. It's too

brooding. It's too brooding and too serious. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's too brooding and too serious.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a beautiful film.

But I also would appreciate a more weird film.

That's what I mean.

It's not weird enough to be Dune, which is to uniquely tell this American story of Dune.

It's not weird enough.

I would prefer it to have been more weird and wacky and confusing even like what the hell is going on in this but it works like it needs to be at that american kind of feel it's way too um brooding and way too serious and way too kind of um dark you know slow and stuff this is my armchair criticism

and I am saying

I wish there was a totally different

I just I'm not saying this to say this movie's bad

I'm just saying this to say this movie's bad. I'm just saying it to

ask people to appreciate

that this is not the,

this is not

the only or even necessarily the best way to adapt Dune.

It's just the one we have.

But it's not necessarily like the most, the best possible way that we could imagine adapting Dune.

Yeah, that Volk Vulture, that's a very good point.

There's nothing about the Navigator Guild.

Because I think the Navigator Guild is a little too weird. You know,

when it comes to the Benny Jeseret and all these other, I guess, sacred institutions where they're

depicting, it's like you can, there's no way to make light of it.

It's very serious stuff.

But the Navigator Guild is where things get a little quirky and weird, right?

Maybe Lynch took it too far in a lot of ways.

I'm not romanticizing it, but I think there's a quirkiness and weirdness to Dune that is missing here, which I would have appreciated seeing.

On the flip side, um, the, the, the the there this is a kind of um this is a way to make american audiences fascinated with Islam in ways that I don't think they were before.

And I have to appreciate a kind of evocation of an Islamic theme

combined with

science fiction that I think is very unique and cool.

You know, I, the director kept saying, no, no, the the story of paul is like supposed to be a

cautionary tale and you're not supposed to side with him and i that's such bs because he's

clearly the you're clearly rooting for him the whole way through you're clearly convinced

that he is some kind of Messiah yourself

and he's clearly not the bad guy for an audience member if the director was trying to make him

appear as like oh no this is a day the warning's danger of religious fanaticism he did a bad job of making us not think that's a really neat based thing that's worthy of our sympathy um Um, I think Islam in America among young people is becoming a little bit vogue and trendy, not as a religion necessarily, but as a kind of style. I've noticed that. I'm not necessarily hating on it but i'm just saying uh it's a fact um i did i did very much, and I have thoughts on this,

kind of getting into the part three take on the film,

which I'm going to extensively get into more.

I did, I think appreciate the film's exploration of themes of faith in general faith um specifically

Faith

What was I going to say on this actually?

I actually did.

Basically, basically, it stands out to me like when his mother goes, like, did you see the beauty and the horror of it.

Like, that is clearly the real, the sublime, right?

And no, no, this is what it got me thinking about a little bit that I wanted to present.

It's like, when you have the object, like, real, right, sublime, when that is your motivation to fight in a war, when that is your motivation to do anything whatsoever, you are completely untethered by any obstacles like you are directly untethered by any obstacles

like you you are directly not only able to carry out tasks that you wouldn't

otherwise be able to but you're able to carry out tasks that you wouldn't otherwise be able to, but you're able to do them

intuitively and naturally.

Like, this is the, the exploration of the theme of faith, I thought was interesting and compelling

because faith as faith in the sublime. and compelling because

faith as faith

in the sublime

the real

not just

some abstract

principle

like like

some

some prax ben

who's just like

the non-aggressive principle not like fucking nerd emoji shit but no something that you can actually do sleepwalking half asleep not thinking turn your brain off and you fall into carrying a scimitar and beheading your enemies.

That's faith, because you are compelled by the real.

You can fall into it.

It's a faith you have not only consciously, but also unconsciously, right?

And I think this is something lacking in America,

but something people are searching for.

It's precisely that kind of faith faith a faith which will allow people to really really do things they believe in and be unfettered by this kind of...

Thank you, Anonymous.

I wrote an article on some coincidences between infrared and Amlo's fourth transformation

in the hope of building some bridges.

I would be honored if you gave it a quick look. Dot, it's in Discord, serious chat.

Sure, man, yeah. I'll take a look after stream. Thank you. Anyway, um I forgot what I was saying.

Yeah, let's actually get into it though, because I'm kind of trimming the bushes.

So let's actually get into it.

What do I want to say about June 2?

I want to say about June 2 that my biggest problem, yeah, it's a good film. I already reviewed it, gave it a good review, whatever. But my biggest problem with June 2 is, and this is the critique that is going to probably extend to the book as well, as that the story isn't real.

And you might say, Haas, come on. It's fiction.

You're really going to say you don't like the film because it's or you have a problem with things so much crass you're really going to say you have a problem with it because it's not real because it's like made up fiction no no no i don't have a problem that it's fiction i don't have a problem that it's science fiction and it's depicting things that are not empirically real or whatever. I don't think it's real in terms of the story that I saw. And the thing that bothered me a lot about the story and the myth of Paul Atrades is how much it reminds me of Dineries from Game of Thrones.

