🔴 RED PILL NEWS | FREE PALESTINE 🇵🇸

Welcome, gorillas.

I hope you enjoyed your 30-minute intro.

I know you guys love long intros.

It's your favorite thing.

Clearly.

Clearly, you treasure and love the long intros.

So, you know, it'll just keep having long intros because you guys love them so much.

You know, just 30-minute intros.

You know, that's 30 minutes that could have gone toward the stream.

That's fine.

We're fine.

You know, this is supply and demand.

People do people prefer the longer intros, and the longer intros they will have.

You know, it's out of my hands.

Anyway, guys.

Streaming twice in a row for the first time in a few months, actually.

That's quite a feat.

That's quite a new thing, right?

I don't get too used to it, though, because 95% of my brain power goes to that thing I used to do before I started streaming nowadays, which is actually thinking.

Isn't that crazy?

No, for real.

Soon as I started streaming in 2021, what I really was doing for about one or two years, probably one or two years, yeah, was just sharing with you guys what the Infrared Collective discovered over the course of about five years.

But the process of novel theoretical discovery and synthesis and um

Con concept building, I guess Delote calls it that.

That was totally suspended until recently when I'm writing this book.

Amilo, what's going on?

What a great way to start it.

What a great way to kick it off.

You know what I should do?

I should demand tribute in the form of

All the missing likes translate into subs.

So you literally have to pay if you didn't boost the tweet.

Oh, wow.

That talk about incentives.

That's true incentives.

Truly building incentives there.

You actually have to pay out of pocket if you don't like the tweet.

It's literally a you're getting fined.

Syop shorty, oh my god.

Actually, you know what this is?

Syop Shorty, thank you for the sub, but you just revealed that you did not, in fact, boost the tweet.

So you're banned!

Actually, just kidding.

One way ticket

To the Bering Strait.

Alright?

Anyway, guys, on a more serious note, on a serious note, I actually have some things I'd like to talk about today.

And since it's a COLO, straight to the Bering Wallo, thank you for your purchase of one golden ticket to the Bering Strait.

I hope your journey.

Treats you well.

I hope it's great, guys.

Wow, there's actually a lot to talk about today.

I don't even know where to start.

How about Haas was right?

Do I need a gloat?

Is that what I'm gonna become?

No.

I'd rather just be like a

Sagacious.

Monk at the top of a temple.

I've just been meditating this whole time, telling you exactly how things would unravel and develop.

And so they have Red Saffron!

What's going on?

For example,

Biden just signed another one billion dollars of aid to Israel.

So much for Biden, the pressure on Biden and the the nonsense.

It's breaking news.

This is ex didn't I say this yesterday, that it was just for show?

The Biden administration has initiated a process to approve one billion arms deal for Israel, tank ammunition, tactical vehicles and mortar rounds.

Amid escalating tensions in Rafah and criticism from political and media figures.

So they're look they're just giving them the shipments and weapons.

That's it.

So so that wasn't much of a of a tension or a struggle or a conflict.

I was right.

You know what something else I was right about?

The longevity of the campus protests.

Because I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're over now.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't they just over now?

Isn't the Columbia thing over now?

It's over.

So don't treat me like the bad guy for saying that it's not going to last long in the current form that it's in, because that's actually what I said.

And I was actually very generous and I gave it six months.

And it seems like they're just over now.

It's not even a thing anymore.

Yeah.

called me stupid because I pointed out the obvious.

And I was actually proven white right.

Sorry, white.

Like Roger Rabbit.

I was actually proven right.

In a matter of weeks.

That's just how it goes around here, around these parts.

And actually I I uh gave an analysis and I you know, you have to understand Haas is a wise man.

You know, I'm only twenty seven going on twenty eight.

But you should actually think of me like I'm 280 years old.

I have a lot of wisdom.

I have a lot of far-sighted thinking, a lot of wisdom.

Okay?

Like an old man, basically.

And if I'm sharing a criticism or an analysis, it's because I have a very mature perspective on world events.

No emotion, none of this kind of.

None of this kind of sentimental bias or anything like that.

And when I say when I give this specific type of analysis, it's not because I have an agenda, it's because I'm I at least believe that I'm telling the truth.

And I turned out to be correct.

In my analysis.

I was I was open and happy to being disproven, but I wasn't.

So that's that.

That's that.

Now, and my what was my analysis?

My analysis is that college campuses are not enough to exert political pressure.

They are nowhere near close enough to sufficiently mount any kind of rebellion against the hegemony.

And

That maybe it's a good start, that's debatable, but if it's gonna be a good start, you have to actually initiate a dialogue that goes outside the college campus bubble so that it can replicate among the masses.

Just initiate a dialogue that makes sense to people.

That means going out of your bubble and, yeah, talking to people that work for a living.

I don't know why that was so controversial, but here we are.

I'm not here to just gloat about being right, by the way.

I actually have things to talk about.

But Biden moves forward with $1 billion in new arms for Israel.

So there you go.

America is an occupied country.

I just talked about this yesterday and here we are.

Haas being proved correct.

Once again.

Once again.

Now, I would like everyone to also be on the lookout for an article that's about to drop about Jackson and I.

That's going to be fun.

Looking forward to what's in there.

Got my lawyer on speed dial.

Uh

Now, there's other things I cannot talk about, but I can talk about them indirectly.

And I wanted to talk about the relationship between Genghis Khan and the Communist Party.

And I won't mention the Communist Party, I'm just going to mention the Mongols and Genghis Khan.

For now.

How and why could this ever be relevant?

Well,

One of the themes, one of the topics that feature very prominently in my upcoming book is the topic of the nomadic sedentary dialectic, the historical dual duality of nomadic

Um armies, nomadic

Revolutions which basically conquer sedentary societies, you have this very strange.

phenomena from the perspective of uh western

preconceptions where barbarians come to be the ruling aristocracy.

of a new expanded empire who came just uncivilized barbarians come and they rule over these advanced sedentary societies which seems paradoxical for obvious reasons sedentary societies have accumulated more knowledge more wealth more developed productive forces did i mention better technologies and so on and so forth nomads are very simple people they don't have a lot of wealth they're not very advanced technologically or in terms of the productive forces so why is it that nomads constantly conquer sedentary societies what what is the essence of that dynamic that dialectic between the settled and the nomadic

And

The most prominent example of this is religious.

It's in the Bible and it's in the Holy Quran.

It's the real events surrounding the rise of the Prophet of Islam.

Barbarians, nomads in Arabia, came to overpower and conquer huge swaths of the Eastern Roman Empire.

uh Iberia, North Africa, and the Sassanid Empire as a whole.

And that is something very remarkable.

That's one of the core.

Elements of the story of Islam that I think people find so compelling and so persuasive.

