IRAN MOGGING | INTENSE DEBATES | ALLAHU AKBAR 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

What's up, everybody?

I have a lot of energy because I slept last night for the first time in many days.

I, if you don't know, am a chronic insomniac.

Why?

Because I have to be nerfed in some way by the CIA.

They nerf me.

Because when I have full arrest I become a fucking machine.

I could literally do fucking anything.

I have unlimited energy, unlimited swag, unlimited Riz, unlimited everything, unlimited aura, unlimited willpower, unlimited strength, unlimited energy.

There's nothing that can get in my way for any goal when I have slept properly, right?

But uh when I you know, I have to be nerfed a little bit, that's just how it is.

I have to be

I have to be taken down a notch.

I guess it's to humble me, or it's the CIA or whoever's doing it.

I'm sure they find it very amusing.

But uh today's the confront the chairman.

Okay, now I'm trying to get a hold of Jackson.

But uh I think he's running around in China somewhere.

Or he's sleeping, I don't know.

But uh we're still gonna have it.

It's gonna be great.

We're gonna be doing our confront the chairman today.

We're gonna be a lot of intense debates.

And it's gonna be original, high level, original infrared content that you can look forward to for tonight's stream.

It's gonna be lit as fuck.

If you're missing out on this, you must be retarded type of shit, you know?

It's gonna be a wonderful night.

It's gonna be a wonderful time.

Now, I don't know if you guys know this.

For those that know, I'm gonna be gone this weekend.

There's gonna be a big ACP cult meetup for a cult ritual.

Just like cult activities, you know, cult stuff, cult rituals, whatever.

So, I'll be, I might, I might do an IRL stream this weekend.

We'll see.

But uh

Yeah, I talked to Carlos.

Carlos said he might want to do it with me.

Or he messaged me.

He said, you know, he's down to co-host with me.

So, yeah, looking forward to Carlos.

Anyway, guys, let's talk about.

The Iran War.

Let's get some crucial updates about the Iran War.

First of all, it uh n nothing has changed by way of the fact that it has just become

It's an abject, absolute disaster.

But uh

No, it's incredible what Theo Vaughn is saying actually.

If you if you see this.

This is pretty insane.

This was on uh the Joe Rogan podcast.

By the way, ones if you think Joe Rogan is fucking under overrated and just kinda fucking boring.

But anyway, we have to pretend like the Joe Rogan podcast matters because uh you know, it's just one of those things.

What do you think is going to happen?

You think we're going to be okay?

I hope so.

Of course.

I don't know.

Do you think about it?

I'm confused.

I can't believe we went to this war.

When we started bombing Iran, I was like, this can't be true.

And what about Lebanon now?

I know.

Israel's invaded Lebanon.

Yeah.

And it's like, just fucking stop it.

What do you need?

Well, they're trying to supposedly trying to stop the terrorists.

That's crazy, though, if you're the fucking terrorist.

You know what I'm saying?

Like, if you want to stop them, fucking stand in front of the fucking mirror and start there.

I mean uh people talk about, you know

Who which demographic is going to be more open to anti imperialist consciousness?

The signs are everywhere.

Anyway, I want to show you guys some some news.

By you know, it's a bad day for people who fedjacket the ACP.

It's a bad day because supposedly

Supposedly, uh you know.

Let me see if there's any veracity to this.

Supposedly Trump is uh considering firing Tulsi Gabbard.

Well, if Trump's gonna fire Tulsi Gabbard, what hold on, I thought Tulsi Gabbard had the full backing of the Deep State and she was loved by the intelligence community.

If this happens, I mean, is ACP no longer a Fed psyop because Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard s seven years ago?

Is there is the seven years ago when Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard and went surf surfing with her?

Does this change anything if she's like no longer working for the government?

I don't understand.

I I supp okay, we have a theory.

If she gets fired and ACP still exists, then the theory that, you know, ACP is a Fed psyop, it's over, right?

Fuck, I sound like a fucking millennial.

I sound like Game Ranks.

Shush I should I should stop.

I sound like uh Game Ranks.

Game Racks.

You know what I'm talking about on YouTube?

The guy who's like, so uh, if you like playing video games, you can go ahead and uh

What yeah

So I'm Skyrim and uh

Guys, the minute I become millennial, just shoot me straight up.

Just get rid of me.

I don't deserve to exist anymore.

And I start sounding like that and shit.

Yo, Sparrow, what's going on, bro?

Appreciate you.

What's up, Sparrow?

You want to know the biggest slop candidate in politics right now, and this is like super impromptu, it's just like random as fuck, is James Fishback.

Just the biggest slop politician in America right now.

The definition of a slop politician is James Fishback.

That guy just fucking his whole existence is just pandering to the X algorithm.

That's all he is.

He literally is just an ex-panderer.

He's literally a fucking tung tung tung sohor candidate.

Fucking complete, absolute slop politician.

I'm so fucking sick of seeing that guy.

Uh, yeah, Iran is still mogging the fuck out of the entire U.S.

Empire.

Let's just like talk about how we're well past four weeks, I think we're even coming up on five weeks.

It's been what, thirty two, thirty three days?

And Iran is straight up, has the Strait of Hormuz closed, and it's happening.

It's just happening.

Iran is just fucking mogging the fuck out of the so-called free world.

Fuck the free world, by the way.

And uh nothing has changed by way of this.

I know everyone wants the debates to start, just just don't worry.

Uh by the way, in other news, this post that I made, by the way, this specific post, for some reason, a lot of Episcopalians are upset by it.

Then there's other people who are calling me crazy, they keep calling me crazy, crazy, crazy.

Okay, as a man whose pseudonym is named after the mad Arab, Lovecraft's Abdul Al-Hazrad, the Mad Arab, please don't call me crazy.

It hurts my feelings a lot.

I clearly value being perceived as a sane person.

I value, I have such deep respect for what passes off as sanity in today's civilization.

Please don't call me crazy.

It bothers me and hurts my feelings so so much.

Oh, RTSG just shared something hilarious.

Oh.

But I have been advised, uh, legally speaking, not to raid who gives a fuck, though, right?

Anyway, um

Yeah.

We have a lot to cover tonight.

There's actually quite a bit.

Quite a bit.

Why the fuck is Sneeko talking about Bosnia?

Can anyone explain why Sneeko is talking about Bosnia?

Is there any reason to just like Bosnia is with the resistance?

This was the most pointless tweet of all time.

You know, can I fucking say something that it really grinds my fucking gears?

I'm sick of the you the ex-Yugoslav nationalists on all sides, the LARPers, every single ex-Republic of Yugoslavia, somebody who's vehemently anti-NATO, of course I am, of course I'm anti-NATO, every participant in the Yugoslav war should feel ashamed.

That's literally where we get the term Balkanization from.

Every single side was retarded in that war.

And everyone should feel deeply ashamed, all right?

And these Bosnians are LARPing, just like Serbs were LARPing, everyone was fucking LARPing and killing each other.

I have no respect for petty Balkan nationalists at all.

I don't I don't the small country fucking nationalism is cancerous.

I don't know why Sneeko was talking about that though.

I don't I have no idea.

Have you guys seen Jesus Motorcycles Edits?

It's pretty remarkable.

I'll show some of them to you right now.

He's been on a roll and he's been going viral as fuck multiple times independently, if I might add.

Teen Hut!

At ease, soldier, but not really.

See, there's a drone up that way.

I'm gonna need you to lure out the.

Inspirations!

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

And you will accept it!

You don't have a choice!

We w first of all, at what point

Jesus Morticle deserves.

Johnny, what's up?

He needs to be hired by some actual media company.

And like, this guy is, he's, people think AI is just all slop.

Okay, try making this shit yourself.

It's actually pretty hard, right?

So the fact that he's doing this at this level of quality, this is why we were never anti-AI in principle, right?

Because let me actually say something.

I don't want to jump on this discourse, but it's like, look, why does Iran make use of AI so much?

Well, because AI has given non-state or counter-hegemonic actors, I should say, the same tools that are at the disposal of Hollywood and the entire imperial state machine and its unlimited budget, those same tools can now be in the hands to make counter-hegemonic propaganda at the same quality.

And that's what I said in 2023, and it's just fucking true.

The fact that Iran is using AI, they're making the same type of content.

The fact that this type of content is being put out and made, it just goes to show.

Anyone who's sitting here saying, oh, this is taking away from real artists, okay.

Then I put the challenge on quote-unquote real artists to make anti-Epstein propaganda.

Sparrow, I challenge so-called real artists to make in video form anti-Epstein propaganda like this.

But you want to know why they can't?

Because they don't have the funding to.

Why?

Because that kind of funding only comes from institutions.

Institutions which are Zionist and which are aligned with the hegemony.

So to be honest, I mean, being anti-AI in principle is just reactionary.

And then there's actually subhuman retards who will sit here and go, oh, this means you support all these AI companies and this means you support Silicon Valley.

And it's like.

Are you retarded?

Like, can you not separate a a technology

From

You know, the institutions that obviously gatekeep, I mean, you put it, if it was up to me, everything would be open source.

There would be no Silicon Valley, right?

But how can you say that AI is reducible to palins here in Silicon Valley when it's just a new technology that China can use and pretty much anyone can make use of, provided they have enough resources, which, you know, we don't.

But anyway.

Hey's the age of the draft.

But what about my social security?

You don't get it anymore.

Now off you go to the minefield.

Cheer up, son.

The light at the end of the tunnel is approaching.

Targeted elimination of the schoolhouse sector is complete.

Due to your bravery, your family gets to eat this week.

Oh, no, no.

I'll give it to your wife myself.

Operations.

Fueling.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey!

I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

That's some high quality stuff, I'll have to say.

Uh who says AI can't be art, right?

Absolutely again.

This is quite interesting, Trump destroyed the favorite symbol of the Zoroastrian Larpers.

Remember when Trump said he would target Iran's cultural sites?

Well get used to seeing things like this as long as this war continues.

The people who are selling this war, the warmongers, they say don't worry, we will rebuild whatever infrastructure is being destroyed, whether it's bridges, medicine factories, medical clinics, all the stuff we've seen in the past few days, factories, steel mills, we'll rebuild it all.

Great.

Will you rebuild stuff like this too?

Do you want to travel back way into the past and resurrect our ancestors and have them reconstruct this type of stuff?

Or are these things maybe irreplaceable?

I'd like to know your answer.

Let me know in the comments, warmongers.

Remember when Trump said he would target Iran's cultural sites?

Well get used to seeing things like this as long as this war continues.

The people who are selling this war, the warmongers, they say don't worry, we will rebuild whatever infrastructure is being destroyed, whether it's bridges, medicine factories, medical clinics, all the stuff we've seen in the past few days, factories, steel mills, we'll rebuild it all.

Great.

Will you rebuild stuff like this too?

Do you wanna travel back way into the past and resurrect our ancestors and have them reconstruct this type of stuff?

Or are these things maybe irreplaceable?

I'd like to know your answer.

Let me know in the comments, warmongers.

Wow.

Guys, I'm so sad today.

I'm in such a sad mood.

