🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

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.

Uh 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 gonna 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 2.

And I wasn't planning on watching Dune 2 until it released to home video.

Ha ha ha.

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.

And I 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 gonna reverse it.

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

It seems that my tweet uh has garnered some controversy about how under communism or socialism, the way you get a PS five 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.

Teepo, thank you.

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

So thank you for making me feel like shit.

No, thank you.

Appreciate it.

But um first things first, uh 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 outlook.

Something that has been

Wallo, thank you so much.

Appreciate you, brother.

It's something that has been regarded as a possibility before the advent of AI and computers.

So they're saying, so you're saying all this his 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 is 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 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 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 consumer uh 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 a necessity 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 um

Utilizing the most advanced and complex forms of mathematics, planning started to really kick off.

Also, the US 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 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.

That 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 in you know, a lot of the um

Dystopian things that we associate with twentieth 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 have.

I mean, that's company towns, right?

uh heavy industry monopoly cartels.

We're 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 m that 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

Reproduced the nineteenth century.

more efficiently and in a way that was

better for the standard of living of than w uh for workers than the capitalism of the nineteenth century.

I think I was talking to my good friend

He has such a vulgar, vulgar name.

Um but what the f I'll just call him C D.

First guy to come on the Infrared webcast when it was in a podcast format.

And 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 nineteenth century modernism, you know?

And that that was be 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 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 PlayStations, 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.

Should kind of go like this, okay.

He was uh beginning from the perspective of nineteenth century capitalism.

To the question of how socialism should adapt.

to the uh information age, let's say, was an open question.

And I think the the the 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 uh the the advanced part of it comes from, for example,

The um

You know, perhaps like advances in physics which allow us to um

Detect particles at such a small level, like electrons, and kind of, I don't know the exact.

Exact term for this.

Basically, uh 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 of 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 communism they're like, Well, so you're saying communism wasn't possible in Marxist 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 modern, 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 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 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 um the US and Britain and France and Germany already had modern industrial economies just from capitalism, let's say, right?

I know with 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 it's a very uh important kind of subtlety here.

Which makes 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 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 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 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.

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.

Uh 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 uh finance in general, right?

then um including money, right?

Then uh we then we're t 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 it was.

And it did, right?

It obviously did.

But they didn't expect this to happen.

They didn't expect the trans 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

Um instit 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 nineteen twenty nine, for example, or the Long Depression for that matter, as described by Marx and observed by Marx.

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, you know, 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., theft of land, 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 AI.

And it's like, no, no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm just saying that now

AI 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 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 and AI.

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, have 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 n uh how do you choose whether to produce food or Playstations 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's 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, not what I mean.

I mean, I rather mean to say whatever organ 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 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 gonna no, no, no, it would be a seamless transition.

It would probably work where you have a proletarian dictatorship, just like China, where like you own all the land and you have sovereign control over the means of production at the bare most minimal level.

Um but then, you know, you kind of experimentally implement communities and living spaces, you know, where uh 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.

Uh

Based on its

its efficiency, right?

It would scale up based on its um superiority.

It would work better, you know, and if it doesn't work better, it would have to be constantly

tinkered with so that it eventually

coops I mean, this is effectively Ch 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 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 a dollar doesn't make a distinction between food that people need to eat and shelter they need over their heads and furry porn created as intellectual property, which is, I guess, an NFT that's worth $100,000, 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, 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 example, 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 there isn 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?

Um

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, Haz, 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 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, um.

Also, uh this is already the direction things are going in with BlackRock and Aladdin, right, the AI that BlackRock 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 P as a PlayStation with a button

Um 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 uh 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 c some kind of standardized way,

And people can just you know, labor does become life's prime want.

I think we're reaching a level of civilization that 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 where light 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 acknowledgment 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.

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 rules 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 lumpen 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 gonna 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.

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's existence.

If that class is raised to the status of state dictatorship, you know, 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 has a totally different philosophy and outlook and 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 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, 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 they're 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 intr 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.

