DEBATING BLACKPILL

me in the deep music there's all in me.

Maybe I just want to dance.

I don't really care.

I just want to dance.

I don't really care I get in a year

Yeah

She didn't mean a crazy

Dita

And you wonder

Who's that

It's

Who's that

To call for you to keep on,

so hot for you to need that.

Who's got it, fools back to

Who's that it,

Who's that it, Who's got shit?

Who's got you?

Who's got you?

Back on the day of slow, better bad enough to take me home guys sticking so hot dizing through my big and hot

waves pissing under the fly oh his keep me hot co her body's getting low sexy of the crazy dose that's will end up on the news baby i just want to dance i don't really care i just want to dance

I don't really care

I get in the ear

yeah

she's a mean a crazy deep

disco tape and you wonder

Who's that shit

who's that's

true

you call for you to keep

her

you'll hot for you to need

who's that shit

who's back

who's back

you

who's pulls back you music fool back

to

I'll cast

sexual

the night

it's got me love sprung

I was up

until the sun is up

oh yeah

The heart is a dancer

beating like a disco drum.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

I'll try that crew over night that got me laughton.

I woke up until the sun is up all breath hard is the dancer

we don't like the disco

blow

eating like the disco flow

eating like the disco

ball ball

eating like the disco drum

music drum she's a mean a crazy

deep tired

and you want to

boost back shit

booze back

to call for you to keep on

Your wife's like you to do that

Who's that is

Who's that it?

Who's that's it?

Who's that it?

Who's that it? Who's that shit?

Who's that shit?

Feel the adrenaline moving under my skin.

It's an addiction,

such,

and rush,

shut down,

it's on the TV,

and the energy

to do you think is all I need

and baby, I just want to dance

I don't really guess,

I just want to dance,

I just want to dance, I don't really care I just want to care

I don't get

I don't get

yeah

yeah

I'm gonna be

Didae

so she'll be about jute

Jukamoy to Tiva Juhma Poo Tulae Tulae Tulae Kuh Tulae K get to go to my feet butcheeva to my way you sleeper

back on the dance club and another

getting home playing so far

gave them through my feet and hard wrench

on the floor

hot is getting hard for her

bodies get a little crazy goose

we'll end up something juice

and give it I just want to dance

I don't give it again

I just want to dance

I don't give me a day I don't get me

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

She's a minute

I'm

Diva

and she wants

Oh jica

Yeah

Toca

boy could tippa

To my boy to

to sleep Oh So just to my boy would keep on to my boy who's sleep on booed ha ha chick who's got

so sexual the night is coming up strong

who will stop until the sun is up oh yeah

the heart is a danceup eating like a disco down

oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh and like this good. Oh, huh, who

I'm

a I'm going to

I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm I'm and the other people and everything and the other people

and the

I'm and I'm

I'm I'm not sure.

And we're not sure.

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

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

And I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

a and the other people and the other people

and the other

and I'm going to

have been

I'm going to I'm and the other side of the same. You know, I think of the

I'm going to be and

I'm No, no. Oh. Oh. And so

I'm

I'm a lot of the

I'm a

I'm a

I'm a

a I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm and the other people and a lot of coming on

I'm going to

I'm going to I'm going to I'm

a lot of and I'm not so I'm not

I'm going to

I'm Ed Gentry, that's what I like to see.

10.

We're grabbing it up.

We can't true. We can't be a cult without the money guys

come on we got to crab it up otherwise we're not going to be a cult welcome uh how do you guys Welcome.

How do you guys like my setup?

How do you like it? All I did is just shift my desk.

Dastard, what's up, bro? Appreciate you.

And I know you guys don't like me looking in that direction.

I look in this direction.

We're good.

Everything's good. me looking in that direction i look in this direction we're good everything's good be looking in this direction what's up y'all be looking in this direction you're looking in this

direction because i just want to dance

what's going on guys uh okay so there's a lot

actually a lot i wanted to discuss tonight.

Some of it has to do with my video with Carlos

recently, and that's generated some controversy.

Ilya, what's up with the five, bro?

Appreciate you.

Phil.

Phil, what's going on, bro?

But Phil, come on, man.

Phil has donated so much.

It's crazy.

Bill, you've been scammed enough, man.

You can take a break.

Appreciate you, brother.

Um...

Yeah, I wanted to talk about that.

That wasn't the main headline, actually.

I wanted to talk about a lot of other things.

And we'll still get to those, but I, the reason I'm streaming so late is because there's somebody that I was arguing with in Discord for like the past two hours.

And they actually want to debate.

And I think this is somebody who is one of us who has taken the black pill.

I don't know if they're a gorilla, but they seem...

I don't know if he's ACP, I don't know.

But he seems like he's one of us, but he took the black pill, like, randomly.

And, uh, you know, obviously I think it's a false position that he's taken up.

And I'm just going to debate it accordingly, you know.

So, without any further ado, let's just do it.

He isn't in the party. I don't know. His name's Red Patriot.

And he took the black pill, which is very unfortunate.

All this kind of started in a conversation I was having in Discord.

I was talking about how I believe in astrology.

And, you know, that, I think that, maybe that's what triggered him, actually, he's taking the black bill. He's like, oh shit. He's like, fuck, this Haas guy's actually fucking crazy. Holy shit. All this is crazy. Like, this is, like, actually a cult leader holy fuck and uh what can i say you know i'm not forcing

my beliefs on anyone at least with respect to that regarding mar Marxism, Leninism,

Lysenkoism, it's like that's enforced.

That's not, you don't have free thought, right?

But yeah, I don't know if you guys don't know this about me.

Well, you do.

I mean, if you're an OG viewer, you've known this about me for the beginning

is I have a very, very mystical side. I'm very much come from an esoteric background. I very much

speak this kind of language.

And it informs a lot of how I look at the world and whatever. And the best, and the way, the reason I don't talk about it is because you shouldn't have to talk about it.

You should just be able to show results or perceive without spelling it out.

Midnight, what's up?

I think there's a lot of things we perceive that we don't spell out.

Gorilla, what's up?

It's just a lot of people don't know that there's reasons

for things, right? I don't know. I don't want to

get into it.

I have a very mystical

shamanistic, if you will.

Side.

Always have.

I could talk about that more, but in any case.

So, yeah.

I hope you guys like my new setup, by the way, because I love it.

I love it I love staring at the camera I was so like in the past I couldn't

I would always have to tilt it would be so

uncomfortable I am much more comfortable

like just streaming this way

anyway I'm not going to talk more about the

streaming said. We're going to get right into this debate.

And by the way, I watch my guys, I watch my

stuff, rewinding it, and I realize

something, I talk very slowly. I don't want to

talk slowly anymore. I know people have a short attention

span, and, you know, the slow talking thing,

it's not for the era we live in right so i'm

gonna start talking fast and that's what i'm gonna start doing i talk way too slow right i'm

start talking fast it's okay anyway let's bring up this person because i just want to dance.

Red Patriot.

Hello.

What's going on?

Let me start with the first question here.

Do you perceive yourself to be

an agent of a divine

will of God? No.

Didn't you claim that earlier? You said

that you're enacting some divine will

or that's your cause?

When did I say that? that no you said your cause was heavenly divine

justice is this true i said that throughout history revolutionaries do the bidding of heaven's

justice absolutely how do you know this?

Well,

do you know what I'm talking about

when I talk about heaven's justice?

Frankly, no.

Why ask, how do I know this?

If you don't even know what I'm talking about?

Here's my, my problem is that you're some eclectic perennial who gestures to Shia Islam and Christianity and Buddhism.

What do you actually believe in terms of your mystic religious outlook that is informing your view that all of these revolutions by the way not all revolutions not the bourgeois revolutions not the fascistic revolutions no fascistic revolution in history.

Only, only, only the, a certain lineage of

revolutions. No, all, all revolutions. There's no fascist

revolution. Name one. All revolutions. What, what

fascist revolution? Ignore, ignore that point. Ignore that point., what is the, how do you know that these are divine agents in history?

I never use the term divine agents.

I think that's a stupid term.

So let's actually frame your question with a degree of honesty as far as what I've actually said.

I'm not trying to be dishonest. How do you know that, uh, per se there's a, would you say there's a

divine trajectory in the motion of revolutions in history.

I could, well, you'd have to qualify, but yeah, I would say that.

And all I'm asking is, how could we know this? How could we determine this at all?

We'd first have to specify what the terms

that are in this case epistemically in question for you are

in the first place and what we mean to refer to when we talk about them.

So when I refer to the divine, for example, I'm just referring to a meaningfulness that is exterior

from, you know, a strictly being a kind of like post-talk object of human creation.

So, and a meaningfulness that inheres in the cosmos itself and...

Hello? You cut out a meaningfulness that it that appears in the cosmo and Yeah, my...

Cut out, because it's a fucking piece of shit.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you quite well.

Yeah, one that, in a sense, precedes human ideation. And any kind of whims and fancies that are a construct of our consciousness arbitrarily that just come from tabula rasa from any kind of blank human intention right so we're talking about something that I think premises preconditions the

existence of man. And in this sense, I absolutely think it's fair to say that if man arises from

something that is not itself, man, you know, I don't think that this is

from randomness. I don't think that's possible that man arises from randomness and by accident.

I think that the cosmos, first of all, that there is a cosmos. Now, some don't like this notion of cosmos

and would prefer to think that all universal existence is just randomness. But nonetheless,

there are resonances, there there's patterns there's lawfulness

within the cosmos

within the universe so there's an order of

some kind

make of it what you will for whatever reason

I'm not claiming to know the reason I'm not claiming to assert

a specific reason I'm just saying there is

order within existence or within being, right?

And this is what we call cosmos.

And because humanity and human history, because this is what preconditions it, because it is embedded within that, because it's contextualized with that, there has to be some kind of resonance between what we consider the true reality, which precedes human existence, and the things that we regard as meaningful in the development of human history. There has to be some kind of resonance or relationship, like by definition for me, right? This is what is inherent in the notion of a macrocosm, which is what we refer to as, you know, the heavenly bodies and the stars and so on, and the microcosm, right?

And relation of macrocosm to microcosm is a specific logic of how that there can be an outer layer of order, and then there can be an inner layer of order and there's a resonance

between them so that's how i would qualify the statement that history has a divine trajectory or

has a cosmic significance. All right.

I'd like to ask you a number of questions on that matter.

Are you here to debate me or are you here to ask me questions?

No, no, no, no.

They're critical questions, but I need to ask these questions in order to make the critique.

Is that all right with you or no? Okay. Well, okay. Okay. So the first question is, actually, I will just start to critique. It seems to me that you look at events that have

gained objectivity, such as 191717, such as the Chinese Revolution, yada, yada. These events in history that have happened that were in some way, which I'd actually be interested to understand what would be your criteria for success.

But in any case, these successful events in history, you look at them retroactively

and attempt to assign some kind of existential meaning to them.

But how can we know that these events really do have an existential meaning or some kind of wider cosmic instantiation

rather than just

being what

they appear on

some more perhaps

superficial level as

revolutions and upheavals

where there's discontents and a revolution happens and a certain party is able to come into power, which happens all of the time.

And these things don't seem to necessarily demand a cosmic explanation or to have objectivity on that cosmic level.

So how can you actually know that these things are anything besides mere events?

So, first of all, I'm not saying that they have to be explained in terms of their causes by cosmic phenomena.

I'm not saying that in order to understand the Bolshevik revolution, you know, you have to have an astrological explanation.

All I'm saying is that the things throughout human history, whether it's the Bolshevik revolution, whether it's the rise of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, all great world historical events throughout history, that humanity regards with an intense degree of meaningfulness and out of which we seem to derive our sense of meaning, our sense of the deeper order behind reality and its meaningfulness, that these follow a pattern and have a resonance with the cosmos, which means that they reflect greater cosmic principles.

And all that, all it means that they reflect greater cosmic principles is that they reflect something other than, let me put it this way, they reflect a context greater than themselves and to which they refer. And without this refer, their meaningfulness is gone.

And you can interpret cosmos absolutely in a Marxist sense.

A strict classical Marxist understanding of cosmos in this sense would be the mode of production.

The mode of production is the cosmos that gives the

meaningfulness to the world historical events. So Marxism would strictly work within the mode of

production, which is true in its own sense. I'm just taking this to its logical conclusion, and I'm

thinking about the place of humanity, the greater

place of humanity within the entire existence, in a way that actually addresses the question

of like what, in a sense, is what is meaningful about human existence and human life

and as a con in order for history to be meaningful there has to be a contravening element

outside of history that gives that context if historical development does not in some sense reflect the principles of heaven,

it cannot be meaningful.

If it's just a kind of eternal self-referentiality, kind of metanume, a kind of totology, of some kind of meaningless,

ape-like utterance that begins at the outset. If that is the word, some completely arbitrary

ape-like utterance, and that everything that follows from this is just some kind of tautological

self-referentiality this doesn't this explanation cannot achieve parity with the actual weight and depth of meaningfulness that is being communicated across

history and even today, there's more density. At the very least, people attach a greater

meaningfulness than what could be explained by the kind of self-contained

tautology of human language and so on and and subjectivity or whatever right well this does not

prove anything.

A subjective sense of meaning

that comes from witnessing

the world. Any

self-appointing cult leader

preacher can go and

can you not

when did I say...

Hold on.

I didn't say a...

I've said precisely it's not a subjective sense of meaning.

It's an objective one.

I didn't say it was subjective.

I said it's precisely...

I said it's precisely inadequate to regard it as subjective, strictly subjective.

Why would it be...

Well, first of all, then you would have to account for...

This was another matter I had a problem with in our discussion.

You said that the truth here is self-evident,

yet we have all of these differing opinions and traditions that are antagonistic to each other

that have all attempted to establish. But all of them have the same object.

What is that object?

The crisis of the contradiction between the relations and forces of production.

When there's a crisis in the mode of production, when it reaches a point where there's a contradiction between the relations and forces of production, when it reaches a point where there's a contradiction between the relations and forces of production to use Marxist verbiage, you get all manner of different points of view and perspectives, usually that reflect the vantage point of different classes and specific perspectives within the

division of labor reacting to the same thing in different ways this is marks brilliantly

uh uh like gives expression to this and works like the eighteenth brumere, right? So although you have this diversity of

perspective and all these different ways of responding to history and articulating them differently,

they're all responding to the same thing. I mean, I could give it to you.

If you're squinting your eyes, you could say that there was some

catastrophic event in the mode of production that happened around the time of Christ.

Every historical...

Six hundred years later and Buddhism, maybe 600 years before Christ. No, this has... Every historical... Six hundred years later and Buddhism, maybe six hundred years before Christ.

And then Hinduism, a thousand years before Christ.

None of these events align at the same time to give us the sense that all of these world traditions are actually speaking about the same crisis.

They emerge at different points.

They're different, for all intents and purposes, they're historically disparate phenomena.

What's historically disparate?

The religions themselves or the relation of the religions to their respective crisis that they're emerging in response to? The context. They're emerging in very different contexts, right?

So you're saying that first there was a crisis and then the religion came

hundreds of years later that's not true no no i i'm trying to if we're saying that all all

the object of all religions is is a crisis in the mode of production.

Well, then we would have to say that the particular crisis that births and gives significance to each religion, these are not all the same thing.

Yeah, from a historicist.

If you're working, if you're working, if you're working of, if you're working from a

historicist.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, we can speak of a crisis of capitalism in 1929 that was

global and universal

but what crisis can we point to that explains

all religions, all mystic views

all at once and says that

they all have the same object. What

is that? Communism.