I'm just so sad.

I'm so.

Just kidding.

I don't give a fuck.

Anyway, guys, um.

I'm never sad, I'll never be sad ever, you understand?

This is a uh

This is an emotion of weakness.

I don't I don't have feelings.

You know, I don't know, it's just like I've been literally awake for fucking like two days and I finally got sleep last night and I'm just kinda sitting here like, what did I go through all of this for?

Phil Foe's like now that I've actually gotten a hold of myself, I'm like, why the fuck does this keep happening?

It's just existential.

Guys, what do you think?

Is John Kiriaku a fed?

I have no idea.

I have no way of telling.

There's something about him that's a little off, just like Professor Jeong.

But uh I all I could the only um complaint I could have about him is that he's popular, to be honest.

Alright, well, I have to uh it would be irresponsible of me not to show you this in the interests of being completely unbiased.

Uh

Yeah.

N-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-

So this was from a leftcom.

ACP is not only not a communist party, but they aren't even left wing on the bourgeois Z spectrum of politics.

It's a far-right party most similar to Mussolini's fascist party.

And of course, we can't forget the follow-up.

I would even argue that they're worse than Mussolini because they didn't make Italy a puppet state while ACP wants China and Russia to take over America.

Well, I'm glad this guy is um d you know, engaging in uh

Defensism of the fatherland against the imminent threat of a takeover by Russia and China which ACP is facilitating.

I'm about to be thirty years old and nothing has changed in five years.

Nothing has changed.

I mean like

Is this groundhog day?

That's like, that's just kind of like, I'm at that point.

I just see this and it's surreal.

I'm like, is this Groundhog Day?

Like, what has changed in five years?

Has anything changed at all?

Is there anything new under the sun?

We are fascist, we're far right, we're Mussolini, we're not on the left, okay?

Alright.

I guess so.

I guess if you say so.

I mean, you just have been saying it for five years, so if you just keep saying it, it'll be more true.

It'll be more and more true the more you say it.

We're just kind of gearing up, guys, for the debate that we're about to have.

Don't worry, don't worry, don't worry.

We're just building.

It's called building context.

It's called building up context.

But uh, no, I've been thinking about this.

I thought about this the other day, which is that.

I am starting to have the memory of a goldfish because I'll go back to arguments that I made two years ago, and I'll be like,

Nothing's changed.

Like nothing has changed.

Hey, we've been this has been the same thing for five years.

Uh and the biggest hot topic on left Twitter right now is whether or not AOC should be backed.

You know, all these so-called Marxists and leftists talking about whether AOC should be defended or not.

Should we support AOC?

Should we not?

To be clear, I want to be absolutely clear about why I spend a lot of years saying that we want to just divorce from leftists entirely, we don't want anything to do with them.

Uh what was correct and incorrect about that view, but why I made that view in the first place.

Now, to be hyperbolic for the purposes of actually communicating the point, if you were to hear from a community, let's say there's a community you came across, and that this community was arguing about whether or not babies should be eaten.

Now, to be fair, roughly 60% are saying they shouldn't.

But 40% are saying you should eat babies, right?

Or let's say there's like a discourse that you stumble upon where they're like,

You know, should we just um

Poop on the sidewalk

And it's 50-50 split down the middle.

Now, is it enough to say that I'm one of the anti-poop partisans?

In this discourse, is that enough to say?

Or at what point do you have to just realize that on a qualitative level, I don't want to be part of a discourse where this is still being debated?

I don't want to be part of a discourse where the question of whether we should vote for Democrats or not is even still being considered or debated.

Because even if you're debating against that position,

What it f what it comes across to me is it's like you still have not underwent this qualitative change, this qualitative break that's necessary.

You haven't taken the red pill, you haven't realized that the that this

Leftist discourse is just fundamentally rigged, and at best, it is institutionally captured materially and financially.

by the Democratic Party and that the vague perception

Of this open society, of this open discourse that this is like, oh, this is the they, this is the big other.

Yeah, that's just because the Democratic Party has a lot of fucking money and has the, and it's like the, it's an institutional state actor.

Of course, there's this perception of grandeur.

A lot of these DSA and whatever types.

Will constantly appeal to the argument that, well, we don't want to be a micro sect or a cult.

You know, we have to go with the flow.

We don't want to be a micro sect, we don't want to be a cult, we don't want to be a sect.

And it's like, well, the perception that you have that your DSA Democrat milieu is anything but a cult itself is just because they have more money and they have more resources and they have power, they have the backing of the state.

At no level whatsoever does that boil down to them being more fundamentally key word is fundamentally popular.

Now, of course the more popular thing to do is just acquiesce to the authority that rules us at the barrel of a gun.

But if we're ever going to get to the point where we recognize that we live under an occupation and that this is a regime that rules us by force,

We have to stop pretending that the passivity of the masses, the the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do participate in politics are going to go blue or red, we have to stop pretending that that reflects some authentic state of consciousness among the masses, rather than an imposed condition of occupation.

And you may say this is sectarian language.

Well, I beg to differ.

There is a growing contingent of Americans, and as much as you want to crucify them on the label of being far-right or being part of this or that comprehensive ideological milieu, it is fundamentally pre-ideological, and it is a spontaneous form of consciousness among the American people that is rapidly growing, which is fundamentally disaligned with the hegemony, which is fundamentally waking up to the fact.

That we live under an occupation.

Now, spontaneously, this takes the form of a thousand, a million different types of obscure conspiracy theories.

I agree.

But none of the, you can't reduce the phenomena to a comprehensive ideology.

Oh, this is fascism.

This is the far right.

This is X, Y, and Z ideology.

No, it's not.

This is materially the manifestation of growing segments of the U.S.

population disaligning with the state.

And that's a fact.

Disaligning with the hegemony.

Now, the spontaneous form with which they disalign could be a million different things.

But the disalignment is a material fact.

And these are the masses that we should tap into.

Otherwise we commit, in the sincere and genuine sense of the word, as b as it's been used historically, the error of Taillism.

Taillism would precisely mean

Going to Democrat voters and acquiescing to the Democratic Party because this is where we're meeting them, where they're at, right?

Talism is not being politically incorrect.

And by the way, I have a message to the fat ass Santa Claus Assatar Bear.

Ass ass hat bear, asshole bear.

Listen Santa Claus.

We don't, we're not politically incorrect because we're trying to pander to the masses.

You have yet to understand that the onus still remains upon you and every other professional petty bourgeois libtard lickspittle who works in HR departments and has bullshit meaningless jobs that you think somehow matter to prove to us Us and the masses for that matter that we should give a flying shit about any of your politically correct tone policing.

By default, this is a brutal fucking ugly world.

By default, this is a world where our language reflects reality.

By default, we tell politically incorrect jokes.

By default,

Our instinct, just like your instinct, the one you repress, is to reflect the world through humor, through honesty, through brutal language.

Without any regard for political correctness.

That's our default setting.

You liptards have failed in colonizing our minds with your political correctness.

Proving what's up.

We're not acting the way we are because, oh, this is how working class people act, so we should emulate their behavior.

That's not where we're fucking coming from.

This is our default setting.

You may feel like you're extremely.

Cowardly, politically correct, tone-policing world of falsehood and living in this fucking bubble is somehow a default setting.

But that's because your class background, you're a professional petty bourgeois.

You literally work in work environments where everyone's a fake fuck.

Now, I get it.

You've become so accustomed to these fake fuck bubble retard environments that you genuinely think this is the natural default setting for people who live in America.

But I promise you, for the majority of people, it's not.

And all the people that smile at you and walk on eggshells around you because they don't want to use the wrong language or hurt your fucking feelings are going home sharing Instagram reels with each other that are deeply anti-Semitic, deeply racist, deeply bigoted humor.

And it's just like complete memes that are fucking completely, you know, I guess, are abhorrent to you and unthinkable.

You'd clutch your pearls like an old grandma at a fucking Woodstock concert or some shit, right?

To put it in the hippie language, you might be comfortable understanding.

Mordor, what's up with the fives?

Yeah, we're not engaging in Taillism by having the tone and sentiment and the tone that we have.

The onus is on you to prove the material necessity of your tone policing and fake.

Bake.

Psychological disposition that we're supposed to emulate and and and adopt ourselves.

Why should we adopt your personality?

Why should we adopt your political correctness?

It has yet to be proven to any of us why we should give a flying fuck about any of it.

If something is funny, it's funny.

If something is real, it's real.

If something if there's a more matter of fact, blunt way of putting something, there are most certainly circumstances in which stop getting your fucking panties in a bunch crying about it, okay?

I'm not saying that we're going to go to a formal, you know, I'm not saying every setting it's appropriate to be politically incorrect.

I'm just saying it's like people go out of their way, they'll fight they'll dig up tweets that I made years ago and they'll be like, oh my god, and they're clutching pearls.

Hey, literally, kill yourself.

Like, what are you doing?

Like, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what?

You're crying over tone and language and all this kind of stuff.

Hey, just go kill yourself, you know.

Hey, in a video game, you know what I mean?

Like, I don't know what to tell you.

Uh with all that's going on in the world, if this is material to you, you are fundamentally bourgeois, and it's as simple as that.

If this kind of stuff is material to you, you are bourgeois.

And that's how I end the story.

But uh no, okay, back to my original point.

Talism in the meaningful sense of the term, Taillism, okay, Taillism refers to ignoring the advanced developments among the development of the consciousness of the masses, which now takes the form of this broad conspiracism slop.

I agree it's slop, but guess what?

It reflects a material disalignment with the system.

That is what Marxists have to be at the avant-garde of.

Not fucking incrementally pushing some old pedophile liberal Democrat who loves AOC more and more to the left, whatever that fucking means.

That's some Menshevik nonsense.

The Leninist view is you go directly to the segment of the masses that is ready to fucking throw down.

For Lenin, that was the Russian peasants.

For Mao it was the Chinese peasant.

For us.

It's yes, it's the people watching Professor Jong, Tucker Carlson, and even Candace Owens and whatever.

That doesn't mean we.

We don't educate the masses.

That doesn't mean we don't distinguish ourselves.

from those people that I just mentioned.

But where there are material manifestations of material disalignment with the system, that's where we have to be.

That's what it means.

Anything else is Taillism.

This is the true meaning, by the way, of having a principled Marxist position.

You go to the masses.

who are the most advanced in the development of their consciousness.

But the advanced development of the consciousness of the masses is not measured by how superficially educated they are.

I'll show you a fucking dozen, dozens and hundreds and hundreds of college professors well superficially well versed in the vocabulary, the vernacular, the language of Marxism, which are simultaneously in their material disposition fundamentally reactionary, Zionist and bourgeois.

Advanced doesn't mean who can recite superficially the the dead letter and the dead text, who can talk about transphobia and homophobia and put pink hats on or something.

That's not what it means to be advanced.

What it means to be advanced

is to be disaligned with the system.

The more that the system loses its grip on the minds of the masses, the more advanced the masses are along the path of finally adopting what we Marxists call the revolutionary consciousness.

And mind you, the revolutionary consciousness precedes the proletarian consciousness.