Um 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 puss 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 a system issue.

I think that's a civilization issue.

I think that's an issue of the degree of morale and work ethic of your civilization.

And and I don't 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.

Um

And you know, that that's also, you know, the contribution of Mao's 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's an existential kind of revolution, not just a revolution 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.

In in because Islam is not attached to a specific state, it's not attached to a specific party, for example.

It's just 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 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.

You know, 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 'cause I would prefer it and it would be better.

It's like a software upgrade.

It it 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 we want to dwell in some new system.

We're doing this because we are insisting upon a fundamental ontological truth.

And it's a 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.

Um

That made sense of the entire world for them, right?

And I think this relates and let's call it this penetrates the texture of sociality, the essence of sociality, 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 the ultimate horizon of our meaningful existence of our existence if it's a meaningful existence?

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, cyber sin 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 Stakhanovite Revolution, which not a lot of people talk about in the 1930s.

This is actually really, you know, you should think about the Stakanovite.

Um, 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, like the Stakanov 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.

That was kind of also in the same category as the Iranian Revolution and Mao's Cultural Revolution.

It's not, the Stakhanovite phenomena cannot be explained in terms of some kind of utilitarian, narcissistic, Bentham-type egoistic interest of, oh, I just want to survive and maximize my, you know, energy, whatever.

No, it was, it was, uh, it was a spiritual movement in a way, right?

It was motivated by.

A kind of um

A gesture of ontological partisanship.

This is why this Dekhanovite movement was actually uh 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 that that all 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 are not just fighting for something that works more efficiently, we're not just fighting for something that we think would 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.

uh 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 capitalists 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 uh 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?

Juzan, thank you so much.

Juzan, that's a very uh interesting um

interesting analysis and I I think I agree with it.

The politicization of Christ's message.

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

Um.

Anyway, um

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that uh

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.

I think that's really what I'm getting at is uh I would prefer people stop being stop trying to i um 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's it does have a spiritual and it always has had a spiritual dimension.

And we should re um

We should reestablish that.

And I think this community already has, you know.

Uh in many ways.

Anyway, that's the stuff.

Okay, th there's one last thing.

Uh now I I I promised I would stop swearing.

Excuse my French, but uh this faggot Praxben

Um, 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 uh nothing else.

And you know, 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 centrally central bank printed credit

debt effectively, which isn't even real money according to his own libertarian uh 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 is not very smart.

And he also doesn't look smart.

Uh I'm not gonna show his face because it's really hideous.

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

He has the physinogamy of an NPC.

He has the physiogamy 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 Sid from Ice Age, but he has the face of Sid from Ice Age, right?

Uh and he just kind of looks like a blank, staring, NPC, completely unintelligent, retarded faggot.

That's what Prague Spen looks like.

Um 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 pro it's 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 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 Fuentes 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 uh 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 like 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 apolitical, 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 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, Prax Ben, and let's drop the act that you're somehow like.

A cool, normal guy, or whatever, and why don't you get in V C 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.

Um hiding behind the veneer and the pretense.

That you're somehow like, haha, that Haas guy, he's like crazy.

Yeah, well, you're in the crazy circus with me.

You're stuck in the cage with me, Praxben, 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 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 w 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.

Prax Ben 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 miners or 15-year-old miners, 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 uh he's repeating the false claim that like Stalin got with like a thirteen year old, you know, which was a complete lie created by an actual pedophile who was on Epstein's Black book.

Uh 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 am 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' 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.

And 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.

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.

The Discord chat needs 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.

But yeah, you're right.

What was I going to say?

I forgot what I was going to 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 what an epic reply

You know, 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 five percent, five to ten percent.

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 uh let's call them normie libertarians.

There I think there's a difference.

The hardcore, hardcore, like Austrian, Pinochet-based, Javier-Millet-based, you know, those kind of libertarians, they're fucking irredeemable, right?

