🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

Didn't want no one to hold you up there that me.

You said, Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow.

Welcome.

So I promised you this was going to be after the Super Bowl.

I didn't even know the Super Bowl was going to be on today.

Because I don't give a fuck because the Lions, you know, they were done dirty.

Or I don't know if they were done dirty, but our dreams were crushed.

So I didn't really care about this.

I don't like Taylor Swift.

I'm not a big fan of her.

So whoever...

is the opposite side of her, I guess I would like them to win.

I don't know, but the game is fucking garbage.

Shreya Stanley, I watched a little bit of it, you know, with family and stuff.

And it just was not interesting because it was just like fucking boring.

You know, I don't know what else to tell you.

So we're going live early.

And really, who cares about football?

And here's the truth, alright?

This is one of the forms of mass hypnotism.

See, if the Lions were in the Super Bowl, I wouldn't be saying this shit.

But because they got, you know, because they were done dirty by the Vegas fucking sports rigging betting complex, I don't know.

I'm going to go ahead and say, you know, sports are a distraction.

Football's a distraction.

So who gives a shit about football, right?

Also, I.

On a much darker note, I don't want to just switch gears, but there's a massacre going on in Rafa.

Which is breaking news, and I didn't know about that today.

And uh, we're gonna probably be covering some of that, but again, I don't wanna I don't wanna uh

focus too much on it because

There's nothing we can do to affect it.

And um, you know, I don't want us to all be depressed.

Uh, we all know what's at stake in this war with the Zionists.

We all know what they're capable of.

And, you know, me personally,

Yeah.

It's kinda tough.

Code along, wow, we're not having the Code along trial tonight.

That's probably gonna be next Thursday.

But um we do have a few things that we want to talk about and cover.

And you know, it's actually important because yesterday I was once again struggling.

I'm I'm I'm struggling with sleep.

And I was resetting my sleep schedule.

So I was with my family all day yesterday, basically.

And I didn't know what was going on.

But apparently, like, um,

Apparently, the neo-Nazis are jumping on this thing that Malema said in his speech with the launch of the EFF's manifesto for their 2024 election.

And this is somehow relevant to Infrared because basically you had pan-leftist collaborators they collaborate with the fascists and the neo-Nazis, specifically isolating and exaggerating the EFF's defense of South Africa's LGBT minorities.

And they're only doing it because they know EFF is associated with infrared in the English-speaking world.

Before infrared, nobody knew who the EFF was in the English-speaking Internet.

So it's a deliberate swipe at infrared.

There's two reasons.

One, it's one of the extremely rare cases in which you have a Marxist-Leninist mass movement adopt a stance that is anything but completely hostile to the LGBT movement.

That's one of the aspects.

The other aspect of it is that they associate EFF with infrared, rightfully, right?

Because we were the ones who...

I mean, it's in our first infrared vision videos.

I mean, even before infrared adopted the name infrared, EFF was our inspiration and it was our model of a.

Mass socialist organization in the 21st century.

But let me see if I could find the tweet.

With some transgender uh North Korea account.

Uh, by the way, it has nothing to do with North Korea, but the transgender North Korea fans, um.

Project onto what they perceive to be North Korean authoritarianism their own dream of enforcing their, you know, their revenge against society.

I'll talk about the pan-leftism thing a little bit.

I don't really care about them.

I think it's more important that their actions are being used by to to to to basically embolden the morale of the fascist enemy, right?

But let's see, what's their name?

Something like this.

Okay, we think we found it.

Uh let me find it.

Let me find it.

Right here.

This is it.

So I think it's interesting actually, and we're going to talk about this a little bit.

Because everyone wants me to re I I also gave my thoughts in the telegram and that should have been enough, but I want to talk about it with a little more depth tonight, just for the purpose of uh further giving my thoughts on this matter, because apparently there's so much confusion.

So, um if you are here's what I'll just play what Julius Malema says and we'll talk about it and it's really interesting that this is what gets a million views, right?

But let's let's just watch it first.

We must fight for gender justice and be on the side of our women.

Comrades, in the EFF, there is no lesbian, there is no gay, we are all human beings.

The rights of the lesbians and the rights of gays and all LGBTQIA plus are human rights.

If you are EFF and you isolate and discriminate LGBTQIA plus, you are not a fighter, you are a sellout.

What is your issue with people choosing to live their own life?

EFF is a home of LGBTQIA plus.

This is a home of everyone.

So, this is from their manifesto launch where they're basically talking about their various positions that they're running, the platform basically they're going to be running on in their presidential campaign.

A lot of people are very optimistic, and I want to be optimistic as well.

We've been following the EFF for a very long time, actually.

You know, since 2017, we've understood their significance.

And believe it or not, the EFF was one of the reasons we transitioned from being like.

You know, this kind of, I don't know what to call it, a theory sell, arrogant Western theory sells to actually taking Marxism-Leninism seriously.

This was, the EFF was what actually forced us to appreciate the historical significance of Marxism-Leninism.

We did not always have a Marxist-Leninist perspective.

You know, we had a summit, I appreciate you.

We had a kind of perspective that I would say is pro-populist, yes, but mainly kind of like all that is in the past.

We need to have a total new rebirth of communism kind of thing.

Not that we were hostile to it, it's just we thought it was outdated and it's just the EFF not because of this, but it proved to us that it wasn't outdated, right?

Because of their significance with inside that was just the pipeline, right?

So yeah, we we've always known EFF's stance on these matters of culture.

EFF, by the way, I believe 49% of the organization is people twenty-four and younger.

So, just to give you some brief background on Infrared's relationship with EFF, obviously they know this, and the only reason this person is posting this clip is to spite us, to spite the infracels, basically, to prove that we are wrong.

And actually, the people that we support and everything we claim to represent is actually, in essence, pro-LGBT.

Well, I want to say a number of things.

Besides what I already said in the telegram, I want to kind of talk about this.

So, where to begin?

I find it really interesting.

By the way, you want to talk about optics.

You want to talk about the actual effect this clip out of context had?

They're obviously very pleased with it because it reinforces their own narrative.

But objectively speaking, you just gave ammunition to the enemy, and the right wing is really celebrating it.

And they're both the pan-leftists and the right wing, as they always do, are teaming up in order to erase us.

They basically are saying this is proof that the alternative represented by infrared is bullshit.

You're either a gay blue-haired barista.

You know, whose whose avatar is this South African guy, I guess, in their imagination.

Or you are a fascist, and that's the only those are the only options they want young men to have: either transition into a transgender or become a neo-Nazi fascist.

And the heterosexual option is gone completely.

They're all the choices are LGBT.

Code along.

What a strange thing to say, but thanks for the $10.

Anyway, no, I want to give my thoughts on this in as seriously as I could.

In short, we don't care because the EFF might have this position and might defend LGBT, and I'll get to what that actually means, concretely means.

Slicker, what's up?

What's CIP?

I don't know what that is.

Uh what's going on, man?

Um

I don't I don't know what um

I don't know why this is such a big deal because the EFF had like an hours-long manifesto launch where they're talking about we want to nationalize electricity, we have this position on the expropriation of the mines, this is our land policy, all these extremely avant-garde, very unique positions that have made them stand out from the rest.

That actually is the reason.

Yeah, DM me, man.

That is actually the reason why they're popular and significant in the first place.

I mean, guys, the EFF is not known in South Africa because of their stance on LGBT politics.

That's not what propelled them into significance.

So I just find it interesting that this clip gets over a million views.

All their other actually important and substantive positions.

Are gone, and the EFF is lending out a hand basically and is telling the extremely vulnerable and small minority in South Africa, the LGBT minority, that hey, you know, we are going to defend your rights, basically giving them their due and then moving on to the important things.

And people are making it seem like the EFF is like an LGBT organization now when they're not.

Malemma is saying.

You know, you can't isolate, you can't discriminate against LGBT people in our organization.

You can't beat them, you can't harass them, you can't attack them.

You know, it's their private life, and that's what he said.

You know, it's a completely different context.

But the EFF is not an LGBT organization, it's not what it's known for, it's not what it's distinguished itself on the basis of.

I don't see why this is an own against the infracels.

I mean, oh, you could have never fathomed the possibility that someone in a completely different country, in a completely different national context, could assume a position contrary to yours.

Well, actually, I can fathom that because I'm not a Trotskyist, because I'm not applying one universal position that everyone indiscriminately has to assume.

Right-wingers are like, oh my God, this means the EFF is gay and shit.

It's like, let me give you a TLDR on the context in South Africa and why it's different than here and how this affects.

It doesn't affect, by the way, but how this, I guess, is compatible with Infrared's position on this matter.

Now, South Africa, in terms of the LGBT movement within the realm of political discourse, I think is somewhat comparable to where the United States used to be maybe 10 years ago, right?

Just in the strict sense that

And I myself did not used to have a hostile view of the LGBT movement because just like Malemma is talking about here, I just used to think of it as this extremely fringe, small minority of people who, you know, I guess do things differently than the rest of us.

And I'm like, well, yeah, I mean, you know, I don't really care what they do.

It doesn't affect me.

It doesn't affect the wider society.

It's not like they're actually like trying to transform.

The fundamentals of culture artificially and impose that upon everyone and come for everyone's children and institute all of these policies at every level of life to the point where it interferes with the normal people of society.

And my basic view is that people who express anti-LGBT sentiment are a bunch of hypocrites, back then, I mean, who are basically just like going out of their way to attack these people and create a problem out of nothing.

And it's like they're the ones who are fixated on it and it has no relevance outside of that.

That's what I used to think.

And I think that's what a lot of people used to think, right?

But then we saw what actually happened.

We saw how the LGBT movement acquired this universal status of like, no, this is the new form of humanity that is destined for everyone.

This is the new form of, you know, all sexual norms and all society and heteronormativity needs to be overthrown.

The gender binary needs to be overthrown.

Everything we know about gender, it's completely gone.

How we act and how we behave.

You know, if you're a straight male, you're outdated.

You're not as avant-garde as everyone else who is deconstructed.

I don't know, it's all it became a bunch of like crazy madness, right?

And then we started to see what it was really about, especially when they started coming for the kids.

That's what it really was the thing that made a lot of people, forget about me, forget about infrared, a lot of people in Western society started to become hostile to the LGBT movement as soon as they started coming for the kids.

And people started to realize, like, no, this isn't just a fringe minority.

They're trying to teach and raise your kids in such a way where, you know, your own kids aren't going to, you know, it goes from like a 1% of the population to like, your own kid is going to fight with you about whether or not.

they are special themselves, right?

So it's like

There's a big i i i it's one thing to be like, Yeah, this you know, we want to defend this vulnerable minority.

A lot of people were like that.

But then when it when it actually yeah, Jay Summit put it really well, when it actually was taken to its logical consequence at the level of society.

It created a polarization that wasn't there before, right?

And I think that's not what's going on in South Africa.

I think in South Africa, they're pretty much at the stage of this is an extremely fringe minority whose society is extremely hostile towards, who receive discrimination violently, by the way.

And they talk about it.

They talk about how there's methods of corrective rape against lesbians and against others to basically cure them and all this messed up stuff going on.

Again, similar to how it was in Western societies decades ago.

And by the way, I don't defend that.

I think there's something pathological about, look, to me, LGBT is a symptom of a wider problem.

In the Marxist.

Vernacular, you would say it's capitalist degeneracy.

Capitalist degeneracy, you know, effaces and undermines not just sexuality because the LGBT movement, it destroys and effaces everything about our humanity, including heterosexual relations, right?

Pornography, and all of this mass sexual confusion where the normal

natural, uh what Engels would call, right, the natural monogamy, the true monogamy that communism aspires toward, the heterosexual monogamy Marx and Engels talked about.

This is completely um rendered impossible uh at the level of social reproduction, right?

So, um

I think people are missing that crucial context.

The EFF is not beginning from the context of like, and Jay Summit put it right.

The LGBT are like 1% of the EFF, but they're like 75% of Western communist organizations.

It's a completely different thing.

At an EFF rally, LGBT is not immediately relevant.

Maybe in their manifesto, they're going to pay lip service to it, and I'll explain more context behind that.

But it doesn't dominate everything about the essence of the socialist movement in the way it does in the West.

You don't have people coming to, like, for example, there'll be a rally against imperialism, right?

Nobody's bringing pride flags to that rally because it's not relevant, right?

Whereas in the West, they have a transgender Soviet flag at these rallies.

It's like, it's a completely different thing.

There's no comparison.

The EFF is a pretty homogeneous it's an ideologically, politically homogeneous organization.

It has a red flag, a red flag with their logo, with their emblem on it.

And then they also, you know, give their proper

You know, they also pay lip service and also say that, oh, yeah, we also, you know, support these fringe minorities too, and we want to defend their rights as a thing on the side.

It's like a thing on the side.

You understand the difference?

It's not the essence of what the EFF is, it's something they have on the side.

Now, first and foremost, I want to make something clear.

It's none of our business.

It's the people of South Africa's business.

And it's the EFF as a sovereign organization's business.

All we could do is analyze it and maybe draw lessons from it and understand it at an analytic level.

But this idea that there's this international pan-leftist solidarity where what the EFF does is immediately relevant in the sense that, like, no, Julius Malemma is literally addressing Haas.

And I don't want to dignify this mental illness too much, but.

Like, for example, this person is like, Malemma was right to call you a sellout, responding to something I said in my telegram.

And I'm like, no, Julius Malemma was not calling me a sellout.

He wasn't addressing me or you for that matter because we have nothing to do with South African politics.

Neither of us are South African.

It's not relevant immediately speaking internationally.

Maybe you could draw lessons from it, but it's like this idea that Malemma or the EFF is making some kind of statement internationally as far as the discourse is concerned.

I mean, at best, you can maybe say in a pan-African sense that they're addressing a Pan-African audience because they are Pan-African.

But.

Me, an American, they don't care.

Um, Hezbollah flags are waved at some EFF rallies.

I've seen them.

Hezbollah is not a pro-LGBT organization.

What did Malema say?

We are Putin, Putin is us.

He says that directly.

Putin is not known as an icon.

I don't understand the fixation on this.

Do you understand?

Like in the West, we see this.

And when we transplant the context of what's going on in the West to this, it really seems like Malemma is taking a side in our culture war in such a way where he's like, Yes, we're going to liquefy, we're going to queerify society, whatever the theorists, I don't know what they say.

We're going to liquefy all the norms of society and overthrow them.

And we're taking the side of, you know, the Globo Homo or whatever.

It's like, but that's not what's going on.

He's talking about EFF's defense of an extremely fringe, vulnerable minority.

And when he says the rights of lesbian and gays, he's not talking about, you know, the right for uh these hypersexualized pride parades to happen and that they're supporting this kind of stuff.

He's he's talk and he's not talking about the right, you know, for children

uh to be uh subjected to the pharmaceutical industry and st he's talking about, you know, them not getting bashed and beaten and killed um and attacked.

And it's not something you know, and that's their stance and it's what they consider appropriate for the context they're living in.