So whoever calls us tailless and uses this gibber language they don't understand 'cause they're fifteen.

I don't want to be part of a discourse that's still debating about this, though.

But maybe we have to.

It's been five years, I am perfectly capable.

Of

self-reflection on the fact that it's been five years

And somehow, yes, it's true, the pipeline to the American Communist Party is still coming from the left.

Significantly coming to f from the left, I would say.

Uh, there's some from the right for sure, but the pipeline is primarily still coming from the left.

Let's pause.

Why is that happening?

Well, because who's putting out the constant barrage of introductory level educational content to Marxism in general?

It's not us.

It's the deprogrammed people.

It's all these other YouTubers with their fucking stupid, retarded YouTube essays.

And they're the ones making constant documentaries and content.

Thank God we have Eddie.

Eddie's the one guy we have.

But the overwhelming majority of the space of how do I red people to just warm up to communism in general is being monopolized and dominated by people who don't know what to do with the attention that they're getting.

Our pipeline is still coming to a huge extent, I should say, from that direction.

Not entirely, not 100%.

I'd say maybe 60-70% is coming from that direction.

Now,

Brothers and sisters, I would say comrades, but come on, it's a little too much LARP.

Brothers and sisters, we need to learn from that, okay?

We need our own documentaries, we need our own content, we need our own short form

Small introductory level stuff, specifically YouTube, documentaries.

Uh you know, I'm I'm gonna just tell the RTSG guys

Guys, everything you make that you write

You can turn it, even just use AI to make the images for it, or whatever you have to do.

You could turn that into a video script, no problem.

If you can't read it, you can have AI read it.

It'll go viral, don't worry.

Uh infrared we wanted to do this for sure.

I mean, maybe we could do it with infrared.

I'm honestly, I think we're at the point where infrared is probably willing to recruit video editors like and and video producers for documentaries.

But that honest to God, that has to be the move.

Logo was 100% right the more I think about it every single day.

The reason why the pipeline is still coming from the left for us is because the introductory content to Marxism is still being monopolized by YouTube video essayists.

We have to get on the YouTube video essay game.

We have to get on that shit.

We have to get on the YouTube game and flood YouTube with video essays and simple educational content that teaches people the basics of Marxism.

And we will then consolidate our own pipeline independently.

And uh yeah, so that's why.

If we can do that, my friends, and I'm talking about a media network, we already have Jackson, who's doing news.

If people could help me with infrared who who would want to do that, and then if RTSG could start doing it and then others start doing it, we create a media ecosystem on YouTube and fucking dominate the video essay game when it comes to Marxism.

Introductory level content to Marxism Communism.

If we do this, we will never have to spend.

In another minute of our life ever again arguing with Democrats.

We will never have to argue with furries.

We'll never have to engage in the same arguments we've been doing for the past five fucking years.

You understand?

We have to create a media ecosystem.

Where we are

Uh we are actually introducing people

To Marxism-Leninism.

And we are the ones defending the USSR at the basic level.

We can't be too sectarian.

We can't make our content about this is how we're not Hakeem.

This is how this is why Hakeem is wrong.

This is why Second Thought is wrong.

Okay, if we want to distinguish ourselves from Hakeem and Second Thought, let's do it in a positive way.

Let's just show at the most introductory level how we positively comprehend things and let the burden be put upon them to distinguish themselves from us negatively, right?

If you're just making content saying this is why Hakeem's a retarded bastard, you're a fucking leech.

You know, you're no long you're no different than the infrared or ACP ankle biters who cannot make content of their own and just fucking bite our ankles 'cause they're these are subhuman retards.

They're just not smart.

They're not intelligent.

An intelligent person understands.

If you have a problem with the way the space is being monopolized and dominated, do it yourself better.

You set the fucking example.

You do it yourself better.

Don't focus on the clashing and the negativity.

If they want to debate, let them debate.

Video essays dedicated to taking down Hakeem or something or whoever the best D Marx, whatever these year.

By the way, these Europeans are dominating the space.

Okay?

Americans need to get on it and put out American.

You know, less European-biased content about Marxism.

We are so behind on that, though, because I look at.

I've been I've been looking on YouTube.

There's some of these video essays about Lenin, about

The production value is so fucking good, it's incredible.

It's quite incredible production value.

But you wanna know the one advantage we have?

Um they are ethically

um barred from using AI uh for visuals and stuff.

We can.

We can use AI for video visuals and everything.

Understand what a profound advantage that puts us in.

In terms of the volume of content we could put out.

And there will be a sizable amount of people that condemn us as unethical, but that's just us filtering out all the lip tards.

We will be getting the masses.

We will be getting just we'll be capturing so many fucking people.

Lenin Dubois, what's up?

So that's how we're gonna, you know, uh launch that assault.

Want to give a one-minute example now, and Kat clips it immediately.

Intro to communism from the popular center right.

No, I don't think I uh I I can't.

No, I'm I don't want clips.

We we don't need clips.

We need long form documentary content.

We have a lot of cl no, we need clips.

Keep up the clip game for sure.

But let's also start thinking about long form video essay shit, 'cause that's uh that's what creates communities.

Honestly, the long term long form video essays are what create

Communities.

Logo is right.

Logo set he gave us the best advice.

You know, you could think of Europa, the last battle, created the entire far right and 4chan, besides Jeffrey Epstein, right?

Um

If you use AI, they'll say it's AI slop.

Uh, gelcrum, that's not true at all.

If you use AI to m uh write your script, yeah, it's slop.

If if if it's shame if it's just like all AI, then yes.

But if you use AI to help with editing and help um the visuals, that that's not going to be seen as slot by anybody.

You have to combine manual and automatic, you know?

I I'll say this, you know.

Uh

The space is open, the space is hot for video essay shit.

You know, I see so many people in the community launching podcasts.

We don't need podcasts.

Nobody needs podcasts.

We need video essays.

We need educational material.

Introductory level.

Just teach people basics about Marxism.

ABCs of Marxism.

Why is China socialist?

Make a video response to someone claiming China's not socialist.

Like, do what we do on X, fucking turn that into YouTube essays.

Uh we don't need

More podcasts.

We don't need more podcasts.

And you know

We don't need people sitting in front of their camera yapping.

We need

Content that is like documentary style, you know?

So uh uh this applies to ACP.

And it also applies to you if you're trying, if you, some of you genuinely want to get into the media space.

My genuine advice to you, if you want to break into the media space, work on video essays and get good visuals and all that kind of stuff.

And if I watch it and I think it's good, I'll fucking boost it.

I'll give it the boost that it needs if I think it's good.

If I think it's terrible, I'm going to critique it and tell you to fucking make it better.

And then when it's good and I say, okay, this has a chance of going on the algo, I'll boost it.

By the way, why am I stingy when it comes to using infrared to boost small creators?

Because if I think something is going to entirely depend on infrared forever, I'm not going to boost it.

But if I see that there's promise and that we could give you the boost that you need to to reach a wider, wider audience, I have no fucking problem mobilizing this army to get this shit off the off its feet if it actually has promise.

There's shit that I s I'm not saying this I'm I don't always I very very rarely make a decision about this anyway, because I very rarely have the time to even check this kind of small content out.

But uh I'm telling you, like, I'm not I wanna see you grow and succeed if you have the chance to, is what I'm trying to fucking say.

And if I see good content and good shit, I have no fucking problem.

Uh, you know.

doing what we can.

I'll even tell Jackson we could just do whatever we can to juice it and boost it.

But it has to be fucking good.

Not just in the sense that I have to like it.

It has to be good.

Like I see this like I could see this going viral.

This will be viral as fuck, right?

Um, RTSG podcast.

I haven't, I haven't listened.

It, it's, it sounds pretty cool.

Yeah, I mean, there podcasts that are non-video podcasts, they probably have some potential.

You know, people are on their long car rides listening to stuff, but what there's a gap in the market in right now is video content, 100%.

Video essay content.

That's educational, introductory educational.

Some of y'all are slacking on that, I'm not gonna lie.

We are look, you wanna do self criticism of our entire community?

Self-criticism is we don't have the b we're not the best at introducing people to communism.

We're very good at combating the far right.

Shutting them down.

But are we good at introducing people to communism?

We're not the best.

We're getting there, but we're not the best.

Eddie's the best in our.

Yeah, I mean, ACP.

I'm talking about infrared, though.

I'm talking just about infrared.

We are not the best.

We are already very esoteric.

When the when the minute you become initiated in our community you already have taken a red pill of some kind.

And uh we need to find a way to lock in on introducing people to our shit, right?

So

That's my sermon, but now we're going to get to the good part of tonight's stream.

Facebook groups.

Look, nothing will beat documentaries.

I'm just telling you, video essays and documentaries.

Nothing's going to beat that.

Nothing.

And it's just got to take any topic.

Mao killed.

Okay.

I'm sure Volk Vulture will help scripting.

You just make a video saying debunking the myth that Mao killed 60 million.

Debunking Francois Dicketer.

Debunking the halal.

Like, just make shit like that.

It will fucking go viral.

Pump it out constantly.

This or that myth, this retarded anti-communist myth, the cats in Mac.

I don't know.

YouTube might ban you if you deny the catch and massacre.

But just keep launching nukes.

Okay.

The myth that communism was a failure.

The myth that this or that.

Because Hakeem.

We'll make videos about the USSR.

And say it was in beautiful social democracy, and uh his videos are successful.

Uh but you know instead of complaining about how they do it, let's just do it better.

Finbull used to do this shit, that's why he used to own the space.

Matter of fact, almost everybody comes from Finnbull when you think about it.

Everybody comes from Finbull.

Alright, what was my title last time on TikTok?

Oh, fuck.

You know what?

Guys, the TikTok prompts.

How do we make those?

You put it down like New York City.

Add a theme.

Okay, not a theme.

Uh how do I

Add something to the scene.

Like how do I add an image or something, right?

Oh, I could do it like this, right?

Ah, wait, no.

Hold on.

General

I'm trying to figure this shit out.

So this is what scenes mean.

Alright, I don't know what scenes fucking mean.

I don't know how to add some shit.

To the layout.

Uh

Within TikTok live studio said, ad source text.

Okay, hold on.

Where's ad source?

That's the problem.

Where's ad source?

'Cause all there is is Ad Scene.

Where do I find Ad Source?

Rename, add theme, duplicate theme, switch layout, set hotkey, project live view.

How do I add a source?

I wish somebody would help me.

Fuck, nobody knows how to do this shit.

Bro, one person doesn't know how to do this.

It's crazy.

Yes, I'm on desktop, TikTok, live studio.

What the fuck?

How to add text.

Uh in the scenes menu, add text, Huh?

Hello, everybody.

My name is Ira Bowman.

I am a live host with GravitasQ here on TikTok.

Nobody gives a fuck.

And today I'm going to teach you something I actually just learned how to do myself.

I learned how to add text and make it scroll and be able to hide it or share it whenever I want, update it, all those things.

I'm going to teach you that in this video right now.

If you are on your computer and you are using TikTok Live Studio or you want to record from your computer, I'm going to share with you this technique.