But the normie kind who's just like an American who's 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 types are, I mean, this guy's just a rodent in general, right?

He's he's on the right, but it's like he's pretty much the bitch boy of the right.

It's like the far right eat this guy for breakfast.

Put it this way: Prax Ben 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, socialism done left just gets kicked around and pissed and shit on all day.

you know, 'cause he's he has a weak position, 'cause this position is weak.

That's this guy, right?

Hi 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 you can cancel.

So he's such a normie, right?

Because he's not canceled.

And he doesn't scare the hoes.

That's his whole personality.

Let me put it that way.

Praxben's whole personality is that he thinks he's not scaring the hoes.

And he's trying really hard not to scare the hoes.

But he doesn't understand that when you try so hard not to scare the hoes, 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 this pig, this uh swine Praxben.

It'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 um, 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.

Um 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 what 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 it it is worth seeing actually to and I because I think it's it's there's a degree of realism to it, which I find convincing and I think is just it it I'm I'm kind of gonna 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 a n 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 right off the bat recommend it.

and say that I liked it and it was a good film.

That being said,

The film is

Uh not about

A stor 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 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 gonna say who guys grow up, who cares, honestly, right?

Um, you're not even gonna remember what that is, anyway.

Uh, the main story is um about journalists who are on their way to visit DC to interview the president.

So, here's what I'm gonna 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 uh but it's con kind of confusing, so I I won't get too much into it.

But uh 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 fact 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 they're 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 of that are the Maoists, the Portland Maoists 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 are a faction in this film.

And thanks for the shout out because we are going to be a faction in the American Civil War, right?

Anyway, um

I appreciate this film not because I think it's exactly how I think a Civil War will look like.

Uh, 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's 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 and the contemporary context.

I think it did a good job of that.

And 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 review, go 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 it 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 the cross, 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 every 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 gonna 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 uh ser uh attempt to serve the purpose of kind of discouraging or scaring people to fall in line.

Because if that if that 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, are you a real white American or are you some kind of like, you know, Central or South American?

And then he straight up just shoots a guy as 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.

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 it's kind of uh 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 psyoped, but like, I'm like, you know, maybe I could see that happening, maybe, 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 demonized MAGA in the film.

That's all you need to know, right?

Um they demonized 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 for malign, 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 i all signs point to Trump winning in twenty twenty four.

Is it encouraging secession?

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.

Uh I I'm not sure.

But

That's one dimension of the film I would I wanted to bring to your attention.

Uh I don't think the film was nearly as scary as the real Civil War will be.

You don't really see the the you see an el the 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 gonna 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.

Um

I uh

In terms of the message of the film, I mean it's very liberal.

In the new, that's like 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 uh 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 I really I don't actually know.

The Portland Maoists don't deserve a scene.

I'm really scared.

I want to pretend in my head that the Portland Maoists, quote unquote, are actually like farmers or something from the north.

Because if they actually showed us these like hipster

You know.

Chas freaks and called those Maoists, I would have lost my shit and walked out of the theater.

Out of embarrassment.

Like, oh my God.

I that's a line too far to that they crossed it too far, right?

Um

So I'm actually glad they didn't show them.

But I always said, I think this is the film that they're making.

In order to prevent the the thing from happening.

Uh 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 gonna 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 a contentious battleground.

Where they're gonna, it's gonna 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.

Recept its reception will be controversial.

Let me see.

I would be surprised if the audience oh, the audience score didn't come out yet.

Uh the critics like it, 84%.

But I'm not sure.

I don't know.

Uh

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 I'm I'm just saying it's 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?

'Cause I think I think there's this idea that like, okay, we depicted the Civil War fictionally.

No way that can actually happen.

It th that'd be just like a movie then, right?

And it's like, well, it's not gonna be just like the movie.

It's gonna be even worse.

The movie's just gonna 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 Civilization All

norms that we are all united by.

And the terrifying thing about a civil war is

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 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 and

People it's kind of like this nihilism of like

Yeah.