But to say this is a vindication of the pan-leftist position, I don't see that.

I don't see that.

I don't see that.

Is there a single pride flag at this rally, even?

You know, for example, or yeah, Malemma doesn't hate LGBT people.

Why is that an own against us?

And it doesn't make them like you.

You know what I mean?

I mean, I don't understand.

I'm kind of lost a little bit.

Like, do you think this is news to us or something?

We don't consider the whole point, I'll explain it to you.

It's actually really simple.

We don't consider this issue the primary contradiction.

You do.

We have our own opinions on it, but it's not.

If an organization.

is uh is effectively a mass movement rallied around the land question, around appropriating the actual means of production in a sovereign manner, is based on challenging the forces of monopoly capital, creating a mass movement successfully around that.

Do you think that their their opinion on like some fringe

Uh, LGBT stuff is going to be a deal breaker to us.

We don't give a fuck, dude.

You're the that's a deal breaker for you.

The difference between us and you is that if they had the opposite position in your eyes and in your mind, that would negate.

Everything good about them and important about them.

Just like, for example, because Putin and the KPRF are hostile to LGBT stuff, that negates everything in terms of the value of their anti-imperialist position.

Because it's a deal-breaker for you, it's not a deal-breaker for us.

We don't care about it as much as you do.

That's literally the truth.

And

You know, there's people who routinely accuse infrared who come from the right wing that we're too soft on the LGBT issue, that we're not focused on it enough, and we're not hostile enough to it.

And they say, well, Haz, there's some transgenders who are fans of you.

Will you, what do you want me to do?

You want me to harass them and, you know, attack them?

And Haz, there's some gay people who are fans of you.

It's like, I don't care.

You know, from a religious perspective.

I'm not God.

I'm not saying that the movement, when it says that, is justified.

I'm saying, me personally, what do you want me to do about it?

I don't care.

I straight up my I'll give you my position very clearly, communicate that to you.

It's not a primary contradiction.

The LGBT movement has its basis.

in the ruling class, in monopoly capital, as a movement, and I oppose it and I'm against it,

But that doesn't mean I have this like

That doesn't mean I'm I'm I'm f I'm I'm like attempting to uh

Hunt these people down and kill them, or something, or I want them to be bashed or beaten.

Look, if you want to know my opinion, the truth is.

I think the LGBT phenomena is a manifestation of capitalist degeneracy.

But does that give you a right to go beat and bash and harass those people?

No, it fucking doesn't.

Because in the best case scenario, we get to the root of the matter, which is capitalism.

Which is establishing the path of socialist construction.

And then, if our theory is correct, the phenomena will be less prevalent.

That's all we're waging.

That's the only practical significance of what we're saying.

We're saying, yeah, we see it as a manifestation of capitalist degeneracy, but it's not going to be eliminated by going out and hunting sexual minorities down and harassing them.

No, our opinion is that, you know, eventually this phenomenon will cease to impress upon society the significance that it currently has.

The sexual confusion within our society today will disappear.

So, like, we are putting our priorities very clear.

Like, that's what we believe.

We believe the fundamental thing is capitalism.

So, if there's actually an effective anti-capitalist organization,

We don't care what they think about LGBT stuff.

It's just that sometimes, and clearly this is a case of that, not always, sometimes being pro-LGBT is a proxy for the fact that you're bought out, that you're a shill for NGOs and institutions.

But I know this isn't true for the EFF because, first of all, they've already created a counter-hegemonic movement.

So there's no need for me to like, oh, this is a proxy for that.

It's not like Cuba where Mariella Castro is educated in the United States and then attaches this in the Cuban referendum to a bunch of other unrelated things in order to get her agenda passed through.

It's not like that.

By the way, I still don't oppose Cuba, by the way.

I'm just saying.

I can confidently say the EFF's position is their own.

It's not because of the influence.

Of the CIA or something.

Like, this is actually their opinion.

And I disagree with it, but my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not South African and I'm not a member of the EFF.

It's a matter that is internal to South African society and to the EFF as an organization, and that's who the question is relevant for.

We can observe that it's not a very popular position among the rank and file.

If you don't believe me, you probably haven't talked to a lot of them.

We can observe, or maybe we can predict, that as the logical consequences and conclusion of this position are actually drawn out to such an extent that it starts to affect people's daily lives in South Africa, the EFF might not maintain the position that it has now.

That's not on me.

That's on them.

You know, I trust.

the people of South Africa and I trust the EFF to arrive at a position that is befitting of their own history and their own experience and the contradictions as they exist within their own context.

It's not up to me to enforce the outcome that I want to see.

I don't want to see a specific outcome in South Africa.

I

Am having solidarity with the forces in South Africa who are aligned against the same enemy that I have, first of all.

Second of all, I uh

I think there's a lot of lessons to be learned and to draw from the EFF.

Just a very by the way, I mean, I I love this idea that an organization can't have a wrong policy.

Throughout the history of the Bolshevik Party, throughout the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, throughout the history of the Communist Party of China, from the very founding, they have had positions that were, from their own perspective, wrong.

They said, We made a mistake and we are going to correct it.

I'm not saying that's guaranteed to happen in the case of the EFF, but I'm saying, like, when we talk about our position on the LGBT.

It's not a prescriptive position for other countries, it's a descriptive position.

So things will either play out in a manner that vindicates our analysis, or maybe we're wrong.

But if Julius Malemma has a different opinion on the matter than I do, that doesn't make him my enemy.

It just means.

We have a different view of the matter.

That's literally all it means.

You know, we don't have beef with Western leftists or pan-leftists because we have a difference of opinion.

We have beef with them because we observed that these extremely psychotic and mentally unstable people decided that because we have a different opinion, they can mark us for death and call for our death and say we should die and be killed and call us neo-Nazis and fascists, even though objectively speaking they're fascist collaborators, feeding the actual forces of the right on social media through this clip, ammunition.

And that's all you did is give them ammunition.

Congratulations.

I mean, look, as far as young men are concerned, fascists aren't scared of you.

Who's this person?

Natalie.

Fascists aren't scared of you, Natalie.

They're not scared of you.

They're scared of infrared.

Because our message

Is compatible with the sentiment of young men, military aged young men.

So we are tapping into

The people that are rapidly going over to the forces of reaction.

But you have this mentality, like, oh no, those settlers, those straight males, of course they're fascists, just like my dad's a fascist.

You pan leftists are fascist collaborators, not only because you optically are throwing bones to them and

giving them ammunition

You're assuming a position that's conceding to the right wing the crucial and most fundamental demographic for revolutionary change.

Military aged young men will transform the entire country as they see fit, and you are conceding all of them to the fascists.

You're a fascist collaborator.

What would the Comintern say about you?

The Common Turn policy was that we need to fight for the soul of the nation.

The whole Popular Front, the entire premise of the Popular Front, what was it?

We need to win over the people who would otherwise go over to the fascist reaction.

We need to win the soul of the nation.

We can't concede to the fascists our history, we can't concede to them the histories of your nations, we can't concede to them patriotism, we can't concede to them the role of being responsible for the future of your country.

But you don't care about that.

You just care about what?

Winning some Brownie points over infrared?

What's the ob I mean, you're not even you're not even doing that though.

You're just feeling good about yourself.

You're not a th the pan leftists need to understand something.

If there's any out there that are in good faith,

Who are not mentally insane.

You are not a threat to infrared.

The fascist reaction is a threat to infrared.

You're not.

Yes, infrared, our primary target audience is not sexual minorities.

You're right, it's not.

So we don't care what you think of us.

You're objectively a fascist collaborator.

And and then they wonder why we have the position we do.

We don't have the position we do because we dogmatically decided to say we hate LGBT people, you know, and

you know, they can all go to hell.

It was more like we observed through experience

How you are mentally ill lumping m as a vaguely as a phenomena.

It's a phenomena of psychotic mentally ill lumping.

who have the same pathology and are of the same demographic as the shepherds, the fascist shepherds, who are trying to corrupt and poison and confuse normal military aged young men

who are the key demographic to make change in this country.

It's just these psychotic lumpin' trash that are doing what?

Acting as black shirts to do what?

To throw shit on infrared?

To throw shit on Jackson?

Congratulations.

It's like we are at war.

If you don't know this, we're at war with the right wing right now.

And you're their black shirts.

You are the circus.

You are the hired lumpin' black shirts doing their bidding.

And I'm like, am I reincarnated from as like a common turn Stalinist from the 30s?

Because I could have sworn this happened before, right?

Didn't this happen before when the fascists used the Trotskyites and these left comms and these anarchists in Spain, for example, and all these other pan-leftist, true leftist forces to fucking attack Stalinism on behalf of Imperial Japan and fascist Germany and Italy?

Because it kind of feels like this is the same thing playing out again.

It's like am I really a Stalinist bureaucrat from the 1930s reincarnated and I'm like experiencing Nietzsche's eternal return?

This is what pan leftists do.

They've always been fascist collaborators.

Look it up.

They've always been fascist collaborators.

We're not here to win the pan leftist consensus.

We're here to win the masses over to communism.

There's so many right-wingers tagging me.

Oh, haz, you must be in shambles right now.

Oh, haz.

These fascists.

Um I'm telling them, no, that you're being fed the narrative that

This is not coming from my people.

You know, this is coming from your people.

The pan-leftists and the neo-Nazis.

Your red versus blue conflict is a controlled false dialectic.

You know, the neo-Nazis versus the uh.

You know, the pan-leftists, that's not a real conflict.

Because you're democracy, I'll explain what is a false dialectic scientifically.

Because there's some people that try to claim, oh, infrared's a false dialectic.

We don't have to choose between infrared and destiny.

We have a third way.

Well, no, I'll tell you why, actually, you're the false dialectic.

Because your audiences are captured audiences.

We're not trying to win over liberals.

Your audience is a captured audience.

You know what that means?

It means neo-Nazis will always have the audience that they have.

And pan-leftists will always have the followers that they have.

They're fixed demographic boxes that will never change.

Those will never change.

Okay.

We are the only ones upsetting these captured, um algor algorithmically captured demographic boxes.

We are the the people who would otherwise be won over to um

The right wing.

Those are people who will lend an ear to infrared and not become fascists.

You know, we're the only ones who are objectively anti-fascists.

So we are upsetting this mutually beneficial racket where the pan leftists are grifting off of the same people, the right wingers are grifting off of the same people.

Those are not enemies.

Those are people who are extremely satisfied with the respective demographics that they've captured.

You know, and they'll take a bow to each other.

And yeah, of course, they're going to do the cat and mouse, red versus blue, you know, whole false dialectic, but it's like.

It's not a real conflict.

If men and women are split politically, that's not a real split.

Oh, we have the women and you have the men.

That's not a fucking conflict.

That's a family dispute.

We have all the the women and the and the gays and stuff, and you just have all the straight men.

Yeah, that's not a conflict.

That's a family affair.

That's a family affair.

That's not a real.

A real conflict is when the men are fighting each other.

Like the Russian Civil War, the Red Army and the White Army.

It's the same Russian peasant fighting each other, right?

It's not like all the Russian women and all the Russian men are fighting in a civil war or like all the gay people in Russia versus all the straight people.

Actually, it was that, but it was the Red Army that was straight.

But I digress.

I'm confusing myself.

That's not a real...

When your demographics are so captured, that's not a real thing.

It's not a real thing.

Sue is, what's up?

It's not a real conflict going on, you know?

What's actually going on is that.

You know, I don't believe that LGBT stuff is a primary cause.

Do you actually think I believe like straight people versus gays, straight people versus LGBT are gonna go to war?

No, the whole point is that, thank you, Nitez.

The whole point is that there's a contradiction within the normal straight subject of society, which is the reason why there's an LGBT phenomenon in the first place.

Thank you so much, whatever your name is.

Nitez, wow, thank you.

Appreciate you.

Um

Yeah, right brain versus left brain.

It's just a bunch of nonsense.

Stigmaras, what's going on?

So, um, I just want to clarify my position.

I'm not the one who sees it as the primary contradiction.

Second of all,.

You know, my position is not it's impossible for the EFF or other communists around the world to disagree with me.

My position is.

This is what will happen logically.

Like, for example, if the EFF

Starts actively in a way that starts to actually affect the you have to understand how stupid this shit is.

You know what problems people in South Africa face?

They face crime, they face poverty, nobody is thinking about this shit except a small group of people.

It's not relevant to them.

But if it ever does become relevant to them in a practical way, where South African society starts to become divided.

And one group is saying, you know, we want to chop off your children's testicles, and another group is saying, No, that's too much.

We need to be able to defend norms.

If the EFF um

You know, i if it starts to define itself on the basis of being the pro-globalist, pro-liberal side.

You know, we will we will uh say you were right.

And while maintaining their stance as a mass movement, we'll say, you were right.

You were right about its relationship to the anti-capitalist struggle.

We were wrong.

But that time hasn't come.

So I don't understand what's relevant.

I mean, this isn't even news, but it got over a million views and 7.6k likes.

Is that real?

Do you guys think it's real?

Do you think 7.k people really want to dunk on infrared so much?

Like, really?

I don't know.

I kind of feel like it's botted.

What do you guys think?

Actually, I don't think it's botted.

What I think is, if you look at the quote tweets, and it's getting, I think you get ratioed by like Sargon of Akkad or some shit.

You're showing like a scary black guy.

Dude, you're giving ammunition to the right.

You're literally like giving them this clip where they're gonna show it to Western audiences.

Like this scary guy who's doing a white genocide, he also wants to cut your dick off.

And, like, that's the only thing you're fucking doing.

Literally, that's it.

But, but you know, the perverse thing about these pan left is they're satisfied with that.

They're like, good.

I want them to be shocked.

I want them to be shocked.

They get a perverse pleasure out of it.

It's like, yeah.

That's why they all.

By the way, the reason they all identify with Hamas.

and the Palestinian resistance and the way they do isn't because they actually have real solidarity with those people, it's because they they are themselves Zionists who believe in the lies about October seventh, but actually are like, Yeah, that's good Let's kill, kill, kill, massacre Shock everyone

Just like I shock people.

I don't want to tell this joke, it's too vulgar.

Edginess.

Edginess.

Um

So let's actually get uh analytically.

If you're curious, isn't it a little bit odd that the EFF has this position?

And I say, yes, it is odd.

It's actually an outlier when it comes to

Pan-Africanism on the African continent.

Usually, this position is only in the West.

The FF is an outlier and say, Oh, is that because South Africans are more western, more westernized?

It's partially why, but I'll tell you the real reason.

All right, ready.

Forty-nine percent in the EFF.

Are people 24 and younger, right?

Well one of the components of that is actually EFF's student and youth wing, mainly a student wing, which is coming from South Africa's universities.

And all of this stuff is coming from them, basically.

That's that's really it.

You know?

Originally, this is what people don't know.

Originally,

Uh Julius Malemma was personally a bigot.

He was homophobic.

He was against you know, he said gay rights is a Western plot.

