🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

I didn't want no one told you what does that mean?

She said, ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running in a won't dodge ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride

Nobody's gonna sound me down. Oh no

I got to keep on moving

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride. I'm running in a montage ground.

Oh no, I've got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna bring my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I've got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna bring my side.

I'm running in a montage round.

I know.

I get to keep on moving.

You're nothing gonna be in my sky.

You're nothing gonna be in my sky.

You keep on moving.

Anything gonna be my side.

You're nothing that I'll be my side to keep on moving.

You're on the road and now you break it last.

The road behind was rocket, but now you're feeling cocky.

You look at me and you see your pants.

Is that the reason why you're running so fast? She said,

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running in a bondage ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Although I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running in a bondage ground.

Oh, no, I got to keep on moving. Ain't nothing gonna break my stride. I'm running in a wall touch ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my sky.

No, please gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna bring my sky.

I'm running in a world t my sky. I'm playing in the montage grounds of

oh I can't keep on moving. Ain't nothing gotta bring my sky.

Ain't nothing gotta bring my slide to keep my noise.

Hey, things you gotta bring my sky. Ain't things you gotta bring my mind. Anything gonna be my sky.

Anything gotta bring my sky.

Anything gotta bring my sky to keep my moon.

Last night I had a stranger's dream.

I sailed away stranger's dream.

I sailed away to China in a little rope boat to find you.

And you said you had to get your laundry cleaned.

Didn't want no one to hold you. What does that mean?

She said,

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my sky.

I'm running and I won't dodge ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running and I won't touch that.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving. Ain't nothing gonna bring my side.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I've got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna bring my side.

I'm running in a montage ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

You're nothing gonna be in my side.

You're gonna be my side.

To keep my moving.

to keep my moving. It's gonna be my side.

You're gonna be my slide to keep on moving.

You're on the road and now you're great at last.

The road behind was rake, but now you're feeling cocky.

You looked at me and you see your pants.

Is that the reason why you're running so fast?

She said, ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running in a montage ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

Nobody's gonna stop me now.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna break my stride.

I'm running in a wall time down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving. Ain't nothing gonna bring my side.

No one's gonna slow me down.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna bring my spot.

I'm running in a one touch ground.

Oh no, I got to keep on moving.

Ain't thin' gonna break my style.

Ain't this you gotta break my time to keep on moving.

Ain't nothing gonna be my . You're missing, you're gonna be my smile.

To keep my mother.

It's

It's S-Tah-

S-2 Best to give me your loyalty, because I'm taking the world you'll see.

They'll be calling me, calling me, they'll be calling me, loyalty.

That's to give me your royalty, because I'm taking the word you see

You'll be calling me, calling me,

They'll be calling me, they're concern, no cover the cages

but I was sitting taken now.

Now, no.

In the people that I guess I never learn.

Every time I break their just more beautiful.

I never, never, never, never. Yeah

To the better oneue. I'm never gonna be loyal to the sea.

I'm taking the world to see.

That's funny, currency, that's funny, currency, calling me, calling me, royalty.

Best to give me a loyalty.

Not as I'm taking the world you see.

They'll be calling me, calling me, calling me, royalty.

They'll be calling me, they'll be calling me royalty

Yeah, be telling me royalty Ah I

that is gonna be funny I'm gonna Oh Oh, oh, oh, you can be your double-arm I say, yeah, but rolling like a bitch shot.

Shipped up like an ass tongue-fist-like stop.

That's fresh paint jobs, fresh inside.

Put the outside rain to the trunk while.

For the real things, pull a ride-good.

We're a then-back the right hand on time.

You're a cream on the inside, no time.

Yeah, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice cream.

Woo.

Clean on the outside, cream on the inside, ice cream.

Fake job.

Got screens on a dash, what can say it by the bill.

Got a house by the playside.

Yeah, I'm living like that.

Like that.

And I ride like that.

Boy, I'm ride like that.

And it's turning real good like a baseball bat.

Just like Mark J said, we get it.

Old thinks like that man. Just like Archie said we get it. That old bitch took what the taste

like that red bargees paint down red cheddar. Art truck me. Black.

My car. She be coming. I'm so good. You can see me come.

C. Time game. That we get money.the face, ice cream like tea,

cream on the inside, clean on the outside,

cream on the inside, clean on the outside.

There's an ice cream, ice cream, ice cream, ice cream, ice cream,

ice cream on the side, clean,

on the tie, cream on the this side, clean on the time.

There's an ice cream, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, flavor.

As an ice cream, ice, ice, ice, ice, flavor.

Ice, ice, ice, cream, ice, ice ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice, ice.

I'm high, superbowl dick out.

I smell, got a lot of nicks, piss out.

You're gonna, punk-shy, like, yuck-dough.

Gotta, gotta buy a lot like t, tipa, try to pop.

What I'm gonna I I I I'm gonna be try

to go

to

the

to

the trying to be able to try and try to the treat. Yeah I'm not gonna be a try. I I Oh, I'm sorry. It's cool. It's a little. I I'm a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a trying to be Welcome! Ha ha!

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 soup the game is fucking garbage

Sure, I was the 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, all right? 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 is a distraction. So who gives a shit about football, right?

Also I, I, uh, on a much And football is 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 we're gonna probably be covering some of that, but again, I didn't know about that today and we're going to probably be covering

some of that but again I don't want to I don't want to focus too much on it

because there's nothing we can do to affect it and know, I don't want us to all be depressed.

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, you know, it's kind of tough. Code Along. Wow. We're not having the

Code Along trial tonight. That's probably going to be next Thursday. But 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 struggling with sleep.

And I was resetting my sleep schedule schedule so I was with my family all

day yesterday basically and I didn't know what was going on but apparently like

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 fascist 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 North Korea account.

And by the way, it has nothing to do with North Korea, but the transgender North Korea fans

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 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 let me find it let me find it right here this is it so I

think it's interesting actually.