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 gonna open a portal to demons straight out of hell, you know?

That's that's that's I think it ev the film correctly evoked the dread, existential dread I have anticipating and thinking about that.

Like it's gonna get really uh all of the stupidities and ignorance Americans and people in the West have in general, it's gonna get really, really nasty, like really nasty, because they're 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.

We had there's a fundamental blindness.

Even in terms of how we understand power, we think w 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 ha we have a completely backward understanding of how everything works when it comes to civilization.

And we are really conceited about that.

And for that to be put into practice somehow and really tested and tried in a way, I think is going to be really scary.

You know, like, put it this way, you 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 in their head: like, no, the Roman Empire was just like pure Nietzschean 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

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 who 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 terrify I'm gonna 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 gonna 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.

Uh and scarier, right?

Real, real terror terr terror.

And I 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.

Specifically, Liberia, this is where it happened.

Things happened in Liberia that didn't happen in Rwanda or the Congo or other ho 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 was r the the terror, if you understand the Liberian Civil War, the terror of it was really that like

General butt 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 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 same exact thing.

Because that's our pragmatic philos that's our pragmatic logos, as Dugan 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

I'd like to say that uh what was I gonna 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 is I struggle to understand the agenda of this film because I heard some leftists who were concerned that oh, 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 is who is this Ben?

uh speak on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the progressional government within.

I think Ben, you know, 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 to pitch to pitch your idea

to me.

You know, I don't care.

Okay.

Um

I'm going to just hear what this guy wants.

Yo, what's up?

Make it quick.

What do you want to debate about?

Um man.

I'm just

Mm-hmm.

What's up, Dad?

Yeah, what did you wanna tell me about?

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

Um the dictatorship of the proletariat.

What what what do you disagree with me about specifically that you would like to debate on?

I disagree with you.

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

Okay, bye.

So that's kind of um 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?

Um yeah, what a just bizarre weird thing to say.

Uh anyway, he's talking about Mein Kampf and how he's a political science in the Discord.

What does he want?

I don't even know like 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 proletariat.

Okay.

Cool.

S that sounds like a paragraph someone would write in serious chat as like a

What do you call it?

Food food for thought kind of thing.

Not really a let me come and show queue and debate you about this kind of thing.

Yeah, the droplets.

Yeah.

Really, yeah.

Um anyway.

Let me talk about Dune 2.

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

um epic sci-fi I've ever seen.

I'm pair, I'm uh prefacing that by saying epic because Terminator 2, like.

It's no comparison.

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 Dune.

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 Harkenin

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 l i it's just everything.

Those scary leather monster creatures.

It's such a convincingly disturbing, scary, brutal, you know, society and people.

Uh

And also the the the

The guy who uh 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 Chamolet.

And let me be clear: Timothy Chamolet 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.

Um, 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 was like, it made it more bearable.

Like, okay, he's not an angsty, annoying.

Punk.

Um, I thought it was just gonna be like a TikTok teen angst of a guy like, you know, nobody understands me and I thought it would be like that and I I uh 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, 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 One.

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 and the sci fi universe of Dune

And I think this is something people like David Graeber, the anthropologist, would appreciate, the late David Graeber, he's dead, right?

Is that.

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

And 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

Uh and use guns and things like that, but they didn't 'cause it was a violation of their honor.

I remember recalling a specific battle, a specific war, where like, no, they had the capacity, they and they knew about how to do it, and they th like it was possible, but they wouldn't do it.

This actually holds true for premodern uh the premodern world in general.

Technology was not lacking because of a lack of progress.

It was just unthinkable for them.

It was unthinkable.

It was unimaginable.

right?

Existentially unimaginable, ontologically unimaginable.

It's possible, yes, but the the no 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 within 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 mores of life and the holistic cosmology, so on and so on.

It could you couldn't just violately abstract from everything and just say, Okay, what can we do from scratch?

You know, which is what which is the origin of modern science in Western Europe, right?