That used to be his position when he was head of the ANC youth youth wing.

But when the ESF's

Fuck, sorry.

When the EFF formed, um

In uh twenty the the early twenty tens

A a big part of how they formed was from

Uh young students from these universities.

Where decolonial theory was tied to this kind of critique of Western heteronormativity and whatnot and whatnot.

And eventually they convinced the leadership, Floyd Shivambu and Malemma, they convinced them that they should change their position and that you shouldn't be against these LGBT and this is their sovereign decision.

I'm not saying this is because they're shills or something.

This is what they consider to be the correct position.

It doesn't change my opinion, but I can respect the fact that they made the decision on their own.

This is actually what they think.

This is their own view.

And they have a right to have that view.

Why do they have a right to have that view?

Because the EFF wasn't created.

To fight for LGBT rights, it was created as a response to the Mericana massacre.

It was created to fight for the rights.

of the South African working class and the South African people

their real rights, which is the land question, which is the economic question.

And that's why there's plenty of pro-LGBT parties in South Africa.

There's the DA who are liberals, pro-Western liberals.

There's the um

There's the Boer Sep the Boer Separatus in um

What is that county?

Cape County, something like that.

They want to create a free state.

They're pro-LGBT.

Yes, they are.

The main LGBT forces in South Africa hate the EFF, by the way.

I know this because I keep up with the internal party drama, and rank-and-file members point this out.

But the EFF position is i is its own, but that's not significant to us because

It's not like the main thing they're about.

It's just kind of a thing they incidentally.

And again, the context is different.

The way they see it, basically I'll explain to you how they see it.

The way they see it is that the EFF fights for justice and there's a vulnerable minority being attacked, being killed and beaten, all this kind of stuff.

And they are fighting for those people's dignity.

That's how they see it.

So that's their logic, that's their reasoning.

It's not, for example,

The view that the fact the majority of people are straight is oppression.

The fact that heteronormativity dominates, that most people aren't sexual minorities, that's oppression.

That's not where they're coming from.

They're doing it.

Smudly, what's up?

That's their logic.

And uh all I have to say is I would be interested to see in South Africa maybe how that might eventually play out.

At when this starts to actually be drawn to its logical conclusion,

When not only it's a small minority, but it's like, you know, the new generations are starting to get confused about their sexuality.

People are transitioning in record numbers.

Heterosexuality seems to be breaking down.

There's a crisis of masculinity.

By the way, I don't think this is really a problem for South Africa because, again, they're dealing with very pressing issues of crime and poverty.

I mean, this is the last thing they have to care about, right?

Smudly, wow, with the forty-nine subs.

Holy shit.

Wow.

That's all I have to say.

Wow.

Big wow.

Smudly, thank you so much, brother.

Um Wow.

Uh I don't know, is there anything else I have to say about this?

Right when he says, Oh in Infrahaz, all the trad MAGA communists are owned.

No, we're not because this is something going on in South Africa with a completely different context.

And and again, EFF is a young organization.

So they will have to deal with the logical consequence of this position eventually.

And then and only then will we see if this truly contradicts infrared's analysis.

Again, Haas Aldeen, the Infrared Collective, not Haz Aldeen, I didn't go by that name.

Infrared Collective, we never were against LGBT rights.

Until we actually had to think we had to be faced with the logical that LGBT rights is not just, you know, these people are suffering

Because here a genuine opinion that I have is like you're not doing any good by beating or you know harassing or I I don't know you're not doing any good by just sadistically being cruel to sexual minorities.

You're not what good does that do?

You think if you beat up a gay guy, he's gonna stop being gay?

You think if you attack a lesbian, she's gonna stop being a lesbian.

You think if you attack a transgender, they're gonna get their balls back after they cut it off.

No.

It's uh only only evil sadistic scumbags want to do that.

We're I'm not interested in that.

All I'm saying is that

The phenomena, as a general phenomena, is a symptom of s of capitalist degeneracy.

It's a symptom of the corruption of society and humanity because of capitalism.

And the only way you can address that corruption is by going to the source.

Isn't it crazy I'm a Marxist?

Like do you actually think my view is like, oh yeah, here's here's how we address it.

Let's do hunger games or the purge, but we're just going to kill all the gay people.

No, that's not a a solution.

You have to think of a solution generationally.

like t decades from now, you're not thinking about

Going and harassing individuals, you're thinking about how do we protect future generations from this madness and confusion?

How do we allow them to grow up healthy and

Happy, ho healthy, happy, and human.

Normal.

I'm not here to be a sadistic person.

I'm not.

Yeah, we use slurs and stuff when we get angry at some of these people, but the god-honest truth is, I don't have a single ounce of hatred in my heart for them.

I pity them and I feel bad for them sometimes.

And then other times, I just don't really think about it.

I mean, sometimes we're forced to think about them because 75% of the CPUSA, you know, and now they say it's not enough.

We have to destroy.

norms and we have to, you know, intro I mean, look,

Did Malema introduce his pronouns in his speech?

That's a it's almost this simple, alright?

Malemma gave that speech.

Did he go, I am Julius Malemma, he him?

Because when that shit starts happening, you can ring my line.

When that becomes the norm in the EFF.

Ring my line.

You know what I mean?

Tell me about it.

And you know, I'll have to address it somehow.

I don't know.

But it's really a different, completely different context, you know, and it's like.

By the way, right wingers are so fucking stupid.

They're like

Oh my god!

How could you be trad communist if this was because being trad is not about

Um

Being trad is not about like

Some superficial

thing about hunting these people.

Being trad means you're able to reproduce the tradition of heterosexuality and family.

What do I mean by reproduce that?

I mean, like, our position is.

A heterosexual position.

In like some psychoanalytic sense.

We are traditional, but we're not traditional because we're trying to adopt an aesthetic of being traditional.

We actually are inheriting the tradition.

It's almost like we're not nationalists.

We are inheriting the tradition of the nation.

The actual nation, like as a real thing, not as an idea.

I need to explain this to right-wingers.

Um, heterosexuality is not an idea to me.

It's not an idea, it's just a reality.

Crazy, right?

Crazy, like you know, the thing that actually is the origin of life, how we reproduce physically, that's not an idea, that's not a platonic idos.

Oh, the ideal, it's not a fucking idea, dude.

It's not an ideology, it's a reality.

Do you think I think big booty bitches is an idea?

That's not an idea, that's a reality, one that my gut instinct.

Pushes me towards

In my gut, in my soul, and my.

It's a real thing.

It's not, it's in my heart.

It's not like.

This isn't a Platonic philosophical idea to me.

So you're either in tune with it or you're not.

And what we're observing in society is a problem.

Society is losing touch with its humanity.

It's no longer in tune with its real nature, with its objective human essence.

Yes, Marx believes in a human essence, by the way, and he actually defines that essence as the relationship between man and woman, but I digress.

I don't think this has to be an idea.

Oh, do you have this idea?

Look, dude, you are just LGBT, but it's like you want to have a straight pride parade.

It's just like an ether.

It's a fucking ethereal identity to you that exists in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of reality.

I'm not worried about the EFF becoming a gay movement because.

Or South Africa.

I'm not worried about that.

Because.

Because it's a reality.

Like because human nature is a reality.

Yes, it's real.

Okay, I'm not worried about I'm worried about people who are confused about it.

For example, in the West, trying to punish the rest of us for being in tune with our nature.

I digress.

I'm talking way too much.

Is there anything else I have to say on this?

It's like, I feel like I do because it's a million.

million views directed at us.

Or maybe it's not, I don't know.

Yeah, I uh again, um

What was I gonna say?

We are Putin, Putin is us.

I'm just sick of the mental illness people have.

What I mean by that is like.

We're not the extremists you paint us out to be, actually.

We're pretty much very reasonable.

We're very reasonable.

Um and you'd know that if you just like listen to any thi if you if anyone who like listens to me say this, if you're coming at this in good faith, like you understand what I'm saying, you know, like

Um

We're very reasonable.

Like, we're not we're not saying we're going to cancel the EFF for disagreeing with us about this.

Let me tell you why it's frustrating.

Like, there's a big difference people don't understand.

Something can bear testament to a deeper content versus that is the content.

Do you understand what I mean by this?

Like, if you see the shark, if you see a fin of a shark in the water, you're like, okay, there's a shark under there, right?

So it's testament to a deeper reality.

So sometimes...

When people are pro-LGBT, that's a sign that there's this deeper reality of them being aligned with the hegemony.

But it's by no means synonymous.

It's not an identity.

It doesn't automatically entail that.

It's just one of the telltale symptoms of it.

Do you understand?

It's not always the case.

And if you don't believe me, this is something I said in the telegram.

I'm so proud I said this because it's so smart.

It's like, well, Ben Shapiro's anti-LGBT.

There's there's plenty of

Literal shills of the establishment who evince anti-LGBT rhetoric.

Like, does that mean they're fucking based?

Does that mean they're like, they're like fighting the hegemony?

Well, no, it doesn't.

Sometimes the contrary is true.

You have to evaluate the actual content and like put it in the context and actually ask the question, what am I looking at here?

For example, in the case of EFF, am I actually looking at like the essence of the destruction of all traditions?

Or am I looking at, you know, their perspective is this is a vulnerable minority.

It hasn't, at the level of society, taken it to such a logical conclusion.

that they've actually been confronted with the agenda

Uh the real goals of the agenda.

So, for example, you could say they don't know.

Time will tell.

Experience will be the best.

Um.

measure.

And if we're wrong, we're wrong.

And if you're right, you're right.

But it's like we have an analysis, right, which is based on our experience here in the West.

And it's as simple as that.

Like we know, for example, about how

NGOs around the world

Do this and spread this ideology, and there's this agenda, but that doesn't mean people can't by their own volition.

independently arrive at at a conclusion that aligns culturally with the hegemony.

It's just that we can forgive people for aligning culturally in some respect with the hegemony when in actual content, you look at the bigger picture, they're objectively a bigger threat to the hegemony than, you know.

I feel like the UFF leaderships has to balance with the rank and file beliefs with countering the extremism towards homosexuals and so on.

Do you think that in terms of that's what you think they should do, or do you think that analytically, like they will eventually have to do this?

Because we only have a right to be analytic.

We don't have a right to tell the EFF what they should be doing and what policies they should have.

We do have a right to make an analysis on what we think might happen as a logical conclusion of this or that.

But regardless, um

You know, things mean different things in different contexts.

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

Like

Yeah, I mean, a guy, or a mass militant movement, patriotic.

Fights for South Africa's sovereignty, fights against globalism objectively, fights against the international capitalist ruling class objectively, fights for the South African working class.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I'm gonna support that.

I'm not gonna support Ben Shapiro just because he doesn't like faggots.

Simple.

I mean, it's literally that simple.

I don't care, dude.

I'm not gonna fucking support a Zionist shill just because.

You know what I mean?

It's like, and I said this, Ben Shapiro's anti-woke stuff is not the same as Hezbollah's traditionalism.

So the EFF's dialectic it has with its student wings isn't the same as Western pan-leftist nonsense.

Guys, did the Super Bowl is the Super Bowl over, by the way?

Who won?

Fuck this.

Really?

Fuck that.

Fuck that.

Literally, fuck that.

Dude, fuck this.

I knew they would make that bitch Taylor Swift win.

Oh my god, I fucking hate this, man.

'Cause Taylor Swift always has to win.

Cause she's Taylor Swift, right?

Fuck this shit, man.

It's like we live in such a woke society where we're so against white people, except the white woman, who's literally a god in our society.

Taylor fucking Swift can't even lose once, huh?

Fuck this.

Anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest as a misogynist.

Um.

You know what I would say?

Like, I'm not even really a misogynist.

I'm an anti-Taylor Swift misogynist.

So, make of that what you will.

Like, my problem with women is like bitches who are like Taylor Swift.

Like, I don't really hate, um, I don't really hate all the feminists.

You know, I hate the Taylor Swift kind of feminism, you know?

Make of that what you will.

I just can't stand Taylor Swift.

Anyway.

You know, like Taylor Swift is just she she tries to act so awkward and innocent and

This is beyond my pay grade, honestly.

I don't like her, 'cause I'm an anti white racist.

Cool de bois!

Um

Anyway.

You know, I'm just gonna tell the truth.

This is such a c like scummy thing for me to say.

We're gonna take a second to be a little um lighthearted.

I just think Taylor Swift is so mid.

Like, why is she making all the songs about how important her heart breaks are?

It's like, bitch,

Who gives a fuck about like your relationships?

Why are you telling me this?

Shouldn't this be private?

She's always talking about her relationships.

You're not even important.

What is this even for?

I don't care who you it's like 'cause 'cause the way I'm thinking the only context in which anyone should care is if they're taking notes like, okay, how do I Taylor Swift is so fine?

She's so fine.

How did that dude fumble that?

She's how did he fumble that?

How can I improve and slide in there and um

Do all the things the right way that that other guy messed up on.

But like, she's not worth all that.

Who is she?

I don't give a fuck about her nonsense.

Um, I don't like her.

I just don't.

It's not even that I hate her music.

I'm indifferent toward it.

I just hate seeing her face a lot.

Um

So the the Rafa massacre, I don't wanna cover it.

It's so bad.

I don't wanna show you all these

Gruesome things.

Um, Zionists are doing what Zionists do.

That's all you have to know.

But it's basically a massacre going on.

Yeah, I'm I'm not gonna cover the news.

Um

But it's just su is, thank you.

I it's it's definitely

It's just

Sh more shit to make you feel sick in your stomach, honestly, you know?

But um

Thank you so much, Sueiz.

I appreciate you.

So t Taylor Swift Wallen, I guess that's what's going on.

Um

I'm really proud also.

Thank you so much, Suez.

I'm also very proud of coming up with the term pan-leftism because it's really the truth.

It's like there's some people that are pan-leftists, you know.

Wallo, thank you, man.

There's some people that are pan-leftists, and then there's others, such as infrared, who are Marxist-Leninists.

And I wish we could just.

Like I honestly, like whoever these people are

Um, whoever's bought this stuff, trying to own infrared because of repeating old news about the Julius Malema.

I mean, what is what what a crazy world we live in, right?

But anyway,

guys, you're panleftists.

We're actually Marxist Leninists.

Like you're not you guys aren't Marxist Leninists.

You don't actually believe in that.

I know you meme about it and it's like but you don't actually believe in it.

Come on.

I know you don't because

You're nuanced and you're like, Well, there's new, you know, democratic socialists and anarchists.

You you're you're pan-leftist, right?

Just and I also want to coin a new term.

What it really is, it's an anti-popular front.

Because I remember somebody earlier was asking me about

The popular front, and they were like, But Haas, wasn't the popular front pan-leftist?

And I was like, No, the popular front was a popular front.

It wasn't pan-leftist, it was pan-people.

It was like the people versus the monopoly and the fascists and the hegemony.

And it's like, you are willing to make alliances that represented the popular forces, that represented your nation and your people, and their interests and their history.