So, first things first, make sure you have TikTok Live Studio app loaded on your computer.

I do.

Make sure you're logged in.

I have it.

Once you are, the very first thing that you're probably going to see is the toolbar.

No, I don't need that.

This is an old-ass fucking video.

And you're going to see this little pop-up box.

So, this is in here, but I'm just going to add source button.

TikTok Live Studio No Ad Source option.

Why?

Let's set up TikTok Live Studio in 2026.

Okay, fuck this retard.

I hate everybody.

Settings

Alright, I don't think there's a way to do this, guys.

The chat GPD doesn't fucking know anything, all right?

Fuck's sake.

There's no uh way to do it, uh for me, at least.

So nobody dare bitch at me that I don't have fucking

'Cause everyone's always saying, Oh, you know, you just gotta make the uh the the

There's no add source button!

Holy fuck, lawn guy!

There's none!

There's nothing!

Like, I'm not retarded, all right?

I'm not a literal retard.

There's no add source button.

There's a scene

All I have okay, I need to make a scene then.

Let's try.

Thank you, Emirio.

Maybe that's it.

Uh.

Okay, unlock.

Okay, yes, unlock the scene.

Ah, I had to unlock the scene.

Nobody told me that.

Notice, nobody told me that.

Not a single person told me that.

Uh

Alright, I I'm gonna make something really quick on Canva.

You put it down like New York City

We got it.

You put it down like New York City.

Oh, we gonna I'm I'm making some good shit.

Alright.

Okay, okay, okay.

We good.

This is some good ass shit.

Oh, this is gonna be some good shit.

Nah, nah, for real, for real, for real, for real.

This is uh this is gonna be uh you know some good shit for sure.

Whoopsie.

Oh, this is gonna be yeah, this is gonna be good.

Why didn't you do this before?

Cause I didn't have time bitch.

Yeah.

Y'all gonna see this shit, this final ass product?

Transparent background.

And this is going to be good.

You put it down like New York City.

All right.

Image.

Add.

Huh?

Yeah!

Hold on, this shit is not good.

Hold on, I gotta fix this shit.

Uh

This one, get rid of this shit.

Add a source.

Tell me.

You put it down like New York City

Alright, what the fuck is this?

Alert?

Put that shit away.

Don't fucking need this.

Okay, I have to like be here.

You put it down like New York City.

Hold on.

I'm gonna make it like a podium.

Make it like a podium.

All right, y'all.

We're good.

We're going live.

Go live.

Uh

Yes.

All right, all right, y'all.

After so much pain and trifling and

Yay!

We're good.

So you don't see the full thing.

It says debate communism.

And we're good.

You guys, you missed me so much, didn't you?

I was gone, I was away for so long.

I was away for so long.

And uh here we are.

Uh everybody who's not ACP is um

A nothing.

Uh anti ACP sentiment is rooted in the federal government.

It's spread by the Mossad, it's spread by the CIA, it's completely astroturfed by the MI Six, CIA and Mossad.

That's a fact.

This guy named Estalin is based, you better be an op or you're banned forever.

Hello.

Stellan's a pedophile.

Based on what?

Based on uh Jeffrey Epstein's

Associate Simon Teabag Montefair, who is in the Epstein Black Book.

Who completely made that up?

So uh

What a pathetic, disgusting thing What a pathetic, disgusting case of projection When that was itself created and made up by Simon Seabag, T Bag, Montefer.

Why don't you stream with Carlos?

Where is Carlos?

Okay, I'll tell Carlos.

I'm going to call him right now.

Don't use bad words.

Gotta call Carlos.

Couldn't connect.

Why can I not connect?

I literally am trying to fix it as quickly as I can.

Once if we're fucking good with this fucking mic, Frank T, the ACP is a right-wing party.

Based on what?

Go ahead, define right wing.

Define right wing.

I'll define right wing.

The right wing were the people who stood for the Ancien regime during the French Revolution, sat on the right aisle of the parliament.

The left wing was the party of revolution who were against the status quo and against the system.

We are against the status quo and system more comprehensively and more consistently than any so-called leftist that you know of.

So calling us right wing is nonsensical gibberish, you Zionist.

You are a Zionist is the problem.

A Zionist defines right wing based on how friendly or mean they are, based on Theodore

P d he's an Epsteinite, Theodore Adorno, his authoritarian personality compass, where he defined right wing as having a closed personality and uh not wanting to eat ass.

Long guy, what's up?

Theodor Adorno defined being right wing based on not wanting to eat ass.

Instead of uh being a shill for the status quo, concrete status quo, the concrete

State and machine.

Not the abstraction of, oh, you don't want to comprehensively mutilate people's genitalia by force or something.

That makes you right-wing.

What are you talking about, Frank T, you pathetic simpleton?

Where did he go?

Are you the best?

What are you talking about with small businesses?

You're just gibbering with some nonsense gibberish.

Where's Frank T, you Zionist?

John Pork, you're not John Pork.

You LARPER You're not John Park, you're calling us LARP, you're talking nonsense.

They're neo fascists who always mention the global banking elite and spew anti Semitic rhetoric.

Hello, Zionist Frank Ree Frank T.

Yeah.

I got restricted!

For bullying and harassment.

How do I lift this for 10 minutes?

Okay, well we'll we're gonna survive.

It'll be the long march.

The 10 minute long march.

I'll be nicer.

I'll be kinder and I'll be nicer.

I immediately got attacked.

Alright, I'm gonna rephrase that.

Alright, I'm there's a new me.

There's a new me.

Well, Frank, we have many disagreements.

You claim that speaking of a banking elite Ha ha

Speaking of a banking elite is a fascist, did you read Lenin's Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism?

Go ahead.

Open up Lenin's Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.

Shall we do it together, Frank?

'Cause you're such a literate, well-read genius.

Lenin, imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.

Okay, we'll open it up together.

Hmm.

Banks and their new role.

Finance capital and the finance oligarchy, huh?

Okay, so Frank

It looks like Lenin's a fascist 'cause he's talking about the financial oligarchy.

Ha ha Even he's talking about parasitism, ha ha quite anti-Semitic, if you ask me.

And don't mind my voice, guys, TikTok just restricted me uh for ten minutes 'cause I'm bullying and I'm mean.

So I'm just a friendly guy now.

No, I'm just friendly, 'cause TikTok restricted my v live visibility for uh bullying and uh harassment, so I'm just a nice person now.

Don't worry about me, I'm not a threat to anyone.

Anyway, Frank, where'd you go?

If I end it and restart it, does my restriction go away?

I can't do this for 10 minutes.

If I end it and restart it, does it go away?

Green place, tell me.

Uh all I have to do is restart it, really?

Oh no, yeah, no, it doesn't go away.

Well, I'm just wholesome.

I believe in uh

All the wholesome things.

There's a guy that wanted to debate MMT.

I don't who wants to debate MMT.

Uh, it's probably s s sounds boring.

Uh, come to TikTok, whoever wants to debate, honestly.

Wait.

Oh wait, hold on.

Oh you can request.

Okay.

I was gonna say.

Alright.

Uh who

Let me look at I'm gonna read the chat, people who are uh

Saying things about where did Frank anybody scared him away?

I'm not a psychopath, I promise.

I think we scared him away.

His fr Frank is gone forever.

He'll never come back after Mickey Mouse.

After Mickey Miles hit him with the Lennon thing, he'll never come back, right?

Well, he got what he wanted.

Is ACP positive on LGBT rights?

First of all, you live in France.

What what of what relevance is it to you when you live in France?

And what do you mean by that?

Fuck is Carlos?

I want to swear again.

Hey, what's up, man?

You're alive!

You're live!

You're alive!

You want a merchant's thing?

Uh I don't know how because

I'll tell you how.

You have to fucking go to the co-host.

Alright, hold on.

Co-host?

And then tell me what to do.

I'll invite you.

Alright.

There, I just invited you.

Okay.

I can't I can't accept any invites.

All I can do is invite you.

I can't accept anything.

Uh

Yeah, 'cause I'm 'cause I'm on no no 'cause I'm on desktop.

I can't I can't no, it's not because it's just desktop versus mobile.

I invited you and that's

Oh, you're on desktop?

Yeah.

You're on the live studio?

Yeah.

What the fuck?

Well, why is this working then?

Why is this working then?

Yeah, I got restricted for the next ten minutes.

Oh my god.

All right.

Hello.

What's up, bro?

I have my sign.

It's kinda redundant.

Wait, you're on desktop?

You're on the what?

I'm on the the live studio, bro.

It's an app.

You have to download the app.

Uh for mobile or for desktop?

Because I'm using the same thing.

No, desktop.

Can you increase your volume?

Your mic?

Your mic.

And also there's super there's a lot of feedback on your end.

What the hell?

Yeah, I don't know.

What the fuck.

Um.

Is this better?

Yeah, way better.

It's way better.

Yeah, way better.

It's way better.

So, for the next five, how long has it been, guys?

The feedback is really bad, by the way.

I know it's horrendous.

I don't know what the fuck to do with it.

Let me see if I can get fucking some earphones.

I'm going to look like a fucking pilot.

What the hell?

It's okay, it's okay.

Jesus Christ.

For the next five minutes, I'm restricted.

I'm restricted.

Next six minutes.

So, with the next six minutes, we're doing a long march.

Until I'm uh freed from Larry Ellison's prison.

What did you do?

I uh I uh

I I was calling people some names.

I don't know.

Any juicy ones?

No.

Which one's no?

No, just the Z word.

I just kept but in a really aggressive way I called someone a Z word.

Someone a Z word.

Uh

I'm still getting people that are requesting to join here.

I think you can just fucking speak with them while I get this fucking Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, can you get the earphones on?

Yeah.

Alright, they just dropped out.

The next one that pops up, I'll get him.

There's people that have people that have mine was growing my viewers, but after bro, this feedback is like I'm muted.

What are you talking about?

No, you need a mute.

You need to mute my on the studio, you need a mute.

It's coming out of your speakers.

And it's going into your mic.

One one more one.

One more.

One, one, one, one, one.

All right, how about now?

No, we're up.

We're up.

It's still the same thing.

Exact same thing.

All right.

Hold up.

Let me change the where the audio comes out of.

I think you have to do it on the end of TikTok.

Here this TikTok.

TikTok.

Audio mixer.

Hello!

Hello?

Hello, hello?

We're good!

Can you hear me?

The feedback's gone.

I can't hear you now.

You now.

Yeah, 'cause I fucking muted myself.

Hold up.

It's uh it's your mic.

Alright, I thought I was excited for a second.

I thought the feedback was gone.

I wonder what this looks like on TikTok.

Dunno.

Yeah.

With the 25.

Y'all hello?

Hello?

Hello, hello, hello?

Can you hear me?

I can't hear you though.

Your speaker, you got you need to do the opposite.

You need to get rid of the speaker and then enable the mic and remove the speaker.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Talk talk It's still it's still Carlos the speaker you need to mute your spoo speaker and just enable your mic and just enable your mic

Alright bro, take it easy.