That does not answer the question well in marx's logic where he says communism is the riddle of history solved that answers the question the the reason that there are contradictions that emerge whatever

and they do take different forms absolutely i'm not saying the conditions in which buddha emerged

and jesus and mohammed and ganges khan and whatever These are the exact same in detail.

But I'm saying they do have a common resonance because if you would like me to kind of put it in a more simplistic way, you have a division of labor that divides the activity and the um consciousness of man in kind of

different departments and different categories and yet these all form an integral whole so when

the whole enters into contradiction with the division of labor, which happens because of an increase in the socialization as a consequence of conquests or because of changes in the forces of production, like technology or something,

among other things, you have, you can kind of abstract a kind of general contradiction between the whole and the part. So this is why oftentimes these revolutions are monotheistic, and they're about overturning

paganism, because it's a return to oneness.

It's a return to the wholeness.

It's an assertion that all of this is part of one reality and has one meaningfulness because the various spheres within the division of labor have proven inadequate in giving expression to the actual integral totality they form a part of.

I mean, this is all true. I actually don't disagree with any of this, but that this is a

anything but you can say

everything you just said

there's a division of labor

there is a social whole

that is a constituted

of the different elements

in the division of labor

and it enters into a contradiction

right with you know, developing technology, war, trade, whatever.

But how is any, I mean, there's a reason that this is called historical materialism, right?

And it's because this can all be explained by, what's the Marx quote, you know, right? And it's because this can all be explained by

what's the Marx quote?

You know, man thinks of his stomach. This is all

just problems with resource distribution.

In the German ideology, what Marx writes

explicitly is that

in producing his means of subsistence, man is not merely producing his physical existence.

He is producing a definite form of activity.

And as he produces his life, so his life is. So there is no pre-existing

framework of the satiation of, for example, biological needs and wants and desires that

pre-configures the modes of production throughout history.

What man produces are the very conditions, the very object of production in the first place,

not just the conditions of production, but the very activity, the very way of life, the very means of subsistence,

which production is supposed to satisfy and reproduce. And this gives man a distinctly ontological

quality, for Marx at least.

And this is why Marx calls man species being.

Now, the meaning of species being is not zoological.

It's not that this is a specific type of animal that we all have to be like the blue people from Avatar and hug or whatever.

Species being refers to a union of being on the one hand, which at the outset kind of denotes abstraction.

It denotes kind of one-sidedness and emptiness, just because Hegel said, being and nothingness

are the same. But species means a specific determination of being with respect to itself. So a species

being, for Marx, is a specific kind of being, which has the quality of self-relation. And this self-relation

is a kind of, on the one hand, you could say it's a recursivity. It's a constant self-relationship that's recursive on the other hand you could say it's also an opposing tension and this logic of the opposing tension marks gives expression in his notion of the repulsion of the atoms in his earliest writing on

democratist or whatever, right?

And the idea is that

in the process of the repulsion of the atoms,

this is actually how the atoms,

these are kind of on-tick units in this work,

acquire a kind of on-tick units in this work, acquire a kind of

acquire self-relation with each other.

They become kind of entangled, right?

And the best example of the opposing tension

and repulsion of the atoms, Marx give, is like the love of man and woman, actually.

So, that's the meaning of the species being, though. The species being refers to an onto, it's an ontological notion, right?

It's the way in which being comes to itself become a particular determination.

Being as universal being, being as such acquiring

concreteness, acquiring

determination. So that is man,

that's Marx's definition of man.

For Marx, man is not some kind of

monkey or he's not, it's not like Aristotle

where it's a two-legged

featherless, whatever. a two-legged featherless, whatever,

a two-legged featherless toolmaking creature or something,

Marx doesn't identify man as a creature.

He identifies man as a kind of ontological formation,

an ontological existence, right?

And this is, he derives, by the way, from in his inversion of Hegel, but it still

comes from Hegel that he has such a grand view of man

in the first place. there's no consistency to that

ontology because it's all becoming that's that would be my position is that the the world

that we find ourselves in is all becoming all change all flux and so if we're going to

buy into the premise that at the very least man's social object is going to be premised by his

objective material

conditions, right? And those are

always changing. Man is always

going to be changing. And so

there's no sort of ontology

that can be produced here besides

man will always change and have

different views about himself.

This is not some kind of grand mission that gives us any imperative.

In fact, it tells us that we should step aside from such imperatives and such notions of

ontology because it's all changing and it's all bullshit.

It's all sound and fury that signifies nothing.

And after one ontology falls, another ontology will rise.

And after that ontology falls, another one will rise.

It's all changing.

It's already happening.

When I use the word species being, I'm speaking it in English in the 21st century, not in German in the 19th century.

So in some sense, yeah, there's always an inevitability of the change in the form.

But it's the content that you're missing, because content is the integral totality of the movement of, let's say, nothing to nothing, as you would put it put it right there's an integral unity and resonance

in that process and precisely when we acquire knowledge let's say of let's say species being

which does imply becoming because if there's no becoming in the species being, which does imply becoming, because if there's no becoming in the species being,

then you just have the being. You just have a general notion of being, which would probably

be resolved into an identity or an ideality, something static with a fixed beginning and a fixed end.

For it to have a species quality, for a particularity and a determination,

there has to be a constant process by which this determination realizes itself, right?

But to put it simply, when Bolsheviks carry the red flag into the winter

palace, then

and in that moment,

they acquire resonance

with the

eternal history of mankind,

all of the revolutions of

mankind's history.

There and in that moment precisely

when we insist upon

the particular determination

of our current situation, of our

current reality, of our

current order of things, of our current

world, of our current world historical mission,

we don't have to think about the things that happened in the past as a precondition of our

ability to respond and act to the cosmic necessity of today. But when we do act, we suddenly acquire a resonance that makes sense

of what people in the past were fighting for. Suddenly, you're speaking a language that allows you to

understand the history of the past in ways you couldn't before we can't understand

history by sitting here and looking at what others were doing we have to do it ourselves to understand

only in that doing do we acquire resonance with human history in that way

i mean that's a beautifully poetic way to say something which i do agree with, which is that history will be written by the victors, right? There's some objectivity to these victories that happened in history like 1917. People were in the right place at the right time saying the right things. Moreover, everything is

interconnected. We are in a

global world. So if something

super significant in a country

that's massive like Russia happens,

of course, it bears

world historical significance,

but I think it's simply special pleading to give yourself this, this communist cosmos when it's exactly the same with the, let's say the the English civil wars

and the execution of King Charles

that is also a world historical event

and I mean for God's sake

even something minor like the Rwandan genocide

we can say has global resonances

everything is connected in this way you're confused genocide we can say has global resonances everything

is connected in this way globally.

You're confusing the term

the term resonance doesn't simply

referring to affectivity

that it affects something.

That's not what resonance means.

Resonance means well, you know, the technical term, what it means is like echo, right?

It echoes.

Or it rhymes, right?

But a resonance basically means that there's a deeper logic there's a deeper content that in some sense is exactly the same throughout history that repeats itself just like in a song when there's a resonance within a melody something continues the exact same thing

at least you hear it repeating itself is it the same thing no it's happening across a different time

a duration of time if it's a song and it's physically impossible

to replicate the exact same

exact same sound across time

because no two things ever repeat

exactly the same way in physics right

but nonetheless there's a resonance

see nothing anywhere, no two identifiable things can be the same. There's nothing in physics that permits the possibility that a single particle at one point in time can even be the exact same at another

point in time to say nothing of space

there are no two things at all that are

exactly the same

so does that mean there's no determination

does that mean that there's no lawfulness

does that mean there's no patterns i

think it would be ridiculous to say that i myself am a pattern i am not technically the same as i was

five seconds ago if you define me in any kind of way, in a finite way. But there's a pattern that's

responsible for the fact that you're experiencing my existence in real time. I mean, I can look at any

sequence of past historical things and give you a pattern. I mean, I can look at any sequence of past historical things and give you a pattern.

I mean, the Marxists aren't the only historicists around.

Oswald Spangler comes to mind.

Yeah, but they're metaphysicians.

Their patterns are based in concepts and ideas and mental idols of thought that they arbitrarily draw from their head only.

And, you know, the patterns that they identify are the patterns of abstractions.

They'll talk about, you know, greed, the pattern of greed, the pattern of, you know, of spiritual decay, the pattern of sin, the pattern of envy, the pattern of jealousy.

So what they'll do is they'll take abstractions and use this to explain history, whereas Marxism doesn't permit the imposition of abstractions upon history.

Marxism demands that we regard each different mode of production and each epoch or any given moment of history in terms of the imminent relationships within, not imposing our abstractions on them, but seeing or trying to trace and derive how these things develop by their own logic, by their own

relations and so on.

Certainly not by their own relations. Most of history is not conscious of class struggle as its object.

It doesn't have to be conscious, but to suggest that Marxism is taking all of these things,

and in its historicism is being objective and imminent to each historical event. No, it's not.

Marxism is about looking at ancient Egyptian society and making absolutely no assumptions, absolutely no

assumptions about how and why they regarded various things, meaningful, what motivations various different kind of actors had, why they wanted to do what they did. But instead, wait, did you not just say earlier that Marxism is talking about how

the social object of production is

self-related. So how would it

not be important? I was trying to get to that before you

interrupt me. About itself. How would it not be important?

I was trying to get to that before you interrupted

me. So do you want to just yell and scream? What do you

want?

Go ahead.

So that's what Marxism would we begin with. If we want to look at ancient Egypt, we would look at how are they producing and reproducing their conditions of subsistence? Like, literally, what is their way of subsistence.

Like what, literally, what is their way of life?

How are they reproducing language, communication, meaningfulness, their physical existence materially?

How are they feeding themselves?

How are they building things?

What are the various relations implied by that? And out of this kind of structure or this kind of analysis, we would then maybe make the leap in effort to try and think about why they regarded the various deities and beliefs they did in the meaningful way that they did. What is the relationship? What relationship could those principles they had have to their way of life? How could that, and only then can we actually make sense of their meaning for them.

Only then can we say, oh, that's why it was meaningful.

It was so simple for them.

But when we begin, like Spengler or other bourgeois metaphysicians,

with the assumption that everyone has the same perspective that we do and psychology that we do and motivations that we do. And then we try to go from the top and kind of, well, you know, why did the Pharaoh do this? Because he was greedy and because he wanted more clout and he wanted more

bitcoins or something and it's like you don't even know what it means to be a pharaoh in the first

place what what what is a pharaoh what is that what is that what kind of society is that uh existing within

what meaningfulness does the society of ancient Egypt give to Pharaoh?

What does Pharaoh actually mean concretely for the Egyptians? Right. So that's the way Marxism looks at it.

And so these other people that you're talking about, they don't, they absolutely do not

look at the patterns of history and the way Marxism does.

I don't think they look at them the same, but you just conceded that when Mark said, man, things with his stomach,

that is exactly how we are going to proceed methodologically. No, because what you're talking

about the way of life of a society is reproduced on a material level of product and food and so on

so forth. No, your premise is absolutely false

because the notion

that societies are guided by an animalistic survival instinct

is absolutely false.

There is a reason man thinks of his stomach.

There is a reason man reproduces himself physically.

And by the way, physiology and materiality are not the exact same thing for Marxism.

You're confusing a kind of biological reductionism for Marxist materialism, which is not the case. So the reproduction of society also includes the reproduction of language. It includes the reproduction of the ability to communicate.

What is being communicating?

How the social object is being communicated.

Yes, as a precondition for the physical existence of people, there needs to be a physical way they reproduce themselves.

But you need to read the German ideology where Mark says, the physical reproduction of man is subordinated under the reproduction of his definite activity.

So as man makes his life, so he is.

He is not a hungry,

hungry person, and that's it.

He is a specific,

he's instantiated within a specific way of reproducing his means of subsistence and his activity. So all manner of artistic, philosophical, whatever,

religious considerations are there. Absolutely, they're there.

That's what they reflect, you know, in the superstructure, quote, unquote. The notion that Marxism is historical cynicism, where all the religion and philosophy and all these kind of things, rather than reflecting a deeper logic of production, merely reflect, you know, different excuses for people to fill more, fill their tummies with more wine and food and, you know, consume more. That's not materialism. It's metaphysical hedonism. It's assuming that the gain of pleasure is the ultimate guiding principle of all human beings from all eternity.

But this can't explain the phenomena of asceticism.

It can't explain the various Hindu cults and societies devoted to inflicting pain and suffering amongst themselves and not simply pleasure and so on.

So you have it completely backward as far as your understanding of Marxism.

All right. Can I ask you a question?

Yeah.

Is it true?

And this would be my understanding.

Is it not true that there,

if we look at historical revolutions,

is it not true?

And I'm speaking specifically of the revolution itself, not the committee of public safety or the Bolshevik party or whatever have you, but the revolutionary upheaval itself, is it not true that all of these at some point pertain to an inability of people to eat? Like the French Revolution was a bread

riot. The February Revolution was a bread riot. The February Revolution was a bread riot.

The Chinese Revolution,

the warlordism was preventing people

from eating, so they banded together

to create a new order.

These to me all seem like

affirming the logic that... In the the same way in the same way that uh brutality by

the state could trigger a revolution sometimes the final straw is that people just can't

fucking put food on their table but to say that this is the cause of the revolution is nonsense. Because it would be impossible then to explain why is it that for the majority of famines suffered in human history, there weren't corresponding revolutions.

Every famine had violence and upheaval, but yes, it's true.

Not all of them.

Yes, every famine does involve banditry, violence, upheaval, but it's true that not all famines

involved.

And they only become revolution

when there are

deeper, dare I say,

cosmic principles

that can replace

the existing state.

Wait.

That can unify the nation around a principle greater and more compelling than the one under which the existing state derives its sanction and rule from

could it not just be literally anything else I mean no that was kind of

no there there was plenty opportunity

for anything else in the famine in 3233

in the Soviet Union in the great leap forward

where there was a famine.

There was, there could have been anything else,

but there was nothing that could surmount the principles governing the state and the society at that time.

Then it just becomes a matter of, mean i don't know how deep like your your marquisist determinism goes but is it like if lennon

didn't exist there would be no bolshevich like if the bolsheviks didn't exist there wouldn't

okay okay if the bolsheviks didn't exist, there wouldn't...

Okay, okay. If the Bolsheviks didn't exist, would there have been some kind of revolutionary upheaval in Russia? Maybe this is an annoying kind of hypothetical. Yes, there would absolutely would have been, and it would have been uh it would have led to the balkanization of russia

so so turkey like in the ottoman empire like in um the austro-hungarian empire

oh oh so Austro-Hungarian Empire.

So only communists are the ones

who have the cosmic worldview

that's capable of restoring order

after a breakdown in the mode of production

in society. Unifying an integral historical totality.

Yeah, sounds like a cosmos to me.

That's exactly it seems like your like, like anyone who wins then is a communist

this kind of seems to me ridiculous

like are the American

are we seriously going to say that like the American

revolutionaries are like communists

I don't think they work.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to say that communism is the riddle of history solved?

That every tendency toward the advance of history and the succession of history and the development of history

and the integral totality of

history being advanced in a new way

actually does obey

an underlying communist kind of logos

no

being the riddle of history solved

no no you would have to

demonstrate that communism has like an actual

ontology an actual tradition

which it doesn't if we're going to say

communism starts with

the

the hararin civilization

in the Indus Valley and goes

up to today. That is not a tradition.

I think communism begins.

The Marxist view is that communism

begins

the

in the in communism

is coexistent with the entire cosmos at all times doesn't even begin anywhere

as long as there is cosmos there is communism as long as there is matter there is communism.