And it's like, that's what made it a popular front, you know?

Like the Popular Front in Palestine, not just the PFLP, but the actual Popular Front.

Hamas is in there.

It's not a pan-leftist front.

But then I thought it's like the idea of pan-leftism is so funny.

It's like it's like the logic of a Popular Front, but only for people who agree with me.

Um.

Only people who like vaguely align with my values.

Not an actual popular front, but like an anti-popular front.

It's like a popular front without the people, where all the anarchists and the left comms and the MLs and the Maoists and the Trotskyists were all joined in a popular front.

The only thing that we're missing is the actual people.

You know, congrats.

You're all united by your desire to.

Destroy humanity or maybe just

Flip off your parents.

You're all united by your desire to prove mom and dad wrong.

No, mom and dad, I can make it as a poet.

I can make it as a musician.

I just have to pay off my student loan debt while working as a barista.

But eventually I'll get there and my art, my digital art, will make me really popular.

But AR art is ruining it, so fuck AI for some reason.

Wait, why do we hate AI, guys?

Oh, because it's getting in the way of your personal dreams of becoming a digital artist.

I was more like asking, like, why from the perspective of Marxism do we hate AI?

Like, shouldn't this unleash the productive forces?

And isn't this, like, actually progressive?

Like, doesn't opposing it make you like a petty bourgeois artisanal reactionary or some shit?

Oh, no, no, sorry.

I didn't mean to be.

I didn't mean to like

literally be racist.

All right.

I was that w what I just said was like

against black people.

How?

Thank you, Sislak.

How is it against black people?

Um, I think the framing of your question itself is racist, and you're racist.

And and you're a Nazi.

How are you a Nazi?

So you just want trans people to die then, huh?

No, don't tell me you were just asking a question.

No ifs or buts about it, and that is bad.

It's like so self-serving.

Like it's literally this self-serving narcissism that they're disguising upon layers upon layers upon layers of like of like different

convoluted rationales that have nothing to do.

Like what does Marxism have to do with like your petty bourgeois dreams of being a fucking artist?

Nothing.

We're gonna sacrifice AI because you wanna

It's just like instinctually they're all they all the whole pan-leftist anti-popular front is united by a class interest that they all have an implicit solidarity with each other about.

Yes, we're all against AI guys.

Wait, wait.

I'm I'm I studied Marx.

I'm really a Marxist, interested in Marxism.

But guys, why are we against AI?

There we go.

The straight man talking.

Gotta fucking open your mouth, huh?

Can't we all just silently agree that we all share the same petty bourgeois class interests and we're all a bunch of we're all in the process of lumpinization and D-class.

You know, aren't we all like the same class pretty much?

'Cause like I was assuming this is a grad student kind of thing.

I didn't think there would actually be like a construction worker who read Marx and is like wondering why we should be against technology.

But alas here we are, the straight white settlers ruining it for us all.

Like, I know exactly why the construction worker guy doesn't agree with me.

It's because his ancestors were settlers.

Jay Sakai told me.

And it's like, wait, weren't you a settler too?

Yeah.

Oh.

Uh but but

But I also do slam poetry too!

Wait, what does that have to do with anything?

What what does ha doing slam poetry have to do with you being a because all these people who work with their hands are just so bigoted 'cause they're settlers.

Wait, but are aren't your ancestors settlers too?

Yeah, but

Yeah.

But I do digital art Oh, okay.

I guess you're not a settler then.

I guess I guess it's it's like it's such a self serving class solidarity of a bunch of like petty bourgeois

Parasites, really, and it's like they're all like somehow justifying their anti-social, anti-popular position on the basis of the strangest things.

Oh, this is about white people.

Wait, but you're white too.

Yeah, but I'm the kind of white person who, um, uh who who who writes songs.

Okay, I guess you're not white anymore then.

Like what they really mean by white is like, oh, you mean like normal people You don't mean white people.

You just mean people who are normal, right?

No, I mean I'm just black people, trans people, who are all united by the fact that we're special and different.

Because I am an interpretive dancer and I got a degree in interpretive dance.

And it's like I don't I don't know if that's the same it is.

Black people are not normal.

They're just so exceptional.

That's why they're revolutionary.

Okay.

I guess normal people are the enemy.

And then a black person is like, actually, I'm a normal person.

But you're a man, aren't you?

Yeah.

Well, that's why.

Black girl magic.

Always listen to Beyonce.

Then a black woman comes.

Well, I think I'm normal too.

Well, let me ask you a question.

You're cisgender, aren't you?

And on and on it goes.

And unless you're.0000001% of the population, you have some sins on your back.

There's some things about your background that predispose you to being a reactionary.

Unless you're.000001% of the population.

You want to know who else is.0000001% of the population?

People who make a living off of creative content.

So it fits that petty bourgeois special snowflakes are going to identify the revolutionary subject with such an exceptional, exceptional minority of people who are just different, who are abstracted from the the norm and the collective, because I listen to punk rock bands that you've never even fucking heard of in your life, you pleb piece of shit.

Oh really?

Because I like to listen to uh I like to listen to 50 Cent.

Yeah, because you're a fucking peasant!

Every time I walk into a room, I say,

You ever heard of Norgoth?

What?

Norgoth.

No.

Well, it's my favorite band.

Oh, really?

I mean, I like Green Day.

Ha!

Fucking settler.

I made up North.

I don't know what Norgoth is.

I made that shit up.

But, you know, this is what we're dealing with.

It's like, I don't know.

I'm just kind of, I'm kind of like beating a dead horse.

I'm a bully.

I'm bullying these people.

But um I I maintain that I'm reasonable.

I'm not a hateful person.

I just

I just think that there's a lot of corruption going on, and I think a lot of it's self-serving.

But I digress.

We're going to move on.

We're gonna move on.

Uh, there's somebody that wants to talk to me named Nikki the Hegel.

Return to Hagol

It's pure ideology.

Mr.

Moon, what's going on?

Thank you so much.

Hello, how are you?

Uh, I'm all right, what are you doing?

I'm having a great day actually and a great Sunday.

Hope you're having a great one too.

I'm actually very happy and very honored to be here and to have the space to talk to you.

Thank you.

For sure.

So what's going on?

Um I just wanted to uh say hi uh and yeah, I get to know you and yeah, I'm I've been a big follower of you for a long time.

I really appreciate what you do and yeah, I I guess I have a few topics that are I've been really interested in recently.

Just very happy to talk about things and understand your mind space more

Uh, yeah, sure.

I mean, um, we're gonna probably, let me see.

We're gonna wrap this up, probably.

Um, can't take like hours, so we probably wanna limit it to one topic, maybe.

Saya, what's going on?

Hello?

I'm here.

Yeah, we should probably limit this maybe to like one or two topics, you know, not too much, because this can go on for hours, you know?

Of course, it sounds great.

I recently had a debate with somebody about how they claim that Russia is a settler colonial state.

And this reminds me of what you were talking about earlier on the stream today, and it's within the topics that you're talking about.

And it's honestly just a ridiculous concept that because something is a settler colonial state, that it actually is not, that it's like unethical in that kind of sense.

And he actually made the argument that because something is a settler colonial state, that it is the first moral, that being settler colonial is actually the first moral infringement, the first moral wrong in society and history that ever has happened, which I think is also very questionable.

I would love to hear your thoughts on that and have a discussion on that.

Yeah, sure.

So I've heard this be said about Russia before.

So to add some context, there's a phenomenon of settler colonialism where the refuse of a certain nation of a maritime powers traveling halfway across the world, colonizing it from scratch in order to kind of

benefit the core at the level of the periphery.

So it's establishing a dynamic of people who are settling at the periphery in order to benefit the core, who have absolutely no relationship to the land they live on and are refusing to, um

Initiate the process of mutual recognition and understanding with the people that live there, which is the receptacle of a historical development.

So basically, they tend to be genocidal, you know, lacking any kind of recognition of the existence of others, just kind of seeing them as utilitarian tools to realize some kind of pre-established ends created in the core, such as with the East India Company and so on and so on.

Now, the problem with the paradigm, and then afterwards, there's this kind of phenomena you may have in South Africa where they may try to enclose their living space.

I mean, literally, this is the influence of Hitler to kind of isolate themselves from the native inhabitants and be apart from them, maybe.

That was what was going on in South Africa.

And the United States, there is this kind of attempt to make treaties, which were obviously overturned.

I think a crucial difference in the case of the United States, though.

From Australia, from Canada, and other countries, is that we actually did intend on.

settling the land and and make having a permanent place here just in the sense of living off of the land and becoming a civilization of a completely new type

Which is not necessarily although it played out that way, not necessarily at the expense of the people who were already here, but just kind of this process of turning our backs on Europe.

And instead of being a periphery to the core in Europe, we wanted to establish a new historical development based on a unique interaction between people and land here.

Now, the American project is not going very well, obviously, as far as the realization of the dreams of the founding fathers of the country or Lincoln and stuff, but that's the founding myth of America in a lot of ways.

Now, as far as Russia is concerned.

It's basically what I said.

The problem with the identification of Russia as settler colonial is that obviously Russia had colonies and Russia had settlers, but it would be opportunistic and misleading to call it settler colonialist in the way that the British Empire or the Portuguese or even the Spanish for that matter were.

And why?

Because Russia is a land power.

So its settlements and its colonialism was a syncretic process of mutual recognition that came to affect the content of the empire itself.

Even in the case of Alaska, for example, you had phenomena of intermarriage going on between Russian settlers and native Alaskans, cultural exchange.

Both of them are starting to kind of interact in a specific way that gives rise to a higher unity.

And that's this is the receptacle of historical development proper.

So I would say it's completely wrong to classify Russian expansion into the Far East as settler colonialist.

Although you can maybe make an argument.

That the late, and when I say late, I mean late 19th century expansion of Imperial Russia was pretty much obeying the kind of Western paradigm of colonialism in general.

But I think this was rectified by Soviet policies completely.

Right.

And can we use, I guess, like, even if it qualifies under any degree or any semblance of being a settler colonial state, can we apply these, I guess, current day ethical frameworks or let's say even, you know, Anglo-blocks ethical frameworks and apply them to Russia and say that, oh, they're bad because they did this thing based on that framework?

It's kind of it's an interesting thing for me to think about, right?

And my friend also, I guess, he was saying, he was claiming that Russia rightfully belongs to the Turkic peoples, which is also a really far-out claim.

But yeah.

Yeah, I don't know what I don't know where that could be coming from, but um.

Uh when it comes to this kind of stuff about ethics and right or wrong or bad or good, I just

I find it interesting because it's like, from a philosophical perspective, it's kind of meaningless.

I mean, if something is you consider it bad or good, it's kind of doesn't I don't know how meaningful that is.

Like, what does that even mean to me, right?

But I think intuitively, people have a kind of stand culture.

It's kind of like cancel culture.

We're like, oh, is this person good or is it bad?

And you think about what does that actually mean on a deeper level?

It basically means, am I willing to kind of afford this thing the good grace of assimilating it within my um

Digital aged, curated, um

Realm of like enjoyment, basically, like and as a consumer.

Like, like, in the same way, people are like, Oh, I've you know, I really enjoyed this T V series, but then I found out the writer was like a racist or a bigot, and it kind of completely ruined it for me, right?

So, I can no longer see this as good, now it's bad, and I have to carefully curate my consumption and my experience of the world, basically.

On the basis of like how receptive I am to things, how much am I going to allow this thing to affect me emotionally and be moved by it?

Because, God forbid, if a neo-Nazi says something I consider beautiful and I'm moved by it, God forbid, maybe I'll be a neo-Nazi too.

So it's kind of an issue of taste, if you ask me.

It's not really a question of ethics.

It's a question of aesthetics and it's a question of taste, which obviously is related to morality in a way.

But like, people are like, is Russia good or bad?

What they're really saying is, how receptive am I allowed to be to the existence of Russia to afford it the significance to afford it such a degree of significance?

that I uh I can be inspired by it.

I can kind of uh allow it to be a let's say allow it to be a receptacle for

the recognition of my own existence.

Can I see myself in this?

Can I be, um, persuaded by it, moved by it, and you know, um,

Can its existence somehow reflect upon me a fundamental meaningfulness and truth about myself?

It's almost like Russia is a streamer.

It's like, can you consume the can you watch Russia's content or no?

You know?

It's kind of like that.

Yeah, that's actually, you put it in a very good way, honestly.

I really love using like Hegel's dialectics of recognition to actually understand and apply these frameworks.

And I actually, it's great having this conversation.

Yeah.

But if you're a Zizek fan, it's not even just Hegel.

We're talking about the foundation Lacan gives with his mirror stage about how others are the only way, the only means by which we can acquire an existence because it's on the basis of.

What gets reflected upon others, for example, something like this, that we can discover our own existence.

We don't discover our own existence by just looking in the mirror and then saying, ah, that's me, I exist.

The stage in which I look into the mirror and recognize my own existence is a stage that's mediated by some other, which isn't me, right?

So, you know, that's that's even in this is the digital age, though.

The digital age is basically where people are trying to curate.

It's almost interesting.

It's like, it's like everyone is a psychoanalyst who is trying to correctly brainwash themselves, knowing that, ah, it's just going to influence me.

It's like it's a post-Oedipal world we live in, age of the digital age, the age of the internet.

Where people are deliberately trying to engineer their own psychological constitution.

Like.

People j legitimately feel like they have to cancel this or cancel that because they don't want the bad influence to affect them.

Because if you open yourself to Taylor Swift or I don't know who this, you're open to them in their entirety, right?

You have to accept the whole of what they are.

You have to kind of fully embrace them as a

as a a l as a I I don't have the terminology this as a validly curated receptacle of your own existence, like everything Taylor Swift does for her stands.

They uh allow to kind of

Be a receptacle of their own existence.

Like everything she does is valid, is good, or nothing she does, in the case that we have to cancel her.

We fully tolerate the other, their existence as the big other.

We don't have a big other in the form of law, as Lacan

originally identifies with the big other.

We don't have a big other even in the form of centralized uh communications technology.

We don't have a big other in the form of

You know, um, a specific news station or a specific authority.

We have a big other in a in a extremely um

What's the word I'm looking for?

We have a big other in an extremely malleable f uh an ever-changing form of is it Taylor Swift?

Is it

Is it, I don't know, some other celebrity?

Do they have a right to be the other for me?

Right?

It's kind of like that.

People, in other words, are choosing the phenomenal medium with which they can interface with the big other.

Okay.

And it's fragmented as well.

Yeah, but in a sense it becomes r i i i i and then it becomes reunified in this kind of and this is where it can become reintroduce the significance of the political in the form of alignment.

What do Taylor Swift and uh I don't know a lot of celebrities, so you have to bear with me.

I don't know.

Um don't worry, I don't really follow culture right now.

What does she and um some actors or actresses and these Hollywood celebrities, what do they all have in common?

They're not canceled.

They're all part of the same

They're all aligned with the hegemony, right?

And so so hegemony is how it yeah, it becomes reintroduced.