We're going to talk about this a little bit.

Because everyone wants me to...

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 further giving my

thoughts on this matter because apparently there's so much confusion. So 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 LGBTIQA plus are human rights if you are EFF and you isolate and discriminate LGBTIQA 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 womb of LGBQIA plus. This is the 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 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 cell, arrogant Western theory cells 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, um, 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 within

side. That was just the pipeline, right? So, yeah, we've always known EFF stance on these

matters of culture. EFF, by the way, I believe 49% of the organization is people 24 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

infracelles 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 thethe 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 hair barista you, whose avatar is this South African guy,

I guess, in their imagination. Or you are a fascist, and that's the only, that was 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, all the choices are LGBT. Code along, what a strange thing to say, but thanks for the $10.

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

In short, we don't care, because the EFF might have this position and might defend LGB and

I'll get to what that actually concrete means, concretely means.

Slicker, what's up?

What's CIP? I don't know what that is.

What's going on, man? Um...

I don't, 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 DME 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. 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 AFF is lending

out of hand basically and is telling the extremely vulnerable and small minority

in South Africa, the LGBT minority, that, hey, we know we were 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.

Malema 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 infracells.

I mean, oh, you could have never have 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 oneathom that because I'm not a Trotskyist because I'm not applying

one universal position that everyone indiscriminately has to assume.

Right Winger's 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 a strict sense that, and I myself did not used to have a hostile view of

the LGBT movement because just like Malema is talking about here, I just used to think of

it as this extremely fringe small minority of people who, you know,

um, 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-LGB 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 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 became much 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's

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, 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 Summitt 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 Africa they're pretty much at

the stage of this is an extremely fringe minority who is who 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 going by the way, I don't defend

that.

I think, 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, it faces 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, what Engels would call, right, the natural monogamy,

the true monogamy that communism aspires to, the heterosexual monogamy Marx and Engels talked about,

this is completely rendered impossible

at the level of social reproduction, right?

So 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

homogenous. It's an ideologically politically homogenous 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 on 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 Malema is literally addressing Haas and I don't want to

dignify this mental illness too much but like for

example this person is like Malema was right to call you a sell-out responding

to something I said in my telegram and I'm like, no Julius Malema 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 Malema 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 and American, they don't care.

Hezbollah flags are waived 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 of the...

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 Malema is taking aside in our culture war in such a way where he's like yes we're gonna

liquefy we're gonna queerify society whatever the theorists I don't know

what they say we're gonna 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 a extremely fringe vulnerable minority.

And when he says the rights of lesbian and gays, he's not talking about,

you know, the right for these hyper-sexualized pride parades to happen

and that they're supporting this kind of stuff.

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

be subjected to the pharmaceutical industry. He's talking about, you know, them not getting bashed and beaten and killed

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. Um, is there a single pride flag at this rally even, you know, for example, or yeah, Malema 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, 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 effectively a mass movement, rallied around the land question, around appropriating

the actual means of production, and a sovereign manner, is based on challenging the forces of

Monopoly capital, creating a mass movement successfully around

that. Do you think that 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 were 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, 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, and, cause, there's some gay people who are fans of you. It's like,

I don't care. You know if 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 position,

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 like attempting to 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, you know, the path of

socialist construction, and then if our theory is correct, the phenomenon 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 phenomena 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 are very clear.

Like, 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 counterhegemonic 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'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 think there's a lot of lessons to be learned and to draw from

the EFF. Which is a very... By the way, I mean, 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 Malema 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 fashion. our death and say we should die and be killed.

And call us neo-Nazis and fascists, even though objectively speaking their 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 fascist, 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 fascist.

You're a fascist collaborator.

What would the common turn 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 fascist our history.

We can't concede to them the histories of your nations. 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... I mean, you're not even... you're not even doing that, though. You're just feeling good about yourself.

You're not a... the pan leftist 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 is 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 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 they can all go to hell. It was more like we observed through experience

how you are mentally ill-lumpin, as a vaguely as a phenomena, it's a phenomenon of psychotic,

mentally ill-lumpin, 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, lump in trash that are doing what 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, lump in 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 in 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 leftist 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, Haas!

You must be in shambles right now. Oh, Haas! These fascists, 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 you

know the pan leftist that's not a real conflict because your demig 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 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.

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

We are, the people who would otherwise be won over to the right wing, those are people who will

lend an ear to infrared and not become fascist. You know, we're the only ones who are objectively

anti-fascist. 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, it'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 women 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 a family affair.

That's a family affair.

That's not 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. Suez, 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 going to go to war? No, the

whole point is that, thank you Nittez, the whole point is that there's a

contradiction within the 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.

NITAS, wow, thank you.

Appreciate you.

Um, yeah, right brain versus left brain.

It's just a bunch of nonsense.

Stigmaris, 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.

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 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 you, if it starts to define itself on the basis of being the pro-globalist,

pro-liberal side, you know, we will, we will say you were right and while maintaining their stance

as a mass movement will 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 boughted. What do you guys think?

Actually, I don't think it's bought it. What I think is, if you look at the quote tweets and it's getting I think

it get ratioed by like Sargon of a cod 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 going to 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 you know the

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 lives about October 7th, but actually like, yeah, that's good

Let's kill kill kill kill massacre shock everyone

Just like I shock people

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

Edginess.

Edginess.

Um.

So let's actually get 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 EFF is an outlier, is that because South Africans more westernized?

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

All right right ready?

49% of 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 really it.

You know?

Originally, this is what people don't know.

Originally, Julius Malema 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 wing.

But when the EFF...

When the EFF formed, um, in the early 2010s, a big part of how they formed was from young students from these universities,

where decolonial theory was tied to this kind of critique of Western heteronormitivity and whatnot and one not

And eventually they convinced the leadership Floyd Chavambu and Malema they convinced them

That you know they should change their position and that, you know, you shouldn't be against these LGBT...