It's a miracle that these nomads were able to do this.

But Islam was really just the epitome of the and in many ways the religious form.

that gave a conclusion or tried to predict the conclusion of the nomadic sedentary dialectic, which concludes in the end of history as we know it and what Kojev calls the universal empire or sorry, the universal state.

That's kind of a Freudian slip.

The Universal State

What is the universal state?

And what is the real universal state?

Because Kojev was wrong, I think.

I don't think the universal state is the UN and the European Union and American Unipolarity.

I think the universal state is a lost state, a state that has to be remembered.

A state that is lost to time but still exerts

an influence determining the course of the development of states today.

They rise and fall on the basis of this such universal state within history.

And of course I'm talking about the world empire of the Mongols.

Why does this dynamic happen though?

Now bear with me, this is not something I do typically in my streams.

Uh it's kind of like a magician is never supposed to reveal their tricks, and in my case my trick has always been Lacan.

It's just always underlied the logic of everything I've ever said, really a lot of it why I say the things I do, why I pursue the optics I do, and so it's very much informed by a Lacanian perspective.

But for purposes of this stream, I will incorporate themes from psychoanalysis because I actually think that

For the first time they could actually simplify things rather than overcomplicate them, which is what they usually do.

Now what is the business with nomads?

Well, I'll tell a story basically.

And we can talk about Genghis Khan.

It's I think it's in the Secret History of the Mongols itself.

It's in the Holy Quran.

It's in the Bible.

It's in the story of Moses.

And there is a nomadic peoples.

Now, first of all, let's just start from there.

What does it take for a people to become nomadic?

Because

David Graeber, he has a problematic and voluntaristic

Concept of schizomogenesis, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, probably not.

according to which different societies and different civilizations,

Pursue the character and the norms and the way of life that they do, not because they were predetermined by some other factors, some objective factors, but because in large part they choose to.

Now, if we remove the element of choice and replace choice with give expression to an indeterminacy, kind of a quantum logic, if you will, I think there's actually a lot of conceptual value in Graeber's schizomogenesis.

There are different possibilities for a given society, for a given civilization.

And

these possibilities actualize themselves in different forms, and none is necessarily more true than the other.

They're just different forms of the same range of possibilities.

So the same determination has multiple different forms and manifestations, in other words.

And it's not because of choice, it's because it's the same objective determination which itself is uh if you want to think of this at the level of m modern physics or quantum logic, it's kind of just itself split and indeterminate and not necessarily only one thing.

It's very dialectical actually when you think about it.

But in any case

Sedentary societies differ from nom uh sorry, nomadic societies differ from sedentary societies.

Because of a fundamental schizomogenesis, sedentary societies settle and incorporate the vast

immediate kinship relationships into an uh super individual, societal, and ultimately uh

Social organicism, if you will, where societies take the form of living things in a way.

Labor is coordinated at a collective level, farm labor.

Everything becomes incorporated into one living whole.

This is sedentary societies.

There's a pattern and rhythm to one unifying way of life, and this is what most people mean by civilization, sedentary societies.

Sedentary societies typically are governed by one authority, one central state.

It's one civilization.

Sure, there's trade relationships and there's things that divide people, but ultimately you're talking about a single holistic social metabolism.

Reproducing itself across uh a network of familial and kinship relationships.

And uh a a single determinate pattern of existence, right?

A uh a mode of production, if you will.

This is a Marxist mode of production.

Actually, this was the extent to which Soviet theorists

were able to regard what modes of productions were.

For Soviet theorists, a mode of production is just a sedentary society and nothing else.

Soviet uh historical materialists

actually regarded nomadic societies as inherently socially parasitic.

Why?

Because nomads did not produce anything, according to them.

Nomads more or less had to be fed by sedentary societies, so they had to re resort to banditry, plundering and looting uh as their form of subsistence, or trade or something else, but they ultimately regarded it as uh parasitic.

Now I think obviously that's wrong.

The Chinese also seem to have taken issue with that.

There was a kind of spat between different historians, between uh Russian and Chinese historians and the

I think it was the late 1930s, I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure.

Over the status of Genghis Khan, over the status of the Mongols.

The Soviets said the Mongols were a purely destructive and parasitic force, whereas Mao and the Communist Party in China held celebrations commemorating Genghis Khan.

revering him as a historically progressive figure.

And I, of course, side with the Chinese in this dispute.

Now it's different about nomadic societies.

Is that

Of course, all this is explained better in writing in my actual book, but to put it into words that I think you would probably be able to understand.

The first hunter-gatherer societies, whether they exist or not doesn't matter.

It's a useful construct.

Just think of the blue people from Avatar.

This is just the immediacy, the pure immediacy of kinship relationships.

Your tribe is your family.

It's all one big circle.

It's just everyone knowing their place, living in harmony with nature.

Everyone's taking care of each other directly.

And there's no distinction between the social and the individual because everyone is already part of one extended family in a way.

So.

So, you know, um

There's no laws, there's no externality of the social form.

It's just all very immediate and bounded up in kinship relationships.

Um sedentary societies

Are different because even though it's ultimately one social metabolism, there still is an element of alienation or estra alienation, I should put in quotations, just in the sense of there's a rupture from that immediacy.

There's a unity of state, right?

There's a unity of society, which is irreducible to the immediacy of your individual relationships or your specific family.

There are different families.

The extent to which there is a kind of single social metabolism is the product of an inadvertent.

Mode of production.

Whereas the blue people societies, that's an immediate mode of production.

It's a mode of production founded upon the immediacy of relationships.

In sedentary societies, the mode of production is founded upon an indirectness of social relationships, meaning there's a singular outcome that's produced also and which is also given recognition, which is the aggregate and the culmination of different individual relate and family relationships and relationships between families and relationships between tribes that ultimately produces a single social outcome indirectly.

Key word, indirectly, right?

So

So both sedentary societies and nomadic societies are just different ways of responding to this rupture that's within the immediacy of kinship relationships defining the primitive communist societies, as Marx and Engels describe them.

Anyway, let me continue.

Sedentary societies respond to this rupture by domesticating it.

by incorporating it within a higher form of the social metabolism.

In the hunter-gatherer primitive communist societies, there is an organic social metabolism which is immediate, which is directly evident to everyone and is which is seamlessly continuous with experience.

But there's a rupture that occurs that upsets that balance, that upsets that harmony, that upsets the immediacy of these relationships, which

has to be responded to in some kind of way.

You know what that rupture is called in The Origin of the Family and in um the German ideology and private property and communism and other such texts by Marx and Engels?

It's called the division of labor.

The division of labor.

That's what it's called.

The division of labor, when they say there's the division of labor, they're not necessarily talking about people doing different things.