I'm now fucking tech advanced.

No, I can't hear you.

This is the worst.

I can't hear, bro.

Bro, I cannot hear anything.

No?

How how about now?

How about now?

Hello, hello, hello.

The feedback's still the same.

Feedback's still the same.

It's actually much worse.

Significantly worse.

Significantly worse feedback.

Yeah, go to your audio mixer.

Okay.

Do you see where it says audio?

Yeah.

All right.

Okay, go down.

You see where it says speaker for co-hosting creators?

For co-hosting creators.

Scroll all the way down.

Yeah.

Okay, put that.

Okay, put that to anything else.

To anything else.

Bro, I'm gonna look like I'm fucking working at a Oh, I can't do it.

These are like the call center.

Uh go to speaker for co-hosts and creators and try to put it something else.

Try to put it something else.

All right.

What about now?

Hello, hello, hello.

No, it's still the same.

What about no?

Hello?

No.

Hello?

Go to your audio.

Yeah.

And just mute that.

Actually let me

You just don't want to lose aura with the phone.

You don't want to lose aura with the headphones.

I know.

Who cares?

All right.

Um, what the fuck?

I can't, I can't.

Why can't I fucking hear him through the headphones?

You have to go to audio?

And change your

Change change.

Hello.

Now now there's now there's this is really bad.

It's really Oh, what the fuck, bro?

How do I do this?

General settings.

Default microphone.

Hello.

Hello?

There, are we good?

No, we're not good.

Targo decay cancellation.

It's on.

The mic is on?

The echo cancellation is on.

Not for me.

When I talk, I hear it through your speaker.

When I speak, when I speak, I hear it coming from you.

I hear it coming from you.

What about now?

Hello?

Yes, it's the same.

It's the same.

Jesus Christ.

Bro, I don't I don't know

Oh.

Hello.

Are you an op, yes or no?

No.

I literally disconnected Carlos.

It told me to disconnect Carlos and I just did.

We don't have a lot of time left.

That's why.

All right.

This is not working.

So I wanted to co-host it with Carlos, but here's the problem.

This is what I realized from doing it with Eddie.

When I do the co-host,

What ends up happening is that we can't even bring people on, so let me call 'em and just tell 'em.

You cannot have guests on when you're co-hosting.

No, I tried it we tried it with Eddie, it didn't even work.

Bro, I just remember something.

When I did this with Eddie, when you're co hosting, you can't bring on guests.

So to do multi-guest, one of us you have to if you're on desktop, you can't join my stream as a multi-guest, so we just can't we c you can only either stream together only

On

Well, he wasn't he was probably on mobile himself.

Did you join his or he joined yours?

Yeah, or or um

Yeah, and if you're on desktop you can't join mine through multi-guest, which means we can't have more than two people.

And we can we can do it together, we just can't bring other people.

If you want to just send you a name.

No, no, this is the co-host, Carlos, this is the co-host.

This is not.

No, but we can't bring on guests.

If we do a co-host together, we can't bring on guests.

Okay.

Fucking we can't.

We can't.

Zemana literally fuck off.

Like, what the fuck?

It's because of the two desktops.

Uh yeah.

I can't do it on mobile.

You have to do it on mobile.

Yeah, you have to join.

Join through your phone, it'll work.

On Malta, I guess.

My fucking Wi-Fi's ass.

Yeah.

I guess we can't, man.

We can't do it.

We tried our best.

No, I'm streaming.

I'm streaming it.

No, because I'm in a green place.

Do you understand?

I'm streaming it on kick as well.

Yeah.

I just the TikTok live studio won't let you.

We tried it with Eddie, it just doesn't work.

Because of the desktop.

Yeah.

Alright, see you, bro.

There's nobody in show Q.

It's literally a party people like that are just joining.

Like Jesus it's like it's like a it's like a cl a clown show.

Everyone just like I just want to join.

Why w we're only having ops who are anti-ACP join, right?

You know, there's some groups and sects that are like, I just like having a circle jerk.

And they just like talking to each other and just like patting each other on the back on their back, right?

You know, like, I don't see the purpose of doing that online at all.

Casey McGregor, okay, you're

Australian infrared guy for sure.

Alright, it's not gonna happen.

Anyway, the ACP is the only new thing that's happened to the U.S.

left in 10 years.

Everything else is a dead end.

And this is the only path.

This is the only way forward.

Okay?

Now, if you can't see that, if there's something about that that's too confusing to you, and you want to instead go off of what?

YouTube videos?

Like by a guy who literally sounds like this?

My name is Brandon Todd.

And what's the substance of that video?

It's been comprehensively debunked.

Every single anti-ACP thing you've ever seen on the internet has been comprehensively debunked.

Test it.

Test a single claim that's made about our party.

Against the chairman of that party, which is me by the way, and see if it can hold to scrutiny.

The ACP is the only thing.

This was the most horrific so far.

I mean, we can we can turn it around for sure.

So far, this is the most horrific TikTok we've ever done.

First of all, right off the bat, we get restricted, and then Carlos joins, and then for 25 minutes, we are in purgatory.

And so we've had a very rough start, everyone, but we're back now and we're good now.

It was quite horrific, quite bad.

And, you know, y'all should just drop 20 subs because you feel bad for me.

You should just drop the 20.

Just drop 20 subs because you feel so.

I'm just kidding.

Anyway.

Uh where are all the anti-ACP cultists?

And I have to say something to these TikTokers.

Um when I'm muted on your end, it's 'cause

I chose to mute you on your end because you're not the revolutionary subject.

If you are an infrared fan, it's like, what are you even doing on TikTok?

We're here to get anti-ACP people, all right?

All the people that are here that are not on the green place, it's just kinda like

Kinda you're basically LARPing as TikTok viewers.

You're not real TikTok viewers.

You're basically just green viewers who move to TikTok.

We're trying to get the TikTok people, all right?

For the algorithm, you know, I'll we'll we'll just go in cold.

That's it.

The whole point is to go in cold.

No, we don't need algo boosting.

We go in cold, we can let the haters algo boost us.

Let the normies algo boost us.

It's ca it's a test, you understand?

What's the difference between you and CPUSA?

The difference between us and CPSA is that we're not Democrats.

Australian Stanley, what the fuck is up, bro?

Thank you for the 10.

Uh C P U S A have been our defunct reconstituted party.

We reconstituted them.

But they are Democrats and nothing more.

There's they're Democrats.

They're also Yanists.

They have nothing to do with

Marxism, Leninism.

They're just milquetoast reformist Democrats.

Car what can you do?

Uh why do you guys say chapters that didn't join your organization did join?

We never claimed that every single member of the club joined.

We simply said that representatives from those clubs, who were part of the petition movement, joined us.

We recognized them as authorized representatives of their club because they were the only people that represented the independent will of their club that wasn't just acquiescing and towing along with the Joe Sims click.

The petition movement was about whether or not the CPUSA should still tell the Democrats.

Every single club that had people that were advocating for a petition to have a referendum on Proposition 5 or whatever.

Uh

We o we recognize them as the legitimate voices and authority of the party.

So we never said that every single member of of the club defected and joined ACP.

We simply said that authorized representatives of that club, authority being defined on the basis of whether they're acting in an independent capacity, signed in the declaration of the ACP.

Are you Muslim?

Yes.

I am.

Is A C B considered patriotic?

Uh as any Communist party in history was.

There's nothing extraordinarily patriotic about us compared to the norm for Communist parties in the past.

Uh capitalism is so much better.

Why are you lying?

We get it, bro.

You're an Epstein fan.

It's like, what are you saying?

You're literally a LARPer.

What do you mean capitalism is better?

How?

In what way?

Elaborate.

I mean, what are you even talking about?

Are did you are you probably you probably bought the very phone that you're watching this TikTok on using CalSHI?

You're probably using Cal Shi to just buy things now.

You're talking about how capitalism is better.

You're literally a debt slave.

What are you talking about?

I want to debate you on uh MMT.

I think the debt jubilee is economic and political suicide.

I don't care.

It's just not an interesting debate.

Secure is literally a federal agent, by the way.

Literal Fed.

Yeah, Klarna, not Kalshi, Klarna.

Klarna, yeah, you probably used Klarna.

Oh, you can't mention that on whatever.

Thoughts on Battle in Pendleton?

Would you support a communist far-left organization under a big tent in America?

Uh, FRSO, PSL, and any MLs who, for whatever reason, are in DSA, if all of them came together and said we want to do a big tent, we would tap in.

May I mean, I can't unilaterally decide that, but I would say I personally would consider I would be very open to that personally.

Um see, notice how I you know, I'm not petty.

Yeah, if they all said let's tap in

Wh of course, why not?

K Professor Garrido invites me to co-host.

Bro, for the last time, I can't co-host.

That means we can't bring up guests.

We can there's there's no way we can do a multi-guest stream more than two people if we co-host.

You have to join multi-guest.

If you can't join it, we can't do it.

Boxake.

Can you explain the new party of I don't know what that is.

Are you going to movement?

What does that mean?

If communism is good, why does capitalism have more aura and why do I make more money?

Yeah, you're gonna make a lot of money when your Klarna debts pay off, I'm sure.

A an actual Destiny fan in the chat.

That's crazy.

In the wild.

Never seen that in a long time.

The EDM Festival in Detroit well no, I'm about to be a thirty year old man, so I don't go to EDM festivals 'cause I'm about to be a thirty year old man.

Imagine you're a thirty year old man, you're going to EDM festivals, what do I look like to you?

You know what and also in principle it's like

Look look at me look at me imagine me

Just hold on.

Look at me.

Picture me at an EDM festival.

What am I doing?

What am I doing there?

No, no, think about it.

Like, what am I doing?

What would I be doing there?

Think about it.

What am I doing there?

Why would I be there?

That doesn't even make any sense.

That's like going and seeing Progozhan at an EDM festival.

Why would he be there?

Why would Progozin be at an EDM festival?

You know?

Why would Progozian be there?

Doing what?

For what?

Do I look Israeli?

Uh, CM, you are a fan.

You, you, you, the fact you're a fan of that streamer that you're just self-evidently defeated because you exist.

Being a fan of that streamer, you just defeated yourself by existing.

There's nothing I could say.

What was my reaction when I was on the Fire Rises?

I didn't like how they put us under Caleb Maupin.

They're so outdated.

The Fire Rise is super outdated.

Even then, it was wrong, okay?

Nobody made Caleb the leader of anything, even when we were friendly with him.

But the fact that they still have us in a coalition.

Why am I restricted again?

Harassment and bullying.

Oh, okay.

I forgot I wasn't using the right voice.

Hey, what's up, Oz?

Have I spoken to you before?

No.

All right, what do you want?

Yeah, so I'm wondering if you would be willing to affirm the proposition that communism is good for the purpose of the bedding.

Yeah.

I'll say goodbye.

I'm banning Zemena forever for requesting.

Zemena, you're banned.

I'm I'm not even dealing with this anymore, ever again.

You're banned.

Mute account, entire life.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so with regard to your position being the affirmative, I'll just be looking for an argument to support the prop.