And this is their sovereign decision. I'm not saying this is because their shills or something.

This is the... 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 Marikana massacre. It was created

to fight for the rights of the South African working class and the South African

people, they're real rights, which is the land question, which is the economic question.

And that's why there's plenty of pro-LGBb-T parties in South Africa.

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

There's the, um, there's the Boer separatists in,

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 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.

They, the way they see it, 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 heteronormitivity 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 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 and 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?

Smodley, wow, with the 49 subs! Holy shit!

Wow! That's all I have to say, wow! Big wow!

Smudley, thank you so much brother.

Um, wow.

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

Right when it's all, in for ha, is all the trad, manga communists are owned?

No we're not. Because, because this is something

going on in South Africa with a completely different context. 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 AldAldin, the Infrared Collective, not

Has-Aldeen, I didn't go by that name. Inferred 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 a genuine opinion that I have is like, you're not doing any good by beating or, you knowing or 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 going to stop being gay?

You think if you attack a lesbian, she's going to stop being a lesbian?

You think if you attack a transgender, they're going to get their balls back after they cut it off?

No! It's uh, only's only only evil sadistic scumbags want to do that.

We're not interested in that.

All I'm saying is that the phenomena, as a general phenomena, is a symptom 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, you're, that's, that's not a solution.

You have to think of a solution generation generationally.

Like 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, 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 other times I just don't really think about, I mean, sometimes we're forced to think

about them because 75% of the C.P. USA, you know, and and now they say it's not enough. We have to, we have to destroy

norms and we have to, you know, introduce, I mean, look, did Malema introduce his pronouns in his speech?

That's a, it's almost this simple, all right?

Malema gave that speech. Did he go,

I am Julius Malema, 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 uh it's really not 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? Because being trad is not about...

Being trad is not about like some superficial thing about hunting these people.

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

What do I mean by reproducing that? I mean, like, our position is

a heterosexual position in like some psychoanalytic sense. Like, 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.

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 like is the origin

of life, how we reproduce, physically, that's not an idea, that's not aonic 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 real thing it's not it's in my heart it's not like this

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

It's just like an affair. 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 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.

Do I, 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 today.

Yeah, I, uh, again, um, what was I going to say?

We are Putin. Putin is us.

I'm just sick of the mental illness people have when 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 know that if you just like listen to any, if you, if anyone who like listens to me say this,

if you're coming out of this in good faith, like, you understand what I'm saying, you know, like,

um, we're very reasonable. Like, we're 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, let me tell you why it's frustrating. Like, there's, there's a,

there's a big difference people don't understand

Something can be 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, I said, this is something I said in the telegram, I'm 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 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 the 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, the real goals

of the agenda.

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

Time will tell.

Experience will be the best measure. And 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 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 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 EFF leaderships has to balance with the rank and file beliefs with countering the extremism towards homosexuals and self-examination.

Well, what do you mean? What do you mean 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, you know, things mean different things in different contexts.

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

Yeah, I mean, a mass militant movement, patriotic,

fights for South Africa's sovereignty, fights against globalism objectively sovereignty fights against globalism objectively fights

against

the international capital is ruling class objectively

fights for the south african working class

yeah i'm sorry i'm gonna support that i'm not 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 EFFs, um, 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 Literally, fuck that! Dude, fuck this!

I knew they would make that bitch Taylor Swift win.

Oh my god, I fucking hate this man.

Because Taylor Swift always has to win.

Because 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?

Fock 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 like who are like Taylor Swift

like I don't really hate I don't really hate all the feminists you know 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 tries to act so awkward and innocent and this is beyond my pay grade honestly.

I don't like her because I'm an anti-white racist.

Kill the boy

Anyway

You know I'm just gonna tell the truth. This is such a like scummy thing for me to say. We're gonna take a second to be a little

Light-hearted. I just think Taylor Swift is so mid. Like why is she making all the songs about how important her heartbreaks are? I was like, bitch, who gives a fuck about like your 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, because the way I'm thinking the only context in which anyone should care is if they're taking no, it's 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

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 to it. I just hate seeing her face a lot.

Um...

So the Rafa massacre, I don't want to cover it. It's so bad. I don't want to show you all these gruesome things.

Zinists are doing the Zinus do. That's all you have to know.

But it's basically a massacre going on. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not going to cover the news.

Um, but it's just Sue is, thank you guys, it's definitely...

It's just more shit to make you feel sick in your stomach, honestly, you know?

But, uh... Thank you so much Suez, I appreciate you.

So Taylor Swift, Wallin, I guess that's what's going on.

Um... I'm really proud also, thank you so much to his. 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.

Wow, 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 I honestly like whoever these

people are whoever's boating this stuff trying to own infrared because of

repeating old news about Julius Malema. I mean what is what?

What a crazy world we live in right, but anyway

Guys your pan leftist. 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, we're democratic socialist and

anarchist, you, you're, you're pan-leftist, all 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 and they were like, but was it 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.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, only people who like vaguely align with my values.

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

It's like, it's like a popular front without the people.

Where all the anarchists and the left comes 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 about 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 artisional reactionary or some shit.

Oh no, sorry, I didn't mean to be, I didn't mean to like,

literally be racist, right?

I was, that was, what I just said was like against black people

How thank you says like how is it against black people?

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

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. 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 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 going to sacrifice AI because you want to...

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 started Marx, I'm really a Marxist, interested in Marxism, but...

Guys, why are we against AI?

There we go.

The straight men talking.

Gotta fucking open your mouth, huh? Can we all just... There we go. The straight men talking.

Gotta fucking open your mouth, huh? Can't we all just silently agree that we all share the same petty buzwa class interests and we're all a bunch of, we're all in the process of lump

inization and D-class? You know, aren't we all like the same class pretty much?

Because 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 marks 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?

But, but, but I also do slam poetry too. Wait, what does that have to do with anything? What does

doing slam poetry have to do with you being a...