That was also in primitive communist society.

Men were hunting, women were gathering, whatever.

People have these different roles.

But the division of labor proper is a rupture within the immediacy of kinship relationships of production and distribution.

Meaning, production is no longer seamlessly continuous with kinship, within the immediacy of experience and kinship relationships.

And what I mean by that is that.

You know they're um

The mode of production is no longer based on something that's just

directly natural or organic in the sense of like

Seamless with the logic of your family relationships or your tribal relationships.

There's also an element of.

of the need to recognize an an element which is uh

Which is um discontinuous with all of that.

Such as, for example, a new form of labor, which doesn't fit within the prior logic of

social relationships or production or kinship relationships.

There has to be a way to make that harmonious with the social whole, while also acknowledging that there was a rupture with the social whole in the first place.

And the way that rupture is recognized, given recognition and acknowledged as something that has an ontological status, if you will, is the beginning of the division of labor.

When that rupture begins to be recognized, history itself begins.

In the first place, because what is history if not the recollection, the remembrance, the recognition,

of discontinuities in the seamless circle and cycle of life in a human experience.

We only have history because things happen which were not previously anticipated or

Coexistent

With um

with with what we're familiar with here and now, right?

No, it's not becoming conscious of production.

Don't rush to conclusions.

I choose my words very carefully, and if I'm not saying conscious, there's a reason for that.

It's not becoming conscious of production.

Recognition has very little to do with consciousness.

You can recognize something without being conscious of it.

For example, you can recognize traumas without being conscious of the specificity of that trauma, but the recognition can still manifest itself.

Recognition.

Break it down etymologically, recognition implies a discontinuity in the stream of cognition itself.

Okay?

You have to recognize something because

just like some of you in the chat, you're just running around and you're jumping to conclusions, but then you hit your head on the wall of Haas telling you you're wrong, for example.

That's recognition.

That makes you recognize something, right?

Um

So this is what recognition is.

It's not necessarily consciousness.

That's a much more problematic notion and topic.

Anyway

Uh to continue.

Um

In the sedentary form of society, and we're talking about agriculture here, guys, and the rise and advent of agriculture.

Just keep that in mind.

'Cause this is the first form of a sedentary social existence.

Why it is that agriculture cannot be incorp why can't hunter-gatherer societies be agricultural?

Like, why can't they just incorporate why does agriculture cause these problems?

So, the Neolithic Revolution and so on.

Well, it's very simple.

Because in these blue people avatar societies, I'm not calling them that to be racist, I'm just calling them that because it's primitive communism is a reductionist notion.

It's not really applicable to

the societies it was intended to speak about, like the uh Native Americans or whatever.

So I'm just using it as a mythological point of reference.

It never actually existed though, I don't think.

But let's just pretend they did for the purposes of uh setting this up as a useful abstraction.

Now, to continue, you have basically a blue people avatar society where everything is totally harmonious, everything is totally familiar, it's the circle of life, everything is in its proper place, everyone is in their proper place, it's life is one big circle, your relationship toward other people, the relations of production are just immediately continuous with your experience and with your.

With how you experience the logic, the pattern of social reproduction is coexistent with social reproduction itself.

So there's no alienation because it's an immediacy, right?

And everything is the way it is because it's kind of fully and immediately continuous with the whole of reality itself, right?

So this is the whole.

This is a holism.

It's a holistic existence.

The whole of being, the whole of cosmos.

um is immediately confirmed.

In the immediacy of experience.

In other words, the ontological

How would I call it?

The ontological outlook, if you will, I don't, it's kind of an inadequate word.

The ontological outlook is immediately confirmed in individual experience, right?

The whole of being is

Confirmed and immediately make sense in.

The way in which one dwells within being.

So, this is the harmony with nature and yada yada yada, whatever.

Now why agriculture disturbs that?

is because the discovery of a new

relationship toward nature

whether it's individual or whether it doesn't matter.

Just the discovery of a new possible possibility of relating to the natural world in defiance of preconceived wisdoms, preconceived assumptions, and a preconceived

sense of familiarity, that that itself, regardless of the it doesn't matter if it's aggro, just regardless of the content, that itself, a new way to subsist and live that previously could not have been accounted for by the social metabolism and the logic of the social whole,

That itself radically disturbs things.

uh as far as ontology is concerned, if you will, as far as people's sense of the relationship to the the cosmic whole itself, there's a there's now a rupture here that has to be made sense of.

Now, of course you can incorporate agriculture somehow and have a new kind of social metabolism, a new holy, but you do have to remember the fact that there was a rupture.

Something happened which you couldn't have accounted for, and that happened.

That also probably will sow a worm of doubt as far as okay, what goes in the future, right?

Your sense of certainty in the future, your sense of certainty and confidence in your social existence is somehow now shattered.

So sedentary and nomadic

Patterns of social existence, if you will, or ways of life.

Those are different responses to that division of labor, to that rupture.

And it's clear what the sedentary form is.

The sedentary form tries to reincorporate that rupture into a new and greater uh logic of the social whole, and a mode of production.

So it's the incorporation of new techniques of production.

Of course, this with this comes hierarchies and all whatever.

But

If you get what I'm trying to uh get at here.

Sedentary societies are trying to respond to a trauma, social trauma, and the social trauma is a

a discontinuity within the logic of the social whole.

which they're trying to reincorporate.

But what is n what are nomadic societies then?

Well this is the difference.

Nomadic societies, rather than try to heal the wound, insist upon the wound.

They insist upon the trauma.

They insist upon the cut and the rupture.

For nomadic societies,

Sedentary societies are fakes and phonies in a way, if you think about it.

Like, they are coping.

They are trying to avoid a painful truth.

Nomadic societies insist upon that.

They insist and for them it's a matter of honor to recognize that.

To recognize that there is this rupture, there is this radical discontinuity.

in any familiar and comfortable logic of the social whole,

Which makes it impossible to have a permanent home, which makes it impossible to have a permanent and stable mm form of subsistence.

And nom nomadicism is uh p pastoralism, right?

It's a kind of um

It's nomadic because you're taking animals and you're traveling long, long distance, sometimes cyclical, but sometimes not, because grazing grounds become exhausted eventually.

This is a dynamic.

It's part of the dynamic.

But you're traveling these long distances because of the need to graze the animals, your hor horses, sheep, whatever.

And um

This kind of opens up the horizon of an openness of

the lo of of what the logic of the social whole actually is.

And this is where the kind of first form of a sense of universalism, I think, comes from in a way.

But not universalism in the sense of universal human rights, but the notion of a kind of

Abstract universal, a notion of a of a kind of infinity, right?

A boundlessness of space.

And this, of course, has always manifested itself in sky cults, right?