So,

this is, this is, you do know that this can't possibly be an ontology

or a tradition. The cosmos,

this is like Spinozism. Like, you're making this weird

dogmatic ethical, sort of like interpolation upon the entire cosmos.

There's no tradition there. There's no tradition. I'm not like Spinoza. I like Molesodra, not Spinoza. But what do you mean there's no tradition?

There's no resonance within the cosmos?

Then how, where did man come from?

If there's no pattern of determination and lawful change within the cosmos,

how did it culminate in man's existence? So you're saying that... existence.

So you're saying that, well, we could go two ways here.

Either we could say that there is God beyond being. Some kind of created telilos. Or we could say that

So either you would be saying that God is communism

Or we would be saying that

The physical laws that govern nature are communism.

Those are our two paths. More the latter. I mean, I wouldn't say nature are communism. Those are our two paths.

More the latter. I mean, I wouldn't say God

is communism. I would say that God

that

the order

of God's, the law of

God's creation is communism. That's what I

would say.

Okay, this is...

What, what, what, how are you supposed to claim to know this? Like, this, this, you are saying, okay, species

being makes sense.

A collective humanity

gets together and they

creates an ontology.

That's not what species being fucking means at all. That's not what species being

fucking means at all. That's not what it means

at all. What are you talking about? Species

being, again, just

refers to the self-relation of being

that only and uniquely

we find in man, at least as we know so far.

But even as per Marx's definition, if we found an alien civilization that was capable of language,

they would also be part of the species being of man.

They would qualify as man as per Marx's definition. Because man, species being,

again, it's being that acquires determination through self-relation. It affects itself,

it relates to itself as a specific and particular determination. Now, there are all

manner of determinations within being, right? But they don't have this quality of self-relation

and self-if you want self-referentiality being turning inward upon itself right as a something now you could say that the development of nature is guided by the principle of species

being because it's what culminates

in man right and that in

and you know this kind of spark exists

in all things in the cosmos whatever but

species being is the determination, and that is man for Marx.

And this, by the way, this comes from the Renaissance era, if not before.

Man is the measure of all things.

There's a meaningfulness of that beyond, you know,

monkeys measure things. Man is not a monkey for this specific, you know, line of thinking.

And then you can even see before the Italian Renaissance,

you had the kind of Islamic notion of Al-Ansan al-Kameel, right?

Which regards man as the kind of

if-isness or whatever between heaven and and and um between spirit and matter i should rather say right and that man is the the mediating essence of those

you know so

that is what man is for this kind of

esoteric tradition that Marx actually does take to a

conclusion

this actually this, this to me

is very problematic because

how can man

be the measure of all things when man

is particular?

Well then you could say, well, we're talking about

universal man. Who is

universal man? Who is universal man?

Who is this perceiver of all things?

No one.

It's a...

Nobody's talking about a perceiver of all things.

You're talking nonsense.

All we're talking about is a...

Wait, wait, wait.

Let me explain myself before you cut in.

The person, the figure, who would be the measure of all things, would be the person who perceives all things.

Man is the measure, not the perceiver of all things.

He's the measure of all things.

What is the measure of all things. What is measure of all

things? What is the distinction

between measurement and perception?

It basically means all things

can be measured in terms of how they fit

within the development of what culminates

in man.

That culminates in man that every every discrete observation we can abstract from the cosmos is an extension of man it's it's everything is the measure of man. It's everything is the measure of man,

right?

You can look at it in both of those senses.

So that's what it means.

Man is the measure of all things

how would this be so is it that man is the measure of all things or that the physical laws governing nature are the measure of all things or is man the physical laws governing nature or is man the physical laws governing nature physical laws governing nature culminate in man

who is the measure of all things

that that the measure

of all things would be the thing that all

things culminate into makes a lot of sense.

And how can we, I mean, this to me is just the same pattern of retroactively assigning some kind of telos to things that don't need to have a telos.

How could we truly...

Because you're taking your humanity

like especially

with the alien example let's say

tomorrow a big alien fleet comes up and

fucks our planet and has

technology far beyond our greatest dream how is man the culmination of all things?

I mean, this is possible that we have a large universe.

As per Marx's definition of man, these beings would be men.

They would be human.

So the most intelligent...

Nothing human is alien to me.

The most intelligent self-related thing is going to be the measure of all things.

What do you mean most intelligent?

You're just, you're using freight, you're, you're not weighing the meaningfulness

of your words carefully here.

I don't, I don't like taking these liberties.

Oh, they're more advanced.

They have more space guns.

Therefore, they're more intelligent.

It's like, that's not what

we're talking about here hold on wait then what is the the criteria that that that we're saying man

is the culmination the self-relatingness yes and how is self-relatingness developing except through

technology and culture

and the intellect?

How else would we say that this develops?

All you said was intelligence, which is

something I doubt you could define.

If you want to define it in Reza's sense then by all means but I doubt that's the sense in which we're using it

I'm just I if it's not those things I just listed, if it's not technology and culture and... Okay, let's start with intelligence, if you want.

What would...

Sure, we can start with intelligence.

What is intelligence? What does that mean?

I think intelligence would have to be the...

Let me think about this for a minute.

Okay, what's an intelligible?

What does it mean for something to be intelligible?

I... What does it mean for something to be intelligible? I like what Aristotle says that you understand its cause.

You understand how it's caused.

You understand it.

Okay.

I mean, what do you want to say then?

What is something intelligible?

So it would be suffice if you just said understanding, by the way.

Talking about causes is completely fucking pointless.

But, uh,

well,

if, if I'm,

if I'm looking at an intelligible object,

like,

I don't know,

this can of Red Bull in front of me.

Uh,

as long as it is something you can make out and situate within some kind of

distinct,

meaningful horizon, it's intelligible

you don't have to know its cause

no that's retarded because

animals do you have to know it's no animals

don't fuck are you kidding if you fucking wear a banana

suit if you fucking wear a banana suit and start fucking

Fortnite dancing in front of a fucking dog, it's not going to be able to tell the difference

between that and you're picking your fucking ass on the toilet.

So it won't because it's not going to regard

the intelligibility of the banana

suit in that specific way.

You don't have the basics down.

The way we can understand

a difference is we know the banana suit

has a different cause than an actual banana, right?

We don't have to know anything about the cause.

We don't have to know anything about the cause.

The cause, the causality is meaningless here.

It means nothing.

We don't have to know anything about the cause. All we have to know

is that this thing is different from that thing, that this is a thing, it's a definite thing,

distinct from that thing. That is intelligibility. Understanding the cause of this

thing is a secondary thing. It's completely

irrelevant to the question of what

makes something an intelligible. Something

is intelligible when we can distinguish

it from something else.

And take it as

as a specific object of the understanding.

We don't have to like argue about this seems like we're getting unrelated.

No, it's not unrelated, okay?

It's absolutely not unrelated.

We were discussing self-relation.

We were just, yeah, and you wanted to talk about intelligence.

So I wanted to ask you, what is intelligence, or I wanted to begin with what is an intelligible?

And you answered it in a way that pissed me off.

Because it's fucking stupid.

You can claim it's stupid. That's fine. But this

either we can end this talk now

or we can pivot because I don't really want to do

a philosophical discussion about what intelligence end this talk now or we can pivot because I don't really want to do a

philosophical discussion about

what intelligence is. I'd rather

try and get to some

kind of understanding, some kind of sensibility

of what self-relation is

so that we can know why man

is the culmination of the process of history.

Because only man regards things as objects of understanding according to something more than just those external things themselves.

Right.

To be conscious, to be conscious, merely conscious would be to have, see intelligible things, but to be self-relating would be to be conscious of your consciousness.

That man is a being that has self-relation, that looks, that refers back upon itself recursively at the expense of other things therefore being a species of being while simultaneously being being do you understand it's a species of being, which itself is being, which is being.

It's not simply a species of being under some greater being that, you know, is accounting for it the species of being which accounts

for its own being which is this being it's identical with this being right so this is the concrete

this is man is the concrete, this is man is the concrete universal.

That is man. Man is being that acquires

this

self particular

particularization as a concrete

determination.

See, even life doesn't care about reproducing itself as an integral being.

Only man does.

Only man is species being. only man does only man

is species being

people think

people oftentimes point to life

and a biological organism which does

reproduce itself and say

that's what that is right

this is a kind of being that, you know,

has this integral wholeness,

which it reproduces at the expense of its surroundings.

But that's not what organisms are.

That's not what they're doing.

Because the quality of

the quality of the integral wholeness

is not there. Organisms

are

a part of an extremely divided existence.

Right? Like, predator and prey, for example, in the part of an extremely divided existence, right?

Like predator and prey, for example,

in the relation of predator and prey,

the wolf is not a utilitarian fat British guy

who's calculating how many fucking sheep

he's going to slaughter a court.

No, the wolf, as far as the wolf might even in the most primal sense

identify with the prey when they're chasing the prey it's like they're chasing themselves and

they're eating they don't have these distinctions right there's no self-referentiality at all

um

so

like

the wolf chasing

its prey is no different

than it would be the equivalent of an unconscious metabolic process happening within us that we don't even know about my critique would be that it might be true

it's actually not clear to me if it's true that man is the only

self-related being on this planet at least any other self

relating being would be capable of language because that's what language is what do you

think a fucking word is that's what language is. What do you think a fucking word is?

That's all language is.

Language is precisely

the language of the species

being. Language

is the order

of species being, the cosmos

of species being. Sure cosmos of species being.

Sure, sure, sure. But I follow the point of view. I've read a number of papers. You can

disagree with this, but I've seen it said that the language forming part of the brain is

actually one in the same with the tool

making part of the brain. And that we

see other great apes developing

tool making skills and all of this

suggests to me that are

great uniqueness. Can you find the part of the brain that is specifically responsible for Skibbitty Toilet?

That specific configuration of words, Skibbitty Toilet.

Well, Scribity Toilet is a development of a discourse.

And clearly, I'm not saying that a chimpanzee is self-relating in the same way a human is, but if there's a possibility that it is developing and evolving, then we're looking at a situation where there could be a discourse of chimpanzees.

In fact, we know Neanderthals

had a discourse, and they are a distinct

species. How does that contradict

what I said, man is the measure of all

things. Cosmos culminates in man.

This is what I said. Because it starts

because it... the key to

anatomy of the ape is in the anatomy of a man. That's what Mark said. The ridiculousness of it

is that it is a recursive truth that that it's true for man in so far as I'm a man and I'm hearing

you say this as a man and my so far as I'm a man and I'm hearing you say this as

a man and my ontology is that of a man

but I am not being

I am not the sum of

being being is far beyond

what I can perceive

and I you're not a being

at the measure of all things you're not a a being. I am a being. I am a being. I am not capital B being. Okay. What's the difference? The difference is that capital B being is the universal totality of all things. I am not the universal totality of all things. I'm not even

close to that. And also the universal totality of all things. How can we make all things into a something?

How does that acquire determination?

How do all things acquire determination?

You are the one who saying that.

Is it the multiverse and the omniverse,

where it's just like,

or is there a concrete, is there a concreteness to the particularity?

That the particular is the totality, that the rose is red, that the redness is not simply an attribute of the rose, the rose is red that the entire integral totality

of universal existence is its particulars it is the concrete disparate determinations that is what it is

i mean you can give me some

beautiful William Blake poetry about seeing

infinity in a grain of sand.

No, well, Blake,

one of his favorite things that he wrote

was seeing infinity in a grain of sand

and that reminded me of something you said earlier.

Anyway, which I agree with.

So the universal is in the particular.

So because man is self-relating, man is the universe. This to me is ridiculous. Theating man is the universe

this to me is ridiculous

the only thing that could actually account

you know honestly I hate to say it

because it's so reddit and cringe

but it is the truth

man is the universe set upon

itself you know well the redders they say it's the universe set upon itself you know well the redders they say it's the universe thinking about itself

i hate i hate it but it's kind of close to the truth where i'm going with this is that i would see i would

say god is what the universe rests on.

There has to be something beyond being that can actually account for the universality actually encompass being.

Anything within being is not being itself.

That doesn't make sense. My liver is not being itself. That doesn't make sense.

My liver is

not me.

You know,

the fact that

my liver is within me and I have a

body that is circumscribing all of my different

organs. That is universality.

Could we

could we describe the meaningfulness

or significance of your liver

outside of the context of being part of you?

Yeah. of the context of being part of you? No, we couldn't.

So what's your question?

My question, the question, I mean, that's exactly my point.

We couldn't have man.

We couldn't speak.

Man can't speak from my point of view.

Man cannot speak himself as the universal because he is within a system that is outside of him.

Man by necessity, though, this is the problem. By

necessity, man has

to speak with reference to the universal.

To say nothing of himself,

to speak about anything at all,

man must speak with reference to the

universal.

No matter how much he tries to humble himself and say, well, I don't know, actually, I'm only speaking for myself.

Just by partaking in what we call language, he has to ultimately make reference to something that satisfies or acquires parity with the universal.

Well, yeah, it's just like how Plato, you know, kind of comically says, like, we should excise all things where we say this is or this, this is something that can be.

He says we should get rid of those because

it's illogical to say those in

one of the dialogues. Of course

we have to speak in

and communicate with sensibility

but the

design and logic of language

and how we communicate sensibility,

that doesn't say anything

about the actual universality of these things.

We are just speaking.

What are we speaking about?

I mean,

it seems to me that language like I said earlier develops

out of production toolmaking

like what is poop

good one no what is that what is no entertain it what the human excrement that comes when we process food and it goes, the, the, the, the, the, the waste goes into our bladder, whatever.

Okay. So you, so what is that I mean this is this to me

like what's the point here

this is childish

if you ask the question of what is anything

what is anything at all

there's a metanumi.

Eventually you're going to get

stuck in a kind of totology

where the real

thing that you're talking about, although you're

talking about particular different things, obviously,

there's an underlying

thing you're talking about that you just cannot enunciate, definitely.

I mean, yeah, this is like a problem.

You can keep dividing and dividing and dividing and dividing. There's an implicit horizon of meaningfulness that itself you cannot directly communicate, but which is implicit in every word you use and in everything you say.

What is this implicit horizon of meaningness that you're speaking of?

I don't know how this addresses the question of how language is really universal or if it is just a

means of communicating

premises that are understandable.

That's what I'm talking about. Communicating what?

What does it mean under

when you're talking about something like the understanding?

What does it mean to understand?

It means to take something and subject it to some kind of...

You're taking something, you're abstracting it, and you're putting it in some kind of unique chain of signification.

So you're still within language when you're talking about understanding.

Look, I have no doubt that man is a uniquely advanced species in its brain and consciousness.

I'm not talking about advanced. I am not talking about advanced. Language is obviously contingent upon

some of our faculties of

space and time and the constancy

of objects over time and

our observation. It's so gay, dude. You sound like

you all Nova Horari. I fucking hate it.

Like, honestly, I just like, what an awful thing to it. Like, honestly, I just like,

what an awful thing to say.

Like, what an awful Reddit

disgusting thing to say.

Like, I'm not fucking talking.

I'm not saying man is a special kind of fucking animal.

I'm saying we're not animals.

We're something qualitatively different. And if you disagree, you're not a

fucking Marxist. No, we're not a fucking special type of creature for fucking pedophile Yuval Noah Hariri

to creepily fucking oogle and dissect us. That's not what we fucking are.

We are not an... We are qualitatively distinct

kind of being. And I'm sick of pretending we're not.

There's no spectrum. There's no spectrum.

There's no spectrum. Everything you've told me,

everything you've told me,

Haas,

is just how man is going to ontologize himself

and create his own meaning.