But because!

All these people who work with their hands are just so big at it because they're settlers!

Wait, but aren't your ancestors settlers too?

Yeah, but...

But I do digital art! Oh, okay. I guess you're not a settler then.

I guess 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.

This is about white people.

Wait, but you're white too.

Yeah, but I'm the kind of white person 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, we're 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 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, yeah, actually, I'm a normal person. I guess normal people are the enemy.

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

Maybe 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.

Your cis gender, aren't you?

And on and on and on it goes.

And unless your point, oh, oh, oh, 1% 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

point oh oh oh one percent of the population. You want to know who else is point

0,000, oh, oh001% of the population?

People who make a living off of creative content.

So it fits that petty boudouzah 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 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 a Norgoth?

What?

Norgoth?

No.

Well, it's my favorite band.

Oh, really? I mean, I like Green Day.

Ha!

Fucking settler.

I made up nor 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 like beating a dead one. It's like I I don't know, I'm just kind of, I'm kind of like beating

a dead. I'm like, I'm a bully, I'm bullying these people. But, um, 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 going to move on. There's somebody that wants to talk to me,

named Nicky the Hegel.

Return to Hegel.

It's pure ideology.

Mr. Moon, what's going on? Thank you so much.

Hello? How are you? I'm alright. What are you?

I'm alright. What are you doing?

I'm having a great day, actually, on a great Sunday.

I 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?

I just want to say hi and yeah I get to know you and yeah I've been a big follower of you for a long time and I really appreciate what you do and yeah,

I guess I have a few topics that I've been really interested in recently.

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

Grandma, Americana, what's going on?

Thank you.

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 want to limit it to one topic maybe.

Sia, what's going on?

Hello?

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, that sounds great. I recently had a debate with somebody about how they claimed that Russia is a settler, colonial state.

And this reminds me of what you were talking about earlier

on 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 polio state

that it actually is not, that it's like unethical in that kind of sense.

And he actually made it 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, the in society and history that ever has

happened, which I think is also pretty 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, you know, the refuse of a certain nation of a maritime power is 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 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 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 making 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 are 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 this is the receptacle

of historical development proper.

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

colonialists.

Although you can maybe make an argument that the late, and I

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 is uh... 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, angle boxed 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, I don't know what I don't know where that could be coming from but

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 for a philosophical perspective it's

kind of meaningless I mean if something is you consider a 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 digital-aged curated realm of like enjoyment basically like and as a

consumer like like in the same way people like oh I've you've, you know, I really enjoyed this TV 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 moved by it. Because God forbid if a neo-Nazi says something I consider

beautiful and I 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, 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 significant, to afford it such a degree

of significance that I can be inspired by it. I can kind of 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 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 Higel's dialectics of recognition to actually understand and apply

these frameworks and I actually am, it's a great having this conversation. Yeah, but um and if you're a Zijek fan, it's not even just

Hagel we're talking about, you know, the foundation Lacan gives with his mirror stages about how,

you know, 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 then 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, is this going to influence me? It's like it's a post-edipal world we live in.

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

age of the digital age, the age of the internet,

where people are deliberately trying to engineer

their own,

their own psychological constitution.

Like, people 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, I don't have the terminology, as a validly curated, receptacle

of your own existence, like everything Taylor Swift does for her stance, they 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 Lacon

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

in the form of, you know, a specific news station or a specific authority.

We have a big other in an extremely, what's the word I'm looking for?

We have a big other in an extremely malleable, 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. It's fragmented as well. Yeah but in the sense it becomes it then it

becomes reunified in this kind of, and this is where

it can 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 the celebrities, so you have to bear with me. I don't know.

Don't worry, I don't really follow culture.

What does she and 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.

This reminds me of when you're talking about patriotic socialism or patriotic communism and

how, or sorry, paternalistic, sorry, when you're talking about how communism needs to

be paternalistic, it reminds me of that conversation, right?

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

And that's why they're trying to, I guess, rise up against their, their, you know, anarchists, I guess, they become, 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 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 on this authority figure, right? And it was respected in that kind of sense.

And Stalin was also that kind of sense and caught and stolen was

also that kind of figure and blended and all these people right so

yeah

it's it's really interesting so i guess like you know people are using ta'er swiff as

their daddy in some way

yeah but it's like it's and you know people in their daddy in some way. Yeah, but it's like it's 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 those

Lacan de Luz kind of complex.

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

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

The whole of reality like literally a god type figure like representing the all of universal existence

itself all of mother nature all of society even more than a father so um that this is the whole kind of, 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 Edipel framework that you mentioned, how reality seemed to have

been enclosed by this kind of Edipol framework in which, yes, there's Stalin, there's a parental

authority, there's some kind of figure of the big other, which had a very specific and particular relationship to desire, for example, the castration

complex and so on and so on.

And then Lacan is definitely, but not a lot of people know that, but Delors, everyone knows, is the

quintessential thinker of the post-edipal civilization, obviously, right?

But Lacan is also this because in his later years, in the development of this kind of notion of the symptom or the symptom, as well as the kind of James Joyce, he calls it, it's such a silly thing to say, but he's, it's

like, the l'language or whatever. I don't know how to pronounce it.

I believe.

LaLang, yeah, something like that, where he basically 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, the castrative, imaginary form

of the symbolic, but a basis rather, how do I describe this? 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. 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 runs wild like what's that thing rule 34 where like if it exists there's porn about it is that what is called

I never heard about that must be a thing yeah like there's there's a there's a meme where it's like if something exists

On the internet there's porn of it right right?

Right I mean it makes sense to say that like if it 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 know, completely unconstrained cultural expression.