It's the sky god Anu in the case of Mesopotamian nomads.

It's Tengri in the case of Turkomongol nomads, and so on and so forth.

But why it's a sky god usually is because the vastness, the infinity.

And most importantly, the kind of smooth nature of the sky.

There's nothing in there really except clouds.

Kind of reflects

And Deleuze talks about this bullshit anyway.

Smooth space, whatever.

Smooth versus stratified space.

But

The sky um has this deontological significance for nomads because it represents the kind of full uh indeterminacy of social form.

the boundless indeterminacy, the suspended, permanent indeterminacy of the social form.

It stretches literally across the infinite horizon.

It's just

So on and so on.

Uh but

Yeah, this is just I'm not talking about actual history.

This is just a kind of simplification, conceptually speaking.

Anyway, nomads develop a strict kind of code of honor that is based on the recognition and the acknowledgement of ruptures and discontinuities within the social form, within the immediacy of a given social whole.

Of course, translated in psychoanalytic terms,

Nomads lean heavy on the symbolic order, on the order of law,

And the symbolic is a rupture within the order of the imaginary.

The social whole in question here is another word for the imaginary other with a capital O, right?

The big other of the imaginary.

So, this is actually what we're talking about here.

This is actually what we're talking about here.

And sedentary societies do, of course.

Um, well, not at in the beginning, they don't actually, but eventually, of course, they come to have a sense of law, right?

A sense of prohibition.

See, this is what we're talking about, too.

What a rupture in the immediacy of kinship relationships.

Think about it: what is that?

It's a prohibition of incest, right?

It's that's exactly what it is.

If your kinship relations are a little too immediate, you know, the families are getting a little too close.

You get what I'm saying?

This is the Freudian prohibition of incest.

So.

Uh that is the foundation of law though, right?

The the the symbolic order this is basic Lacan interpretation of Freud of the symbolic order is founded upon the prohibition of incest.

Yeah, prohibition of open relationships, sure, sure, sure, whatever.

So, uh to continue, um

There is a difference though.

For sedentary societies, the order of the symbolic, the symbolic law, gets reincorporated into some kind of familiar um

Familiar, imaginary other, other, right?

That's just a kind of familiar, phenomenal pattern of social existence.

The psychoanalytic analogy application of psychoanalytic concepts is a little too direct here, and I want to avoid that.

But the logic is the same, that's all you need to know.

But the sedentary society, not necessarily bad, but it has a corrupting effect on the order of law.

That's what's important.

Sedentary societies tend to forget the difference upon which they were founded, the prohibition, the discontinuity, the rupture upon which they were founded, because sedentary societies eventually become comfortable, quite literally, in a new mode of production in which there is to an extent a degree of predictability of crop yields and subsistence is more guaranteed.

There's more of a certainty of the future.

and of uh subsistence and so on and so on.

So um this has a corrupting effect, obviously, right?

Because you you bas you you forget your humble origins, you forget

You forget how

You c you literally erect an idol and worship the idol.

But what you're forgetting is that your entire history was founded upon the inadequacy and the shattering of an idol.

But you built a new one because you forgot about that, because you became content with a new pattern of social existence.

Which you reify into the status of the eternal just because.

Um, just because uh

of the consistency of uh the m production and

the reliability of the form of subsistence you've adopted.

So this is this produces a corrupting effect on the order of the law.

on the order of codes of honor.

This is why settled societies eventually descend into corruption.

So why is it that nomadic societies are always the ones that remind them of that?

Yeah, they forget the the the content of God's Word.

They just kind of become contended with the form.

This is idolatry, right?

Now stay with me, stay with me, like they say on TikTok, stay with me.

Nomadic societies are not impervious to corruption either.

Keep that in mind.

Nomadic society is also corrupt.

In fact, that corruption is the very context of the holy books.

the Bible, the Koran, you name it, and world history itself.

But the the nature of the corruption and the corresponding response to it is a little bit different.

Because sedentary societies have the benefit of a the comfort of an enclosed social whole,

The corruption does not bear upon its um dwellers.

as an immediate problem, as an immediate injustice, as an immediate issue.

Because they can just continue s just think of Nietzsche's Last Man.

Okay, you've g you have hamburgers and pornography and drugs, so you can just you know you can ignore

whatever injustice or violation of honor or immorality, because you basically can just keep going and rely that your welfare check is going to come every month.

Whatever, right?

Think of the kind of basic right wing Nietzschean nonsense

And it kind of does this apply to the corrupting um nature of sedentary societies and how that corruption is able to persist and why it always takes an outside influence to restore law and honor.

Because in nomadic societies

It's a little bit different.

You see, nomadic societies are not necessarily law they're they're they're far from lawless.

Although nomads are called barbarians, the reason there is so much interfighting and conflict between nomads is because the whole of their existence is based upon

A strict, very strict code of honor.

So, because their codes of honor are so strict, founded purely upon their recognition of the incommensurability of kinship relationships and the discontinuity and rupture within them, that the tendency towards that, it's very easy for brothers to start fighting each other over inheritance, or you know, cousins to fight each other, or different tribes to fight each other, because disputes over the code of honor become very easy when it's so strict and there's so much pressure being exerted by it upon nomads, right?

So nomads are always dwelling within this wild, lawless wild west, not because there is no law, but on the contrary.

Because the law is so heavy and so strict, it makes it very easy for there to be disputes over it.

Right?

Um

And why is the law so integral and so fundamental to nomadic societies?

Because when you don't have certainty in the form of the regularity of form uh different kind of uh

outputs of production and forms of subsistence,

The only thing at the end of the day you can really count on, like the only thing you have to count on, right?

Is

that basically um

Your boundaries will be respected.

All you have is your own dignity and nothing else.

It's like what Badou says: when someone has nothing, nothing at all, all they have is their dignity and nothing else.

All you have is the business you stand on.

I stand on this business.

I'm a guy, you know, running around riding on a horse.

I have no certainty about what tomorrow will bring.

I have no regularity.

I can take no comfort in what the future will bring me, but I insist.

upon not being domesticated by this sedentary society, because,

I have obligations to my tribe, to my family, to my forefathers.

I have these obligations to recognize and remember my humble origins and to stay true to them and to never forget them.

Never forget the thing that makes me what I am.

I could talk about honor more because I'm being very vague and ambiguous and it's not necessarily a proper materialist explanation, but I will shelve that for now because I don't want to get into all this psychoanalytic stuff.

But to simplify it, nomadic societies take as their foundation an a very strict notion of honor.

And all honor is, is an acknowledgment and a recognition of the discontinuity of social relationships, uh within this context at least.