That's where the dimension of the political gets reintroduced in this kind of extremely libidinal pathological relationship people have with mass culture.

Yeah.

I'm just thinking about it too, honestly.

It's uh it this reminds me of when you were talking about patriotic socialism or patriotic communism and how uh or oh sorry p paternalistic, sorry.

When you're talking about how communism needs to be paternalistic, it reminds me of that conversation, right?

About how uh leftists today they lack a master signifier, they lack the name of the father, right?

And that's why they're trying to um I guess rise up against their these their you know anarchists, I guess.

They become they they do these childish things and yeah, I mean like I think that society has like progressed and kind of went away from that, right?

And it shows that we lack this this figure, right?

And in the past I think it was more unified, right?

Because people actually had their father and they used their father as this authority figure, right?

And uh and it was respected in that kind of sense and co and Stalin was also that kind of figure and Lenin and all these people, right?

So yeah.

It's it's really interesting.

So I guess like, you know, people are using women are using Taylor Swift as their daddy in some way.

Yeah, but it's like it's yeah, and you know, people in the

In who are tangentially kind of orbiting the kind of French, I don't know, I don't know what to call it, the Lacan de Luz kind of complex.

They were able to identify, I mean, GJ himself wrote about it.

It's not even a father anymore, although he talks about woman as another name of a father.

It's the figure of Taylor Swift is much more terrifyingly present and authoritarian and totalitarian and so on than the father because it's directly libidinal.

The father is kind of in a way indifferent to our desires, right?

It's just pure this injunction, this pure injunction of prohibition.

But now there's a command to enjoy that's thrown into the mix with the feminine form taken on by it.

So.

Yeah, in a sense, not only is Taylor Swift the father, she is literally

The whole of reality, like literally a god-type figure, like representing all of universal existence itself, all of Mother Nature, all of society, even more than a father.

So, um.

Th this is the whole kind of uh con this is the whole

Civilizational phenomena around which the French turn in the 1970s and beyond was revolving around, which is the problem of the Oedipal framework that you mentioned, how reality seemed to have been enclosed by this kind of Oedipal framework in which, yes, there's Stalin, there's a parental authority, there's some kind of figure of.

The big other

Um

Which had a very specific and particular relationship to desire, for example, to the castration complex and so on and so on.

And then Lacan is definitely but not a lot of people know that, but Deleuze, everyone knows, is the quintessential thinker of the post-Oedipal civilization, obviously, right?

Uh but Lacan is also this because um

In his later years, in the development of this kind of notion of the synthome or the symptom,

as well as the kind of uh James Joyce he calls it's such a silly thing to say, but he's it's like La Language or whatever.

I don't know how to pronounce it.

La Lang, I believe.

La Lang, yeah, something like that, where he basically um

grounds the consistency and the coherence of

The subject, no longer in the kind of castrative.

Other as like the imaginary form of the symbolic, uh the castrative imaginary form of the symbolic, but um

A basis rather i uh

How do I describe this in not directly in this symbolic?

That's stupid, but.

In a way, the imaginary becomes unmoored from the symbolic, and the very excess from it somehow.

Acquires a status and a recognition.

Now, I'm gonna, for the audience that wants to know what the fuck I'm talking about, because it literally is nonsense that I'm saying, because I don't have the correct terms, but um.

Put it this way, think about how mass culture

Um runs wild.

Like, what's that thing, Rule 34, where like if it exists, there's porn about it?

Is that what it's called?

I never heard about that.

It must be a thing.

Yeah, like there's a meme where it's like if something exists on the internet, there's porn of it, right?

Right.

I mean, it makes sense to say that, like, if something exists, then or if it can be thought of, then it exists in whatever all realms, right?

But we have completely unconstrained, you know, completely unconstrained cultural expression.

So this is another example of maybe what you would think of as like desire, the frame of desire being completely unmoored by any kind of

um, specific I don't know what to call it exactly, specific configuration of the subject, specifically and exclusively in the Oedipal form.

In the post Oedipal era, it's like things run amok and

The relationship to the symbolic is discernible only in the symptom.

And it's like Lacan starts out with the imaginary.

And then I forget the order in which it proceeds.

I think then the symbolic, and then 20.

Then later in his life, he has a focus on the real.

But it takes him right back to the imaginary.

And then Deleuze kind of.

discards the symbolic entirely and just kind of, you know, creatively deploys Lacan's uh relationship between th the imaginary and the real was kind of, you know, with this whole plane of imminence stuff where it's kind of um

And then you you know, later you get this kind of s

notions of like

A desire without referent in reality itself, like that is the real, right?

And so on and so forth.

Right, but going to Beautriard, and I actually, um, yeah, Bautriard's collation.

Yeah, the last chapter actually like ended, like, we're we're we're stuck at excess because we don't actually have this frame of this symbolic authority anymore, and then it's just pure excess, and that's where that's where basically postmodernism ends, I guess, and then like the lose and that that tradition of philosophy starts, right?

Right, and then you know, you have land who comes in bravesly bravely.

understands this and kind of reintegrates this

cliffhanger of postmodernism, as you would put it, I guess, into this kind of more very br this is w this is why what he did is very brave.

He reintegrates it back into the real in the real sense, not the French bullshit sense.

Like a newfound understanding of political economy and, you know, um

How would I put it?

A completely new ontology of

What is the human?

What is time?

What is history?

What is capitalism?

And so on and so on.

And drawing it out to its conclusion in the way that he did.

Yeah.

But I don't know how we.

Oh, yes, yeah.

But this is the whole point of the accelerationist impulse was the post-Oedipal politics, which was taken farther than this.

Is why there's something about it that's so unique because the post-Oedipal politics was always the anarchist, like horizontal organization, spontaneous organization of the people.

And we're all just going to make these local chaz-like communes.

And we're doing away with the political party and its authoritarianism.

We're going to do away with, because all this stuff is undercut by this kind of Oedipal, not only Oedipal oppression, but this false disguise of personal pathologies and desires in the form of authority.

We're just going to let everything free and kind of whatever.

But then the accelerationists come when they're like, even this.

framework of us somehow reacting and responding to the world or to capitalism.

Even this is ultimately cannot escape this kind of uh this kind of uh

what would you call it?

This kind of, um, jail or prison house of

Libidinal prison house.

Like, you're just gonna re-establish this kind of human monkey games in your little chazz commune where there's gonna be one guy whose pathologies whose psychopathologies will come to dominate or it's just it's a it's a limited ex it's it's a limitation of the kind of libidinal excess.

And they realized that the real

Uh the real excess, production of the excess is completely inadvertent and outside of the sphere of direct.

action, conscious action, conscious re reactivity and responsivity of people to some outside thing.

And it's just pure conduce co conductivity and conduciveness to the outside

Which is not praised, but which is regarded as fully submitting to capitalism, fully submitting to the acceleration of the productive forces, allowing that's why anarchists are very ironic in this because they claim to be against all of this and then they just recreate this exact structure that they're trying to undermine in the first place.

Exactly.

It's like they're anti-authoritarian, but is there anything more author?

Is there anything more authoritarian than an anarchist?

No, I've noticed that whichever anarchists I've talked to or dealt with in person or online, whenever they have a chance to gain authority, they become these authoritarians and they actually say that they hate authority and they'll just actually revel in this power.

And I have this feeling that anarchists actually will be the first people that become the new fascists, honestly.

And that's why we say that Hitler was an anarchist, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's going to be in the upcoming book.

But I want to say, you know, here's an opportunity I'll give to talk about where land goes wrong.

Where did the accelerationist go wrong?

Even in as a recent phenomena.

Because it's very rare that, you know, I know you may become, you're a huge Zizek fan, so very rarely are people familiar with all this terminology.

By the way, if you're in the audience and what I'm saying is incomprehensible nonsense.

I want you guys to get more comfortable and familiar with like just hearing shit you don't understand and then later on you'll realize it because you read and stuff.

Anyway.

I think the accelerationists, in a sense, were correct in their rejection of activism and their under their they were correct in decentering the moral individual as the ultimate subject of revolutionary transformation and even even going beyond the the kind of subject object distinction itself.

Does the revolutionary transformation have a subject in the strict sense of like a receptive individual who reacts and responds to it in a specific way?

And I think that was a correct move by them, but I think we can in a way return to Lacan.

In his notion of the symptom, when we ask the question of: does this, um,

Outsideness of, let's call it capitalist deterritorialization, or let's maybe deterritorialization in general.

This, um,

This body without organs trying to realize itself from the future, right?

Does that have a symptom?

Does it have a pattern?

Is it trapped in a type of eternal cycle?

Which it cannot break free from.

Because the whole point of the accelerationist is that it is, but the thing that it's trapped in is the human itself, the human security system.

It needs to be freed from the human security system, which it will be freed from with the arrival of transhumanism and AI and the destruction of human organism to give rise to whatever.

But you know, I don't think that's gonna happen.

I think that's kind of either.

I think it goes beyond just like the human itself.

It actually goes into the self-reflexivity of consciousness, right?

And you can't say that.

Exactly, sure.

But but so if that stuff they're talking about isn't gonna happen, if you're not waging on AI and transhumanism and stuff, I'm not, I think it's bullshit.

So if you don't think that's gonna happen, and if you can recognize that's a kind of fundamental fantasy of the accelerationist, actually, and it's not a when when land, for example, was really getting spooked.

Like, have I really touched upon the real?

Like, holy shit, am I actually fucking talking to aliens or some shit?

I'm simplifying it.

He obviously wasn't saying that, but it's like he really did feel like he was.

Approaching the threshold of the annihilation of the subject completely and getting some kind of receptivity from the real with his pneumogram, and he's communicating with the outside somehow, right?

Well.

Any kind of suspicion he had about what this meant or what this was, it's like, no, you are still within the frame of a psychopathology.

The the AI and all this stuff is not some kind of transcendent horizon beyond the threshold of our conceivability.

It really represents uh a fantasy, a structure of a fantasy.

Moreover, it um

Is not what it appears as.

So we're back in the realm of analysis.

And we're back in the realm of interpretation and all that.

And that's what DeLuz and Blend and all the people that rejected psychoanalysis tried to get away from.

They thought they could actually get away from analysis, right?

But we're just right back.

I agree with their attempt.

And I think their attempt can be fulfilled.

It's a noble attempt.

But I don't think they succeeded.

That's the problem.

Now, anyway, if we don't think, if we can recognize it's a fundamental fantasy, then we have to ask the following question.

Um, is the eternal cycle that this thing is trapped within?

Are they generalizing it too much?

What if the thing

The outside trying to realize itself from the future.

What if it's an eternal cycle?

It's.

It's deadlock, right?

What if that can be understood and particularized in terms of the concept Lacan bequeathed to us generously is the symptom?

What if that's really the symptom?

And if it's the symptom, the symptoms are always particular.

What if different civilizations have different symptoms?

What if different societies have different symptoms?

And what if our ability to respond to that symptom?

and uh mean not even just respond to it in terms of form opinions about it and so on, but really integrate it within a process of arriving at meaning

I mean

What if then we're arriving at a new

Understanding of communism.

I mean, think about it.

Let's say Middle Eastern civil, I don't know, this is a bad example.

Middle East is a fucking mess.

But let's say, um,

Chinese civilization has a symptom.

What does that mean?

It has it's just some specific force of China's history which is inescapable.

Well, how do you make meaning out of that?

Well, you make meaning out of that through the total integration of China's history into one

kind of holistic reality, which is irreducible to the individual and the extent of their responsivity to it.

It is it is kind of devoid of a subject in the strict sense of like it doesn't have a specific

individual addressee.

It's it's beyond us as individuals.

It forms and it it um reproduces itself in many ways at our expense.

Look at Chinese history where tens of millions of people perish in a given war.

And it's written down like that's nothing, right?

And we live and we die for this.

So, what if it's not this tech, uh, you know, hyper-techno-capitalist AI coming from the future?

What if the accelerationists are describing something not dissimilar to what Dugan talks about in his notion of the particular logos and the different kinds of logos, right?

And then, what if Dugan himself?

when he's talking about the different kinds of logos

And we kind of remove the mystical framing of this.

What if he's actually talking about different

Um

it sounds naive, but in a sense, different modes of production, different forms of material reproduction and existence, different different uh kinds of

existence for human beings which is not based in

You know, this kind of proto-ideas or thoughts from the mind of God, but based rather in, and we're back, I mean, we're back to Marxist materialism, based rather in concrete relations of production.

I mean, in this way, we can rediscover Marxism.

Instead of the Eurocentric Marxism, where we establish definite stages of mankind's development or specific paradigms in which we understand relations of production and then impose them upon the world indiscriminately, what if we can begin from the ground up, so far as historical materialism is concerned, from completely and radically different civilizational contexts?

What if this can give completely new meaning?

to Marx's humanism, to Marxism's uh

Coherence as a tradition and as a body of theory.

What if the big mistake in the history of Marxism was the attempt to create an orthodox Marxism in which you have this formula that you cut and dry apply to every single context?

I mean, is not the concrete experience in history of Marxism a tendency toward particularization, culminating ultimately in the cynicization of Marxism and socialism with Chinese characteristics?

Wasn't this the exact line of development from the very beginning?

From Marx and Engels themselves, break from the young Hegelians to the particularity of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject, to Lenin's application of Marx's discovery to the particular Russian context in the alliance with the peasantry.

And then the story is.

History, the rest is history.

So that's really a big part theoretically of where infrared is coming from.

And people are confused, and they say, Are you guys just Landian accelerationists?

And this is all a nihilist facade.

And it's no, but there's something that the Landians and the Accelerationists did do, which is break from the kind of because here's the truth: you can't return to the naive, let's call it the naive Oedipalism.

of the 20th century.

If we're going to form a Marxist-Leninist party, are we going to be Caleb Maupin and just kind of try to like mimic the authority of the past and like have some personalities come and dominate?

And, you know, this is the taste of music you're going to have to like.

This is the type of fashion you're going to like.

Let me impose upon you my psycho pathology under the veneer of the authority of a political organization.

You can't go back to that, right?

But the alternative is neither anarchism.

Nor, again, what I just said.

It's it's neither Caleb Maupin nor anarchism.

It's

But it's and it's not just the accelerationists either, but at least they were onto something, is what I'm saying.

They kind of

Realized something that is a good step in the direction of escaping this eternal cycle.

Every single socialist organization in America, in the West,

Has this fucking problem.

It never rises to the status of being a socialist organization.

It only can ever attain the status of being an organization within which certain personalities project their own dramatic psychopathologies and use the organization as a means with which they can resolve their own psychopathology and their own specific therapeutic needs and demands.

These fucking DSA PSL people, these

Collectives that they're forming are nothing more than feel-good projects with which they could kind of.

uh bounce off of and reflect

their own their own personal idiosyncratic sync symptoms.

So I I kind of like the accelerationist impulse.