And all of your meanings are ridiculous. Man is not creating his own meaning. And all of your meanings are ridiculous.

Man is not creating his own meaning.

He is giving way to a meaning that precedes him is my point.

And his, the meaning that precedes him is the physical limitations of his body and his world no the meaning that precedes him are the

cosmic principles that give rise to his existence in the first place and man is not those cosmic

principles we did not create physics we discovered physics god creates all of these things so when god i say we created

anything who's talking about creation except you this all comes back from the point that you want to

say that there's some kind of culminating communism world principle physics physics. Yes, the cosmos

It's all one. It's not all

one. I don't think it's all one.

The principles guiding

cosmic development culminated in what we call

man. That's what I said. I didn't say man

creates anything. I said

And what is that but a fart in a wind?

The principles guiding physical development

created skibbitty toilet

and the last shit you took.

I don't know what to tell you.

I was communism any different than any of these things that exist.

Because if nature and the universe has a lawful tendency to the development of what we call the very being, and it's called having self-awareness,

which is capable of

regarding objects as objects, or

being as beings, or being as such,

and language, and so on and so on,

that this means

that the thing that we regard is exclusively meaningful within ourselves

has to come from out of that. So nobody denies that other things in the universe exist like

poop, okay?

But what we're talking about specifically is that man arises as a consequence

of principles guiding the cosmos.

And man happens to be the only being

that relates to itself,

as itself.

So if there's,

okay,

two things.

Everything else also relates as a consequence.

No,

it doesn't.

No,

that, that, my friend, is No, it doesn't. No, that

my friend is where you cross the line.

No, then you're crossing

the line into some kind of

schizophrenia where poop is

secretly thinking about the poopness

of itself, which granted all

philosophers and scholastics implicitly believed that,

you know, a rock is secretly some kind of obeying some kind of like divine mind according to

which it is a rock, right? And it has this identity. But that is just a superstition it's just metaphysics maybe the rock is

suspended in a process the same principles that guide the development of rocks are those that

guide and aid the development of what culminates into man and And so there's this term I forgot who said it, which is like,

nature, speech arose to give expression to the agony within nature, right?

So there is an inherent kind of tendency within nature that aspires toward man right but but doesn't achieve it so man is the measure of all things would imply that i just disagree.

I don't think man is God.

God is God.

When did I say man is God?

Holy shit.

You're saying that the possibility, okay, the possibility and the objectivity of all objects that exist around us are only contingent upon man being their measure.

I don't agree with that.

Yes, because man is the highest of God's creation.

Okay. of God's creation according to all the fucking religions

right

sure sure man

you don't you said you're not a but but man is contingent

as well

and this gets to the other point

what point

when you say man is contingent

what point are you making

the point is that the point is that man is contingent, what point are you making?

The point is that you want to

have it that all of the objects in our

universe are contingent upon man as their

measure, but man himself

is contingent upon someone else as his measure.

Is this not true?

You know what? You don't even know what you're taught. You're like, you fucked your

own brain into confusion and I don't know how much I can help you any further.

When I say man is the measure of all things,

I'm not claiming that the existence of things in the universe depends upon our

awareness of them or something. I'm saying that, I'm not saying they depend upon anything.

Though the whole notion of dependency and contingency, you fucking invented. I never said anything about that okay what i said

that man is the measure of all things i said it can be understood in two senses one that cosmos

culminates in what we call man that means everything has to be contextualized

within that frame of development so even a rock you have to context what specific trajectory

of development is the rock situated within or why am I not

actualizing my own existence

shut the fuck up

which no no no let's

I need to understand this

before you proceed

why is it

shut the literal fuck up?

Back to the rock.

It has to be understood within the context of a logos or pattern, whatever you want to call it, of

development, like lawful development, because the universe is in constant flux. It's being driven

by something or away from something, however you want to look at it. And the culmination of that,

according to what I'm saying, is man. Matter has a tendency to culminate into what

Ilyenko called the thinking spirit. I wouldn't necessarily approve that term.

So that's what it means. That's one of the senses in which you can say man is the measure of all things.

Iraq may never partake in the process of the development into something like man, right? but insofar as there's going to be novel

developments within the cosmos in so far as there's novelty and development and not being stuck

in the same let's say physical pattern for billions and billions of years, the buck stops with man.

That's what I'm saying.

Now, the second thing I'm saying is that you could also look at it in the sense, which is the most prevailing interpretation, by the way, that to say man is the measure of all things

simply means that there's an inescapable horizon within which we abstract things from the

cosmos and measure them and so on and attribute them meaningfulness, which is a reflection of ourselves

and always will be and it's inescapable and we can never acquire an inhuman perspective

with respect to how we interact with things. So these are the two senses in which it would be

legitimate to say, man, is the measure of all things. Now I'll unmute you.

On the first matter, that man is the culmination of physical laws governing the universe without getting in a getting your panties in a twist can you explain how that fact is any different than any other number of things which are also culminations.

Lesser culminations, maybe a rock, a dog.

Absolutely.

These are all things that have come to be and are as they are now as a result of physical laws governing the universe.

That's true, but rocks are incapable of thought.

They can't think.

They don't have language.

They can't, they're not laboring beings.

They don't transform their surroundings.

According to the reproduction of their activity, they don't have activity.

So that's the distinction.

Wait, sorry. Sorry.

But that doesn't...

Do you even know what I mean by culmination

do you somehow think that when I say

culmination it somehow means that

man does not coexist

with things that are not man that's not what I'm

fucking saying I'm saying insofar

as there is a pattern or lawful

development of matter

if matter obeys a lawful

pattern of development

the culmination of that

development is man

so in this in this scheme

although man

is co-temporal with rocks

and all sorts of other things,

those have not

developed

to the conclusion, to

their final conclusion, so to speak, right?

So it's combined an uneven development, I guess,

if that's how you want to understand it.

The entire universe doesn't develop at the exact same rate

and even that to say so would be an absurdity because man

the very notion of man implies the entire breadth of cosmos, including rocks, including all these other things and

determinations we can identify. Man cannot exist as an absolute being abstracted from creation

and separate from it, because that would be God in that sense, right?

So no one's saying man is God. But we are saying that in this scheme, you know, man is the highest of God's creation.

Which is what the renaissance humanists were saying

man is the highest of god's creation. I mean, sure.

In terms of all of the things that we are aware of right now, we do

appear to be the

culmination, in a sense.

How does that then

relate to so so this could go on for a while because now we have to speak of how how is man in communism a culmination how is this also part of a universal principle that has been developing from the beginning of time?

Read the German ideology.

You're cut.

See, the problem with you is that you're coming at me with a pretense of literacy. You want to make it all philosophical, right? You want to interrogate meticulously every kind of propositional statement and whatever. It's like, then that implies a certain level of literacy. If you haven't fucking read what Marx wrote

in the German ideology about this,

then talk to me about how you're blackpilled

and you don't have faith or something

or bring it down a notch

because you're just pretending

to have a level of literacy here that you just don't frankly like it's such a mediocre question

how is man how does the existence of man inherently by the nature of man imply communism well isn't it

marx who talked precisely about that in the German ideology

and the economic and philosophical manuscripts? In his very definition of man as a, the species

being, the being that acquires concrete

determination, the universal

acquiring particularity through the

concrete, right?

The concrete particular. But then

man as a social being,

okay, man whose object is common so man is not

simply and an individual organism okay man is a relationality okay uh within a division of labor that actually forms an integral whole okay so that integral

whole is communism communism refers to the integral whole formed by man in his social existence

and man is by nature a social being and formed by man in his social existence.

And man is by nature a social being.

And it's not because he's a social animal.

This is where people misread Marx.

He never said anything like that.

What Marx said is that man is definitionally existing by virtue of his relation toward others and the logic of this is in his

writing about

democritus and the declination and the repulsion of the

atoms right in the it's baked into and the declination and the repulsion of the atoms, right?

It's baked into the notion of species being.

The same way being turns inward upon itself and thereby acquires self-relationality, right?

Man, an individual man, only in his relation with others,

acquires confirmation and existence, self-confirmation and existence.

Okay?

So, communism, all this really refers to throughout all epochs of history is the underlying logic of the integral whole formed by man. And communism does not become communism, okay? Like before then it's this riddle right it's this uh it's this secret behind

the riddle that only gets solved with the rise of the proletariat,

specifically as a consequence of the fact that with the rise of the proletariat,

man is finally reduced by measure

to his most fundamental essence, which is the ability to engage in labor.

So before property was alienated man, right?

So this is man's, man find self, confirmation, dignity, and existence in his

property. Literally his property, the thing that reflects him. He works on something, and this image is

him. It reflects back to him. So this is private property, right? And this is

an kind of alienated fetish that Marx talks about from man, right? With the rise of the proletariat,

the proletarians don't have property. The only thing they have is their labor and nothing else. But they're not slaves. It's not like they're owned entirely. They're selling their labor. They're selling their fundamental human quality, right?

So because of the rise of this new and unique class, because of moderate modernity and

capitalism, which Marx regards is the culmination of human history, you know, until communism, then finally it's

possible to acquire the perspective of the integral whole and its underlying logos, right?

Only then is it possible

because proletarians who have nothing to sell

but their labor cannot

cannot fulfill their interests as a class

without... fill their interests as a class without winning, without the complete winning of man,

what Marx calls the winning of man, which means the reappropriation of man's fundamental

essence,

which is the ability to transform his surroundings via labor, right?

So the proletariat in taking and seizing back the means of production, let's say,

it's see, it's man seizing back the means of production, let's say.

It's man seizing back and returning to himself the most fundamental quality that distinguish him from animals, right?

Tactile, what's up?

I think you're not muted.

I didn't mute you.

So, no, I was just thinking for a minute.

I mean, that is Marxism.

That is the Marxist explanation.

But that doesn't really answer the question I asked you.

And you can insult my literacy or whatever.

But the question I'm asking is, how do you know that your particularity, your own

ideology of communist ACP, whatever,

how do you know that this has any significance

for universal man besides your own self-positing

of what universal man should be?

Even a bum on the street has a significance for universal man.

Is that statement anything else besides everything is everything like

okay everything is interconnected

you know i'm really sick of this way

you're like gibbering and waffling

using terms i'm not even using

oh they think you're taking this vague

perception of what i'm saying oh Oh, this is just universal man.

You're not with meticulous detail and caution.

Actually, actually, like, articulating anything about what I'm saying.

You're not actually like,

what is he actually saying?

It's more like, oh, this is kind of like the vague vibe he's giving.

Stop judging what I'm saying based on fucking vibes.

Only... stop judging what I'm saying based on fucking vibes only accuse me of saying what I've said because you're babbling

so if

communism is the ontological structure of man's global, universal, sociality, how is that anything, but everything it's already...

You're just starting with this term universal.

Okay.

Because you're misusing terms.

I didn't say universal.

I said the integral whole of his existence.

The integral whole.

Okay, communism is the integral whole of man's existence.

Is that fine?

Can we proceed?

Yes.

How can we identify what is the voice of that integral whole besides everything that's happening all at once all of the time with man.

There's no magic secret. The voice is he who deigns through praxis to give consideration and regard for the universal whole. First, with respect to acknowledging it in the first place,

that we do form an integral universal whole, and then taking responsibility for that. And anyone who engages in that specific type of praxis is a communist anyone who takes responsibility

for being a part of an integral

whole is a communist

is this what we're

who names

and responds and assumes

responsibility for the integral whole

of our social existence

is a communist.

And could not

because many different... Definitionally

that means you're part of a communist party

Because that's the only way you can do that

I don't understand how this

What you described has nothing to do of joining a communist party

Anyone can take responsibility for

the integral whole and say, I am

leave, yes, absolutely. Describe it.

Describe what that would look like without being in a

communist party.

How would you take that?

United States for the last 80 years.

The United States for the last 80 years has been the hegemon the world empire that has attempted to take responsibility for the integral whole of

humanity and and the united states was never governed by. It objectively was not doing that.

The United States wasn't...

In the same way that the USSR doesn't do that, or communist China doesn't do that.

You are such a fucking retard. It's disgusting.

You're saying that because the United States had the aspiration to impose universal world government, that that's the same thing that what I'm talking about.

The U.S. didn't aspire to take responsibility for the integral whole of our social existence because it never acknowledged any such integral whole in the first place it acknowledged

a global society it acknowledged that there were other countries and there were other peoples

sure but but did they really acknowledge the way in which this all forms one totality, one integral whole?

No, never.

And the reality of this integral whole was never defined by the rule of the United States.

It was defined by the Vietnamese farmers and guerrillas and Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban, whatever you want to call it, who were resisting U.S. unipolar rule. Why? Because they proved that is the entire thing. You can't just say, oh, the New York City, that's the global community.

No, the global community were the motherfuckers in Afghanistan resisting the occupation, or in Vietnam, or in Iraq, or Gaza, or whatever you want to say or Vietnam or Korea.

That's the integral whole.

At no point could the U.S. logically account for that, right?

They had to illogically

demonize these people as terrorists

or as, you know, godless commies who are

committing atrocities, whatever, dehumanizing

them effectively. But was there any sense or way in which the U.S. could logically reconcile with the fact that this forms an integral world order?

That this is its true, the real order behind things beyond its pretenses is that people aspire to have

national self-determination and dignity and sovereignty and so on and so on and own their

land and own their resources and whatever. course they couldn't so what you're saying

is fucking nonsense well first of all yes they did america did protectionism they had a sense of sovereignty

they're a product of the ideas of nation state that come from history.

America did have that idea for itself, but just not for other people.

I'm not talking about a fucking idea.

I'm talking about the willingness of a Vietnamese farmer to take up arms and literally get himself killed to fight for something that the

American occupiers just couldn't understand why.

So America was clueless as to why there was a Vietnamese resistance?

I don't, this is all poetic.

They were absolutely clueless about the fundamental morale that animated a Vietnamese soldier.

They get coped and they imposed, though this is Asiatic fanaticism and they're brainwashed.

And even in the Korean War, they even made up this lie

that they have these advanced brainwashing technologies or something.

They could never understand it.

Especially true with Iraq and Afghanistan,

where they couldn't understand why these

Muslim fanatics were taking up

arms to defend their homeland rather than fucking

jacking off and eating Cheetos and watching porn

playing fucking Halo.

You think the United States

just couldn't understand this at all

relate to it, could not share the same humanity, absolutely not.

This is, I mean, Hollywood made right on.

You're telling me, you're telling me George W. Bush, you're telling me George W. Bush you're telling me

George W. Bush had an acute

sense of shared humanity

with Iraqi insurgents taking up arms

and blowing themselves up

to defend their country.

Okay, so that is what you're saying.

No, no, I'm just getting

lost in the ambiguity and vagary

in the poetry of this because it's like,

of course the United States...

Of course the United States

understood that

those particular peoples were going

to defend themselves.

Maybe they...

Jesus Christ.

This guy, you are such a midwit, dude.

Like, you're pissing me off so much with how

stupid the shit you're saying is.

Did I say that the U.S. couldn't

mechanically anticipate

that there is armed resistance.

I'm talking about the fucking motivations and the morale.

I'm talking about the why, why actually, in a way that they themselves shared.

They didn't fucking share that.

So as per my definition,

it's absolutely consistent that a

communist is he who takes responsibility

for the integral whole

of social existence. The U.S.

absolutely did not fucking do that.

I mean, this might just sound completely ridiculous

to you, but at the same time we were doing

the Cold War, we made the movie Red Dawn

where we imagined

America getting invaded and how we'd

all band together and be partisans.

And it's not as if this is out of the imagination of the United States Empire.