Okay, P1 or P2?

Um presumably arguments that do not have a premise one start out with the first premise rather than the second.

Okay, P three or P four or P P?

Yeah, so like there's still the same kind of reasoning by the way.

For pee-pee or poo-poo, poo, poo-poo.

Can you speak as a human being?

When I say debate, I mean a normal human debate.

I'm not talking about some robotic propositional logic game.

Yeah, if positive.

If you're the enemy of clarity, if you don't like logic.

I am absolutely the enemy of analytic philosophy being shoved in context it doesn't fucking belong in.

This isn't mathematics.

This is some kind of abstract value.

Thankfully, analytic philosophy doesn't encompass the entirety of logic.

So hopefully we can give some logic.

No, right, it doesn't.

And a debate between human beings is not a debate between formal machines.

Okay.

So if you could just get to whatever point, if you could just get to whatever point you wanted to make without pee pee and poo-pooing, that'd be great.

Yeah, well, since you're taking the affirmative on the proposition.

No, no, no.

I don't want to hear.

I don't want to hear anything about propositions or affirmatives.

Make a point.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so are you just saying that you won't give an argument to the effect of the majority of the people?

No, my argument, I said communism is good.

What is your response?

Go ahead.

No worries.

Yeah, that's not an argument.

That's just a claim.

Okay.

Well, that's my claim is that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Red cap.

Let me explain something to you.

Every argument is always relative.

You might want to try to read.

It's always relative.

So if you're claiming, oh, that's merely a claim, not an argument, what defines it?

What qualifies something as an argument?

Yeah, there are a few methods of argument, inductive, deductive, and abductive, right?

And there's going to be a very clear structure that each of these take on as a matter of fact.

The only thing that defines an argument is a common object in contention.

That's it.

As long as something is in contention, as long as something is in contention, and there are at least two people, right?

for whom that object is relevant or meaningful, and its significance is in some way in contention, their attitude in relation toward it will constitute an argument.

That's in real life, by the way.

In real life, when two people are on the sidewalk and a fire hydrant is broken and they have a difference of opinion as to how to fix it, they're arguing over how to fix it.

Now, they're not making propositions.

They're not strictly defining the parameters of their claim according to propositional logic.

But every sane, normal human being will look at those two people and say they're arguing.

So you're engaging in a ridiculous caricature of human beings by talking to you.

Okay.

Logic and propositional logic are not the same thing.

They're not.

But there's different kinds of logic.

Trop logic, second order.

Like critical logics, there are different kinds of non-classical logic.

Like, what is your point?

My point is, what argument are you here to actually make in substance?

What's the argument?

I'm here to make an argument against communism, but I would hope that you would.

So argue against communism.

Argue against communism then.

Yeah, you haven't given me any particular argument to respond to.

The onus is not upon me to give you an argument.

You're the affirmative in the debate.

You would be afraid of the majority of the people.

I am the chairman of the American Communist Party.

All right, now you should be the chairman of logic and understanding how burdens of proof work.

You took the affirmative.

Okay, two people are on the sidewalk and there's a fire hydrant and they have a difference as to how to fix it and they're yelling at each other and they're speaking at each other, communicating different ways of fixing it.

Are they arguing?

Yes or no?

I mean they're engaged in some rational are they arguing.

Are they arguing?

Yes or no?

Yeah, I wouldn't say that.

You're not human.

You wouldn't call that an argument.

So if an ordinary person on the screen.

If I don't have an ordinary person on the screen.

If you're not convinced to you that I'm not human.

Oh my God.

I got to put my glasses on.

Unless that they're defining their propositions and making syllogistic propositional logical forms.

That's not actually an argument.

The only way to have an argument is dink in propositions, bro.

Okay, my proposition is that Saloth, Tsar, and you should meet.

Who is that?

Don't worry.

I don't like glasses wears.

I don't like robots.

I don't like formalists.

I like common sense.

Dude, this is just clarity with regard to the word.

No, it's not clarity.

It's absolutely not.

You do not look good on the water ramble.

You're not in an argument right now, bro.

You want to talk about looking good?

Put your camera on, first of all, you boomer.

Second of all, bro, I said with regard to the mental health.

Nobody cares about allergic to substance.

Nobody cares.

Listen, go out in public and speak how you're speaking and see if what you're saying is clear to a normal person.

I would give a simple introduction about any term that is unclear.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

The view, the narrow confines by which you define what constitutes an argument is anything but clear to a normal person.

A normal person defines an argument the way I defined it, okay?

That there's just something in contention that people are having a discourse.

Well, thankfully, I'm not talking to a normal person.

I'm talking to the chairman of the ACI, the master of logic.

Why should I come on?

What you are defining as logic is something called formal logic, which only exists within a very specific informal logic that uses words.

This is such a definition.

I've not proprietized my definition with regard to.

Your definition of logic only exists within a very, very narrow, specialized field.

A definition of types of the mental division of labor.

It has nothing to do with logic.

If you want a definition of logic, I'll be charitable and give one to you, and I'll tell you that it's the study of the data.

Why is it this?

You're claiming that the onus is upon me to demonstrate.

You took the affirmative for the prop.

Of course, the onus is on you.

Why would the if you want to debate about communism and you think communism is bad, just tell me why you think it's bad?

Yeah, I've got an argument to the effect, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What's your argument here?

What you have?

What's yeah, so like premise one: if type B error theory is true, then it's false that communism is no.

Why do you have to use numbers and abstract variables?

What justifies the necessity?

Okay, hold on.

What justifies the necessity of abstract variables and numbers here?

P1, P2, P3.

Why do you need to talk in this way?

We both know, I think, what we mean when we refer to the number of people.

What modal scope are you using necessity right now?

What are you talking about?

With regard to the modal scope, these are modal terms, bro.

So there's going to be a certain scope.

Like, I could say that it would be impossible for you to jump to the moon, and you might ask what modal scope I'm utilizing.

I would never ask about a fucking modal scope.

But because I'm a human being, if someone said they could jump to the moon, I'm not going to be talking about modal scopes.

I'm going to say, prove it.

How?

What do you mean by that?

Because I'm a good faith human being that understands that there's an exchange of communication, discourse, and in all speech, which you have to take for granted and which you cannot formally define with exactness.

That is a fact.

Okay?

So if someone says they're going to jump to the moon, somebody says they can jump to the moon.

Somebody says they can jump to the moon.

The last thing on my mind, unlike you, because I'm a normal human being, is going to be asking them about the modals, whatever.

I'm going to say, what do you mean by modals, whatever, bro?

You look so good right now in this meta-ramble, bro.

Keep going.

Keep going, bro.

Good look in front of who?

Look good in front of who?

Who do you think I'm talking about?

Ones if you think this person is just a ridiculous LARPing nerd.

Ones if you think you're an unreasonable.

No, no, you said I look bad in front of my audience.

Let's see.

So for the 500 people here, there's not even a single two that I could see.

Let's look at the audience.

You just appeal to the audience.

I do.

You just said I don't look good in front of my audience.

You're allergic to the substance, bro.

You and this.

You just said I don't look good in front of my audience.

Did you not?

You just said in front of your own audience, you don't look good, right?

Not a single person who's watching this agrees with you.

Not a single person.

I don't see a single two anywhere.

No one agrees.

I see this in the chat, but I grant that you can't read.

So, like, you know, you probably went to the business.

You just said I look bad in front of my audience.

We just took a poll.

Not a single person said.

Muting is running, bro.

You're allergic to the substance.

Because you can't control yourself.

Okay, one person.

One person said two, Ave.

You have one person.

Dude, there have been several.

There are several twos, bro.

Go go look if you and read if you can, man.

One, two, three.

Okay, overwhelming.

See, there are even there are even more twos.

Look at that.

We've got some more twos.

How many total people do you think are you?

Use your dispositional power of literacy and go.

How many total people do you think are watching this, to be clear?

Yeah, according to the top of UberCount, it's 56, right?

Okay.

Well, it's not just 56.

I promise you that.

There's an additional 500 people watching.

Congratulations.

They're all saying that you're running from substance.

Okay.

You okay, let's actually define that claim.

Let's put the same formal exactness and precision you seek to impose upon me on that claim.

Everyone is claiming I'm running, really.

No, I'm claiming it back.

You just said everyone is claiming I'm running.

I don't even see a single person claiming that.

Haz, huh?

I did not say that.

I said you are running from once if he said that everyone's saying you're running.

Did he not just say that?

No, I'm saying you're running.

We can play it back.

We're gonna play back the clip of you saying that because that's exactly what you just said.

Bro, and then as soon as we get to that and get that ready to go.

So I don't want to hear out of your mouth.

Going forward, I don't want to hear out of your mouth.

I don't want to hear out of your mouth who looks good or bad in front of the audience.

Let's allergic to the substance.

You're allergic.

Let's get to the meat and potatoes, okay?

Yeah, you affirmed a prop.

I even was charitable enough to give an argument, right?

What's your argument?

We still have not gotten anywhere.

What's your argument?

Yeah, so again, premise one, if type B error theory is true, then it is false that communism is morally good.

Premise two, type B error theory is true.

Conclusion.

What theory?

What false?

What theory?

You didn't even let me, bro.

You didn't even let me in.

I don't even hear what you're saying.

Type 2 error theory?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Type B error theory, bro.

You're confusing letters and numbers, man.

Type B what?

Type B error theory?

What is type B error theory?

It's a position with regard to meta ethics that claims that all first order um normative statements are false.

What does that have to do with anything that's real in the real world?

Because you made a first-order normative statement with regard to communism being good.

You predicated it as such that you've assigned it goodness.

This guy's like, some guy's like sitting somewhere.

He's like, you know, McDonald's is pretty good.

No, you just said something meaningless because of type B error theory.

Yeah, not introducing goodness with regard to first order.

What are you talking about?

This is such a low-tier blunder topic.

I think our theory is generally.

I think helping the homeless is good.

No, no, no, no, no.

There's no meaningful sense in which you could say that because of type B error theory that says that a propositional normative claim about a propositional normative claim is impossible because you said, no, no, no, you said serving the homeless is good.

It's impossible.

It's an extra spurging.

You're smirging on meta right now.

Okay, so to be clear, your argument.

Get back to soap.

No, no, no, no, no.

Shut your boomer mouth and stop splurging nonsense.

Everything I'm saying, everything I'm saying is not a meta argument.

It has precision.

You're constantly screaming.

You are screaming and soiling out about my tone and how I sound and how I'm allergic to this and that.

Guys, ones, if you've heard him say the word allergic more than a dozen times by now.

You can't even get my rhetoric right that you're stealing.

How many times have you said allergic?

Bro, how many times have you said allergic?

Okay, repeat your argument.

Your argument is that type B error theory says that communism is morally good.

Premise two, type B error theory is true.

Conclusion, therefore it is false.

Why should we believe it's true that we can't make propositional normative claims?

You can.

You have the dispositional power too.

I'm saying that as predicated as such, they're all incorrect.

What are you talking about?

That's not an argument.

You're not making an argument.

You can.

You literally can.