Why not why should we not be liberated from our own personal stupid uh problems and just fully give in

To this outside that is radically indifferent toward us, completely indifferent toward us, which is the sole ground of true existence, not even meaning necessarily.

Maybe not even existence, but just being, right?

I mean, the accelerationists aren't saying, oh, only capitalism will liberate us, only capitalism will save us.

This is the only meaningful thing.

They're saying, no, it is going to do this.

It doesn't care about us.

The AI from the future is going to come and kill us all.

What we think doesn't matter.

The alien outside will triumph at our expense.

And all we could do in a kind of Eastern

uh s uh Eastern spiritualism sense is like, just be at peace with this and stop trying to fight it, you know?

And it's like, I don't agree with that, but at the same time, the transposition of the f the the the the framework of

uh subjectivity, let's say.

Away from my specific psychodrama towards some radically outside alien thing that's indifferent to me personally is a good move.

It's just that they were undialectical because the thing that's indifferent to you, that's the total integration of your history, that's your collective existence, that's your civilization, that's your empire or whatever, right?

Like, it is, in a sense, indifferent to you.

I mean, how many millions of people perish and go to war in the name of.

And if Marxists want to reproach me from a moral perspective, how many people died in the Russian Civil War?

How many people died in the Great Patriotic War?

Almost every single one of those soldiers gave their lives for something they regarded and considered far more fundamental than themselves.

They said it wasn't about me.

There's this higher cause.

There's a future for future generations.

That's all that matters.

Is this not somewhat kind of similar to the accelerationist nihilism, in a sense, where.

It's no longer about a specific individual.

It's about something so profoundly outside.

The extent of your um respo direct responsivity.

to the point where you it's no longer about you, you know?

And um this is the bra this is why I th there's something about Land that I admire and I think is uh brave.

But it's not it's not because

Of his wickedness and his evil, it's because I think there's a redemptive core to it where not all, and he wasn't developing this because he's evil, he was a response to the falseness of his leftist contemporaries, which and whose disease we're still plagued by.

Yes, exactly.

And I do know, um, I've talked with uh several accelerationists online.

I don't know if you've seen on Twitter the accelerationist discourse, like people will say like E slash ACC.

I'm not sure exactly what it all is.

So that's how you know it's dead because back in 2016, let's say to 20 early 2019.

It was actually like uh it was it was a that itself was a farcical repetition because first there was CCRU in the 90s and then it became what it did.

You know, Reza and his people who felt like Land made a wrong turn, they went down the path of neo-rationalism, and there was a huge continuity there.

Reza's neo-rationalism, there is a rational continuity from the, let's call it, Landianism of the 90s to that.

That's just as much a valid successor to the Landian project as Land's own Dark Enlightenment stuff, right?

But people don't appreciate that because neo-rationalism was boring and it was dry and it wasn't so flowery and exciting and stuff.

But philosophically, or I don't know, intellectually, there's a huge degree of continuity there, right?

It's a very powerful outlook.

But anyway, nobody cared about that, though, right?

Nobody seriously.

investigated it or cared to actually understand why the CCRU developed and took the paths that it did.

Around twenty seventeen, maybe to twenty nineteen,

People were captivated by the poetry of accelerationism from the nineties and the kind of

aesthetics of it and and s and it was so exciting and it was so new and stuff.

They didn't really care about the underlying intellectual commitments.

So there was all these different kinds of accelerationist tendencies, which hi if you want to historicize it, it's because of Trump's election.

And it was because of how, you know, the the rise of technology and social media and Uber and stuff, you know, and

People saw accelerationism as a zeitgeist to articulate and respond to that.

And it was very much a kind of, you know, subversive, vaguely, you know, niche avant-garde thing.

I had a disdainful view of it because it was like this is a farcical repetition.

But at the same time, at that time, it was like something new on the internet for internet culture and stuff.

There was a kernel, though, from that movement.

Which I think was very much new and engaging and profound.

It was coming from Ed Berg and his associates.

They were really actually integrating the kind of accelerationism with Marxism, right?

They were there was a commitment to Marxism there that you didn't see with all you know, there was our ACK, which is about being edgy and basically saying, like,

All black people are gonna die because AI hates them.

I don't know.

And then there was El Ak, which is like Nick Cernikek and Alex Williams that were saying, Oh, don't worry, you know.

You know, we can have Chile Cybersyn and just like, I don't know, like have luxury communism through Cybersyn and we can have like a tech-oriented leftism, something like that.

And then there were people like Ed Berg who were more associated with the UAC.

It's called unconditional accelerationist tendency that were like, no, let's actually like integrate the insights and

Significance of the zeitgeist back into Marxism as a way to reinvigorate and rediscover Marxism.

Right?

Right.

And I've seen a lot of accelerationists online who actually deny the tradition of where accelerationism did come from the tradition of Marxism, but they completely deny the relevance of the market.

Yeah, I mean, look, today, then I want to just finish.

So recently, an extremely cringe.

Extremely cringe and retarded thing has come up.

It's called EAC.

So EAC came from, literally came from Silicon Valley for the first time before it wasn't really like a Silicon Valley thing.

And it was dead for a long time.

Then some fucking nerds in Silicon Valley who just discovered it were like their mind was blown and they're like, oh my god.

We're going to like do this thing where we disguise the really edgy, scary Landian accelerationism in some kind of like optimistic thing of how, oh, it's going to be like, you know, the future is going to be great.

And it's like, they think they're so slick.

But actually, you know, Roko's basilisk and Eliza Yudakowski's idea of like how like if we don't actually aid in the development of this AI, it's going to torture us forever.

Like some stupid shit like that.

They're basically like thinking they're so edgy and they're so original and it's such a unique insight.

When it's history, it's the shittiest manifestation of this yet.

And that's saying something because there was a lot of cringe, ugly shit that came out of the original online thing I told you about.

But like EAC, E-accelerationism is just like, holy shit, it's like these fucking stupid nerds from Silicon Valley who think they're extremely smart, original, and unique because they just discovered a pneumogram or something.

So that's what's going on with that.

And every single bright mind who came out of that zeitgeist, again, Ed Berg is one of them, probably the brightest of them all, if you ask me.

I have moved on from all that nonsense.

They've moved on from this kind of naivety and stuff.

But you know, I I will say, like, um aesthetically, yes, there was something there, definitely.

And

It's understandable why Landianism like gained so much traction again.

And it was like a really interesting moment.

And I was so disappointed because I was there for the whole thing.

And I was so fucking disappointed.

Where's Zizek?

There was so much intellectual curiosity going on here, but it's like, where's Zizek?

And by Zizek, I meant Lakan.

Where is this?

This is a crucially missing perspective.

Because why?

Because Zizekians are a bunch of like fat neckbeards who like have no drip.

They have no style.

They have no like aesthetic.

They don't draw out any aesthetic conclusions from Zizek because they actually want to be like Zizek.

And I don't want to offend you, but like, here's the truth: Zizek is like a fat slob with no drip.

And he has no aesthetic, personally speaking, to emulate.

But everyone wants to be like Zizek, who's sniffing and is like having an ironic distance toward movies while crossing their arms, be like, you know, I really think that, you know, they're not even drawing.

By the way, I was always in Zizek's camp, but even I knew this.

In order to draw a conclusion from Zizek's extremely brilliant, unique, and unprecedented insight in the 21st century, Zizek was completely right about his specific reconciliation of the French tradition.

He was right about Deleuze, Badiou, and he and the Ljubljana school alone carried forward.

um defended Lacan against this kind of post Oedipal nonsense.

And it it was such a unique philosophical position that no one has been able to address, right?

But it's like at the same time,

No one was drawing out any political, aesthetic, cultural, or any conclusions from it.

All Žižekians are kind of like nihilists who are like, Well, all we can do is just kind of contemplate the impossibility of any kind of resolution.

And it's like, compare that to the accelerationists.

who have a very compelling and kind of gestalt or like

Holistic sense of reality and our place in it.

And you don't have that happening with the Zizekians.

And it's something I've noticed too.

That's why, like, I'm somebody, I consider myself a Zizekian.

I love Zizek.

I think his theories are brilliant.

I've read his books.

I've also read Nick Land's books.

I'm really happy you explained the whole internet discourse with the whatever EAACC and whatever, because I wasn't following that.

I literally just read Nick Land, you know, like actually.

But I'm surprised that there's like a lack of discourse between these two major contemporary thinkers right now.

And I just don't understand why that's not happening.

You have no idea, like, how obsessively the infrared collective, we didn't call ourselves at that time, we were so obsessively waiting for Zizek to respond to Nick Land.

Like, what is Zizek has said nothing about this?

You know, I mean, now he has, I guess.

I know he has, but apparently, it's Nick Land who doesn't want to talk to him now.

Yeah, I mean, that doesn't surprise me, but like, we wanted to see back in 20, I'm saying 2016, 2017, whenever this was taking off, we wanted to see like interaction, and it never came to be, and it was really disappointing.

But, you know, one of the reasons infrared formed is because of this, though, because we kind of realized there was this crucial limitation in Zizek.

Which prevented any the thing that had us go beyond Zizek was Žizekians.

But then, you know, to be honest, going down the accelerationist rabbit hole and discovering thinkers like Bataille and Alexander Kojev, it kind of and even Lacan himself, we really did re-read Lacan, not just through the Ljubljana school's analysis, but we realized like there's something more there in that tradition where.

Zizek, although a very crucial

I guess middleman between us and arriving at our ultimate, our own synthesis, I guess.

Being exposed to like Kojev and the origins, and then ultimately Heidegger, right?

Yes.

But Heidegger through Kojev, which is what gave rise to Bataille and Lacan and others and so on.

Um, that was basically how we um stopped being Zijekians, I guess.

It's just we kinda saw him as superfluous.

And it's it tragically, like, as events would pass, it's like then the French yellow vest happened, and like Zijek is saying stupid fucking cringe about it, about how, like, all these people are like.

Wanting to go back to the well.

I don't know.

He said some really dumb shit about it.

And we started to realize he's lost his edge.

He's lost his ability to keep up with reality.

And he's kind of just become superfluous.

Yeah, I've theorized as to why, right?

And I think that I used to think that he was playing like 5G chess with us and he's just saying the almost like the opposite of what he actually thought.

And just like, and he was actually, if you just take a, I guess, a sarcastic approach, that maybe he's right.

But I feel like I've watched old interviews with him.

I've also met Zizek, and I get the impression that what he really cares about is publishing his works, publishing his books.

And that's something that actually will last throughout centuries, you know?

It's his works, it's his books.

It's not necessarily his geopolitical articles.

Like people care about that for maybe a few weeks or a few months.

But then after a while, what really lasts is the philosophical basis of his work, right?

Yeah, I think he cares about the relationship with his publishers, right?

And I think, I believe that after he came out and he said, oh, like in 2016, oh, should I support Trump or whatever?

I think that some of his publishers threatened to pull him.

And I think that's kind of why.

I mean, but also that exposes a kind of limitation in Žižek where it's like, how has he not.

been able to it's it's kind of complicated for me to have to explain, but it's like

In a sense, it's almost like he could never surmount the gap between what he was trying to communicate and the form, right?

What he's actually trying to communicate, which I can bear witness, I'm not a follower of Zizek and I have disagreements with him.

But as a premise, even to understand my disagreement with him philosophically, easily the most criminally underrated.

Intellectual of our era.

Zijek, the meme, is the biggest enemy of Zijek, the serious intellectual.

Like, his whole reputation is like the nose-sniffing, silly guy who's all the dumb shit he says on YouTube, like, that doesn't matter.

Like, I've read his books.

There's a meat and potatoes to Zizek nobody gives a fuck about, and nobody understands.

And it's like, who's that guy?

That, you know, I started to really get pissed at the international Zizek studies people.

Like, who's that guy?

I really hate him.

Adrian, Zijek's self-appointed successor.

What's his name again?

He wrote a book.

Is it Adrian Johnson?

Is his name?

I think.

Let me look at Google right now.

Adrian Johnson.

I forgot his name.

Let's see.

Zijek.

Let's see.

He wrote.

We don't know it.

I don't know about it.

Yeah, Adrian Johnston.

Zizek's ontology.

A transcendental materialist theory of subjectivity.

And like this book and other things that are part of Adrian Johnston's.

Let me shit on this guy for a second.

If this guy ends up being like a fan of me and he's like, Cause why do you dude?

I'm so sorry.

It's not personal, right?

Anyway, but I don't think he will be.

I actually don't like this guy because he is the only one who took Zijek seriously.

He's the only other intellectual that actually tried to be like, okay, what is Zijek really about?

And he fucked it up.

He fucked it up really bad.

But Zizek realized like everyone else thinks I'm a clown.

This one guy recognized, tries to recognize me.

It's the best I can do, I guess.

And I feel like Zizek gave into Adrian Johnston.

Am I schizo crazy fuck for saying this?

Well, what did Adrian Johnston exactly say that you didn't like?

You know, um, I don't exactly remember because it's it's like so beat past me by now, but I'll try to remember.

Give me a sec.

It was something about um it it I think it I think it was something about how he would not move past the kind of um

Scientistic, if that's the word, framework in which he was just trying to kind of neutralize Zizek's insight.

I really forget, I read the book.

It was something like that.

It was like he was just basically like reducing Zizek's.

He was kind of Kantianizing Zizek, is how I remember it.

Just reducing it to some kind of like, you know.

Uh, transcendental structure of how we access reality, but having nothing to do with reality itself, yada, yada, yada.

I'm pretty sure it was that.

I'm pretty sure it was like a naive naturalism on his part that pissed me off.

Yeah, that's a misunderstanding actually of the whole framework, too.

But also, Zizek is like too scared to even like, look at me.

I'm actually a licenquist.

Zizek will never question at the same time.

See, Zizak simultaneously says, Yes, I'm here to talk about actual being.

When I say being, I actually mean the real.

Yes, reality is dialectical.

It is less than nothing.

But at the same time, he can't question anything the scientists say.

He takes their word as gospel.

He will never introduce partisanship into the sphere of science.

And it's one of the reasons why he's accepted by society because he's like.

You know, he just tries to kind of maybe justify why certain scientists say this, but he always takes it very, you know, he used to take seriously the stupid genetic determinism bullshit.

I don't know if you remember that, but his works in the 2000s seem to hint at like, okay, how do we render compatible, you know, free will with the possibility that we are completely genetically or biologically predetermined, right?

He stepped back from that.

He had some of that in his earlier works.

Yeah.

He did step back from it, but he stepped back from it when he realized that genetics was junk science, for example, and that he even said it himself, actually, the scientists are now saying that actually there's no gene for anything and it's a thousand different genes doing this and whatever.

But

I just I don't I didn't like his neuroscience turn.

Honestly, I didn't I don't like what G Jack did where he actually started to take seriously like Neurolink and he's like, Actually, we are gonna be integrated with computers neurologically and I wish he would have maintained some skepticism about this.

Yeah, Zijak, let me just say one over there.

Zijak and Nick Lyons share in common.

Something really sad where it's a boomer thing.