Um for example, when in traditional Islamic societies

Some of them, let's say, middle, because this comes from Roman and Sassanid practices, but the veil, why is the veil considered a way of defending your wife's honor or some woman's honor?

Because it's literally a discontinuity in the immediacy of a social relationship, right?

In this case, vision.

Somebody does not have access to her body to look at.

uh what she looks like, right?

There's a there's a kind of um

There's a rupture in that immediacy because it's a reflection of the kind of acknowledgement and recognition of the privacy and interiority, the sacredness of the sexuality.

For example, female sexuality.

Not everyone can have access.

you see.

So that's honor.

Honor is that, you know.

It's the same thing when it comes to trade.

Honor is you not stealing from me at gunpoint outright.

Honor is when, um,

When, you know, I promise I'm gonna give you, I don't know, like a f a sack of potatoes and in return you're gonna give me like a new fucking s bow and arrow or some shit, right?

That's honor, but it's it's it's it's there's no honor when it's see, it's not honor when it's just uh an immediate kinship relationship.

Like, for example, if you're born, you're raised in a household and like your older brother gives you McDonald's.

That's not honor.

Your brother is not defending the honor of the family by giving you McDonald's.

That's expected of him.

You have to give me fucking McDonald's, motherfucker.

Like, what do you think this is, right?

Um, when you're doing chores around the house, that's kind of debatable, but when you're a kid, at least, when you're a kid, when you're like 10 years old doing chores around the house, you're not honoring the family, you're doing what you're fucking supposed to, or else you're gonna get beaten with a shoe, right?

Because it's expected of you.

Honor only inserts itself as a factor when there's a discontinuity of social relationships, when there isn't an immediacy of access, there isn't an immediacy of what you can demand of the other person, there's a discontinuity at that level, and mutual recognition, which implies a distance between the two, is necessary, right?

So keep that in mind, that's very important.

And nomadic societies are literally founded upon being cut off from holistic social metabolisms.

They are cut off from when you're cut off from the immediacy of kinship relationships,

You're you're banished and expelled from the village.

You know, all you have to rely on, really, is the cut itself.

That is the foundation of your existence.

And how you enter into relationships with other nomadic tribes and other peoples is based on a mutual recognition of that cut.

It's almost like in SpongeBob when they go to the Salt East Platoon.

How tough are you?

And it's like everyone at the Salt East Platoon in SpongeBob is just they're all sitting at the bar.

Yo, Amilo, what's up?

They're all, uh, they're all sitting at the bar.

Localists, don't fucking talk about the Middle Ages.

I'm talking about, like, fucking 10,000 BC right now.

Like, holy shit.

Can you, like, chill?

What the fuck, dude?

You may as well, like, why do you want to get so ahead of yourself?

The Middle Ages?

Like, what?

Like, what?

15,000 years later, past what I'm talking about?

Holy shit.

Yeah, let me just go through all world history to explain it.

Anyway

Um

The Salty Splatoon.

Let's return back to that.

All right.

Salty Splatoon.

Amila.

I don't know if I thanked you.

Everyone's at the Salties platoon, and what minimal form of solidarity do you think people at the Salties platoon have?

The minimal form of solidarity is like, look at this scar I got!

Look at this fucking bullet hole!

Yeah, you got a bullet hole, me too!

Yeah, we're standing on business out here.

It's not necessarily like an immediacy of like, oh, we all love each other and it's so warm.

It's more like, I've been through some shit, you've been through some shit.

And we don't trust nobody out here, but we all re we're all in agreement and we have this kind of recognition.

Of

of of this unifying like cut this unifying

impossibility of social relationships, right?

If that makes sense.

Like every it's not that people have each other's back, it's just there's there is a recognition there.

There is a s a a code of honor and a form of respect at the Salties Platoon and SpongeBob, right?

So it's the same with nomads and the Mongols, um before Genghis Khan and and afterwards for that matter.

Um now that's not to say nomads don't have familial relationships, it's the opposite.

They have it called asab asabiyah, which is what Ibn Khaldun described it as.

The tribal solid, but the tribal solidarity that nomads have is not based on the warmth of kinship relationships, it's based on a sense of cohesion, group cohesion, that it that follows the patriarchal logic of honor.

You will fight alongside your father, your brother, and your cousins because you have an it's your honor to do so.

It's based on honor, right?

It's not based on warmth, it's not based on you know, uh, uh

You know, I'm doing this because they pay for every no, you're doing it because you that you have to stand on business in that way.

But that lack of warmth also means you can fight your father and your brothers and your cousins, and you can literally kill them.

When there's disputations as far as the shared code of honor is concerned, right?

Now, how does this reflect itself in the form of a mode of production, if you can even call it that?

Because let's anchor this a little bit in the materialist terms.

Let's not get too carried away.

Because when we're talking about nomadic societies, we're talking about a way of life.

And while it's more unpredictable than sedentary societies, arguably, I mean, I know that's contested, but generally speaking, it's still predictable enough to constitute a way of life that survives across generations, right?

So.

Basically, how nomadic societies work is that there's two forms of subsistence, let's call it, right?

There's a form of subsistence of

Um

What you earn, I guess.

Uh at the expense of any kind of

social logic.

But then more fundamentally there there is a kind of

There is a law that, and it's based in law.

That's so important.

It's based in law.

That defines

How um

How wealth is distributed among the tribe.

How can it be justly distributed?

What obligations are there to take care of others, and so on and so on.

But these are not based in a kind of immediacy of familial kinship relations, they're based on the indirect, indirectly mediated form of social honor.

So you have an obligation.

Put it this way, a father, a nomadic father, has an obligation.

To divide his spoils and divide his wealth among his children and among his family, not because it's all warm and everyone loves each other, but because to not do so would

would be a violation.

Would be a um

would be a defacement and would be a kind of um an affront

to what his ancestors lived and died for themselves.

He has to divide his wealth among his family because otherwise he would not be a man, for example.

Because otherwise, the founding exile or the founding discontinuity that founds the nomadic way of life, why it is that we had to go out into the desert or into the steppes or something, instead of being in a cozy, comfortable little village, is because we've insisted upon the recognition, the remembrance of this cut within the social whole.

And it's reproducing that recognition and

and um carrying it f uh further into the future, into new generations.

That is the that is the purpose and the aim of life itself.

Life exists to reproduce

The recognition

of that founding cut, if you will, the signifier.

So notice it's very different, okay?

It's very different.

It's very cold.

It's not very warm.

All relationships of production are founded upon the law, the signifier.

They are not founded upon

Um

the comfortability or the familiarity of an imaginary other, an imaginary form, a phenomenal form, that just makes sense to you immediately.

It's not because of feelings or the I mean that's a muddied word.

It's not because of like uh

It's not because of anything given, that's the word I'm looking for, it's not given.