It's just the United States.

We are so fast.

We are so far past the fucking ballpark of the actual point here.

Because the point is the United states was not taking responsibility for the

integral whole of social existence not in the u.s. and certainly not with and by the way you are such a

fucking idiot fuck with you heard the term integral whole of existence and said the planet the integral

whole of social existence has a national form it's not the entire fucking planet but even if we

were to assume it's the entire planet and that the all the whole world is just one country then in this

case the u.s would be a shitty regime that is absolutely incapable of taking responsibility for

the integral whole of its existence as evidenced by the fact that there was so much resistance to its rule.

That's not responsibility. That's avoiding responsibility.

Avoiding responsibility for why they're endangering the cause of the resistance in the first place.

They're not taking responsibility for that.

You know, what would that?

Maybe that would look like fucking paying reparations to Vietnam and rebuilding it or something.

It would be anything but what the U.S. is today or what it became in the immediate aftermath.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that Empire, when it rises to the point of empire where it does have

some pretense to pax americana packs romana whatever you have it of being a universal state

of some kind and this comes also with our UN Declaration

of Human Rights. All of the bourgeois ideology

that described

the American hegemony. I am literally

so exhausted of how retarded you are.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Literally nothing. You are being

intentionally pedantic.

You heard me say a communist

as EU takes responsibility for the universal

whole of social existence. Now you're

talking about the fucking UN. You are

being deliberately obtuse,

pedantic and... No, I'm not

being deliberately obtuse. Processing my and I'm not being delivered.

Processing my fucking point. Do you want me to

you want me to meticulously explain why those

are not the same thing?

Is that what you want?

Yeah, I want.

The critique is literally that

you have ideology, America has ideology, all empires have ideology that claim to be speaking to this vague integral whole.

The Romans spoke to the integral whole.

Instead of gibbering like a fucking retard,

you could have just said that every ideology

pretends that it speaks for the

on behalf of a universal principle.

You could just say that.

Instead of butchering and fucking abusing

the words

I bestowed upon you

with fucking

with mercy

and generosity

I taught you

words that you're

now abusing like

a retard

is that what

you mean to say

that every ideology

can pretend

to be a

universal principle?

Yes, absolutely. That is a problem. And I would say there's a difference between,

there's a difference between an ideology pretending to rep, reflect, to represent a universal

principle, and actually being one. And how would you know? you would know in terms of whether or not this

principle can successfully can successfully actually guide and mobilize society through a revolutionary change,

which the U.S. and the U.N. cannot do.

And the revolutionary change is inevitable.

It's a cycle.

It's a dynastic logic and cycle of change, right?

The principle that the U.S. claims is a universal one has to pretend and suppress and ignore that.

It can't lead and guide that change because the change condemns it to the

dustbin of history

maybe it's the whole

revolutionary part you're fucking missing

maybe that's what it is maybe it's the part

about how the integral totality

that I'm talking about

comes at the expense

of the pretenses and

conceits that arise within the

various divisions of labor. And if you want

to ask the question, what

separates, how can

you distinguish a conceit

that arises from the division of labor

from an authentic perspective

that authentically gives way to and

reflects the universal whole

if I gave you examples

like Lenin, if I gave you examples

like Mao, if I gave you examples like Hussein, if I gave you examples like Mao, if I gave you examples

like Hussein, right, who

from scratch,

outside the power structure, outside

of its money stream, derived

the authority of a new principle

from scratch

without anything to go off of except the ability to communicate this

principle to organize from scratch to live by these principles to live by the real moral cosmos, the moral cosmic principle.

What did you tell me in Discord?

You told me these people were trying to usurp God.

I digress.

Religious leaders that claim the role of prophecy, prophetic wisdom, and spoke for God.

It's not up to me to evaluate.

You said Lenin tried to usurp. Lenin was usurping God when he did what he did. Okay. Lenin tried to usurp. Lenin was usurping God

when he did what he did.

Lenin was outside of the

hegemony. He from scratch

built that Bolshevik party

and then

took power. It was basically kind of like

it was, it resembles in a lot of ways to me like the the St. Paul going around for why did Jesus enter this world in a mangler? Can you answer that question? Genius. Because I could. Because it's only when you give yourself

shut the fuck up

shut the fuck up

because it's only when you give yourself

to the mercy and grace of the

integral totality

of the existence you're part of without any support from the

hegemony whatsoever that you live and die by the principle alone with nothing else with no wealth with no pre-existing fame with no

pre-existing popularity with no pre-existing support you go where your message goes you go with only your ability to communicate that principle of the universal whole and that's it

and that's the only authority you have and that's why jesus said he was the king of the Jews, even though he was fucking broke and was born in a mangro.

Ultimately, this does boil down to, like, the stronger will be victorious, right?

I mean, the principle that comes out on top.

What's wrong with that?

It means that communism isn't anything but the strong.

You know why you're a fucking coward

because I know what you're trying to say

and it's pathetic

you have no other reason

to partake in the same faith

that literally all the people

who found meaningfulness in the revolutionary

message throughout history other than brute force.

Well, Jesus didn't compel anyone by force. None of the Bolsheviks were compelled by force.

None of the followers of Genghis Khan in the beginning were compelled by force.

None of the followers of Ismail were compelled by force. None of the followers of Moses were even compelled by force. None of the followers of Ismail were compelled by force. None of the followers of Moses were even compelled by force. They were compelled by faith. You are incapable of relating to that and of having faith because you're a nihilist, because you take the black pill, because you surrender,

and you live a meaningless existence.

I can't relate to you, buddy.

That's the difference between us.

I can't relate to you.

I think that you occupy a miserable

existential position that I cannot

and would not

ever,

ever deign myself

to even try

to relate to

because it's cowardice

and it's defeatism

and all I can say

is I pity you.

You say,

well, yeah,

ultimately,

having these kind of principles will mean that you win in the end because you're tapping into the fundamentals of what ground a social order

and you're testing it into the fire of what it really fucking is

where the motherfuckers that talk, they have to start walking.

And it turns out the motherfuckers that can actually walk are the motherfuckers actually about

some real shit.

That's what history shows us, right?

It's not about the people who have all the money and have all this cloud and popularity, whatever.

It's about the motherfucker is actually about some

real ass shit they're willing to fucking live and die

for, right?

And yeah, that does win out in the end.

That is what compels the masses.

To say, what the fuck am I even

living on this fucking earth for?

To be a fucking slave or to live for a higher principle and be something more than a

fucking animal.

You can't relate to it.

You can't relate to it. But all the people... I can relate to it. You can't relate to it, but all the people that...

All the people that follow Jesus could.

All the people that join Hussein's army.

However meager among them, they all fucking understood it.

All the people that rode with Lenin understood it. All the people that rode with Lenin

understood it. All the people in

Mao's army during the Great

The Long March understood it.

And you stop fucking putting everyone in one basket

Like this is all the same fucking thing.

Yeah, these are the same fucking thing

Because every fucking instance of what I mentioned, every fucking instance of what I fucking mentioned involved motherfuckers who had only their principles to offer their followers and nothing else. No wealth, no power, no fucking nothing, except

authenticity, except principle.

The principles were different. They were different principles.

It doesn't fucking matter. The logic

rhymes and it's the same.

You can't say these things are similar.

They're all disparate because you're a fucking

nihilist. You can't see the

harmony and resonance of history

because you're a fucking nihilist.

You're a mad. How the fuck are you even talking to me?

There are many

principles out there that I could die for right now.

No, there's none.

I'm going to be a Shia?

Am I going to be a Christian zealot?

These are all different fucking

principles. You're a fake ass, pussy

ass bitch. You're a fake

pussy ass bitch. If a fake pussy ass bitch

if you find it fucking necessary

to put all these things

in separate fucking boxes

instead of doing the thing that came to people's

common sense which is that actually

these are all different

these are all

these are all the same thing These are all the same thing.

They're all the same thing.

Absolutely they're the same fucking thing.

They're absolutely the same fucking thing.

You can't prove that with anything but your vagaries

and your perennialist vagaries.

Insofar, insofar, why does it have meaningfulness in the first place, you fucking retard?

Why would anyone care about Jesus in the first place if there wasn't something meaningful and powerful about what he did.

Since we're not living in Jesus' context, why the fuck are you even a Christian by your logic?

You're not fucking living in fucking Rome and their fucking historical conditions that supposedly make it radically distinct.

Why is it that fucking Jesus

is remembered today?

And nobody gives a shit about Caesar.

Because that shit is universal

and across all of history.

And it's the same fucking thing.

That's why motherfuckers who are addicted to heroin

say that they can be saved by Jesus all the same fucking thing what the fuck else would it be

what a stupid existence these these these are all just completely unrelated.

They're not resonances of the same fundamental meaning.

What are we fucking here for to be maggots?

Haas, I am simply asking you, rather than putting all of these in one box and saying it's all communism,

why is it a box? It's not a box. I never said it was a box. What is the language I used? The language I used reflects relationality.

I never said it's a box.

I said it, I never said it's a common identity.

I never said a common identity.

I said a common meaningfulness.

A common meaning, absolutely.

Absolutely a common meaning.

You're the fucking retard who follows Greek pederast

who reduces meaningfulness to identity.

I shit on identity.

I'm not a fucking Greek peterast like your fucking teachers.

This is...

But the important...

You think meaning...

That's what your problem is.

You don't understand the sublime.

You don't even know what meaning is.

You think meaning is an identity.

You think it's an ideology.

You think it's a box in your own fucking

words. You think meaning is a box?

You fucking idiot?

Meaning is the only fucking thing

you have when you have nothing. Meaning is the only fucking thing you have when you have

nothing. Meaning is

what you get from your encounter with the

sublime with the real. I ask my question.

If this is

higher some of you, we can stop, but I do have a

question.

I'm going to ask it unless you want to stop.

But the question is, and this is perhaps this is more of a subjective point.

But when I am confronted in the world with many

different principles that

that could constitute or

have the possibility

because I don't know and you don't know until

retrospectively when it

is victorious when the when the stronger

is victorious that the principle is true.

No, that's how you live. Don't fucking,

don't fucking, don't fucking put my name

in your mouth with your bitch-ass slave-like

fucking mentality. I'm going to wait to see

who's fucking stronger. Fuck, no,

I'm not. Fuck no, I'm not waiting to

see who's stronger. I'm in this bitch, motherfucker.

You think I have absolute motherfucker. You think I have

absolute certainty? You think I have

absolute fucking certainty that I'm not going to end up

dead in a ditch or in prison

for the rest of my fucking life? I am taking

that fucking risk. And guess what, motherfucker?

I'm doing it still. So don't

fucking project your bullshit on me and say that I, oh, we only know

retrospectively after the strongest wins out.

Really?

Did fucking Genghis Khan know he's going to come out on top?

Did fucking anyone know that they're going to come out on top until after they

fucking had the fucking balls to take the

first step. Get the fuck

out of here with that shit.

Fuck are you talking about? Don't project

that shit on me. Yeah, for

the slaves who have no

faith for the infidels

only after the stronger they...

Yeah, yeah, of course.

After the prophet finally fucking gained a following

and defeated all the fucking wicked-ass pagans of Arabia,

a lot of those pagans came on board.

Okay, he's strong.

Yeah, but what about the OGs?

Yeah, yeah. The same people,

the same, the same, the same, the same, the same Romans,

who killed Jesus, okay? Jesus

was a beggar, he was a nothing, he was

like a homeless guy, right? Then they killed

him, and then only when Christianity

became a power, only

when it became the power of Rome itself,

a lot of people, oh,

it became the dominant thing, I'm

going to follow it. Okay. But you're

discarding the OGs who were there

from day fucking one when there was

nothing.

The reason I asked that question was not out of

a position of slavery waiting to see who the

slave like no no no no let me explain the fact that you're allowed to talk to me is crazy

all right do you want to stop the conversation no i'm just saying it's very generous to me it's like i you're

literally like on the lowest this is like some ain't this is why there was cast systems in the past

by the way because this guy he's on the lowest cast so anyways i'm sitting among spiritual

cattle man it's disgusting these and i can So anyways, I'm sitting among these different principles.

It's disgusting.

And I can commit to a number of principles or my own principle.

And do you know, you, do you understand what this entails?

This entails a commitment

of life towards

things that are potentially

quite objectionable.

Lenin defended a rapist.

There was murder. Who was the rapist?

It was

uh, okay, drop that point. It was, uh, okay,

drop that point.

It was something I read.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Like,

what are you fucking mean?

No,

let's roll that back.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I don't recall the names of the history well enough,

but I think it was during the first or second RS, like, conference where there was the Bolshevik-Menshevik split.

Part of the reason there was that split was because Martov and the Menshevik sort of forming

proto-faction was mad that one of the women in the party had killed themselves

because one of the men in the party had raped her and the men that's why there was a Bolshevik

menshevik split what the fuck are you talking about it was part of the the surrounding context of it. It was colored it, certainly. It was part of it. But that is really unrelated to what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is extreme risk to my own life. There was no rape involved in that entire affair okay i i i understand

that it's important that you defend these historical consequences that's it's irrelevant

there was no rape there was no rape i was wrong rape i was wrong i. What rape are you talking about? I was wrong.

I was wrong. Don't fucking talk about Lenin

this way. Okay, I am a perennialist. That means

he's like a prophet to me. So

but but the get his name

out of your mouth when you're talking nonsense,

retard. Besides the

points of that,

you would at least agree

that it involves picking

a principle and dying for it and having

this confrontation with death

with your principal on your back.

This involves extreme risk

to yourself and a willingness when necessity calls to do objectionable things and violent things, right?

Objectionable according to who?

I mean, war is war.

Okay.

Is that not true?

Okay.

Well, if motherfuckers are out here,

being peaceful and living by their principles,

and people deign to strike them and lift a hand on them,

they have a right to

self-defense. I don't find

that objectionable whatsoever ever.

The prophet of the Islamic

religion went to war.

There's nothing objectionable

of what he did.

And it can't simply be self-defense.

It will be offensive, too.

No, name an instant.

You know what? There's no instance

in which it was predatory

and it wasn't self-defense.

Even Timmer didn't sack Dele as a purely

offensive thing.

What do you mean offense?

Give an example of what you're talking about.

Is this actually what we're going with that Gagis Khan was defending himself?

Great people throughout history in the pre-modern period.

They didn't just come out of fucking nowhere and just attack people for no reason as an offense because that's not what fucking happened.

There wasn't rating

and expansionism.

It was all defensive.

People like Genghis Khan and Tamerlane

came to power to put an

enter rating.

That's what they were coming

to put an end to

because that was

an endemic

it was an epidemic

of rating among the

nomads because there were

no fucking laws.

The motherfuckers doing

the rating that you're

talking about are not

remembered by history because they were fucking bums. It's the motherfuckers doing the rating that you're talking about are not remembered by history because they were fucking bums.

It's the motherfuckers that unified people under a common law and moral code that history remembers.

Yeah, there were plenty of bandits and nomads and bad motherfuckers that were doing that.

Nobody remembers who the fuck they were because they're a bunch of bums.

Punk-ass bitches that history doesn't remember.

So you are going to exclude the possibility of revolutionary excess, just wholesale. There's no such thing as access.

It's all self-defensive. You're defending the principle. I mean, we're talking about when the

Bolsheviks come to the point where they are controlling Moscow and large parts of Russia. These are state forces

that are moving blindly and thousands of men, millions of men moving across the country.

People...

What's the... What's... Something you can't control. What's your problem? To whatever extent they could control it, they control it.

Who are you blaming? That's like saying, you know, that's like blaming Jesus for Judas in a way. Like, what is your point?