You have the dispositional causal power to make moral claims, but that doesn't change.

Yes, I can.

I just false.

I just.

I'm granting that low-tier holy tracking issue.

I can't believe this is a real person.

Holy tracking issue.

What is this?

It's so crazy.

I affirmed two times in a row that you have the dispositional power to make false arguments.

Your argument is beep boop bop beep boop bop.

What is your argument?

If all you heard is beep boop bop, that's just a comprehension.

You're just an R2D.

You're just R2D2.

Bro, you have no substance.

C3PO.

You're literally C3PO.

You live on Meta, bro.

You're on Meta Island right now, bro.

Okay, repeat your repeat.

This is a troll, 100%.

Good troll, though.

Not a troll at all.

Okay.

Go ahead and repeat your argument about why communism isn't good.

Go ahead.

Yeah, premise one.

This is going to be the third time that I'm trying to give this, right?

So if type B error theory is true, then it is false that communism is morally good.

Right.

Premise two is Type B error theory is true, and the conclusion is, therefore it is false that communism is morally good.

All right, so you're a troll.

100% you're a troll.

I'm not a troll.

I gave a soloistic deductive argument and you think that's troll.

How low tier is that?

No, you made an assertion.

You simply asserted that it is true without.

You think that's an assertion?

There's a conclusion that is supported by premises as such, where if the premises were all true, that guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

If this was a mere computer and you're just entering variables, then what you were saying would function, it would function.

What I'm saying does function if you have function mechanisms.

No, no, listen, listen, listen.

If this top logic, you would know.

Boy, I want to school you.

Boy, I want to school you because these are the schools.

I debated the vegan guy.

He's doing the same gibberish, nonsense, robotic stuff.

Look, if you're not.

If this was by gibberish, you mean logic.

If this was an enclosed system or an enclosed computer with fixed parameters, then there would be a function.

But because no such fixed parameters are...

You're literally talking nonsense on the substance.

Okay, look.

Just get to the substance.

It is impossible to establish fixed parameters in the way that you can with a computer when it comes to human communication.

You can't establish.

This is essentially unintelligible, bro.

Just get back to the substance.

What do you mean it's unintelligible?

You're claiming that communism.

This is an incoherent meta-ramble, bro.

Just get back to the substitute.

You can't justify why the PP error theory is correct.

You simply asserted it is.

I have arguments to the effect that it is.

If you were willing to critically engage in the dialogue, make your argument along.

Go ahead, make your argument.

Why is it?

I've given an argument.

What argument with regard to a premise that I've given do you want further substantiation of?

Okay, hold on.

Don't interrupt me.

I just want to be clear about where we are as far as the record.

Just to be clear.

You're saying, do you think communism is good?

I said yes.

Okay.

Now the parameters here and how communism is.

All that is open.

There can be no assumptions about that.

Okay.

We just have to count on good faith human communication.

But you're saying, okay, here's my refutation of you.

Premise one.

Uh, is is the you know, you're making the claim communism is good.

Premise two is that type two B theory is correct, or sorry, type two B theory, bud.

What are we talking about?

Premise two is if type of tracking on the tracking training and stop interrupting me.

I'm just trying to keep track of where we are so far.

Stop interrupting me.

Stop keep your mouth shut.

Keep your mouth shut.

Just keep your mouth shut.

Literally, just keep your mouth shut for two seconds.

Okay.

Your argument is that you're acknowledging some supposed premise, okay?

And then you're saying if type 2B theory is correct, then it is not good.

And then your third, I guess, proposition is that it is correct, type 2, whatever it be theory.

And then, therefore, communism is not good.

But how do you justify 3?

This has been an inadequate recapitulation of the point I've made.

If you want to justify P3 is true.

How do you justify P3?

There was no P3 in my original argument, bro.

Hop back on the tracking train, man.

We've lost the concept.

Justify P3.

How do you justify P3?

Dude, I never made a P3.

I can't justify something I've not made, friend.

Okay, then repeat your argument again so we can keep track of all the P's and P P's that you're going to be very simple.

How many PPs are you collecting?

If you understand that like one and then there's like two, right?

You'd be able to understand something like this.

So premise one is just going to be if type B error theory is true, then it is false that communism is morally good.

And then premise two is type B error theory is true.

Okay, how do you justify that?

How do you justify that?

Yeah, so if you're asking for an argument.

Right.

So actually make your argument.

Yeah.

How do you justify why it's correct?

So if, okay, premise one.

If morality in the strict sense is ontologically queer and morality in the strict sense is display explanatorily dispensable, then morality in the strict sense does not exist.

Premise two, morality in the strict sense of the majority.

Can you qualify the meaning of ontologically queer?

What does that mean?

Yeah, so like with regard to the empirical properties of the method of investigation that is scientific, we would not stumble upon facts in the moral domain or moral norms.

You're claiming irreducibly normative facts or irreducibly normative concepts, norms, things like that are going to be, in the words of Mackey, ontologically queer.

Okay, hold on.

You're claiming that you're saying ontologically queer means that morality, you're basically more or less claiming, to translate this into the English language, you're saying that science only concerns itself with the investigation of dead matter, more or less.

And morality has no significance with respect to the object of science, modern science.

Is that what you're claiming?

No.

Okay, so what are you claiming?

With regard to valid methods of inquiry, none would lead you to moral truths.

Uh how do you define valid though?

Yeah, by valid, I'm just taking um a standard view of what it would mean to own something and then to investigate it.

Own it, don't just say standard, own it, own it and justify it, or else you're guilty of some kind of normative uh yeah.

So I think the method of which that we come to know things is empirical.

I'm not a rationalist, right?

I would say that just to be clear, the scientific method is one of the most philosophically it's by default philosophically contentious, even in mainstream standard institutions that rule our society.

So you have to take ownership of empiricism.

There's no broad anything.

You have to take ownership of a very broad.

That's just a ridiculously false statement to claim there's not one.

If any X, you're broad that's guilty.

It's clearly riddled with counterexamples.

That is you are guilty.

You are guilty of presupposing a specific normative framework in which the notion of valid has meaningfulness, okay?

A notion of validity.

The notion of validity is not meaningful.

No, I'm saying that yours is 100% normative.

Because you cannot.

Yeah, because you have to appeal to some kind of, you know, you have to appeal to something that by your own definition isn't even valid.

You can't even own a specific position with respect to the philosophy of science.

This is intelligible.

This is own a specific philosophy of science that you will own and defend.

Own a specific philosophy of science that is incomprehensible.

What do you mean by own it?

Defend and justify a specific position with respect to the philosophy of science that could allow.

I'm not taking a position on the philosophy of science, I'm just affirming basic empiricism.

Basic empiricism has been discredited by modern physics.

It's been discredited?

You think like concept empiricism has been discredited by scientific studies?

Basic empiricism is no longer regarded with seriousness in the philosophy.

Please produce any evidence that empiricism of the conceptual variety has been debunked by science.

Conceptual empiricism is no longer empiri empiricism.

So what are you talking about?

Yes, it is.

Read the philosophical literature.

It's one of the dominant two ways in which people talk about empiricism with regard to conceptual empiricism.

Okay.

But the dominant position is not that.

The dominant, yeah, yeah, I'm waiting now for your scientific evidence to the effect the concept or empiricism more broadly has been debunked by science.

Um, well, for example, the fact that meaningful scientific claims about reality in no way can be reduced to the human senses anymore.

Uh, for example, the level you think that's oh my god, bro, that's so embarrassing.

Empiricism is not the claim that we only know things via a process, that's basic consensus.

That's basic empiricism, though.

No, it's not.

Empiricism affirms the validity of inference.

What kind of a low-tier blunder is this?

Do you even know what the root word of empiricism comes from?

What does it mean for something?

What does it mean for something to be empirical?

I'm not concerned with anything but the substance, and I'm still waiting for that scientific study that has disproved empiricism.

It's not a specific study, it's the fact that scientific institutions can be aware of the same thing.

Yeah, there's no scientific institutions can no longer confine themselves to the narrow parameters of David Hume's empiricism.

Absolutely, they can't.

You think that I'm still utilizing the same kind of empiricism that Hume did?

You said basic empiricism.

That's what you said.

Yeah, what's going to be the argument that basic empiricism is synonymous or has an identity relation as such that it obtains only when David Hume's empiricism obtains?

Because that's the most raw and unelaborated form of empiricism that there is.

I don't even know what you could possibly mean by that.

Okay, well, you can continue to play stupid and yeah, I'm just I will play stupid if you think this is stupid until I get some scientific evidence as such that empiricism has been debunked.

Okay.

Are you familiar with the post-positivist tradition?

Yeah, I'm familiar with what's happened in analytic philosophy, broadly speaking.

Durheim-Klein thesis or whatever.

Yeah, Quine.

Yeah, that's okay.

Would you call these people empiricists?

Um, with regard to their specific position, I'm agnostic on whether they were empiricists or not.

Why are you agnostic?

Because I don't know enough about Quine and Durham's particular philosophical views to say whether Klein and Durham, how can you meaningfully talk about the mainstream view of the philosophy of science within the prevailing science?

That doesn't follow.

What's going to be the arguments for that?

Because they are, but if you're even minimally acquainted with the contemporary philosophy of science, you should know who those people were and what they're doing.

I know a good bit of Quine.

I don't necessarily know Quine's.

Were they empiricists?

Yeah, so would you like me to repeat the answer that I've just given, or would you like to get back to the substance and tell me what science in particular disputes or debunks empiricism?

You have already shot yourself in the foot and blundered when you claim that validity can only be defined within the narrow confines, not simply of empiricism, but of a vague and broad and loose reference to empiricism that you cannot even justify with any specific argument that I can't justify it, Paul?

With any specificity?

No, you can't.

What's your specific position?

I'm giving specificity.

Your specific position is a variety of empiricism.

Your specific position with respect to what qualifies as a valid description of reality is.

An unwillingness to to take responsibility for any specific philosophy of science, besides what you call broad empiricism, which is a meaningless uh reference.

Bro, you've given no arguments.

This has been unsubstantive.

I'm still waiting on you to affirm that.

You can go to the bottom.

You can go to bed tonight feeling like I haven't made an argument.

That's fine.

But let's feel that way.

I know it's been that way.

I know that you've not made an inductive, deductive, or abductive argument.

Let the audience decide who's made an argument and who hasn't.

Yeah, I've clearly given arguments and I've even given you the premises and conclusions as such to where even somebody like you can track along with the arguments.

So the only person that would be in contention here for having not given an argument is you.

You're claiming morality doesn't exist because according to the narrow confines of what you claim, broad empiricism, the standard of validity with which we can measure or talk about reality properly in any meaningful sense cannot include morality.

Well, that would say that your way of measuring reality is clearly at fault because that just doesn't follow.

That doesn't follow.

Okay, well, it doesn't follow.

I guess morality doesn't exist.

Okay, so you admit that what you said was a non-sequitive.

Okay, at least we agree on that.

Would you say that there are moral presuppositions that do exist in the majority of ways in which people talk about society and history?