And I think there's something about it which is based in the romantic unhappy consciousness

and something fundamentally anti-Higelian about figures like Paul Atreides and Dineries and I'll explain it.

In both the case of Paul and Denaries, both of them still have a chip on their shoulder of unresolved, let's say, unresolved drama, unresolved strife and unresolved drama,

unresolved strife, and unresolved beef.

Dineries, her family was killed and usurped.

Paul Atreides was killed and usurped.

So what ends up happening is something I think is really perverse is they go and find some brown savages who who they seamlessly integrate within and then

it's almost

it's like

you get

your cake

and you eat it

too

not only do

they find new

meaning and

discover

oh

you know

I'm part of

this new people

now who I've

integrated within.

But they become a part...

They become a part of your drama as the ultimate...

Like, you go and get them and then they, they compound the intensity of your unhappy consciousness.

They compound the intensity of the beef that you have of wanting to avenge, you know, something immediately that just happened to you.

And I think it's a cop-out, and I think it's such a vain fantasy.

Put it this way, this is how I'm going to phrase it.

You might not understand what I mean.

Like, Paul Atreides goes through this devastating event where the Harkinanin come, they kill his father, they usurp everything, him and his mother are thrown on into the desert.

But at no point is he actually able to finally accept that this happens and just like, in a way, be at peace with it,

and discover a new truth out of it, to be reconciled in the Higelian sense.

Instead, the intensity of his...

of his delusional inability to accept what just happened

is reinforced by this other adventure he goes on meeting the brown people in the desert. I don't mean to

racialize it, but it's the same with Dineries. You know, both of them reflect this kind of

personality of an American brat who's like, oh yeah, oh yeah, mom and dad?

Or this bad thing just happened to me?

Well, the whole world feels my pain now,

and I'm going to burn, I'm going to attack everyone until

everyone realizes

how much you know I just find

it so insufferable and I really

hate it

I really hate it I find this

exactly what Hegel describes

as false and I find this as a false and inauthentic way of depicting how actual historical events occur, just in a sense of how the myth of a hero is born, the hero's journey.

I think this is an American perversion of the hero's journey.

The hero's journey typically has it, so you do need to humble yourself and go low and lose it all and have no expectations about immediately ameliorating the wound that was just dealt to you, right? And then only later

do you get justice, but in a way you didn't expect, you didn't see coming, and reflects the

justice of a higher force of history or of the story.

It's that inadvertence and indirect justice, what Hegel calls the cunning of reason,

that I think is missing in characters like Paul Atreides or Denaries from Game of Thrones.

I think that they just kind of, it's all of the traits of someone who is entering psychosis because of their inability to be reconciled with a trauma,

except the thrill that they're getting out of it is that the psychosis is being reinforced and encouraged by reality.

I mean, DeNeres has this psychosis,

which is quite literally being carried off the back

of this, like, foreign army of nomadic what do you call them

equestrians the Dothraki

and in Paul's case the desert nomads

but in both cases

the psychosis of a kind of spoiled brat subject who refuses to make peace with their trauma,

weaponizes the vigor, finds reflection

in the vigor and vitality

of some foreign people.

And I think this is the quintessential

mentality of

the American liberal

brat college subject

this is basically what white bitches think when they're doing

BLM you know

when they're when they're doing the decolonial stuff they're doing BLM, you know, when they're,

when they're doing the decolonial stuff,

they're like,

they're like,

they have some kind of trauma,

their mom or dad are mean to them or something,

or, you know, they didn't,

you don't understand me, but these black people will and it's this kind of

quintessential cop out of a privileged american young person who wants to go to the indigenous tribes and see in them a way of like, it's almost like how red libs see communist countries. It's literally the same thing. It's like they think that rather than be at peace with the specific problem that they have and find a resolution for it, that other people's like, okay, I'm a white woman.

I, you know, I saw the same thing.

Someone I know, not me, was watching Griselda on Netflix.

It's the same thing that happened.

Griselda goes to all the new Cuban immigrants.

I'm a woman, and everyone treats me me like shit and people treat you like shit because

you're oppressed P.O.C. Cuban immigrants. So we're going to unite together and prove them all wrong.

And it's the Denari's moment. That's the Paula Trades moment where somehow the grievance of a spoiled brat, let's say, they think, oh, my grievance is just, I'm going to find common ground with the struggle of indigenous people or black people or Mexicans or something

and it's going to vindicate me. It's going to vindicate my unhappy conscience. It's going to vindicate my

my specific problem, my specific psychosis.

That's what I mean.

Like, they think that native Indian tribes are going to vindicate and reinforce their psychosis.