The point is

I don't understand

and the reason why I said

that you're putting all of these different

traditions and principles in a box

and I was bothered by that.

I'm not putting them in a box. Stop saying that. No, no. Okay.

You were saying that there's

residences and there's an essential

familiarity between them. Resonance.

Resonance. There's resonance.

The reason I have an issue with this is that there are multiple things that I see in the world that have resonances.

And this is why you're a perennialist, I assume, that you see Islam has resonances with Christianity.

I think you don't have moral clarity.

The reason you have this kind of schizophrenic inability to distinguish poop in the toilet from a noble, great revolutionary agon. What has resonance and what does...

The reason you're, like, mish-mashing and conflating all these things

is because you lack moral clarity.

You just don't have an understanding of right and wrong.

I don't think any...

You're the type of rhetoric

who's going to be like, what is right

and what is wrong? Like, it just doesn't

fucking hit you like lightning.

And, you know

what? I find that incredibly corrupt

and decadent.

Because it's what... Everyone has it in them, knows what right incredibly corrupt and decadent. Because everyone

has it in them

knows what right and wrong is, right?

The motherfucker's sitting here

trying to overthink it to find

loopholes and get away with wickedness.

You're just a bad motherfucker. Just say that.

This is, you're just a bad person. You're just a bad motherfucker. Just say that.

This is,

you're just a bad person.

You're sitting here trying to find loopholes

and fucking ignore

your God-given

moral clarity

and think about

loopholes.

I want,

I want some kind of criteria or ability to compare.

You want a Luciferian certainty in something that you can only have faith in.

That's what you're saying.

I mean, derogatorily, Luciferian. I wouldn't say it's Luciferian.

Absolutely.

I think that's the very problem

with these principles.

Hold on. What's the story of the devil?

Why did he get kicked out of heaven? Do you know?

The Luciferian, actual

Luciferianism is creating a principle without having

knowledge. I'm not creating anything. Why did, why did, no, that's not what happened,

though. Why did Lucifer get kicked out of heaven? Or Satan?

I'm not... I'm not arguing about

Lucifer. I could explain it, you know?

The rebellion against God. I'm explaining to why you're a

Satanist. I'm explained to why you're Satanist.

Satan wanted to put himself in the

place of God. He wanted to be God.

Well, there's a better story. The real story is that God commanded all the angels and all the

Jin to bow before Adam. But according to the existing, you know, propositional axiomatic logic that Satan thought he had mastered,

you know, the Jin are made of fire.

Fire is a more spiritual element than clay.

It's higher on the ladder of the kind of cosmic hierarchy of, you know, forms of matter in their proximity to the divine, right?

So he's made of fire.

Adam is made of clay.

Why would I bow to Adam?

He's made of clay.

So by, by true.

So, so Satan was not satisfied

with faith. Because when God said

bow to Adam,

that was supposed to speak to a

kind of faith, you know?

Not just a trust in God's authority and his command.

But in we're not dealing with God's authority and his command. But we're not dealing

with God's commands. We're dealing with

the American Communist Party led by the

executive board. Are you guys God?

That has nothing to do with the analogy,

though. Because in this and that, nobody

mentioned the Communist Party.

Hey, shut it.

But your analogy just doesn't work.

You're a fucking retard, and I'm sick of

your voice. Take clouding up mine

when I'm trying to talk.

Just shut the fuck up.

Nobody mentioned Haas or the Communist Party being God in this analogy.

What I talked about was moral clarity.

You don't have an innate sense of moral clarity.

Now, could I entertain the possibility that you do have one that's just distinct from

mine? I could. I'm going on a limb here saying you have none at all. You demand certainty

of something that you could only have faith in. Now, I'm not claiming to be God and trying to define

what that faith should look like for you. I'm just communicating what it looks like for me.

Okay. Now, you're saying, but you're not just saying, I don't find that compelling, Haas. I can't see where

you're coming from. If you would just say that, I'd be like, okay, fine, I don't know what to tell you.

What you're saying is that I have no right to do this. What you're saying is that I have no justification.

What you're saying is that I, because I lack

the certainty that, you know, that would satisfy

your criteria,

you know, that whatever. I'm saying,

I'm arguing, true

moral clarity comes from faith.

It doesn't come from certainty.

It's a Luciferian satanic notion that you want the certainty,

because the only people who want certainty are the ones who want to have loopholes.

The people who are conflicted and don't know and can't tell what's right from what's wrong are lying to themselves

maybe could be could could very well be lying to themselves and they often are maybe they have a

mental disability.

But everyone has a moral clarity.

I'm going out on a limb and fucking saying that.

If I didn't have that assumption, I wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone.

Like, I don't need to talk to motherfuckers about why you shouldn't beat grandmas to death.

For example, I don't need to redidify a propositional.

I don't fucking need to do that.

If you find yourself needing to do that, you probably want to beat up some grandmas. You probably want

to search for a fucking loophole in which that would be possible. Well, it's too bad because

the entire thing comes from faith. Anyway, go ahead. Now I can hear your voice after the light of reason has prevailed.

I think going to beating grandma is a lot different than join the Communist Party.

I'm not demanding you do that.

I'm not saying you have to join the Communist Party. I'm just telling you why I'm not demanding you do that. I'm not saying you have to join the Communist Party.

I'm just telling you why I'm a communist.

I'm not saying that you're immoral if you don't join my party.

I'm saying that your critique of me is from a position of having no moral clarity at all.

Like you're a fucking robot redditor, like that Reddit robot.

No, my critique is that you're meeting people and where is this all going?

And that's your issue because people see what I'm seeing, and you don't.

Well, no, you do, but you're lying and coping to yourself about it.

That's what I've gotten from, like, the entire reason you're arguing with it right now is because you do see where we're all coming from, but you demand that we be certain in terms of some kind of like axiomatic propositional logic or something. You're demanding that we say, you know, well, why, why, why, like, everyone, everyone, like, you, you don't

you can't tell the difference

in your own words

between these

great meaningful events

throughout history

Jesus

it could be other

religious events

could be something else

and you're saying

well how do I know

I mean how can we say that these disparate things,

Moses and Jesus, how do we know Moses and Jesus have a resonance, which they do in Christianity?

So we're still within Christianity, right? How do we know Jesus and Moses have a resonance? What about having a resonance with poop in the toilet? Well, I just told you that the reason why you don't have a clarity or understanding of why certain things have a privileged resonance is because you lack moral clarity because you see things flat

one dimensionally is all the same because you probably have a worldview where everything

is subordinating to an understanding which is fixated on like like, playing video games, or, I don't know, like consuming or something.

And you just can't even bring yourself to think about the meaningfulness of anything outside of that.

I think you've blunted something very naturally human in the rest of us.

And I don't know what to tell you. I think you're doing it on purpose just to prove that you can, which you absolutely can, but you should be responsible for your position. That's all I'm saying. Be responsible. You're like blunting the very human quality we have within ourselves to have a moral clarity and moral compass. And you're, you know, you're instead saying, well, nothing exists. How can I know and how can I this and how can I? It's like, okay, but that's the path you're taking. Like, be

responsible for it. Okay. That's you. That's a you thing. That's not a me thing. That's

entirely a youth. You're the one who's making a problem out of that. There's no problem here.

So,

so if there is,

if there is no, okay, so if we share

morality, then, okay so if we share morality then and say we don't it doesn't matter to me but how how you can you how can you explain why someone should join your party if you're not appealing to some moral basis to that

okay let me give an example at a man a man who has a chapter in his area should join the communist

party and not just sit around on Reddit or whatever.

Okay, for example, let me explain why it's a flawed reasoning you're using.

And it's very simple.

If I say, let's say I said something stupid, like join the Communist Party if you want to make real change in this country.

Something I could justify and defend.

I could, absolutely.

But it's like, well, how can you be certain that people inherently want change in this country?

And it's like, you see see this is a context that we can

assume as given which is pre-established by the conditions we live in right and it's like you're

you want you want to deny that the justification for for people's compulsion to want to

change things and say well why why do you want to change things right and it's like you're

mixing causes here the cause of why people want to change things isn't because they took the wrong

path on the

Petterast philosophical

pontification Greek school of

fucking farting, you know?

It's used

a term you like farting.

It's because of real meaning,

it's because of a shared horizon of meaningfulness.

When I tell people a random fucking person, we need to make some real change in this country.

You know, I'm communicating within a shared horizon of meaningfulness.

You know that people see, you know what, things are going wrong in this country,

things are abnormal, things are dysfunctional, they're just not working, regardless of how you

ideologically interpret that. And there's a meaningfulness there that I don't need to preempt

or justify with axioms or with whatever you're looking for.

And we can absolutely take that for granted. When we're talking about why people should join the Communist Party, we have to rely on things like that, but we can absolutely take

them for granted. Because we cannot create the conditions of the shared meaningfulness of the

horizon of language and communication. We cannot impose a framework of shared meaningfulness all we can do is respond to the one we already have

but this is like i can't i can't i i mean we're not getting any further because

a million people come up and say we need to change

okay I could justify

why it's buzzwords in American politics

we need to change change change

Obama didn't I just dude you're actually in American politics. We need to change, change, change.

Obama said change.

Dude, you're actually stupid. It's like, didn't I just tell you that I could actually justify why the Communist Party uniquely, uniquely could make

real change in this country compared to all the others.

Didn't I tell you that?

That I could justify that if you wanted me to?

So if you want to challenge me to do that, I'd be happy to.

But I feel like it's irrelevant to your point.

Yeah, I mean, it would be like a pitch to join second baptist church i mean that's basically what it would be it'd be some kind of messianic vision for this country and how you can actualize it you know you say, but let's go to the meat and potatoes of what I'm actually saying

or what my party is actually saying.

All we're saying is that if we band together under a principle in which the common good

is supreme, without necessarily having a sanction in support of the

hegemony and build something from scratch, relying only on the laurels of what the American

working class is capable of, free from the corruption of the ruling class and and actually having the freedom and the ability to articulate in practice, functionally, organizationally and practically the values and principles that that the american people and the american people

wish to see reflected in politics which is impossible if you're working

under the hegemony

you know that it is possible it's absolutely possible if the if the american working class

bands together and its collective power, could it change this country however it wanted to? Absolutely it could. If the Communist Party, if people acquiesce to a principle of collective organization and join the Communist Party.

Let's say thousands of people joined our party.

Let's say tens of thousands of people.

Could we really, really, really fucking make some real changes in this country?

Absa fucking lulli we could.

And that's not superstitious to say that we absolutely fucking could

if we had tens of thousands of people in our party are you kidding do you know what significance

would be interpreted from our ability to win local elections on a mass scale in this country.

Do you know how much that would send shockwaves and move the needle and change the fucking conversation in this country in a direction that gets almost everyone taking communism seriously

and taking it seriously as a real

force that is possible within

U.S. politics, we would be proving

the possibility of a type of politics

nobody has ever considered

possible in U.S. history. And it

is possible.

There's nothing messianic or

superstitious about saying that.

It absolutely is possible.

But it's on us to make it fucking happen.

And it will go no further

than our efforts. I'm not claiming

there's going to be magical intervention

from the stars or from God.

It's going to come on us. We're going to

have to make it fucking happen. We can make

it happen.

But it's

going to go no further than our efforts.

We're going to get what we put in.

So what's so messianic and superstitious about that?

Oh, I understand why.

It's the fact that even what I just described,

even what I just communicated,

has so much powerful, like, symbolic resonance with genuinely revolutionary movements across history, where people had nothing. They were going against all odds, but all they were doing is having the courage to defy the powers that be, that it does feel like it's messianic.

It does feel world historical.

It does feel like it reflects something deeper.

You know, I could say probably everyone in the party probably feels that on some level that there's a bigger world

historical significance to what we're doing and yet all we're doing is something radically

simple from the perspective of common sense but that's how everything comes into being in history

it's also radically simple. It's never an extraordinary

magician promising tricks. It's also radically simple. The things that actually miraculously

change history and move mountains. It's also radically simple.

It just takes some courage.

Take some integrity.

It takes some courage.

That's what leadership looks like.

I'm trying to think of why I have an issue with this and at a certain point it's just like I don't trust that this can succeed and that's a problem of faith on my part. I think that is even if it fails that would be a step

in the right direction

because even if it fails

a future communist party

and movement

would be able to draw

concrete lessons

for how to do it

better next time

I mean it's possible at that point it's just next time.

I mean, it's possible.

At that point, it's just contingent. But I won't waste any more of your time, because as I reflect on it, it is just a lack of

faith that this can actually actualize.

Okay, forget this. Forget this.

Tell me what you could have faith in.

Maybe ask the question of whether you're just a faithless

person. I'm all ears. Maybe I'll quit the party and join

whatever you're talking about. Tell me what you could have faith in.

And maybe I'll quit the ACP and join that.

I'm not inviting you to anything, but I have moved.

You know, it's a figure of speech, though.

I have moved in the direction of a Christian faith and belief in Jesus Christ.

Why? Why are you putting Jesus in a box with 2026, though, right? Because it's a different time. And how can you claim that you can understand

Jesus' message, even though it came from a radically different context in time? How do you,

how can you claim to know what Jesus was talking about? There's no way you can relate it to your

existing world and existence.

What I meant in trying to say that there are differences between these things is that the gospel has a uniqueness to it.

It says that no one is going to come to the Father

except through Jesus Christ, right?

You know what's so wicked about you

and even disgusting?

Is that for hours in the discord

you are preaching about how only nothingness

exists. Everything's a fart in the wind.

There's only nothing.

And the only thing,

and the only thing that exists,

and the only thing that exists,

yeah, exactly.

Rape, everyone, everyone,

everyone is motivated by the desire

and lust for rape and murder.

That's what you said.

And now you're talking about how you're a Christian.

And now we, no, no, no.

You're taking one statement on human anthropology writ large as a statement on everyone.

I believe that with Christianity and with the gospel and with placing our faith in Christ

what a stupid, what a stupid backtracker doing?

So you're claiming that man only wants to rape and kill, right?

But that there is a principle that, that, you know, that brings man to his higher self.

How can there be a higher self within your framework, though?

What is the higher self not the problem is that it's not

the political it is the church it is the faith community it is the eucharist that is what is bringing

us to a higher principle not is what is the church what is the church

the church what's the church i'm discerning i'm discerning but i feel compelled by orthodoxy um

and i'm looking at Catholicism but I

have my questions about

Catholicism. Why is the Russian Orthodox Church

loyal to the Soviet and Russian state?

That to me is kind of a hard question to answer because there's a lot in the new testament that speaks about the dangers of worldly powers and the distrust of the empire you know what I think your real religion is?

It's hypocrisy.

That's what I think it is.

I think you want to exist in this world

and cope with yourself

that you have developed this framework

that can account for why you're such a shitty person who's doing

so many shitty ugly things and say, well, this is because I'm a fallen man, but my spiritual

side is pure. And you don't want to have any responsibility for your existence in this world,

or the existence of your neighbors for that matter. If you saw your neighbors getting gunned down and slaughtered well at least their souls are slaves what a perfect excuse what an eternally perfect excuse every fucking bad, wicked,

disgusting thing

in this world,

you actually

can justify

as holy and

good because

this is God's

plan to make

us all into

rapist,

murdering

animals, but if

we put our

hands together in

this way,

and if we

say a few

words and

recite a few words, and I guess

we put ourselves mentally in a certain kind of psychological state, we're somehow saving ourselves

from our actual existence.