Are you asking if I think that language with regard to the moral domain has like a realist appearance?

Yeah, that's like actually one of the things that type B error theory argues against with regard to the semantic thesis.

All right, let me simplify this.

So I don't know that you're not going to accept a simplification because you like to obscure things and needlessly.

I can accept a simplification.

I'll give you a simple example.

Okay, so you're on the sidewalk and somebody pushes a grandma down the subway and then someone sees that and say, that was wrong.

You're claiming that he just said a nothing, something meaningless.

There's just no significant.

That's non-cognitivism.

I'm affirming the cognitivist position.

Like, how do you infer that I advocate type B error theory to that I'm a non-cognitive analytically true regard?

Does type B error theory permit us to acknowledge that pushing grandmas down the stairs is wrong?

Yeah, so type B error theory is committed to the view that whenever people utter moral propositions, right, in the affirmative where they're assigning something to be like good or bad, that they're systematically mistaken.

Okay, so they're mistaken when they say that grandmas.

So I'm still going to need an argument to the effect of the majority of the majority.

No, you're not being honest about what your position is.

You're claiming that.

I am.

You're claiming that when I say pushing grandmas down the stairs is wrong, they're making a systematically false argument, right?

If it is with regard to a first-order normative moral judgment, then it will be systematically false.

Okay, it's systematically false to say we shouldn't throw grandmas down the stairs, correct?

Yeah, if you endorse some other norms that are outside the scope of type B, there will be some norms that are not usually under that framework.

That's it.

So when someone understand that some norms will survive because it's interesting.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think sexual contact with children is wrong?

Yeah, of course, I have the personal moral intuition that it is wrong.

But you would regard that as a systematically false or mistaken position, would you not?

I don't think that it is neither.

Why are you such a coward?

When I talked about pushing grandmasters, you are very liberal about claiming it's a systematic error with respect to pushing grandmas down the stairs.

But when it comes to the majority of the- Because there's a very important difference that must be articulated between my preferences as such with regard to personal moral claims and which ones are actually true.

But is it actually true that sexual contact with children is wrong?

I'm still just going to affirm the type B error theory thesis, and still with regard to my intuitions, they will be unchanged.

Okay, hold on.

But according to your type 2 error theory thesis, there's nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with regard to my intuitions, but it isn't.

Are your intuitions a correct reflection of reality?

My intuitions are correct and truth-tracking with regard to what my specific moral values are.

Do those values reflect anything real or meaningful in this sense?

I have no idea what you mean by reflect anything real or meaningful.

Hold on.

The very argument you used to supposedly debunk or refute the claim that communism is good, you somehow cannot.

Apply here in the same way.

Why?

Why the double standard?

Yeah, I'm making the claim that my intuitions as such do not support that.

I think it is wrong, but I don't think that with regard to your morale.

Communism was specifically wrong, right?

You annexed that to the morale.

For purposes of the very narrow argument that you forwarded, okay, which you're calling an argument, let's replace communism with protecting children.

Protecting children is good.

If we just swap those things out, there is moral intuition that that is a good thing to protect children.

What I'm saying is, with regard to moral norms, that would not be credited as such in the positive.

Type 2B theory.

If it is type 2B theory, this is crazy.

What do you mean by defend?

Yeah, so I subscribe to a specific thing called fake.

You think it's

My mic just got disconnected.

So one's if it's good.

One's if it's good now.

Alright.

Okay, so you just fall flat on your fall.

You just completely humiliated yourself and basically shit your pants.

How does it feel?

Yeah, with regard to what do you think I specifically say?

Okay, what you just said that normative moral claims about reality are not valid according to science or whatever.

That was not at all the plan.

I asked you to justify the type 2B theory, whatever you want to call it.

And your justification was that according to the standard of validity that we get from broad empiricism, that we cannot justifiably make any normative claims about reality and that morality doesn't exist.

That's what you said.

You said morality doesn't exist.

Did you not say that?

Yeah, I said morality in the strict sense doesn't exist.

Okay, you're claiming morality in the strict sense doesn't exist.

So in the strict sense, can we say that it is correct that protecting children is good?

Yeah, so in a strict sense, with regard to my intuitions, I would affirm that protecting children is anything with regard to the moral domain is right or wrong because I don't think that right or wrong are valid concepts or that they apply to things.

So sexual contact with children is neither right or wrong, according to you.

Own it.

No, just with regard to morality and its status as objective, I have the moral intuition as with regard to most people that these things are wrong.

But is your moral intuition?

I would recommend that you actually read a paper called Gastronomic Realism by this guy named John Loeb.

There's a distinction between saying something...

Are you confident that your moral intuition is correct?

Yes or no?

Can you be confident in the correctness of my moral intuition?

My moral intuitions track the particular truth with regard to the morality of the moral Can you be confident it is correct?

Yes or no?

Yes, because I'm just defining this intuition with regard to a certain psychological state of which I possess.

Is that psychological state ontologically correct or no?

That's an unintelligible notion.

I have no idea what ontological correctness is.

Okay, well, you used an appeal to ontology to justify the claim that morality doesn't exist, did you not?

What do you suppose that ontological correctness is?

You said ontologically queer.

Is your psychological state ontologically queer?

No, I don't think that it is queer in the same way that irreducible normativity is queer.

Okay, what's the difference between irreducible normativity and the moral normative judgments that are implicit in your psychological state?

Yeah, so I'm going to have internal access to a particular seeming, right, that some things are right or wrong.

Okay, and then with regards to that access.

Because I'm me, it's self-evident.

How?

Based on what?

It is self-evident.

I have direct access to my own seemings.

This is a confused question.

What is your seeming?

I told you with regard to each other.

They can have the seeming.

The seeming is not what's in dispute.

This is ridiculously low tier.

Uh, so would you okay?

What if somebody was uh harming children and their seeming clearly was not disposed in the direction of protecting children?

That's just a true fact given that they don't have the seeming that they want to protect children and they're not protecting children.

What is what was with regard to that question?

So, you would you could not you can't even make the argument, for example, to children to behave good or bad, right?

When you're raising them, if you have children, there are non-moral norms.

How do you know if they have the seeming or not?

How do you know?

This is since you had such a substantive blunder.

If you had kids, if you had kids, okay, I don't care if you think it's ridiculously difficult.

If you had kids and your son, who's a five-year-old, was stealing toys from another kid and bullying him and hitting him, his seeming, I suppose, is just immorality, I guess, and you don't share the same moral intuitions.

How can you impose your moral intuition upon them with any justification when the only thing you could appeal to is your own personal seeming?

Yeah, I don't think that my intuition is privileged above anyone else's with regard to myself.

Including a five-year-old child that is misbehaving and stealing toys.

What do you think is the content of which a seeming could have that it would be better or worse than another in virtue of possessing?

This is, again, just incoherent.

So it's incoherent to teach children to not misbehave.

How does that follow from what I said?

I'm just saying you are so radically abstracted and alienated.

How does that follow from what I said?

That was that just simply that does not follow.

You're saying that there is no way in which you could justify asserting and appealing to the authority of your seeming, right?

There is no authority to my seeming.

It's an internal private state that I happen to have.

So how can you have the argument?

How can you convincingly make the argument to your toddler or to anyone, to your son that you're raising who's a teenager or whatever?

How do you convincingly convey or make the argument to people to teach them things that are morally true or morally false?

If the only thing we could fall back upon is our own personal intuitions.

Yeah, so again, with the morally true, morally false thing, right?

Like we don't have to go over this.

I've already given an argument.

Can morality communicated with any authority?

That's my question.

Can it be communicated with you?

I know what you mean by authority.

Can morality be communicated to any other human being with any authority?

As in, you can actually, in a valid way, make the argument to your fellow human being that X, Y, or Z is right or wrong.

Is that possible to do?

I think that the best you would get is with regard to consistency relations and what individual agents desire as such that you could utilize a hypothetical norm.

Error theory is most particularly talking about categorical norms, right?

And irreducible reasons these things are going to be queer, right?

So there wouldn't be, with regard to hypothetical norms, a problematic take with regard to reduction of desires and ends like relationships.

Okay, so to translate that, you could not convey to another human being the superiority of one normative claim over another or qualifying in any way a claim with normative value.

You are unable to communicate that to another human being with any degree of meaningful authority.

You can just hope you could just hope that their inherent mysterious, it has a mysterious origin, their inherent moral intuitions and their seeming is consistent with your own, right?

Yeah, again, I'm just not going to think this question is.

Pinned down to the ground?

What do you think that you won on as such that you would classify it as pinning me to the ground?

Because you can't even justify how we as human beings, something we do anyway, by the way, without your permission, communicate to one another with authority.

Right and wrong.

What do you think this is?

You are so ridiculously low.

Okay, human beings communicate right and wrong.

They make normative claims with one another, with authority, right?

With appeals to some kind of authority.

You're just informally question begging if by what you mean by authority is going to be something with regard to the moral domain.

No, authority in the sense of this is actually referring to something real and true.

And not simply a reflection of my individual preferences, but fundamentally true.

So, for example, when people say it's wrong to touch children, okay, they're not simply communicating.

By way of language, as far as the functional significance of their language, they're not just communicating a personal preference.

They're making an absolute argument that they're not.

I think that it's very valid that they are.

You think it's just a personal preference?

You think morality can be giving their opinion.

So you think morality is just a personal preference?

That's what you think.

I think that people have moral intuitions as such, where they have particular seemings towards like first-order moral props.

Like I, this is just, again, like kind of a nothing burger.

I think almost everyone agrees with this.

No, you you completely were unable to establish how you can consistently justify a moral seeming.

I was unable so we're now we're moving into a conversation about justification.

I'll just affirm phenomenal conservatism for the case of this, right?

And that's going to be the theory of propositional justification that I'm advocating.

Okay, so we started with you asking me if I think communism is good and you saying no, because morality doesn't exist, correct?

That's not there's just not an accurate recapitulation of what happened at that point.

Why?

You ultimately concluded with morality doesn't exist, so I can say communism isn't good because morality doesn't exist in the first place.

With regard to the normative moral domain, I presented an argument to the effect that Type Air Theory is true, that you interrupted a whole bunch, right?

We can't swap out communism with protecting children.

Why not?

You can swap out anything you'd like and try to predicate it morally.

This is like, okay, so with regard to statements about unicorns, statements about unicorns are uniformly false because unicorns don't exist.

There's no proper way to predicate a unicorn, right?

I can say that a unicorn is not red and it is also not red or not red.

I can take the proposition and its negation with regard to unicorns and they can both be false because it's failing to obtain.

So there's going to be no particular permissibility or impermissibility that it answer my question directly.

Can you swap out protecting children with communism?

Why or why not?

Yeah, so I think will you make the same argument in response to that answered?

Will your argument be the same if I swap out protecting children with communism?

This is simply a gotcha question in the same way.

Yes or no?

In the same way that I'm not going to let you worm your way out of this.

Is your argument just as valid if we swap out communism with protecting children?

Yes or no?

Anything with regard to communism with protecting children?

Yes or no?

No, you're not going to worm your way out of it.