I'm a Portland anarchist.

I'm antisocial and totally not able to square with reality.

So I'm going to run to these native Indians and they're going to vindicate

my psychosis for me.

Or

it's going to be Palestinians. Or

it's going to be, you know,

it's going to be

Philippine Maoists, or it's going to be

something else. They run, run away. Oh, it's going to be the Dothraki. Oh, it's going to be Philippine Maoists, or it's going to be something else. They run, run away. Oh,

it's going to be the Dothraki. Oh, it's going to be the Fremen, right? Stigmarous. Thank you so much.

And I find this to be an extremely false, false kind of fantasy.

Not because it's a fantasy, because it's a false fantasy.

It's not the right kind of fantasy.

So, again, in keeping with my tradition of restructuring a film to correct

its errors ideologically

for the sensors so that

when we are in power it will be

acceptable. How can I

resolve the problem of

the film like Dune-Tune? How should it have

been actually?

Before I get into that,

there's one thing I did appreciate about it,

which I think

throws this off a little bit.

Is this Paul is revealed to be

the grandson of

the Harkening.

I thought that was a very, very good

plot device, which redeems

some of the story, actually.

Because that was a way of the resolution of the kind of petty dispute between the House of Trades and the House Harkinen.

And when he discovers he is also par tarconin

I think that

there's potential

there's a potential

kind of Hegelian

significance to that that maybe we can work with it

then then significance to that, that maybe we can work with it.

Then I also like, see, Zendaya represents, this is what I like about the film a little bit, is that the fremen were not the noble savages, as it was with the blue people in Avatar.

The instinct of the noble savage kind of blue people from Avatar, you know, um, liberal, decolonial, whatever.

That was Zendaya, who was like, fuck off, Paul, you're a white boy.

And we're just going to... Only Fremen

voices are allowed here.

And I like how Zendaya gets completely

marginalized.

Because the battle of the

Fremen is not... This is what I

like about the film.

They didn't depict a battle between

pre-modern noble savages

and the advanced

brutal forces of modernity

and technology.

That is the thing I hate,

kind of stupid trope the fremen were more than willing to use any

weapons and equipment and means at their disposal including nukes very cool um moreover the it's clear that what the Harkinin represent.

They represent, I know it's a cheap analysis that I use for all my films,

modernity, modernity, modernity, but they represent a specific dimension of the modern, which is specific dimension of the modern

which is the dimension of the

brutality

and cruelty, pure

brutality and cruelty.

The pure brutality and cruelty

almost to the point of worship,

almost metaphysical worship, right?

Um,

and

and And the fact that Paul is part hearkening means that it's not just, you know, the noble house, Atreides, the noble house atrates the noble uh...

billionaire

you know the noble billionaire who's weaponizing p o c to enforce his monopoly

against the bad one

he is part harkinanin, which means part of that brutality and part of that

cruelty of the Harkinin is in him as well and is appropriated by the Freemanemen as well we may expect right so this is something nice i suppose

i also like how zendaya becomes completely marginalized uh she she is like sacrifice. She represents the possibility of the fremen becoming like noble savages like Avatar and she's totally just marginalized. Nope, not going to happen.

Not going to happen.

They're going to serve this higher purpose, this higher historical purpose that makes them at an equal level with the modern subject, right?

They have a higher historical purpose than just some nativistic, you know, romantic smallness in the desert.

So I like what they did to Zandaya, actually.

I don't remember her name, that's why I'm saying Zendaya It's not in the book

Yeah I actually think that's cool

Because I think the director's

Intention was for us to sympathize with Zendaya.

But I didn't.

Ha ha.

I win.

Anyway,

no,

no,

how should it,

how should it have been?

How should it have been?

I would have preferred that first of all I would have preferred that we don't just have the Harkinen

and the Freeman and then Paul Atre, who's upset that his dad died.

As a matter of fact, I think Paul Atradis should have shamefully accepted the victory of the Harkinanen, stripped of all political power, and thrown to the lowest ranks and slums of society on Iraqis of the settlers. There should be three elements.

The Harkinans, people who have come to work, like, let's say the proletarians and then the freemen so the imperial british empire

the settlers and then the indigenous freemen that should be three elements not two that's how i

would set up the film. And after generations and generations, the Atreides family was just forgotten, right?

And Paul's descendant, maybe he's aware that he's the descendant of house atreides but he is under no illusion whatsoever

that he's going to avenge anything no that's done that's over like that's completely over with

right so he lives a humble life you know he lives in some village on the outskirts of the capital.

He's the son of a minor or whatever people do on that planet.

I don't care.

Or he's an orphan.

Maybe that would be more powerful.

If you want to keep in with the Islamic themes, he's just an orphan.

Doesn't even have parents.

His parents got killed because they died of disease or something.

I don't know.