It doesn't sound like a single fucking thing

that has even a fucking

even less than one percent common

with anything Jesus was talking about

while he was here

you really think that... It Sounds like a really hideous,

evil, disgusting

outlook made by pedophiles

to justify their rape

of the world.

I mean,

it is true that this is just a difference, I think, because you have a strong Muslim background.

I think that your position is not simply, it's not simply a way to like reconcile with the innate evil

event. I think it endangers evil.

I think you know what? It makes so much sense

what you're saying. This is why Groypers

are disgusting pedophiles and

inherently sadistic evil people.

Because they see this

as a sanction and as a warrant to be beasts to be subhumans

and they say well the hypocrisy for them is totally fine but what you're failing to understand is

the extraordinary evil that corresponds. It's not

just the ordinary evil. You're

falsely ascribing man.

It's an

extraordinary, hideous, disgusting

evil.

And you take no

responsibility for it and you're 100% responsible for it.

God didn't fucking make you this way. You made yourself this way.

I felt what you're describing, I felt much more strongly and palpably when I was a communist.

Just to be frank.

I felt like Christianity is what actually could allow me to take responsibility for myself

and not just pass blame and pass blame and scapegoat and scapego and

think of these abstract ideas of why i'm working towards some higher end by doing this and

that to be honest the hideous evil is what i felt when I was a communist.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

You felt hideous evil because it was your disposition already,

and now you just justify your hideous evil openly.

That's great.

I don't want to justify it.

I want to improve myself because I do think I'm a fallen man and I am imperfect.

Really?

What did you say in the Discord that when shit pops off or if shit pops off in America, you want to start a fief in Montana and

ignore all the, all your compatriots getting slaughtered and raped and tortured and you just want to

look fat for yourself.

I was kind of joking with you because I don't think what your like civil war scenario

is I don't think this is. Okay well let's say one does happen

what's your plan?

How's the church can save us?

Frankly

we have this idea

in the

Western church speaks about

the Ordo of Morris, so you have to

account for yourself and then

your family and then your community.

So all of the things you're doing

and have the pretense to do, which is taking

responsibility for your community,

this is what the church traditionally did.

And I think that is also a form of community.

I mean, in a lot of ways, you can look at Lenin as a figure similar to like St. Paul,

building these different party cells, St. Paul building these different party

cells just like Paul built these different

churches and they're in a network

and a community that

can move to a higher

and higher level.

You know?

But what I hesitate from is the political and the desire to warden people.

How is that not inherently political in a Civil War scenario?

You don't think that's inherently political?

I don't think it's political, no.

You don't think it's inherently political for people to organize an armed body for self-defense that exerts power and dominion over territories to protect people?

Because I'm not a Christian nationalist, and I don't think that these self-defensive

militias should rule over the country at some point or rule over a territory.

Well, they would have to to defend people

from getting brutalized and attacked and slaughtered.

I mean, now we're just like writing fan fiction,

but I would hope that the church community would get together, and I believe in the separation of powers, that they would create a government that is not literally a...

Oh, so they would create a fallen government motivated by rape and murder, but it would be okay because it would be separate, right?

Because the worldly, according to you, has fallen.

But this is the whole thing. This is the hypocrisy.

I don't want to, you know, look, you can say I'm a Muslim or this or that.

I consider myself a truth seeker. I don't want anything to fucking do with any kind of church

that justifies the evil in this world in any kind of fucking way.

Simple as that.

It doesn't justify the evil.

Absolutely it does.

When you're saying that,

when you're saying you don't have to take responsibility for the world

and that the world is inherently fallen and that politics

and all these other things you should just

get on your knees and put your hands together

and pray to the sky. When you're fucking saying

shit like that, you are absolutely

giving your okay and you're

winking at the rapists and murderers

of the world

to do whatever they fucking

want

that is not what I'm doing what I am doing

well objectively it is

and I have no sympathy with it at all

if your understanding of religion was correct, you would be able to convert people like me,

but all I have is disgust from what you're talking about.

Total disgust.

I don't have a dogma that preempts me from having an open mind to a truly

correct position. What you're talking about is fucking disgusting and really ugly.

Because of the nature of the fallen world, when you make yourself an axiom, when you basically Catholicize yourself.

Nobody's making anyone an axiom.

You proceed and you lead a movement and you have a principle.

Okay, I perceive and I lead.

Okay, I lead a movement. Okay, I perceive and I lead, okay,

I lead a movement.

And you involve your self.

You involve your self.

Demms me as sinful.

That's,

that's,

that's not what I'm saying.

So because I lead a movement,

I'm the same as a rapist and a murder.

I literally am not saying that. I literally am not saying that.

I'm literally not saying that.

You didn't let me finish.

I'm saying that everyone is born as a child as a baby

and they don't find themselves as a baby being Diddy or Epstein.

There is a series of conditions that they find themselves in in a fallen society that makes them...

You know what the ultimate fallenness is? Hypocrisy. Hyp Hypocracy is the ultimate kind of fallenness.

You throw yourself into the society and you find yourself in whatever position fate has you in.

And if you are worldly and obsessed with the world and obsessed with moving up in the world.

Which is only possible if the spiritual

side of things is separated from

the world and exactly the way you advocate

for.

If you put the world into two

neat little categories, the spiritual and

the worldly.

Nobody does that better than your position.

Nobody does it better than your position.

There's a city of God and a city of man, yeah, I do. Okay, well, the city of man is according to you.

The ditties, you know, that's just because there's a fallen world.

Well, maybe if the city of God and the city of man were combined, we wouldn't have ditties.

And that's exactly where I'm like, you think that you can do that.

You can be the messianic

guy. You can be Christ and create a new Jerusalem.

This is where I used to talk about this messian. Why would I have to be Christ to

prevent ditties from running around? Couldn't I just be a decent

human being?

Yes, yes. We should try and create as much order and justice as

there is in the world. But

as you acknowledge, the hegemony

has certain limitations

that you run up against because the hegemony

is a complex of all of these different fallen people submit to ditty

do not don't submit to it but yeah yeah yeah you're either submitting to it or you're fighting back against it there's no

fucking middle ground you submit to it or you're fighting back against it. There's no fucking middle ground. You submit to it

or you're a revolutionary. And there's no middle ground. So don't weasel your way out of that.

Submit to Diddy Epstein or fight back. Your version of revolutionary

is dominated. Become the new

dominating force. Absolutely.

That's what it fucking is. And you're weaseling your

way out of the responsibility for

who is dominating.

Who is the authority?

Responsibility for authority.

Any hegemony is going to have a rancid, heinous elite.

Okay.

And therefore you submit to the one we already have.

So take responsibility for it and fucking own it like it's yours.

Because I own what's mine.

I'll take and own what's mine, motherfucker.

I take responsibility that we live in a tragic.

I'll own up.

I'll own up.

I'll own up to the ACP. You own up to Diddy and Epstein. How about that? Yep, that's a tragedy. That is a tragedy. We live in a tragic world. You own up to your tragedy. Own up to your tragedy because I'm owning up to ACP and what I'm about.

I own up to it.

You live in a rom-com comic world where there's a little inciting incident at the start,

but then it all ends well because you can do it.

You're Superman.

You're Stalin the God.

And it's all going

to be better again. And that's not how

human anthropology works. It's not

how it is in the following world. You're the expert on human anthropology.

And we supposedly

we have to be gods just to

fucking have like basic balls and dignity.

Right? But in any case...

You can only be responsible for yourself.

You can jibber in so many ways to just say you're a pathetic pussy who submits to Epstein and Ditty, but I don't respect it at all.

As you can only be responsible for yourself

at the end of the day you're responsible for one and why have a church

because that has a divine tradition

is god is god heading your church directly

can I talk to God at your church you can talk to God at your church?

You can talk to God, I believe.

At your church? I can go in your church and he'll talk to me and boom through the ceiling.

It would be a private revelation and it happens.

But the public revelation now, you're talking to God is that what you're saying

Jesus you can pray

do you not hear anything when you pray ever

you're not here intuition God is that what you're saying

you've been talking to God recently silence you're not here intuition. Is that what you're saying?

You've been talking to God recently?

Silence.

So schizophrenic is talking.

Like Jesus Christ, dude.

Fuck are we even talking about anymore?

Like God has been talking to you?

Is that what you're saying?

He's been talking to you?

This isn't going to go anywhere, so I think I think I'm going to... No, admit it. Say what you think.

Because you accused all this bullshit of me saying that I think I'm a Messiah and I'm Jesus

and I'm talking to God and I'm God. You're literally saying God talk to you.

Yeah, I pray and I ask God questions

and I receive like strong intuitions of what I should do.

It's not like there's a voice in my head,

but I just pray and I really ask God questions and I do feel like I get answers.

I mean, a lot of Christians, if you want to be a communist party for

the United

States

a lot of

Christians will

say the same

thing

didn't they

don't know

if that's

not a

Muslim

didn't

let me ask

you a

question

since you're

so obsessed

with certainty

what about

Descartes

question

what if

it's a demon you're talking to? How would you know?

See, the difference between you and I is that when you have a principle, you are going to maximize it and universalize it as much as you can.

I only ask questions that pertain

to myself and my own... I know, but how do you know

it's God and not Satan?

I have to have faith.

I have faith. I have a principle.

I don't like you, but it's different.

What?

No, now you have faith. When God talks to you directly, you have faith, right?

There's no more doubt that you could possibly be misled by your own stupidity.

It must be God telling you all these things, right?

That much you're certain of because of faith.

I mean, but when we have,

when we have,

you can do the Richard Dawkins like it's all a delusion.

No, I'm using your own reasoning against you.

That's all I'm doing.

I mean, does,

I suppose actually that you have at some level claim that you as the Communist Party are also

receiving some kind of divine intuition

or have a resonance with that or are trying to have a resonance with that

or are trying to have a resonance with that.

I suppose that's what you would think as well.

I think I would say that God is talking to me.

That's not what I'm saying,

but you do feel that you're

participating and you have an

intuition of what's right

and you're acting according to

what is right and moral. Let's go back to the original point.

You said you can only be responsible

for yourself as an individual.

And I said, well, why have a church?

And you say, well, the church is where God is.

And clearly that's not true directly.

Okay? It's just not.

A church has to be organized by human beings in a collective manner.

Which, it's so stupid, because if we talk about the anthropology, which is what you love, the word you love, and where the churches have you originally formed, like in the beginning, they were pretty indistinguishable from communist parties.

And they were absolutely not guided by

a principle of you can only be responsible

for yourself. No, you have to be responsible

for the community. That was the ethos

that guided the early

You have to be responsible for the church, right? You're in the church.

No, you're responsible for the community, which means...

You know what that meant?

At the end of the day, that meant you have to be responsible for whether there's poor people and starving people and needy people.

And you have to be responsible for the vulnerable and you have to be responsible for justice and you have to be responsible for the vulnerable and you have to be responsible for justice

and you have to be responsible

of course, all of those

society you live in. That's what it meant.

But none of those are the

political. You're talking about

what it was. That's how absolutely

it was. How's how absolutely it was.

How the fuck do you think Christianity became the state religion?

I mean, if you went and talked to St. Paul and you asked him, do you think that this Christianity is, do you think the Roman emperor will embrace this Christianity?

I don't think he would say he would.

I don't think it was a miracle. It was something that could not have been.

Many of the early Christians

were literally waging guerrilla war against Rome.

Like in North Africa.

The Donatus? I mean, yeah, there was Christians

that had a more

zealous and kind of more

Judaic. So don't say there was no political dimension it's just fucking made up

the gospel doesn't say

it doesn't need to say what self-evident he doesn't need to say what's self-evident.

I mean, I know that you guys have sort of worked on this kind of like communist Christianity thing with Michael Hudson as like the kind of architect of it but

all of that's quite

dubious to me that it

was always seeking to be a communist

party and do a revolution in Rome

I don't know if it was like that

I think that's absolutely what it was

I think Jesus Christ oh my no no dude's Christ no think that's absolutely what it was. I think Jesus

Christ. Oh my, no, no, no, dude.

That's literally what it was. It's like,

it's so like, it's so like there's such,

you have to be coping so much if you actually read what was going on.

That's literally what was going. It was literally

a revolutionary movement. On's literally what was going. It was literally a revolutionary movement

on top of the status quo.

Okay. Just explain. And it was co-opted

like later, but originally that's

exactly what it fucking was.

So how co-opted? Are you going to say

that like the stories in the gospel

like that's where I'm going to go? Do you think those stories are co-opted? No, but what I think happened is that it became co-opted to no longer be about debt forgiveness, which is what it was originally about.

Of course,

it was couched in the language

that made sense at the time.

But in reality,

like,

this was what it was at stake.

This is what made it so meaningful for people.

Like it had weight.

There was a meaningfulness.

When they said the end times are now,

it's like that was a revolutionary era.

It meant something.

Yes, it was couched in the language of the time they lived in.

But it was absolutely a communist movement.

But you know that in the time

they lived in, I mean, right after

the time of Christ, 40 years later

the temple was burned down because

there was a messianic leader,

a Jewish messianic leader,

who proposed a revolution against

Rome, right. All of

this happened, right? So they did

have the ability to express

a revolution. Christianity wasn't a

strictly Jewish revolution. It was

a universal revolution

of all of Rome.

That's why it was in Egypt.

It was in North Africa with the Donatus.

They didn't want to confine it to the Judea and the Jews.

Of course, of course. Christianity is universal.

I agree with that.

But is it a universal?

Is it like Islam? Is it the

Dara al-Islam? Universal

Revolution caliphate?

I don't think so. I don't think that

that is what the gospel is talking about.

The gospel didn't need to talk about that.

The Christians wanted to emancipate themselves from debt and the rule of the Roman creditor classes. That's absolutely the context that define the

meaningfulness of the word of the gospel.

So then why is it written that Christ is being taken up to Calvary Hill

and there's this risk that he's going to be arrested

and, you know, his apostle Peter takes out his sword

and he's like I'll defend you and he cuts off

one of the priest's ears

and then Christ says no

let them take me

what do you think that is trying to

Because Christ was a martyr

who wanted to give a message

to all of the people of Rome

because he was a martyr, okay?

That's your explanation

I think we're all called to bear our cross and be martyrs

which is different than to

actualize a political

religious communist empire

during the beginning of the

Arab Spring in Tunisia

was a guy

who set himself on fire.

Why did he do that?

It's more than merely, Christ christ teaching is more than merely him being a martyr

his ministry is is is is the most important part he thought that such was the gravity and weight

of the injustice of what was happening to them that if it happened it would communicate a message more powerful than if he would have tried to resist the outcome

and why don't we all followed that example he exposed and revealed the truth of the entire rotten order within which he lived.

So why don't we follow that example rather than proceed in the manner that's a lot similar?

Because it's been exposed already.

The American people don't need to be convinced that we have bankrupt, that we have no moral authority ruling us anymore.

The government itself is admitting that. All right.

At this point, I'm getting pretty tired and I will go, but I'll think about this.

I mean, you really were quite patient with me, and I really appreciate it.

And I think there's value for a lot of people in listening to this, but it was a good talk.

I'm going to go. This guy This guy's telling me to start a Twitter space at 2 a.m.

Starts with it.

Why don't you fucking send me a 20 motherfucker?

This is how much I...

I'm about this community.

I'll talk to a fucking idiot for three hours.

To try and save someone from going down a retarded path.

Hmm. Uh, Yeah, the E-religion shit is just, oh my god.

Yo, Tess, what's up?

Yo, Kyle, what's going on, bro?

Thanks for the five.

Appreciate you, bro.

Yo, dictator, what's up, bro?