Both of them actually take seriously.

The ridiculous and outlandish speculations of popular science.

Like, oh, you know, they're saying that they watch Black Mirror and they're like, damn, that's really going to happen.

I have to think about this philosophically.

I'm like, wait a second, ZJ, you don't have to think about this because we don't know a fucking thing about how the brain works to the point where we're going to like upload our consciousness to a fucking computer.

You know, like he insists on the fact that I have to treat it with some philosophical seriousness because at least one day it'll be possible.

It's like, what if there's a fundamental misunderstanding at hand as far as the undialectical conception of man and physical reality by mainstream science that leads people to the erroneous conclusion that one day we're going to be merging with robots and we're going to have a mastery of the biological by the by the mechanical?

What if this is a completely fucked up paradigm to begin with?

Is there any critical thought when it comes to that?

When it comes to Nick Land or ZJ?

No.

Nick Land hears on the news, AI is becoming extremely intelligent.

Yes, everything is as planned.

Hey, the fucking A Terminator Skynet is really going to happen.

It's like, no, dude, you're getting sucked into the trap of popular science scam artists who need to sensationalize shit as clickbait to make a living, you know?

So that's kind of my issue.

Yeah.

Um why do you think that uh it's a boomer thing?

Like why do you think that boomers specifically just don't have a fundamental understanding of all these processes?

Is it just like simply 'cause they just haven't grown up with technology?

Like, where do you think it comes from?

Almost, but yeah, you're onto it.

It's basically, it's really sad, but it's basically like this.

Boomers, I know it's funny because CCRU was named what Cybernetic Culture Research Unit or some shit.

Yeah.

Like, they don't understand digital culture at all.

They really don't.

It's also mystical to them, right?

It's it is.

They kind of don't feel that's all the right thing.

That's kind of, and that's kind of how they're doing.

Let me explain this to you.

Like, people like Zizek and Nick Land literally don't know that I could literally make an article and put it on like Google's results that says, like, I don't know, like, fucking.

Everyone's nose is gonna fall off in like five years.

Like, they don't understand the versatility and malleability and plasticity of the information age we live in.

It's so the most traumatic thing to them is not technology, it's not actually how much you know, different cool things we can do with computers.

What it really is, is something traumatic at a cultural level.

They don't understand how the TV can really just lie to you like that.

Like, I can literally so it's so malleable and plastic and so extremely hypersensitive to our the smallest kind of um psychological and and and and discursive uh phenomena that like there's nothing about this that has authority.

They dignify and treat what they see on the screen with so much authority and dignity, they couldn't possibly fathom that the whole thing is a shitpost.

And I'll give you a literal example of this.

When Zizek wrote an article about Oliver Anthony, and Oliver, he said, he interpreted one of Oliver Anthony's lyrics.

Oliver Anthony was like, and all them fudge rounds and welfare queens, whatever, right?

And then Zizek goes on Google, looks up what's a fudge round because he doesn't know what a fudge round is because he's not an American.

He goes on Urban Dictionary and he reads, a fudge round is when people have anal sex and there's a spherical imprint of feces on someone's.

Private parts.

And he literally wrote this in his article.

Because he literally said that Oliver Anthony was doing a hidden racist subtext that's sexual when he mentioned fudge rounds.

And it's like, this guy is such a boomer, he couldn't possibly fathom that that's not where meaning is in digital culture.

Like, no, just because just because this thing means this on urban dictionary doesn't mean that this is the hidden context of every use of this word.

Like, I don't know.

It's just some weird boomer inability to understand how fake and gay the internet is because these people were raised on TV and on this kind of sense.

And it's, I know they're Deleuzian, so they should know better, but they really don't get it.

Like, they really don't understand.

Um

How much

How it's it's it's how non-given?

The direction of reality is as expressed on the screen.

Like, they really take it too seriously.

They don't understand how it's when they don't understand when National Geographic releases an article or when the New York Times releases an article, anyone can fucking do that.

There's nothing about that that reflects true authority.

If that makes sense, like in terms of about reality, that must have immediate philosophical significance.

You know, they still associate the big other with the traditional mediums in which the big other communicates itself to the masses.

They really don't understand the decentralized information economy we live in, basically.

Yeah.

And they also don't understand how things can actually, how information can be transferred in like these very like, I guess they don't understand, I guess, like irony and how many layers it goes into in the internet.

And this is a very common discourse that I guess people that are Gen Z especially understand, right?

And no, listen, one thing, one thing accelerationists were correct about, and this is why millennials are losing their mind.

And maybe Zoomers will lose their mind too with the Gen Gen A and Skibbity Toilet, right?

But.

Um the decentralized nature

Of digital culture has blown up all of the kind of sense of certainty and normalcy we have when it comes to cultural norms, in a sense.

Like, I know that sounds like superficial.

Like, wasn't that true for the boomers in the 60s and like how they were upsetting norms too?

But I think the difference is when I say upsetting norms, I don't mean in the sense of like, you know, new sexual practices and new forms of consumption enjoyment, but new forms of the communication of meaning and how layered it is.

And the ability for our this is what it is: the faculty of our reflexivity, our ability to interpret something and superimpose upon it an objective.

uh interpretation like as the university discourse, our ability to objectify phenomena and supr and and insert our reflexive logos

to maintain the illusion that it somehow preempts the reality itself.

Rapidly, there's this kind of acceleration of the inability to maintain that facade.

Like, let me fucking go get a degree in media studies in college and subject internet culture to some kind of serious inquiry and like objectify it and insert and project upon it a specific logos, a specific logic.

This is how it works.

This is its meaning.

This is what it is.

And then fucking skibbity toilet comes out of nowhere, and my whole shit is wrecked and thrown out the window.

And I just wasted my whole life and all my time.

Millennials, this is what happened to them with Zoomers.

Millennials created this entire second-hand reflexive apparatus with which to understand and interpret online culture and culture in general.

And they really thought they reached the end.

Like, this is the end of culture.

We've reached the pinnacle.

And then Zoomers came.

And then Millennials, like, wait a fucking second.

You guys are going too fast for me.

You know, you're going too fast for my cope to keep up with.

And now Jen A is here with Skibbity Toilet, and everyone's confused, right?

Exactly.

I wonder how far it can go because what I'm really interested in is this idea of where it can return back to sincerity.

And that's the whole trad movement that's really popular online right now.

Right.

And I know a lot of people in infrared are really interested also in the trad movement.

My interest with new sincerity and stuff.

I want to go.

My thing goes a little deeper.

To me, what ultimately must triumph is an aesthetic materialism.

A materialism by which we no longer seek to preempt culture by the logocentric intellect.

We understand that in the realm of the intuition and in the unconscious, if you will, from a psychoanalytic perspective, there's something there that cannot be preempted by the formalism of the language.

So there's an alignment, as far as I'm concerned, with David Lynch there and specifically the American, let's say, logos, right?

The refusal to be put in the box, the Anglo box.

So that's a big part of where I'm coming from when it comes to this responding to this, right?

Finally, what to make of Gen A and Skibbity Toilet?

How far can we go?

Is Gen A the limit?

I think there's signs that it might be.

Now, one of my interpretations of Skibbity Toilet.

And I've watched a few of these shorts on YouTube.

I could be wrong.

I don't know.

I'm way out of my league here.

So I'm just spitballing.

One of the things I noticed about it is.

I'm noticing some patterns with Gen A.

There's a strong emphasis when it comes to skibbity toilet on this kind of um me the meaningless and inadvertent

Mm-hmm mechanical premise of

Okay, thank you, cows, bro.

But nobody donates me because I have to actually get this out in a way that people can understand.

Don't interrupt me, please.

Um, but I appreciate you.

Um.

In skibbity toilet, it's like a lot of I'm just gonna say it this way, a lot of it is the sound, a lot of it is like int the intensity of sound and noises that are being made that are totally meaningless, right?

And there's a such a strong emphasis on like the um raw stimuli of it, right?

Is how I see it.

And I'm thinking to myself, it's like what if th the uh Gen A is really going to be the primal generation

In a sense, like it's trying to return to this kind of inadvertent premises of this fully plastic and malleable phenomenal world.

Like Zoomers master everything that can happen on the screen.

But what if Gen A wants to go back to the hardware, not the software?

What if they want to go back below the surface of the image into maybe like something that you could call like the inadvertent the noises my computer makes as this mechanical, obscene, meaningless sound, the flushing of the toilet.

I mean, nobody thinks about toilets.

Um, but Gen A focuses a lot on them.

Why?

Because it's this kind of inadvertent, obscene, meaningless reality.

And, you know, I don't know.

I do have an interpretation of Skibbity Toilet, and I think I'm the only one who has one.

But the only reason I have this take is because it's like everyone's reporting how feral Gen A is, how much they identify with animals, right?

How they're hissing and all this kind of stuff.

And I'm like, maybe this generation is going to be a primal generation.

They want to kind of return to the raw, the real, the generation of the real, right?

They want to return to like, but it's a scary, it's a fucking scary reel, right?

In the sense of like.

Pure mechanical.

What's there's a word for this.

Like mechanical uh.

Overstimulation.

I don't know what to call it.

Something very terrifying, though, I think, right?

J the the feralness is like.

You know, returning to our base animality, but not in a romantic sense, but in like the fucking terrifying sense of like shitting and pissing everywhere, not having not even being able to that extreme direction.

But even beyond anything Bataille could could could have, yeah, there's that there too, obviously.

It's a fucking toilet, skibbity toilet that's right up Bataille's alley.

Exactly.

But, you know, it's even beyond what Bataille could have foreseen because it's like it's a stimulation that's within the interstices of this.

Extremely coherent and meaningful and ever-present.

I mean, Batai is a philosophy of silence, ultimately, right?

But Gen A is presupposing the foundation laid by Gen Z in the sense, like, it's not that Fortnite is gonna go away and that, you know, all this.

um, extra shit, let's say, on our computer screens is going to go away that that Gen Z loves.

It's that Gen A is reading between the lines and they're kind of trying to draw out some kind of meaning

From the inadvertent consequences of this, right?

Gen Z never touched upon the inadvertence of.

Media and and as a matter of fact, it can't.

That's its limit, right?

Gen A Gen Z is babied.

People say Gen A is the iPad generation.

I beg to differ.

Gen Z is the iPad generation.

Gen Z looks at the iPad and everything meaningful about reality, everything true, everything important.

It's on that iPad.

It's in the screen.

Gen A is raised on the iPad, but for that reason, they're focusing on

What's beyond the screen?

They're focusing on the actual mechanical

They're focusing on the weird sound the iPad makes.

They're focusing on how it heats up sometimes.

They're focusing on how, you know, sometimes, you know, maybe a spark will fly and the iPad will explode for some fucking reason when you put it in a microwave.

I don't know.

I hope you get what I'm saying.

I get exactly what you're saying.

It's a good point.

Yeah.

Yeah, like be because because they're an iPad generation, that's exactly why they're not going to be able to be, like, responsive that well to, like, surface the surface of what's on the iPad, right?

Exactly.

So they're not engaging with the content as much, right?

They're maybe like you say, maybe they're engaging with the form of it more.

Yeah, and it's a weird thing because we associate form with the opposite.

The content is the actual machine and the form is just the various things that appear on the screen.

But this kind of gives a new meaning to form itself in a way, right?

It's an interesting reversal that's happening, right?

And then you can think, are things going to go backwards after that?

And is it going to theoretically return back to this level of sincerity, this level of real that people are yearning towards, right?

And it can see that all over.

I think, you know.

Dugin, although he's a boomer, he's talking about a post-human future that liberalism is oriented toward.

And I think Gen A is the threshold of the post-human, I think.

I don't know how farther you can go from that.

Um

And

I think, you know, w it's gonna get ugly before it gets

before it gets, um, better, but

I think we're in for a very scary I mean, I'm not scared of it because if it happens, it will be necessary to happen, but

I think that, um

These the uh what's what's what's the what did pinhead, the Sinobyte say?

We have such sights to see, basically.

Like, we're in for some deep shit, basically.

But there's no use in fearing it because that does nothing, right?

But.

It will happen regardless.

I genuinely think like if there's an American Civil War, it's gonna get really fucking hideous and ugly and push the limits of we'll see things we've never seen before.

The limits of human psychology will be pushed to such a point where it's like we will have to rediscover what it means to exist meaningfully.

And I know that sounds cliche, but to be forced to rediscover what it means to live meaningfully means.

We're going to retrace all the odysseys and myths of ancient peoples who became civilized from scratch.

And we're going to condense that in like a few years, basically, and really learn how a meaningful existence can be born, you know?

And I don't trust the religious revivals that are going on right now, by the way.

I consider a lot of them obscenities.

The trad cats and all, you know, this.

A lot of these religious converts.

I don't think they're not escaping the fucking hell we're in store for.

They're just kind of giving it a new face and they don't really.

They're adopting the aesthetics, actually.

Like, that's all I have.

Absolutely.

And it's like to really, really rediscover the truth of the prophets, let's say, and the great religions.

We're going to be going through some really, really bad shit.

And these people are trying to take an easy way out and just by adopting the aesthetics while in fact reproducing the same civilizational madness and the oblivion of humanity, basically, that accompanies it.

It's like, yes, yes, we all know the LGBT movement.

Thank you so much, Yang Yu, by the way.

We all know the LGBT movement represents.

Something very wrong and awry with human existence, obviously, but so does Orthodox canonists, and so do the Ortholarpers, and so do the Tradcaths.

There's and even literally they have the psycho sexual pathology under the surface a lot of the times too, but that's beyond that's neither here nor there.

It's

Um, I think, you know, I don't know if you are familiar with this, infrareds.

uh aesthetic, philosophical and

Existential orientation is called new objectivity, right?

And it's about the rediscovery of the object.

What is an object?

And that's part of a sincerity because it's about an object that reconciles and therefore renders superfluous the subject.

So is a similarity with accelerationism or object-oriented ontology.

Yeah, I've been that's where I've been going with my stuff as well, too.

There's an adjacency there because it's literally object-oriented, but it's an object worthy of the meaningfulness and depth of the subject.

It's not an object cut off from the human, it's an object worthy of a human.

So it's a direct parallel to the humanism of Marx, the materialist humanism of Marx and the early Marx, right?

Yeah, and it's also really interesting because I've been going through Heidegger again.

I believe that object-oriented ontology really came from Heidegger as well.

All of it comes from Heidegger.

I was reading his essay on technology, and Heidegger was very much so separating the object from the human, right?

And saying that actually it's the object that hears the humans react.

But I don't think that there's that separation that actually.

I don't think it's what separated.

Obviously, people are so stupid.

They always say, Haas, you're a Nazi because you're a Heideggerian.

First of all, we all know Heidegger was wrong.

That's why all that's where all this shit came from, is why Heidegger was wrong, right?

But it's like people don't understand something.

The last philosopher was Hegel.

Okay?

After Hegel, you had who?

Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, who were just babies throwing a tantrum.

I don't know about how they shit their pants and they can't change their pants.