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

They did.

They did.

They had their ma 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.

Uh or something else.

Yeah, you have the ability, but you use swords, you know.

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

And I think the uh 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 Blakeyan 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 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 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, right?

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 Doctor Seuss, like it's stacked together with a bunch of crazy stuff.

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 a beautiful film, but I also would would appreciate more a more weird film.

That's that's 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 that American kind of feel.

It's way too um

brooding and way too serious and way too kind of um dark in a slow and stuff.

This is my armchair criticism.

And I I am saying, like, I wish there was a totally different I just I I'm not saying this to say this movie's bad.

I'm just saying it to

Um

Ask people to appreciate

That this is not th the the this is not

Th th the only or even necessarily the best way to adapt Doom.

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.

Uh, 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 Beni Jesserit and all these other.

I guess sacred institutions or 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 is a quirkiness and weirdness to Dune that is missing here, which I would have appreciated seeing.

On the flip side,

Um

Th the th they're th 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.

Um

You know, I I I I the director kept saying, No, no, no, the the story of Paul is like supposed to be a a cautionary tale and you're not supposed to side with him and I that's such B S.

'Cause 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 dang 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

I think Islam in America among young people

uh 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 it's a fact.

Um

I did very much, and I have thoughts on this, kind of getting into the part three take on the film, which I'm gonna extensively get into more.

I did, uh I think appreciate

The film's exploration of themes of faith, in general faith,

Um

Specifically

Faith uh

What was I gonna say on this actually?

I actually did.

Basically, basically um

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 is like.

When you have the object, like the real, right, the 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.

You are directly not only 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 exploration of the theme of faith, I thought, was interesting.

And compelling because faith as faith in the sublime, the real, not just some abstract principle.

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, a faith which will allow people

to really, really do things they believe in.

and be unfettered.

Buy 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.

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, 'cause I'm kinda trimming the bushes, so let's actually get into it.

What do I want to say about Dune 2?

I want to say about Dune 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 Dune 2 is I and this is a critique that is going to probably extend to the book as well as that the story isn't real.

And you might say Haze.

Come on.

Fiction.

You're really gonna say you're you don't like the film because it's or you have a problem with it.

Thank you so much, Crass.

You're really gonna 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 Atreides is how much it reminds me of Daenerys from Game of Thrones.

And I think there's something about it which is based in the romantic, unhappy consciousness, and something fundamentally anti-Hegelian about figures like Paul Atreides and Daenerys.

And I'll explain it.

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

Unresolved strife and unresolved beef.

Daenerys, her family was killed and usurped.

Paul Atreides was killed and usurped.

Right.

So, what ends up happening is something I think is really perverse: 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 and uh that you have

Of wanting to avenge, you know, your your your 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 this is how I'm gonna phrase it.

You might not understand what I mean.

Like Paul Atreides goes through this devastating um

event where the Harkonnen come, they kill his father, they usurp everything, him and his mother are thrown out into the desert.

But at no point

Is he actually able to

to um

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 Hegelian sense.

Instead, the intensity of his um

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 Daenerys.

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 r feels my pain now and I'm gonna burn I'm gonna 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 the 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 Daenerys 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, Daenerys 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.

uh weaponizes the vigor find uh uh 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 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 my okay, I'm a white woman.

I you know, you know, I uh 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 like shit, and people treat you like shit because you're oppressed POC Cuban immigrants.

So we're going to unite together and prove them all wrong.

And it's the Daenerys moment.

That's the Paul Atreides moment, where somehow the grievance of

Um, a spoiled brat, let's say, they think, oh, my grievance is just, I'm gonna find common ground with the struggle of indigenous people or black people or Mexicans or something, and it's gonna vindicate me.

It's gonna vindicate my unhappy conscience, it's gonna vindicate my uh.

My specific problem.

My specific

Uh 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 gonna run to these native Indians and they're gonna vindicate my psychosis for me.