He's taken in by village, someone in the village, who works a very

humble job. Maybe they have a market stand. And they are kind of living under their brutal

domination of the Harkening.

And then in the desert, there's the freemen who everyone's scared of, right?

And I think that's the setting to start with. And then all the the arc of that that character who's the replacement for Paul,

a guy who comes from a very humble origin, but has that in his blood, just doesn't have any hope

that, you know, I'm going to restore House of Trades.

That's ridiculous.

It's been like 200 years since that happened.

But then through the course of events,

I guess as they would happen,

somehow he winds up in the desert

and he gets taken in by the Freeman

and, you know, they get caught up in some skirmishes with the... and he gets taken in by the freemen and you know they get caught up in some

skirmishes with the then he um realizes and reawakens to his bloodline but he's motivated by a higher

purpose now, completely

cut off from his parochial

petty grievance of what

House Harkinen did

to his ancestors,

he's able to rediscover

the injustice of that event

in a totally inadvertent way, in an indirect way, only through his, only through the development of his consciousness of the injustice being imposed upon the Fremen and, let's the settler workers of irakus is he able to

rediscover and appreciate the injustice of what happened to house at tradies so it's all inverting

it's not a steady psychotic

and perverse

stream

of unhappy

consciousness

that all

these

seamlessly

blends in

and I'm

just,

I'm like

Anakin Skywalker

from the

third film

where he's just

like an

angsty

scene is like

like,

like,

like I am Polit he's like, like, I am Paul Atreides and

no, no, no, no, that's not,

there's none of that angst,

there's none of that vainness,

there's none of that vainness.

That's a true storytelling, you know?

Then the freemen make an alliance with The peasant whatever you want to call these people are the workers the village people the village people let's call them the village people

The village people make an alliance with the fremen Let's call them the village people. The village people make an alliance with the Fremen.

Let's call this. That's not call him Paul. Let's call him Saul. Saul becomes the hero.

And he is leading the jihad, the holy war.

And he's not motivated by his personal family grievance he's motivated by the devotion he has to his friends and his family in the village his adopted family and the people in general that he knows in his community.

And that's a true hero.

That's a true hero.

You know, that's a true hero.

And he's fighting the Harkening because the Harkinen are taxing everybody and they're oppressing everyone and their tyrants. And, you know, I think that would be such a beautiful story. And much, much better than, and and Timothy Chamalay is not.

I'm getting close to Luke Skywalker now.

You're right, I am.

You're actually right.

I think Luke Skywalker is a better...

But, but, but it's Luke Skywalker, but not as a Buddhist, but as a Muslim.

So he does become the Messiah.

Make no mistake of that.

The character I'm talking about, it's the same plot in terms of like he drinks the blue piss or whatever.

He becomes the Messiah.

That all happens.

But the vanity is gone.

That's what I'm saying.

The vanity is gone.

He becomes a true hero of the myths of antiquity.

You know? Like a true

hero.

Selfless,

devoted,

you know,

brave, courageous

warrior.

That would be and wise leader.

That's an acquiring wisdom, you know.

That would be a great film

that would be a great film anyway that's that's how I would correct the error and if you if you understand the key point the key point the error is I think it's false how seamless the continuity is between

Paul Atreides grievance he has with the Harkinanin on a personal level and the grievance he has with the Harkinen on a personal level and the grievance the Freeman have with the Harkin it.

I think that's a little opportunistic and it's disguising.

It's not harm, there's no harmony between the two. It's not reconcilciled in order for it to be reconciled the

injustice of what happened to the atrates personally needs to be rediscovered in a totally new way

and a non-immediate way as an inadvertent result

of some other struggle

and that's how you make the story

Hegelian. That's how you make the story

Hegelian.

And I think

Star Wars stole a lot

from Dune probably

like the wackiness

of the Tuscan Raiders

and like

Jabba the Hut

like that should all be Dune

actually you know?

That style of, like, showing things.

And, like, Moss Isley Cantina.

If you notice something, the best parts of the first Star Wars films are on that desert setting planet, right?

Moss Isley Cantina and, Jabba the HUD and Tatooine or whatever.

Like that's really, and Han Solo, like, that should all be incorporated in June.

Um,

and then get rid of this, like, gay stuff about the force or whatever.

Yeah.

I thought Paul was being cynical the whole time just using the fremen.

You know, it's like, I don't think so.

I think he is, I think it's just so vain.

I think it's so, I don't like this idea of a character becoming traumatized and then acquiring superhuman abilities to avenge their trauma or to respond to it.

I find this vein and I reject it in general.

These are my preliminary. These are my thoughts, I guess. That guess this that's it anyway guys i'll see you sunday

see you guys sunday good stream good stream

See you guys Sunday Bye bye bye I'll do the Patreon tomorrow

You gotta actually go to bed

Bye guys