So this is another example of maybe what you would think of is like desire,

the frame of desire being completely unmoored by any kind of specific, I don't know what to call

it exactly, specific configuration of the subject, specifically and exclusively in the

ediple form. In the post-edipal era era it's like things run amok and

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

Right. And it's like Laan starts out with the imaginary and then I forget the order in which it proceeds. I think then the symbolic and then tell you then later in his life he has a focus on the real but it takes him right back to the imaginary.

And then Delos kind of discards the symbolic entirely and just kind of, you know, creatively deploys

Lacons' relationship between the imaginary and the real was

kind of you know with this whole plane of imminent stuff where it's kind of

and then you you know later you get this kind of notions of like a

Desire without reference in reality itself like that is the real right and so on and so right but

But go into both your art and I actually um yeah the last chapter

of the territory yeah the last chapter actually like ended like where we're stuck at

excess because we don't actually have this frame of this symbolic authority

anymore and it's just your excess and that's where that's where basically post-modernism

ends, I guess, and then like to lose and that tradition of philosophy starts.

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, 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 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-Edipel politics which was taken farther than this is why

there's something about it that's so unique because the post-ediple politics

was always the anarchist like horizontal organization spontaneous organization of the people and we're all just going

to make these local chas 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 edipal, not only edipal 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 acceleration is common.

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, this kind of, what would you call

it, this kind of jail or prison house of libidinal prison house like you're

just going to re-establish this kind of human monkey games in your little chaz commune where

there's going to be one guy whose pathologies, who's psychopathologies

will come to dominate or it's just a it's a limited it's it's a limitation of the kind of

libidinal excess and they realized that the real

The real excess production of the excess is

Completely inadvertent and outside of the sphere of direct

Action conscious action, conscious reactivity and responsivity of people to some outside thing and it's just pure conductivity

and conduciveness to the outside which is not praised but which is

regarded as you know fully submitting to capitalism fully submitting to

the acceleration of the productive forces,

allowing... That's my anarchist, 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 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, and they say that they hate authority

and they'll just, they'll actually rebel in this power. And I have this feeling

that anarchists actually are the, would be the first people that become the new fascists,

honestly. And that's why we say that you know Hitler was an anarchist, right? Yeah. Yeah,

Yeah, that's going to be in the in the upcoming book. But I want to say, you know,

here's what here's an opportunity I'll give to talk about where land goes wrong. Where did the accelerationists go wrong?

Even in it is a recent phenomena because it's very rare that you know I know you may become

you're a huge ZZEJEC fan so very 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 acceleratists in a sense were correct in their rejection of activism and

they're underst their they were correct in decentering the moral individual as the ultimate subject

of revolutionary transformation.

And even, even going beyond the kind of subject object distinction

itself it does it 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 Lacon

in his notion. But I think we can in a way return to Lachan

in his notion of the symptom when we ask the question of, does this

outsidness of, let's call it, capitalist de-territorialization, or let's maybe

deteratorialization in general. 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 acceleration is 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

You know 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 I don't think so either. Yeah. I think it goes

I think it goes beyond just like the human itself it goes it actually goes into the self-reflexivity

of consciousness right and you can't exactly sure but but so if that stuff they're talking about

isn't going to 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 going to happen, and if you can recognize that's a kind of fundamental

fantasy of the acceleration is actually, and it's not a, when land for example was really getting spooked

like have I really touched upon the real like holy shit am I actually fucking

talking aliens or some shit I'm simplifying a 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

numogram 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 AI and all this stuff is not some kind of transcendent horizon beyond the

threshold of our conceivability, it really represents a fantasy, a structure

of a fantasy.

Moreover, it is not what it appears as.

So we're back in the realm of analysis, and we're back in the realm of analysis and we're back in the realm of interpretation and all that

And that's what you lose and land and all the people that rejected psychoanalysis

They tried to get away from they thought that you could actually get away from analysis right but we're just right I

I 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. 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 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 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 Chinese civilization has a symptom. What does that mean? It has, it's 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 kind of devoid of a subject in the strict sense of like, it doesn't have a specific individual address.

It's beyond us as individuals.

It forms and it 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 you know hyper techno-capitalist AI coming from the future?

What if the acceleratists 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

mystical

framing of this. What if he's actually talking about different

It sounds naive but in a sense different modes of production, different forms of material reproduction and existence, different 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 context.

What if this can give completely new meaning to Marxism,

to Marxism's 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 synacization 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 Higalians 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 acceleration is?

And this is all annihilist facade.

And it's no it, 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

edipelism of the 20th century.

If we're going to form a Marxist-Leninist-Pari, our party, are we going to be Caleb Maupin

and just kind of try to like mimic the, uh, the, the, the like mimic the

the authority of the past and like have some personalities come and be dominate and you know This is the taste of music you're gonna have to like this is the type of fashion you're gonna like let me

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 neither

Caleb Maupin nor anarchism.

It's, but it's, and it's not just the accelerationist 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

Bounce off of and reflect

their own their own personal idiosyncratic symptoms. So I

kind of like the accelerationist impulse. Why not? Why should we not be

liberated from our own personal stupid problems 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 accelerations 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

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

framework of 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?

Every, 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.'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 direct responsivity to the point where it's no longer about you, you know?

And this is the brave, this is why there's something about land that I admire and I think is 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 were still plagued by.

Yes.

Exactly.

And I do know, I've talked with several acceleratists online.

I don't know if you've seen on Twitter the accelerationist discourse like people

say like E slash ACC. I'm not sure exactly what it all stands for. So that's how you know it's dead because

back 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 Neorationalism.

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 Landian's own dark enlightenment stuff, right?

But people don't appreciate that because neo-rationalism was boring and it was dry and it

it wasn't so flowery and exciting and stuff. But philosophically, or I don't 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 path that it did. Around 2017, maybe the 2019, people were captivated by the poetry of accelerationism from the

90s and the kind of aesthetics of it 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 acceleratist tendencies,

which if you want to historicize it, it's because of Trump's election.

And it was because of how you know 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 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 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?

There was a commitment to Marxism there that you didn't see with all, you know, there was R.A.