I don't know.

And then you had these stupid neo-Kantian glasses wearers who are just these fully institutionally captured Philistines, is what Lenin would actually call them because they were because they didn't take responsibility holistically for the actual history of philosophy.

They pretended they cut themselves off from that in a one-sided way.

And instead of looking at the bigger picture, like, oh, yeah, we're just going to reproduce Kant again and pretend it's like the newest thing ever.

So you had these neo-Kantians and the whole generations, successive generations of neo-Kantians, by the way.

It's not even just one.

It's actually an Engelbach way of thinking.

The whole Anglo-American and the Western tradition is actually taken from that Kantian tradition.

And I've studied philosophy in university, and I was really lucky to learn continental philosophy in the beginning.

But when I went to my second degree, it was just what place I went for it.

It was just all, let's say, Engelbach thinking.

That just consumes the Western way of thinking and is horrible.

But also, eventually, the rational kernel of these developments from Schopenhauer to neo-Kantianism discards its philosophical pretensions finally and discovers its rational kernel.

How?

In two forms.

One form is through Freud.

Yeah.

Right.

And we will have to return to Freud in a second.

But then it's in.

Hir Husserl and the phenomenological uh school where they're basically you know, and then you also have Henry Bergson and this kind of this is phenomenological orientation about kind of, you know, what's that painting of the man walking down the stairs?

Like motion and vision and all this color and all this kind of stuff.

This is in this is contemporaneous with the developments in uh modern or abstract art too, by the way, but um

Then then you get Heidegger.

Who from who liberates the rational kernel of Hersel from its stupid neo-Kantian philosophical commitments and finally liberates it completely from the pretense that this is still philosophy?

Because again, Hegel ended philosophy.

There's no philosophy after Hegel.

Heidegger finally rediscovers ontology for the West.

That's the beginning of literally fucking everything.

If we're talking about Hegel in any modern context that's remotely faithful to the original goals of philosophy, we are post-Heidegarians.

Now, in parallel, you obviously had Bernd Rand, Russell, and the positivist Philistines.

You know, may God curse them into hell.

And then this culminates into the analytical school.

And yes, yes, there's stuff going on there, maybe with mathematics and computer science that.

is part of history and is historical development, but it's not philosophy.

You know?

Formalistic, uh, syllogistic propositional logic is not philosophy.

That if any it's it's maybe it can be used within philosophy, but that's not

The idea of philosophy is not a little thing you can hold in your hand and put a bow on and wrap it up in a little box and be at a distance from.

The idea of philosophy is an ontological commitment that is there implicitly.

It's the whole of reality as the idea.

It's not just, you know, oh, we're just going to kind of experiment with this kind of variable here.

And no, that's analytic, so-called philosophy.

It comes from this naive scientism, actually.

And it's part of the Engel tradition, right?

It's where they're trying to redefine philosophy into these neat categories.

They wanted to be able to compete with the scientific tradition in this very narrow sense that they consider it.

And then I forgot something.

I forgot Marxism.

Marxism is here alongside Freud and stuff.

And what is Marxism?

It's the October Revolution, and it's the whole science and wisdom and history of the revolutionary tradition and statecraft.

And statecraft, which is what Marxism was in content.

Marxism and content was not a philosophy, it wasn't an ideology, it was a specific way of navigating the modern world, a specific type of statehood, a specific type of governance, a specific way of organizing a party and engaging in revolutionary practice.

Okay, so the end rest is history.

So, as a Marxist, why am I bothering with this Heidegger guy?

Philosophy ends with Hegel, then we get Marx, then we get Lenin.

There we go.

And so, what do we need this other stuff going on?

And I say, well,

Um

Marxism took flight in the East only.

It didn't take flight in the West.

Why is that?

Who has the explanation for why that is?

Some will just say, Oh, it's okay.

Uh, it's because of uh third worldism and it's because of uh

Why I don't know, because the because the imperialist core didn't it wasn't in their material interests.

And it's like, okay, well.

That's not a satisfying answer.

It's not a satisfying response.

Because, first of all,

You have to explain that in terms of Marxism.

And second of all, the problem with third worldism is that as soon as a socialist state consolidates itself and becomes successful,

Does d it's just it's is the only subject of Marxism and Communism, the most marginalized, most poor.

most downtrodden possible people?

No, okay, so

I take issue with that view, you know, that you can just simply be Marxist-Leninist.

And I think stuff is still.

And also, why did the Soviet Union fucking collapse?

Why did, you know, it's all this shit we have problems dealing with and coming to terms with.

Anyway, in the West, Marxism isn't correctly understood at all.

And why is that?

I mean, our intellectuals didn't understand it in the West.

They understood it in the East, not in the West.

Why is that?

You know?

And anyone who thinks we can have a triumph of communism globally without

An internal revolution in the imperial I mean, we have to, right?

There's no way of sidestepping it.

Um

So we should ask the question.

Has Marxism been wrongly interpreted?

Maybe the Neocantians, for example,

Who

Grew out of the social democratic movement and the Bernsteinites and neo-Kantians and others who openly became revisionists.

What if the non so-called non-revisionists were also neo-Kantians and were also bastardizing Marxism in the same frame as their social democratic contemporaries, such as Lukox?

What if Lukox was a fucking Kantian, neo-Kantian rat who disguised himself under the disguise of Marxism?

and monopolized

The interpretation of Marxism in the West ever since, to the detriment of the practical application of Marxism.

And what if

Something about the West.

Itself, um, which is irreducible to anything directly economic, but rather reflects something maybe broader on a historical level.

What if there's a reason we could never translate Marxism?

Just like how we can't understand other societies within the Western Eurocentric framework.

What if Heidegger might have something to say of value and significance about that indirectly?

Right?

So, that's if you just take it on the categories of like the identity categories, you're going to miss the whole conversation, right?

Yeah, people are like, Well, well, Heidegger was a Nazi, and I'm like, Well, you fucking missed the point because the whole point is that it's inadvertent.

There's a cunning of history at play, which is propelling the development of the Western intellect.

In such a manner that clarifies the place of the West in world history, and it's an inadvertent development.

Uh you may think Marxism Hegel is th you know, everything ended with Hegel and now we could just go straight into praxis.

You may think that, but something is still going on in the realm of thought, which many would conveniently love to reduce to irrationalism, which is what Lukox did.

And maybe that could apply to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, maybe, but Freud and Heidegger teach us that there's something wrong with our with the difference between our stated commitments at maybe at a conscious level and the deeper significance of that, right?

In the sense of Heidegger, it's

When we talk about reality and we talk about being, are we really talking about being or a specific horizon of the disclosure of being assumed as a given and confused with being itself?

And in the case of Freud, obviously it's clear.

Like, we say this is what we are and this is what we intend, but we mean, in fact, something completely different on an unconscious level, right?

So everyone's dealing with this problem within the West.

uh which which leftists or pan leftists somehow think they can avoid by saying that they support transgender rights and that they're good they're morally good people and that they believe in Marxism 'cause it's just 'cause it's just don't be an asshole, right?

'Cause

Just be a good person, right?

And I'm not satisfied with that.

And that's why apparently I'm a neo-Nazi.

So there you go.

Right.

Do you think that the level of discourse in the masses can honestly rise above identity politics and all this kind of stuff that's going on and actually become something that's at a deeper level en masse?

And I guess I have an answer.

I think that other countries, like I, whenever I go to Europe, there's many people there on average that are that know more about what they're talking about.

They're on average more higher educated.

Am I echoing, by the way?

Or is it just I don't know.

You know, to me, everything is indirect.

Everything is inadvertent.

There's never a way to raise the masses to the level of your consciousness because the very division is an indictment on your consciousness as much as it's an indictment on the masses.

And the way you overcome that gap is not by overcoming it, but actually recognizing it.

And once you recognize it, it can take a new form.

So, for example, in the Soviet Union, there was a gap between the education level of the masses, who didn't even know how to read, and that of the party elites, and so on.

And how did they overcome that gap?

Well, they didn't.

They recognized the gap.

And by recognizing that gap, they were able to kind of.

They were able to kind of not just educate the masses, but educate themselves by productively putting that gap to work, by saying, Hey, you know, you proletarian, advanced intellectuals, you don't know it all.

Your prolet cult thing is bullshit.

Actually, we need to return to basic literature and the classics, is what Lenin told them.

And that humbled them, but it also created this kind of new Soviet man, this new cultivated, a cultured individual who was educated, who was on the same level as the intellectual.

And this all happened in a way that was inadvertent.

It was just because they, in common, returned to their common symptom.

You know, they returned to their common.

The intellectuals realized that the lack of access the masses had to these classics also corresponded to our own inability to sufficiently understand those very same classics we thought we were leagues ahead of in terms of our own education.

Now that this can be accessible and translated to the broad strata of people, it's given a new meaning we couldn't see before, couldn't recognize before.

So this is my view of how that kind of education works.

Like

It's always indirect.

It's never you I'm gonna try to educate you.

It's more like absolutely yeah, it's more like you know people become interested in learning about these things because they're set they're put on a new foundation, you know.

Yeah.

Do you think that the classics are uh I guess maybe not they're not enough, right?

But do you think that they're they're where the people should actually start and that they can actually teach something that is universal?

And I guess that's the whole idea of classics, right?

But do you believe in that kind of sentiment?

I definitely encourage it, but I would say more so along the lines of like it depends.

I I encourage that the classics for everyone, obvi everyone should be a cultured, but n th th y y this is a mass educational policy of a state.

I don't have that authority.

So it's kind of different.

It's one thing to institutionalize it, and it's one thing to just be like, hey, this is what I recommend you should read, you know?

Yeah.

I do see that things can actually improve en masse, you know, but like I'm not actually American, I'm Canadian, right?

And I'm sure a lot of people understand that and know that about me, but um I um I've been spending some time in America recently and I've noticed that the consciousness of America is quite different from even from Canada.

And I I initially thought that Canada was the same as America culturally, but on average I think people have a higher degree of understanding about things, about life and everything, and they understand philosophy.

And when I went to the States, the amount of degeneracy that I actually noticed was really disgusting to me.

And I thought as a Canadian, I was like, oh, it's being overblown.

It's just minor, like there's not there's a minority of people that are degenerate and must be fine or whatever.

But it's really like even people in the cities, honestly.

It's horrible.

And just the state of where American consciousness has fallen.

I understand exactly what's going on now.

Like I've seen it for myself.

Yeah, I mean, but but it's it's it's it's a double-edged sword because American culture is kind of advanced in the non-intellectual sense of like we have a range of the ability to communicate things others just don't get.

Which is like i you know, I don't know, like this is such a stupid, cringy example, but like just like shit on TikTok, you know, like inside jokes, things like that, memes.

Um, I think these are the things that ultimately will tell you what people know.

But, you know, yeah, we have a problem not being interested.

But here's the thing: why should we Americans I'm saying we, because

I'm going to identify with our common symptom here and just have a subjective destitution, right?

Why should we care?

About

All this shit from the past when, like, what does that do for us?

How does that work?

Like, why should we give a shit?

You know?

Show us the practical show us the results.

And I believe that actually.

I think first we should we should care, we should cultivate it because we are we Americans who deign to um

Abstract ourselves from the sheeple, and I don't know, I'm not trying to be cringe.

But we who um want to discover and learn more, which is always a minority, but they'll always exist.

It's not a there's no d deficiency of those people.

Um

Should

should should should should make something of all this.

You know, a real practical result.

Once people see the result, they'll get curious about how it came to be.

And that'll set them on the path of education.

Right.

So it's I guess it's about making people ha have that spark of curiosity or opening their eyes to that there is something else besides what they already think.

I've thought about this a lot of why I'm the person I am, why I became interested in philosophy, why I became interested in politics.

And I feel like I was born this way as somebody that always questioned things and wanted to know the answer, the deeper answer behind things.

And I don't know if that's it's a it's a callback answer to say that someone's born a certain way.

I'll wrap it up here because I gotta go.

Yeah, go for it, go for it.

You know, Marx and the young Hegelians didn't take them long to realize philosophy is the estranged

Or sorry, it's the religious consciousness expounded into thought.

So it's really about um

a medium through which the meaningfulness of reality can ultimately be engaged with, and philosophy is

Uh uh the appeal of it is that

You have a sense that you ca that there is this meaning, but you can have a hold of it.

You can master it.

You can you can truly every philosopher wants to realize the philosopher's stone, right?

They want to achieve the goal of alchemy and

Have this mastery of the whole, the universal whole in the palm of their hand.

Through the power of the mind, right?

And um

Yeah, I think every single human being

Has this need for reality to be meaningful?

It's just that some.

Some are

uh doing it in a way where you know

They're trying to chase after a dream or a goal.

um that they feel like will vindicate their entire life's purpose, you know?

And it's actually a factor in class struggle.

Like what happens when people get fucking disappointed, fall flat on their face.

You know, and this is why we live in such an American American era in some sense.

America has not exhausted its world historical significance.

This is the land of dreams, right?

Of making yourself something on the basis of a dream.

And

When you're disappointed by your dreams, it's like, how do you how does reality meaningful anymore?

People turn to religion maybe.

Um

And then sometimes religion itself is just another dream for some, you know, which which disappoints them again.

And then when that happens, um

I guess people turn to the philosophy.

Yeah.

But also philosophy has a dream too, you know, and Mark showed us, that dream will also fail.

Hegel showed us, I mean, that dream also uh ends in disappointment.

Right.

And what's next after?

Well, I mean that's that's Marxism.

Yeah.

I was a communist who only dreamed he was a leftist, and now the dream is over.

I mean, you know, one last thing is it's like people think, thank you so much, MIG, people think communism is such a utopia Marxism is about dreaming, you know, for a better future and there's some of that there, but I think really it's about melancholy.

It's about coming to terms with your dreams.

disappointing you in a way like

The real

Real Marxism was not

The dream of a better society

The real Marxism was the failure for the revolution to spread.

The real Marxism was when Lenin, first of all, concretely appraised

That the bourgeoisie is not going to allow Russia to catch up to the West.

We do need to work with the peasantry.

What we have here and now.

This is our reality.

It's disappointing, but guess what?

That's life, right?

Then the revolution failed to spread.

It's socialism in one country, another melancholic.

sobering experience.

Then, of course,

You had Deng Xiaoping and the failure of the Cultural Revolution.

I think that's really what Marxism is about.

It's not about a dream.

It's about it's not about abandoning dreams either.

It's just about arriving at a golden center.

which allows you to wake up.

From your dream, right?

Understand the real world that corresponds to your dream such that you can take responsibility for what you dream of for the first time, you know?

Anyway, I think we should conclude it there.

It was a pleasure talking to you.

I really appreciate you having me on.

Thank you.

This is a great conversation.

Thanks.

Good having you on too.

Bye.

Alright guys, we went over way more than I planned on.

But I gave you guys a really good stream, kind of, if you're schizophrenic.

Anyway, see you guys Thursday.

Bye-bye.