Or or it's going to be Palestinians, or it's going to be, you know, um

It's going to be Philippine Mauis, 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?

Stigmaris, 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 censors, so that when we are in power, it'll be acceptable.

How can I resolve the problem of the film like Doontoon?

How should it have been, actually?

Before I get into that, there's one thing I did appreciate about it, which I think...

throws off throws this off a little bit.

Is this Paul is revealed to be

The grandson of the Harkonnen.

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 Atreides and the House Harkonnen.

And when he discovers he is also part Harkonnen, I think that there's potential si there's a potential kind of Hegelian significance to that, that maybe we can work with it.

Uh then 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, you know, 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 gonna 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 premodern 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, it's clear that what the Harkonnen represents, 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 the dimension of the brutality and cruelty.

Pure brutality and cruelty.

Um.

Uh the pure brutality and cruelty, uh, almost as to the point of uh worship, almost metaphysical worship, right?

Um

And the fact that Paul is part Hark Harkin means that it's not just, you know, the noble house Atreides, the noble uh billionaire

You know, the noble billionaire who's weaponizing POC to enforce his monopoly against the bad one, he is part Harkinen, which means part of that brutality and part of that cruelty of the Harkinen is in him as well, and is appropriated by the Freeman as well, we may expect, right?

So, this is something nice, I suppose.

I also like how Zendaya becomes completely marginalized.

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?

Um

They have a higher historical purpose than just some nativistic, you know.

romantic uh smallness uh in the desert.

So I like what they did to Zendaya actually.

I don't remember her name, that's why I'm saying Zendaya.

It's not in the book.

Yeah, I I actually think that's cool.

'Cause I think the director's intention was for us to sympathize with Zendaya.

But I didn't.

Ha ha.

I win.

Anyway, um no, no, no.

How 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 Harkonnen and the Freeman, and then Paul Atreides.

who's upset that his dad died.

As a matter of fact, I think Paul Atreides

Should have

shamefully accepted the victory of the Harkonnen

stripped of all political power,

and thrown to the lowest ranks and slums of society on Arrakis,

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 gonna 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 miner 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.

'Cause they died of disease or something.

I don't know.

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

Maybe they s they're they have a market stand and they are kind of living under the brutal domination of the Harkonnen.

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 the arc of 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 Atreides.

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 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 Harkonnen 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 say the settler workers of Arrakis is he able to rediscover and appreciate the injustice of what happened to House Atreides.

So it's all inverted.

It's not a steady psychotic and perverse stream of unhappy consciousness that all seamlessly blends in.

And I'm just I'm like Anakin Skywalker from the third film where he's just like an angsty scene.

He's like, like, like, like, I am Paul Atreides.

And, 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.

It's an i 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 this, let'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 Harkinen, because the Harkinen are taxing everybody, and they're oppressing everyone, and they're tyrants, and, you know.

I think that would be such a beautiful story.

And much, much better than.

And Timothy Chamolet 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.

Um

Selfless, devoted, uh, you know, a brave, courageous warrior.

That would be a wise leader.

That's an acquiring wisdom, you know?

That would be a great film.

That would be a great film.

Anyway, that's how I would correct the error.

And 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 Harkonnen on a personal level and the grievance the Freemen have with the Harkonnen.

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

It's not harmo there's no harmony between the two.

It's not reconciled.

In order for it to be reconciled, the injustice of what happened to the Atreides 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.

Um.

And I think Star Wars stole a lot from Dune, probably.

Like, the wackiness of the Tuscan Raiders and, like, Job of the Hutt, 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 like Job of the Hutt and Tatooine or whatever.

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

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 vain and I reject it.

in general.

Um

These are my preliminary these are my thoughts, I guess.

This is that's it.

Anyway guys, I'll see you Sunday.

I'll see you guys Sunday.

Good stream.

Good stream.

See you guys Sunday.

Bye-bye.

I'll do the Patreon tomorrow.

Gotta actually go to bed.

Bye guys.