Which is about being edgy and basically saying like,

all black people are going to die because AI hates them I don't

know and then there was LAC which is like Nick Surnike and Alex Williams that

were saying like oh don't worry you know you know you know we can we can we can

have Chile cyberson

and just like

i don't know like

have luxury communism through cybersome and we can have what we can have like a tech

oriented leftism something like that

and then there was people like edberg 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. I've seen a lot of acceleratists online who

actually they deny the tradition of where accelerationism did come from their

tradition of Marxism but they completely deny the

relevance... 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 E.A.A.C. 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 where they like their

mind was blown and they're like, oh my god. We're gonna like do this thing where

we disguise the really edgy, scary landy and

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 is basilisk and Eliza Utakowski'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 it's it's the it's the shitiest 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 E.

A. Accelerationism is just like holy shit it's it's like these fucking

stupid nerds from Silicon Valley

who think they're extremely smart, originally unique, because they just discovered a

numogram or something.

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

And every single bright mind who came out of that zeitgeist, again, Edberg 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 will say, like, um, aesthet 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 met Lakan. Where is this? This is a

crucially missing perspective because why? Because Gishekians 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 Jijek because they actually want to be like Jijek and I don't want to offend you but like here's the truth.

Jijek is like a fat slob with no drip and he has no aesthetic

Personally speaking to emulate, but everyone wants to be like Jijek who's sniffing and is like having an ironic distance toward movies while crossing the wrong

You know, I really think

that, you know, they're not even drawing, by the way, I was, I'm, I was always in Gijek's camp,

but even I knew this.

In order to draw the logical, in order to draw a conclusion from J Gizek's extremely brilliant, unique and unprecedented

insight in the 21st century, Jijek was completely right about his specific reconciliation of

the French tradition.

He was right about Delos, B badieu, and he and the

Ljubljana School alone carried forward, defended Lacan against this kind of

post-edipal nonsense and 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 Zizekians 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 acceleratists 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 with the Zijekians and it's something I've noticed too.

That's why I that's why like I'm somebody I consider myself as Zijekian. I love Jijek I think his

theories are brilliant I read his books I've also read Nick Lan's books I'm really happy you explain the whole internet discourse

with the whatever EACC 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 what it's not happening. You have no idea like how obsessively the

infrared collected we didn't call us at that time. We were so obsessively like

waiting for Zijek to respond to Nick Land like what is Jizik has said nothing

about this, you know?

I mean now he has, I guess.

No, he has, but apparently it's Nick Lansing who doesn't want to talk to him now.

Yeah, I mean that doesn't surprise me, but like we, I, we wanted to see back in 20, I'm

saying 2016, twenty-sevent whenever this was taking off.

We wanted to see like an 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 Zijek which prevented any the thing that had us go beyond Zijek was

Zijekians but then you know to be honest going down the accelerationist rabbit

hole and discovering thinkers like Batai and Alexander

Kojev, it kind of, and even Lacon himself, we really did read Lacon, not just through

the Ljubljanaana schools analysis, but we realize

like there's something more there in that tradition where Zijek, 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 Batai and Lacan and others

and so on. And that was basically how we stopped being Gizijekians, I guess.

It's just we've kind of saw him as superfluous.

And it's tragically, like, as events would pass,

it's like then the French yellow vests happened.

And like Zijek is saying stupid, fucking cringe about it,

about how like, oh all these people are like

Wanting to go back to the wealth. I don't know. He said some really dumb shit about it

And we started to realize like 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 fear rise as to why, right?

And I think that I used to think that he was playing like 5D chess with us and he's just

saying the opposite of what he actually thought and just like, and he was actually,

if you just like, take a, I guess a sarcastic approach that maybe he's right but I feel like um I've

I've watched old interviews with him and I've also met Gjeek and I've um I get the

impression that it's what he really cares about is publishing his works publishing his books and that's something

I actually will last like throughout like centuries you know it's his works, publishing his books, and that's something that actually will last,

like, throughout like centuries, you know? It's his works, as his books, it's not necessarily his

geopolitical articles. Like people care about that for maybe like a few weeks or a few months,

but then after a while, like what really lasts is the philosophical like

basis of his work, right? I mean, yeah, I think he cares all his relationship with

the public, with his publishers, right? And I think I believe that after he came out

and he said like, oh, like in 2016, oh, I support Trump or whatever. I think that

this some of his publishers threatened to hold him. Yeah, I think that some of his publisher is threatening to pull him.

I think that's why.

I mean, I'd like, but also that that exposes a kind of limitation in Jizek where it's like,

how has he not been able to, 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 was actually trying to communicate and the form, right?

What he was actually trying to communicate,

which I can bear witness, I'm not a follower of Zijek

and I have disagreements with him.

But as a premise, even to understand my disagreement

with him philosophically,

easily the most criminally under- underrated intellectual of our era.

Zijek the meme is the biggest enemy of Jizek, 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 Jijek, 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 Zijek's 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 so let me look at Google right now. Adrian Johnson.

I forgot his name. I see Gizek.

I see.

He wrote, I don't know it.

I don't know about it.

Adrian Johnston, Zijek's ontology, a transcendental materialist theory of subjectivity.

And like this book and other 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, oh I was right, 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 like tried to be like, okay, what is Zijek really about?

And he fucked it up. He fucked it up really bad. But Gizek 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 like gave into Adrian Johnston. Am I skit so crazy fuck for saying this? Well, what did Adrian Johnston. Am I schizo crazy fuck for saying this? Well, what did Adrian Johnston

exactly say that you didn't like? You know, I don't exactly remember because it's like so

past me by now, but I'll try to remember, give me a sec.