Appreciate the five. What's up bro how my feeling um uh jiverling, what's up, bro? Appreciate you. You know, uh, I a feeling very sheite feeling very sheite feeling very sheite because it's like

you know i i'm not i i i'm an open-minded person. If I am presented with a superior spiritual position, I'll basically say, I'll take that up.

But, you know, that was not it that was really not it there's another person in the show queue Okay, let's bring them up.

Why can I not bring, I'll move them to show.

Yo, what's up?

Hi, can you hear me?

No. no like really

yeah really i can't

but go ahead

so the people in the discord chat told me

to make the claim

well i'm supposed to i'm supposed to kind of defend the German national Bolshevik tradition,

which is sort of misleading. I'm just, are you familiar with Anne Snikish?

Yes.

So my claim is that he had some ideas what you say

i was saying he was a lip-dard

and sneakish is a lip-tard

yeah he was a lip-tard

why would you say that a lip-tard? Yeah, he was a libtard.

Why would you say that?

Because he had problems with the USSR for

libtard reasons.

It's like almost indistinguishable

from like a retard like sart.

Damn. From what I've heard, like,

he was very much

like pro-Lennon, he was

for the German-Russian

unification and I think that had some

he was against Stalin.

Yeah.

Well...

Basu was a little lip-torn.

Are you sure we talking about

Ant Sneakish? This does not sound like him, to be honest.

Yeah, that was him.

Well, that's disappointing

anyways.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, that was like the whole thing

I wanted to know what your opinion on and

sneakish was but like if we're talking about his strategy at least in the I think that in

the 20s in the Weimar Republic I think that he had a very rational strategy don't you

think like allying with the more conservative parts of the German society

and not align with the usual Marxists that were in...

If you gave the KPD an extra five or ten years, they would have been perfect.

I mean, he was part of the KPD.

When the KPD and the, right before the Nazis took power,

the KPD had started getting their shit together

but it's this

blame the Social Democrats, it's all I could say

the KPD

they had the perfect strategy

but they took them too much

time to fucking learn

Marxism

Leninism, right? So, by the time they had it down, They had it completely fine.

I understand. I just think that what Nikish writes about the faults of the

Marxist and the SPD, for example, the fact that they did not want to

claim the nation, I think he's right on that.

I think he was very correct on the fact that Marxists have to claim the nation.

Yeah, that's kind of an abstraction, you know, because what the national bolsheviks were talking about

in uh that the before the 20s the 20s what they were talking about is the continuity of the german state

under the you you know, from World War I, right? So, according to this logic, there was no notion of a complete, total breaking of the state machine and, like know german soviet republic that was set that

that was not considered national national was qualified as the state institution

yeah i think that's true i think that's what he writes about what

well i read his critique of the marxist indiaism from the perspective of maintaining

germany's continuity of of state imperial strategy under its existing bureaucracy or whatever.

And it wasn't really a revolutionary outlook, and that was the problem.

What would have been a revolutionary outlook, would you say?

Smashing the state and building the German state from scratch on maybe a basis of a Soviet model or some other kind of model.

But there would have had to been a revolution,

not continuity with the state.

Like when I say not continuity with the state,

I mean like,

you can't lay hold of the ready-made state machine,

you have to completely create a new center of power like happened in russia russia

had soviet power right yes so there would have needed to be a new principle of state power in

germany now would that have had to have been national? Yeah,

of course. But

that's not what the national Bolsheviks

meant by national.

I understand.

I just think that his strategy,

compared to what he describes as the Marxist of the SPD, and he describes them as these people that wanted to abolish the nation as it is. Now, I'm not sure if he's completely right about his diagnosis.

But from what I've read from his writings, it sounds... There's no understanding of how a nation can be preserved outside the nation state

until Stalin, quote unquote, Stalinism became orthodoxy.

Stalinism is what, you know, made orthodox the notion that's, no nations are materially real.

They're not reducible to the existing state apparatus.

They have a history and an existence beyond that.

But from a lot of people, the distinction was not clear.

I think that's a fair point. Yeah.

I think that's a fair point.

Right. So that's really what I would say.

Well,

still... Anyway,

I don't want to...

So, back to what I was saying, I'm

feeling like very Shiite

because... because you know, um, Um,

I'll say on Christianity, there's something I saw that I really liked.

I saw it on X.

And it was from a right-wing Christian.

And they were condemning the murder of that Nicole Good by ICE.

And then someone said, you know, your Christ worship will be your downfall.

And then he replies and he goes, so be it.

And, you know, I, that was such like a badass response like I actually respected that so much

so be it

you know there's something really beautiful about that.

You know, the ancient Egyptians, during the afterlife, they'd weigh your heart.

And if it weighed more than a feather, you'd be denied entry.

And it's like, the real principle and source of moral authority in this world, which is nothing more than the integral whole, right?

It weighs less than the feather you know that's the real soul from the from the ancient perspective the soul is what gives us a connection to cosmos cosmos is the integral whole now and all of that together weighs less than a feather

which means you may be poor you may have, and you may be going up against overwhelming

odds, right? But it's like, when you were forced to make a choice, like, Hussein, you know,

to... a choice like Hussein, you know, to take upon yourself the decision that you know is going to end in doom, right? But is the only thing you can do to maintain this lightness, you know, this connection to this

principle, this heavenly principle, this cosmic principle.

And you go up against all the powers of the world with all their wealth and all their weight and all their might.

For that.

And what you're doing is you're asserting something that all of that put together is less than a feather, you know?

And I just, I find that very compelling.

To be unfazed by power, to have this belief that, you know, all the wealth and might of the world has very, very small, humble origins, a spark that exists in all mankind.

And if you were forced in a position to choose between devotion to that and life, that you go in islam jesus comes back because that's what Jesus represents. He's the spiritual. He represents the spiritual side of things. But in a way, you know, spiritual can be understood as the kind of the concrete within Marxism in a way.

Spiritual weighs less.

In Marxism, the concrete weighs less than the abstract.

Remember that.

The abstract weighs more.

The concrete is a kind of principle.

It's a processual relational logic behind the abstract in a way, right?

So... right so but the perspective of the person who came on it's like i can't respect it i can't respect the notion of dividing the meaningfulness of the world into these different boxes.

Everything should be meaningful, you know?

You can't just say that there's the sacred and there's the secular.

I don't believe in that.

I believe history is sacred. I think everything is sacred. Anyway, can you do all this started from astrology?

This is what all this started from.

You know, I, I dare to say that i believed in astrology and then

i this is the this is the consequence of that um... um... I guess all the things I wanted to talk about, I at it from like a Christian convert perspective.

I thought he was like a Reddit nihilus.

So when he was objecting to like my perennialism,

um,

does he represent Christianity in that?

This kind of hostility toward unifying things and wanting to put everything in like separate

you know

maintain the the separateness

of these

because I think everything is one thing

you know

and is that just like a Muslim thing

if If so, maybe Islam is just correct.

Like, fuck, man.

What are you going to fucking believe in when you're,

when you've got nothing but fucking courage and faith in destiny?

What are you gonna fucking believe in? like Like, you know, um...

I don't know. I, um...

I do think it's absolutely fucking hypocritical to just divide the spiritual and the material in this way. I just do. I think it's hypocritical. I think it's hypocritical. And maybe that's just an Islamic perspective, but I think it's hypocrisy.

And, you know, I don't think that the world is inherently bad or fallen or sinful. I think we have to have the courage of accepting this world and accepting our existence within this world and doing what's right in this world.

However violent, I mean, not in the literal sense, I guess, whatever, but like, however stormy,

you know, however, however angry that looks, I don't see the, I don't see this

anger as a bad thing, you know, I see it as, as the most fundamental dignity you could have, you know?

And it's like he was basically saying, well, that's because you basically have an Islamic perspective.

And I'm like, you know, maybe, maybe, I don't know

because it is kind of like some malcolm x shit you know

you had dr king and you had malcolm x and it's like well i'm something of a malcolm x

guy myself to be honest I think there is a specific

of Christianity

that absolutely leads to that type of hypocrisy and stuff.

Just like there's interpretations of Islam and all other religions that lead to falseness.

But I also, you know, think there's interpretations of Christianity that are just totally different from this kind of hypocrisy, you know, think there's interpretations of Christianity that are just

totally different from this kind of hypocrisy, you know, like,

I think that there's a lot which,

um,

there's a lot of types of Christianity, which are basically just saying,

you know, like, we ride or die

for Jesus, and that's

that. Like, followers of

Jesus, like, that's what it means. It doesn't

mean this

this nonsense about, oh, well,

the world is fallen. You just have to

ignore the world.

It's more like, in this world,

we are under the banner of Jesus.

Like, that's the Christianity I fuck with, you know?

Like, fighting for Jesus in this world, right?

That type of Christianity, I fuck with it big time.

And I have no issue with the like notion of Jesus being God in that, in that frame.

Because it's like, I understand what it means.

That's why.

Like, I understand what that actually means.

You're saying that's, like, the highest principle there is.

And I respect the fuck out of that.

And I fuck with it myself.

There's not, like, a huge boundary between me and that, you know?

There's not a huge boundary between me and a specific type of Christianity that says we're going to fight for Jesus in this world, right?

But the one that says we're going to give this world to the devil

and then clasp our hands together and pray to

oh i don't i really don't fuck with that at all

i really do not fuck with that at all

like i really hate that perspective, to be honest.

Like, I find it disgusting.

Just like how I find the Islamic perspective, you know, that says, just follow the rituals

and follow the laws and you're good, you know?

So, yeah, I guess that's my perspective on that. You know, he was like talking about Christianity, but it's like, if I was alive during the German Peasants Wars, I would be in the black company with Florian Geier, you you know, and Munser and Stick, I would have no

there would be no distinction.

And it's like, he's like,

well, that's because you're a perennialist. And I'm like,

you know what, you're right.

If I was alive during the time of Ismail the Great, I'd be in that army. I'd be in the Kisselbos, you know? If I was alive during the time of Thomas Munster, I'd be in that army. And there'd be no distinction for me.

There'd be no distinction.

To me, those are all the same thing as Mao's PLA and the Bolshevik Red Army.

And he's like, well, those are all separate distinct things.

And I'm like, but they're really all the same, you know?

But they really are all the same.

Because communism is the riddle of history solved. You know, Why, why? Like, I've read the Bible and it's just the New Testament. And it's like, it's so radically simple. Is this confirmation bias? Every accent, every, like, emphasis in it is about, like, worldly things. It's about, you know,

the mistreatment of the poor. It's about the hypocrisy. It's about the usurers. It's like it's, that's what it focus, like, everything revolves around it that. They don't just, there's nothing is about, nothing is like this

abstract bullshit. It all makes so much sense to me from a materialist perspective. And then even

in the Quran, you know what the ultimate deadly sin in the Quran is? More than any other sin?

That it says this is the ultimate sin that God is waging war against.

It's the only sin that the Quran says God has declared war against is usury.

It's the only one, usury. It's the only one, usury.

Not, you know, you're not fasting, you're not alcohol, not, you know, swine and pork, not this and not that.

Usury. Reba, economic exploitation.

That's the only sin God goes to war with in the Quran.

Or said he's going to war with, right?

And it's like, that's what it's about.

It's always been about these things.

And it made so much sense to the people living at that time.

From a materialist perspective, based on the actual logic and structure of their actual lives they lived in.

No, it's women wearing bikinis.

Yeah. Thank you. No, yeah, it's about shaving moustaches. You know, in the Gospel in the New Testament, you know the passages that are cited that supposedly are proof that Christianity denies the material and denies the world?

Do you know what these passages are actually about?

Immediacy.

They're about, and I'm quite sure this is what it was

someone who took something in the short term for short term gain

instead of waiting and working with others

to produce the outcome.

And it's like it was about immediacy.

It wasn't about the world.

It was about the immediate, you know,

confusing the immediate for what really matters. Anyway, I'm not a fucking preacher, Holy shit. Guys, do you like my setup?

It's really good.

Really great setup I got.

Just such a better... Like from the old one, right?

It's a lot better, right?

Or do you guys need me...

It needed to be more zoomed in.

Uh, have someone who understands technology to... I need to get a new USB bullshit converter It's just like that

That conversation I had

It's like every black pill disguises

A naive blue pill.

Really, that's just what it is.

Every black pill disguises's such a black pill.

Like the whole time in the Discord, he's's such a black pill.

Like the whole time in the Discord, he's got this huge black pill.

And then he comes out, it turns out he was saved by Christ.

Wouldn't someone who's saved by Christ be so much more sunny and smiling and have a better outlook on life, even if you disagree with me.

He's just blue-pilling on some bullshit.

We can only be responsible for yourself? Could you be responsible for yourself without coping though?

Without lying to yourself?

About tricking yourself? and the You know, I don't, I don't hate normies who wouldn't want to join the Communist Party.

The truth is I don't hate them.

And in matter of fact, sometimes I resent, I not resent, I envy them.

Because everyone's playing their part.

If we didn't have stupid normies, we wouldn't even have anything to fight for.

No? stupid normies we wouldn't even have anything to fight for no what would we even have to fight we didn't have people who devote themselves to art people who devote

themselves to just being human what would you be fighting for, you know?

But unfortunately, I want to say otherwise, but I'm just going to tell you to the fucking truth.

I can't respect people who tap in and tap out.

You know, who join this kind of cause in and say, well, I'm just going to fucking

cope and make excuses for myself to just go be a fucking normie.

And it's just like, well, I mean, you can do that.

I just won't respect you, like, personally.

Because it's like, I can't help it.

I just, yeah, I can't help it.

I just think maybe people who just like need a break, I can respect.

But to really cultivate that spark within you and then throw it all

away, I can't respect it. Can't respect it. You know, and the spark in question, what is the spark?

Because it's not magic. Well, the spark in question, what is the spark? Because it's not magic.

Well, the spark in question is our inherent kind of intuitive clarity that we have.

That's disclosed to us by the rise of a new integral mode of production, a new totality of history.

Like, we have a hegemony that tries to represent all society, right?

Institutions.

But they're out of touch, primarily because of technology.

So how does the moral authority and governing principle of society reproduce itself?

Well, it does so from zero outside the institution, right?

Outside the city in history, outside the polis.

And it's like when it does so, it's not a division of labor.

It's everything.

It's the entire universal principle guiding society.

And it's like we all have a connection to that.

All of us.

Like, by virtue, by virtue of being part of history and existing within history we have a connection to

it we all have a connection to the same revolutionary spark we can react and

respond to it in different ways but we all have it within us and it weighs less than a feather while simultaneously

being more than everything in the world

priceless than everything in the world. Priceless.

Anyway, guys, I'll see, I'll catch you guys around.

I'll see you later.

Let me check something.

Yikes.

Hold on.

Why did I not get partner income for my stream in, uh, partner income on? I didn't get any partner income for my last stream.

That's interesting.

Very odd. income for my last stream that's interesting very odd yeah guys ask questions in the Patreon for real. You know, Are y'all?

Oh, man. all oh man

all

all right guys

i'll see you bye bye

youtube hopefully tomorrow

if not

see you all around. Bye-bye.

Oh, there you are. Feel me a It's still the adrenaline moving to more skin.

It's an addiction, such a irruption.

The sound is my remedy.

Faking the energy Music is all

I need

Maybe I just want to dance

I don't really care

I just want to dance

I don't really care

I get in a year

Yeah

Did you mean a crazy day

Just go deep by and you wonder

Who's that shit? Who's that shit? in disco, the engine wind up news got shit

fools that

true

can't

for you to keep on

your wife

for you to need

to need to need

boost

shit

foo's got

true

choose

moves that

choose

moves that Putt back you. News got to be.