Like Wilfred Sellar's notion of the myth of the given.

It's not given, right?

It's not a given.

It's something that has to constantly be reasserted and be re-litigated.

Brothers are constantly having to fight over the inheritance.

They're constantly having to be disputes over, oh no, she was betrothed to me, not to you, whatever.

There constantly has to be some kind of conflict over the code of honor, over the law, because it's not given in production itself.

That's what I mean to say.

It's not given.

It's not the presumption of production.

It is what is fundamental to life itself.

So the law is always in dispute.

Whereas in sedentary societies, the opposite is true.

The law is not always in dispute.

On the contrary, people much prefer, and there's a tendency for the law to kind of occlude into the background and descend in this kind of corruption, basically turning a blind eye and ignoring it and so on and so on, because the immediacy of kinship relations and village relations and family relations kind of makes up, it doesn't need to be there.

We can kind of sort things out amongst ourselves, kind of like in a good libertarian way.

See, nomads are inherently authoritarians, and sedentary societies are libertarian.

Why don't we put it in these terms?

Sedentary societies want to be libertarian, nomadic societies are everyone is basically Stalin, you know?

Anyway.

Um

More true than you would think actually.

But uh in any case

Let me continue.

How is it that nomadic societies corrupt?

How is it that they descend into corruption?

Of course, it's because they're tempted.

They're tempted by a woman.

These patriarchal societies are seduced by a woman, but not any one woman in particular, rather, the idol of.

Usually, it's a fertility goddess of the sedentary societies itself.

Because sedentary societies are able to accumulate more wealth, more spare wealth, more surplus wealth, they have ways of tempting and circumventing the codes of honor within nomadic societies such that.

Corrupt sedentary societies also corrupt nomadic chiefs, they corrupt nomadic figures of authority, who themselves become kind of seduced by this new found wealth and even power.

That's most important as well, power.

Because sedentary societies also find ways of appointing.

Um nomadic authorities to the status of an of authority and power, basically giving them a monopoly, right, because of this corrupt relationship of we are receiving wealth from you, uh, you're bribing us basically, and we're gonna do your bidding.

And gain your favor.

And then there's and then every nomadic hero always comes to the fore, usually an orphan, like the Prophet of Islam, but not always.

But every nomad always enters the scene.

Every nomadic hero, and what does he do?

He looks around his tribe, his society, his nomadic society, and he says, Have you forgotten the name of your forefathers?

Have you forgotten your God?

Have you forgotten?

the code of honor which premises our very existence, which gives us life, upon which our life and our way of life is founded?

Have you forgotten our ways and our code?

Have you forgotten what it is that makes us what we are?

This wealth has made you forget that?

This comfortable position you've been given by these bastards in the city has made you forget that?

This is all that it takes for a nomadic hero to be born.

A nomadic hero rises in the midst of a decaying and corrupting society and reasserts the name of the Father, reasserts the signifier, reasserts the integrity of the symbolic order.

And then there's always an internal conflict.

Why are nomads put into conflict with sedentary societies?

It's not because all the nomads unite and destroy the sedentary societies 'cause they're jealous of them.

No, it's not.

It's because sedentary societies often get caught in the crossfire, in the disputes between nomads.

When a nomadic hero rises,

Unifies his people, his tribe.

He comes up ag this is literally in the Quran, by the way.

He literally comes up against corrupt nomadic chiefs and corrupt nomadic figures who are being aided and given their orders by these sedentary societies and so on.

Um

And once those guys are dealt with

Like the blue sky, the seamlessness, the infinity of the blue sky above.

the city becomes smoothed over.

In other words, once the nomads sort their business out,

and reassert the integrity of the law

Nothing is stopping that from being applied to sedentary societies themselves.

But you need to understand this kind of beautiful Hegelian logic at play here.

Right?

It's not that it's not that Moses.

Comes and decides he wants to have a revolution against the whole world.

It's something that goes on privately.

It's a private problem within a specific tribe, a specific society, a specific nomadic group, right?

And they're so minuscule and irrelevant.

They're like the Persians in the Medaean Empire before the rise of Cyrus the Great.

They're just this marginal group, but somebody rises up and has some business to stand on and says, Why have we forgotten who we are?

Why have we forgotten the law?

And once they find a way to remember the law, they become invincible.

They become an invincible force that conquers and triumphs over all of these different corrupt societies by reminding them.

Of the law that they forgot too, but it's an indirect process.

They didn't, Cyrus the Great didn't mean to conquer the whole fucking world, he just had some business within his own community that he wanted to settle.

And once he did that, it followed naturally that he conquered the world because the logic was able to reproduce and replicate itself beyond there.

Why not?

Why stop here?

Why not go to the fucking end?

Right?

Same thing with the Arabian desert nomads.

I don't think it was the intention of the Prophet to conquer.

All of North Africa, all the way to India.

I don't think that was the intention in the beginning.

He had a problem with the Meccan authorities, a small, marginal, meaningless part of the world.

But once that business was settled, they were unleashed upon the entire world.

Nothing could stop them.

Because it was a microcosm of world history itself.

See, the two dimensions, the two layers, the private.

Context

Of the symbolic law.

Right.

the private context of some kind of communal dispute regarding the symbolic law, and then the wider reality of universal world history,

The two coming

and engaging in a form of mutual recognition, that's exactly what Kojev describes as the meeting of the philosopher with the tyrant.

The tyrant and the philosopher.

Right.

That's the same Hegelian logic.

One finds confirmation in the other.

Unbeknownst to both parties, but it's almost like a love story, right?

It's almost like a love story.

Like, the love story of Cyrus the Great is what?

He was really just trying to restore justice to his Persians, marginal, irrelevant group at the rim of the Medean Empire.

But eventually he through that, through that kind you know how a love a love story in a movie is like this guy is going to get a job, he does not really thinking about getting a woman, but he's just like, you know, going to I don't know.

I haven't watched these movies, but he's going, I don't know, to go

Move to a new town because his jud his company ordered him to, and he's so stressful because he's got all these meetings or whatever.

But then, you know, in at unbeknownst to him, in the midst of all of that, somehow his path crosses with some woman who's also dealing with her own private problem or private story.

And then the two somehow interse, somehow, both of their private stories, both of their like, the woman is like, I don't know, she's like a local charity worker who works at a soup kitchen and she's trying to raise funds.

Somehow, both, both, everything aligns perfectly, right?

But it's not direct.

It's not like both were like going on Tinder looking for a match.

That's not a love story.

That wouldn't be a good love story at all, right?

Bitches would not watch that in the movies.

Like imagine a guy, imagine if they made the notebook and it's just like some guy who goes to some town, goes on Tinder, finds some bitch, and then they get married and that's it.