It was something about, I think it was something about how he would not move past the kind

of scientific, if that's the word, framework, in which he was just trying

to kind of neutralize Gijek's insight. I really forget, I read the book. It was something like that. It was like he was just basically like reducing Jijek's

He was kind of contionizing Jijek is how I remember just reducing it to some kind of like

you know

transcendental structure of how we access reality reality but having nothing to do with reality itself

Yada yada, yada. 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, Gizek is like too scared to even like, like look at me, I'm actually a lysenkoist.

Zizek will never question at the same, see Zijek 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

this fear of science. 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, 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 in his earlier works.

Yeah, he did step back from it, but he stepped back from when he realized that genetics was junk science, for example,

and that he even said it himself, actually the scientists are now saying that,

you know, 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 don't like what Jijek did where he actually started to take seriously like

Neurolink and he's like, actually we are going to be integrated with computers neurologically

and I wish he would have maintained some skepticism about this.

Yeah, Jijik, let me just sayicism about this.

Yeah, Zizik, let me just say one over there.

Jijek and Nick Lans 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, Zijek, 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

be 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 Nicklanders you said no Nickland here is

on the news a AI is becoming extremely intelligent.

Yes, everything is this planned. The A, the fucking 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 needs a sensationalized shit

as click bait to make a living, you know? So that's kind of my issue.

Yeah, why do you think that it's a boomer thing?

Like, why do you think the boomers specifically just don't have a fundamental understanding

of all these processes?

Is it just like simply because they haven't grown up with technology?

Like, where do you think it comes from?

Almost, but yeah, you're on to 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-

It's really, they kind of-

They're kind of-

That's kind of how Nick Landt was a lot.

Let me explain it to you.

People like Jeezek 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 in plastic and so extremely

hypersensitive to our smallest kind of psychological and discursive 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 shit post.

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 Gizek 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, he literally, he literally wrote this in his article because he literally he literally said that

Oliver Anthony was doing a hidden racist subtext that 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 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 like how fake

and gay the internet is because these people were raised on TV and on this kind of sent,

and it's, I know they're delusion,

so they should know better, but they really don't get it.

Like, they really don't understand,

how much, how, 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 when they don 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.

That makes sense.

Like, in terms of like like 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 don't, they really don't understand the big other community communicates itself to the masses.

They don't really don't understand the decentralized, like, 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 how many layers it

goes into in the internet this is a very common this person like that I guess

people they're Gen Z especially understand right and no listen one thing

one thing accelerations were correct about and

this is why millennials are losing their mind and maybe Zoomers will lose their

mind too with the Gen A and Skibbitty toilet, right? But 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 it 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 interpretation like as the university discourse, our ability to objectify

phenomena and super 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 and college and subject internet culture

to some kind of serious inquiry and like objectified 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 skibbitty 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 secondhand reflexive apparatus with which to understand and interpret

online culture and you know 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 Millennial's 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, Gen A is here with Skibbitty 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 like 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

track movement as well. 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... basically 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's to make of Gen A and Skibbitty 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 Skibbitty 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 skibbitty toilet on this kind of

the meaningless and inadvertent, let's say mechanical premise of...

Okay, thank you, cows, bro, but nobody don't donate to me because I have to actually get this out in a way that people can understand.

Don't interrupt me, please.

But I appreciate you. In Skibbidy Toilet, it's like a lot of, I'm

just going to say it this way, a lot of it is the sound, a lot of it is like

the intensity of sound and noises that are being made that are totally meaningless, right?

And there's such a strong emphasis on like the raw stimuli of it, right?

It's how I see it.

And I'm thinking to myself, it's like, what if Gen A is really going to be the

primal generation in the 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 la long or the l'ala'a'lai 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, 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 Skibbitty toilet. obscene, meaningless reality.

And, you know, I don't know.

I do have an interpretation of skibbitty toilet, and I think I'm the only one who has one.

But I, 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 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 real right in the sense of like

Pure mechanical what's there's a word for this like mechanical

over-stimulation I don't know what to call it. Something very terrifying though I think right?

The ferreleness 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 control, not even being able to-

It reminds me of a time, right? Almost like the pure excess part of it, right?

And it goes into that extreme direction. But even beyond anything, Batai could, could, could,

could have... Yeah, there's that there too. Obviously, it's a fucking toilet. Skibbitty toilet. That's right up Bataize Alley.

Exactly. But, uh, you right up Batai's alley. Exactly.

But, you know, it's even beyond what Batai 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, but Ties 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

and is going to go away and that, you know, all this extra shit, let's say on our computer

screens is going to go away, 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

as a matter of fact, it can't. That's its limit. 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 actual mechanical...

They're focusing on the weird sound the iPad maze. They're focusing on how it heats up sometimes.

They're focusing on how, you know, sometimes, you know, maybe the 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 don't know what you're saying?

Yeah.

It's a good point.

Yeah.

Yeah, like, 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?

There are maybe, like you can 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 and interesting reversal interesting reversal of this happening, right?

And then you can think, are things going to go backwards after that? And is it going to,

is it going to theoretically return back to this level of sincerity, this level of real that people are

yearning towards, right I think I think you know um

Dugin, although he's a boomer, he's talking about a post-human future that

liberalism is oriented toward. I think Gen A is the threshold of the post

human, I think. I don't know how farther you can go from that. And I think, you know,

it's going to get ugly before it gets, before it gets 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, what's, what's, what did, the, what did, the, what did, the pinhead, the Cenobite say?

We have such sites to see, basically, like 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 going to 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 odysses 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 that are going on right now, by the way. I consider a lot of them obscenities.

The tradcats and all, you know, this, this, uh,

a lot of these religious converts. I don't think they're not escaping the fucking, the hell we're in store store for.

They're just kind of giving it a new face and they don't realize.

We're not the aesthetics actually.

Like that's all I see.

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 a 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, Yong you, by the way. We all know the LGBT movement. Thank you so much young you by the way. We all know the LGBT

movement represents something very wrong and awry with human existence, obviously,

but so does Orthodox canonist, and so do the ortholarpersers and so to the tradcaths.