That would not make nobody would, you know, who would like that?

No one, right?

There always has to be this element of the indirectness of the intention.

There always has to be an element of like this was not willed by us directly, but through the pursuit of our through our through the choices that we're making within some private context, dealing with some other business, we came to recognize each other.

Somehow

As meant for each other, as the same.

Like, I see your soul in you, and you see it in me.

For reasons unbeknownst to either of our intentions, right?

That's a real love story, right?

Uh so but the same but I'm telling you, this is also the Hegelian logic of world history, too.

If you think about Mongols didn't know about calisthenics or ray pizza, we never even saw them strength maxing.

What a great donation.

Thank you so much, Codalong.

What a great um

Perspective.

Anyway, uh yeah, yeah, this should really be a Valentine's Day stream, I guess.

But anyway, um

But anyway, uh

The the deeper calling of world history, you know, um.

The the two different levels, right?

One level is some private context of a nomadic society, and then that ends up being the microcosm of some greater logic of greater historical rationality, right?

That's kind of the Hegelian cunning of history when you think about it.

It's also the underlying theme.

I think I've talked about this before of the movie in The Joker.

Same thing.

In The Joker, I don't want you to take inspiration from The Joker because he's such a kind of.

Uh he's just such a creepy like

I don't know.

Not not I don't want anyone to like see him like as a cool guy like Genghis Khan.

But anyway, uh

It's the same thing.

The Joker has this private problem.

And he is like a crazy guy who has this existential turmoil he's dealing with, but inadvertently.

His actions have these political ramifications, have these societal ramifications.

So there's a microcosm of like the Joker dealing with this existential stuff about his identity and his self-worth and his struggle to kind of mm be what he wants to be and

and make sense of his life.

But then at the level of society, society is answering him.

in its own way, responding to him.

And it's almost like he is this kind of hysteric who's constantly like ignor he's just constantly ignoring society the whole time.

Like he shoots those guys on the train

'Cause he didn't like them.

And then like there's all these protests like yeah, whoever did that is such a great guy and he's just walking by like I don't really care like like he's searching for love.

The woman is right in front of him, f in front of him, but he's like no, no, no.

I'm still

I don't recognize you as the confirmation of the recognition of me.

I don't find confirmation in you, right?

He's just kind of ignoring ignoring all of it.

It's just literally happening in the background of the movie.

But then at the end, and this is the worst part of the movie actually, because they fumbled it so badly, but they had to do it.

At the end, he finally has this disgusting dancing part.

He escapes.

The police.

He shoots Murray.

He shoots Murray.

Then he gets taken in or something.

And then the protesters with the Joker mask blow up the police car, who he previously had ignored and attributed no significance to whatsoever.

Then finally...

He realized the stars aligned.

Like, oh, these are the people who freed me from this police car.

Now I step out of the police car, step on top of it, and now I recognize that this is all of my making.

And now the kind of mutual recognition happens.

He was the person that society was responding to the whole time.

And he recognizes in the response society gave back to him the existential answer to his dilemma.

So you see, it's this kind of two recognition, mutual recognitions that form the end of the film.

And again, it's kind of the same thing when it comes to world history, right?

That's kind of the Hig that's Kojev's logic of the mutual recognition between the philosopher and the um and the tyrant.

And you can ignore the specific content of the tyrant in terms of uh the specific political wisdom and the philosopher the kind of um

The kind of uh intellectual wisdom or whatever because uh theoretical wisdom because uh um

Because for Kojev, these two different dimensions of historical reality, it is kind of like microcosm, macrocosm.

Like the tyrant is meant to confirm the wisdom of the philosopher in a way the philosopher cannot directly kind of um

give expression to himself.

So that that in the indirectness of how they're they're they share an identity, in other words, speculative identity,

Um

is something they have to develop toward a mutual recognition of.

And in that way they can join as one, right?

So it's the same as microcosm, macrocosm of nomadic societies versus sedentary ones.

Nomadic societies are always much smaller than nomadic ones.

The Mongol armies were, in the beginning at least, much smaller than the armies they were facing against.

They were a marginal group of people at the edge of an empire, and they had beef with the emperor of China because he was siding with Genghis Khan's op within the Mongol people.

He was siding, he appointed some other Mongol guy or something that Genghis Khan had beef with.

So the Emperor of China himself became caught in the crossfire.

Because Genghis Khan's standing on business within his own tribe allowed him to do it also to the Emperor of China himself.

You get what I'm saying?

Like, the logic could extend.

And then and only then does it become clear that

This confirms the logic or sorry the r the rationality of a kind of larger historical development which is far far beyond the provincial context of the Mongol nomads in their in their in Mongolia or whatever.

This is world history itself something about the provincial and parochial dispute within these small Mongol peoples

became the receptacle of a much wider and larger and much more universal rationality of history

That all societies had to pay tribute to, quite literally, and recognize themselves.

They had to recognize the revolution that restores honor.

They had to recognize.

The authority of the Mongol Khan, who restored honor to his own people,

And who therefore insists upon restoring honor to the whole world, to everything under the blue sky.

And then it's a even more beautiful kind of the story because what then do the Mongols do?

There's a deeper kind of uh step

Um, they recognize we weren't the first.

This is the first kind of end of history, first modernity, in a way.

Where they see the story of Genghis Khan is the same as the story of the Prophet of Islam, which is already the religion of a lot of these places we're conquering.

And they somehow

see in that history, in that religion, a confirmation of everything that they had done to conquer uh these societies to encounter it in the first place.

That's for another topic, obviously, but it's still um

Now Genghis Khan himself did uh was this doesn't apply to him himself, I'm talking about his descendants.

But um isn't that kind of interesting?

It's like

The Mongols became the most familiar with what they themselves were existentially and historically.

when they encountered this religion that had already existed, which itself sanctified the logic of nomadic um conquest of sedentary societies and nomadic revolutions.

Uh we're not done yet, alright?

We're not done yet.

Okay.

Because how does this apply to the Communist Party?

Think about it.

Do we sit here and say, oh, we're just going to conquer America and we're just going to take over America and America America is not the immediate context of infrared business and concern.

That's way too broad.

Our issue is a little more specific, actually.

Our issue is within the Communist Party, USA.

That is the symbolic context.

That is the context of the symbolic order we seek to restore.

That's the signifier we seek to restore.

Not the whole universal of America, but a specific party.

One party, the Communist Party.

Right?

And what does it mean?

What does it mean what I'm telling you right now?

It means if we conquer the Communist Party, we conquer the whole fucking country.

That's what it means.

We don't have to worry about Biden or Trump or any of these other people.

Because once we take power in this party, once we take power in the one Communist Party,

Who the fuck is going to stop us?