There's and even literally they have the psychopath, sexual pathology under the

surface a lot of the times too but that's be that's neither here nor there it's

I think you, I don't know if you are familiar with this, infrared's aesthetic,

philosophical, and existential orientation is called new objectivity, right?

Okay.

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 think that's where I've

been doing 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 and I believe that our object-oriented ontology really

came from Heidegger as well. All that comes from Heidegris. I was reading his

essay on technology and Heidegger was very much so separating the object

from the from the human right and saying that actually this object appears the

humans wreck but I don't I don't think that there's not separation that

actually yeah I don't think it's not separated obviously people people are so

stupid they always say haze you're a Nazi because you're a

Heidegarian first of all we all know Heidegger was wrong.

That's why, 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. 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 Neocantian glasses wearers who were 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 have these neocontians and the whole

generations, successive generations of Neocontians by the way, it's not even just

one. It's actually it's an Engelbox way of thinking. The whole Angle, American, and

the Western tradition is actually taken for like

Contine tradition and I've studied philosophy and university and I was

really lucky to learn continental philosophy in the beginning but but

when I went to my second degree it was just or what place I went for it it was

just all all like this ankle box thinking,

that just consumes the Western way of thinking and it's horrible on this thing.

But yeah, but also eventually the rational kernel of these developments from

Schopenhauer to neocontinism, discards its philosophical

pretensions finally and discovers its rational colonel, how, in two forms. One form

is through Freud, right? And we will have to return to Freud in a second. But then it's in Hussarl and the

phenomenological 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 modern or abstract art too by the way.

Then then you get Heidegger who from who

liberates the rational kernel of Herschel from its stupid neocontian

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 Hagell in any modern context that's remotely faithful to the

original goals of philosophy, we are post-Hydigarians. Now, in parallel, you obviously had Bert 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 his historical development, but it's not

philosophy, you know, formalistic

syllogistic propositional logic is not philosophy. 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 this so this is that's analytic so-called philosophy. It comes from this

naive sciantism actually and it's part of the Anglo tradition right?

It's where they're trying to redefine philosophy into this neat category.

I forgot 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 in statecraft and statecraft which is what Marxism was and

content. Marxism and content was not a philosophy it wasn 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 praxis. Okay, so the end rest is history.

So as a Marxist, why am I bothering with this hydrogre guy?

Philosophy ends with Hagel, 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

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 oh it's okay, it's because of third worldism and it's because of, uh, white, I don't know, because the, because of the imperialist

court and it wasn't in their material interest 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, it's just, is the only subject of Marxism and

communism, the most marginalized, most poor, most downtrod in

possible people?

No, okay, so...

I take issue with that view, you know, that you can just simply be Marxist-Leninist.

I think stuff is still... and also, why did the Soviet Union fucking... You can just simply be Marxist-Leninist.

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, um, 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 Neocontians, for example,

who grew out of the Social Democratic movement

and the Bernsteinites and Neocontians and others

who openly became revisionists.

What if the non-so-called non-revisionists

were also neocontians and were also bastardizing Marxism in the same frame as

their social democratic contemporaries such as Lukox? What if Lukox was a fucking Kantian, neocontian 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, which is irreducible to anything directly economic, but rather

reflect 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?

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.

Yeah, people are like, well, well, Heidi Grue 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 Western world history, and

it's an inadvertent development. You may think Marxism,

Hegel is, 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 Lukacs 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 and 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, which leftists or pan leftists somehow think

they can avoid by saying that they support transgender rights and that they're morally good

people and that they believe in Marxism

because it's just, don't be an asshole, right?

Because 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 the identity, politics, and all this kind of stuff that's going on and actually become something that's a deeper level on mass?

And I guess like I have an answer, I think that

other countries like I, whenever I go to Europe, there's many people there and on

average that are, that know more about what they're talking about and they're

on average higher, more higher-educated.

I'm echoing by the way, or is it just I don't know why it's all right.

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 is 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's cult thing is bullshit actually we need to return to basic

literature in 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.

Like, 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, I'm going to try to educate you. It's more like,

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 I guess maybe not they're not enough right? But you think that they're where the people should actually start and that they can actually teach something that is universal.

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 encourage that the classics for everyone.

Everyone should be a cultured, but 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 on mass, 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 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 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 minority,

there's a minority of people that are degenerate

and must be fine or whatever but it's really like even people in the city is

honestly it's it's horrible and just a state of where American consciousness

has fallen it's I understand exactly what's going on now like I've seen it

for myself.

Yeah, I mean, but 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, you know, I don't know, like, this is such a stupid,

cringy example, but like, just like shit on Tick Tock, you know, like inside jokes,

things like that, memes.

I think these are the things that ultimately will tell you what

people know.

But 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

Abstract ourselves from the sheeple and I don't know I'm not trying to be cringe

but we whorying to be cringe.

But we who want to discover and learn more, which is always a minority, but they'll always

exist.

There's no deficiency of those people. Should... people 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 have that spark of curiosity or opening their eyes to that there is something

else besides of what they already think. I've thought about this a lot of why I

am 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 a it's a call-about answer

to say that someone's born a certain way. I'll I'll wrap it up here because I got to go but

yeah go for it. You know Marx 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 a medium through which the meaningfulness of reality can ultimately

be engaged with.

And philosophy is, the appeal of it is that you have a sense that you can

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, you know, I think every single human being has this need for reality to be meaningful.

It's just that some, some are doing it in a way where, you know, they're trying to chase after a dream or a goal,

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... 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 and

then sometimes religion itself is just another dream for some, you know,

which disappoints them again. And then when that happens, 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

ends in disappointment. Right. And what's next after? Well, I mean, that's...

That's Marxism.

Yeah.

I was a communist who only dreamt 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 I'm as you.

People think communism is such a utopian,

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 a 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, 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. Yeah. Bye. All right 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, Anyway, see you guys Thursday. Bye-bye.