We will be unleashed upon the entire world.

We are within the tomb of Tamerlane.

And when that tomb opens,

Something will rise that makes the world tremble.

That tomb is the Communist Party USA.

And that is our nomadic context, ladies and gentlemen.

The era of economic nomads.

In America, at least, truckers are in we're not going to go there.

But in terms of the historical role fulfilled by nomads, Lenin was a nomad, Bolsheviks were nomads, Mao was a nomad, the Communist Party has always been

at the edge, at the rim, outside of the sedentary society, not within it.

You know who became corrupted by sedentary society of the bourgeoisie?

Karl Kotsky, Edward Bernstein, Nikita Khrushchev, Gorbachev.

These are people who became corrupted by the temptress of sedentary society.

So you see the logic at play.

There's a nomadicism to Communism itself in terms of the construction of the Communist Party, which is an authority of the symbolic order, and that's the integrity upon which it stands.

So yes, I'm a mongoloid.

That's why I'm a mongoloid when you think about it.

Yeah.

Can you explain the Mongol split in the Communist Party?

It's obvious.

It's a dispute about the honor and integrity of the history of the Communist Party.

They have forgotten the name of the forefathers of the Communist Party.

They've forgotten the name of William Z.

Foster.

They've forgotten the thing that founded the party itself, in distinction from other parties, in distinction from the rest of political society.

Why was it necessary that a Communist Party specifically had to be constituted in this country?

Why Communists specifically?

It's the same reason why the Mongol social order had to be founded specifically.

It's a specific order of the law.

Our order of the law is that of the revolutionary law.

The laws of history itself.

taking the concrete form of the Communist Party.

The recognition of that law

It's nothing more than the recognition of his.

The law that we are recognizing is not just the law of a specific political order.

It's the laws, the objective material it's literally science, the material laws of history themselves.

Our political order, our political authority is founded, will be founded upon the recognition of the objectivity of historical laws.

The objectivity of nations, of countries, of peoples, of civilizations.

It's the wisdom and recognition

Of these realities.

that give Communist parties the mandate of heaven.

The proper recognition.

Of course communism is nomadic at the outset.

Communists are in no way integrated with society.

They're not integrated with a mode of production.

The whole dilemma of why aren't the Communists immediately the same as the workers?

Well, it's simple.

It's simple.

Communists at the outset don't have an immediate social existence.

Of course Communi I mean look at Stalin going factory to factory, going province to province, going one moment he's in Siberia fighting literal wolves and another moment he's firebombing a factory.

Not saying we should do that.

Another moment he's robbing a bank or some shit.

You know?

Anyway guys, I hope you enjoyed the stream.

Just wanted to explain this to you.

Uh

I wanted to explain to you and maybe give you confidence that history is on our side in terms of the fact that

C P U S A

is not just about some small party.

It's an indirect form in which we commune with world history itself.

The stakes are so much bigger.

The stakes are so much bigger than what you can anticipate.

They're so much bigger.

What is at stake?

See, the reason I can say this overtly is because the private context of communism.

Is indirectly, and this is in the name communism, the private context.

of political communism, of the internal

drama within the party.

What is at stake there is the whole

Social reality of America, the whole of America as a country.

The common reality of America itself first has to take a private form.

Our monarchy, our monarch, our monarchical authority is the sacred name of the party.

Never forget that.

Hegel's Prussian monarch, that's the party for us.

The same reason why Hegel believed in monarchy is why we believe in the party.

Understand that.

When Hegel attributes to the monarch a kind of unification of the private interest with the universal interest, and how those who seek to eliminate monarchy neglect

To acknowledge how there cannot be an immediately universal interest.

It has to be mediated through indirectly through some kind of concrete private interest, right?

Well, it's the same thing with the Communist Party explicitly.

A Communist Party is not open to the whole public, it's not open to everyone.

It is a private interest, it does have its own interests.

But those interests, when applied in reality, actually end up amounting to the universal interest.

Just not immediately so.

So it's the same logic of Hegel's Prussian monarch.

But as an institution, the party, not a single person.

See, right wing retards are doing this nonsense of aestheticizing Baron Trump.

Oh I Baron Tr Shut the fuck up, bitch That's not political authority, this is political authority, this is political authority.

These f what are they?

What is this?

If not, I don't want to be offensive, but it's kind of a little fruity.

You know how they're oh, Darren Trump has the look.

He has the look.

He has the luck.

Well, you know what we fucking have?

We have the law, bitch.

We have the actual fucking law, we have the honor.

We actually have something to fight for.

I'll party.

And everyone will pay tribute to the Communist Party, or they're going to be wiped off the face of the earth.

All political factions in America, all political chiefs in America, all political powers in America, you will pay tribute to the Communist Party or you will be wiped off the face of the earth.

That is my pledge and that is my promise to you from now until the day that I'm six feet under in the grave.

You will pay tribute.

to the party of history, to the party of labor.

To the party that will inherit world history itself, the history of this country.

The only political power that is worthy of the history of this country is the political power that disdains to conceal its aims, the political power that explicitly avows itself, the guardian, the champion of the common interest.

The party of labor, the party of the working class, the party of the proletariat.

the party of the class which represents the universal existence and interest of society, and avows itself and assumes the responsibility of it as such.

What is this if not the purport of a republic, of a res publica, of a commonwealth?

That's what a communist party is.

That's why it deserves political power.

Not because it's one race arbitrarily claiming that it's superior to others.

Not because it's one ethnicity or one religion or one tribe gassing itself up with fucking hot air that's actually one big smelly fart.

Because it's a Communist party

that is built upon the premise and built upon the purport that we will fight for you.

We will fight for the whole people, for the whole society, for the whole country, for humanity itself.

That's why.

That's why the Communist Party deserves power.

Because it is the universal interest of all society.

Because it is the form, the political form, of world history itself.

World history not taken one sidedly, not taken as one aspect, but the whole damn thing.

The integration of the entire thing.

Communism is all individual freedom removed.

You wanna know what?

Y that would be your paradise.

You don't want individual freedom.

If you wanted individual freedom, you would be a Communist.

You would be a dedicated Communist.

Because that is the most free thing you can do.

That is the one option you have.

That is the one thing you can do without being a shill and wa without being controlled by some established power.

Individual freedom to do what?

To do what?

Tell me to do what?

To do drugs, to play video games, to pick your ass, to masturbate, to cartoons.

Freedom to do what?

For what?

Freedom to do what, for what existence exactly.

Ask yourself that question.

What is this freedom you cherish and prize so much?

What is the arbitrary freedom to pick your ass and pick your nose

What is the freedom of that compared to the freedom to realize a possibility that will not be realized unless you stand up to the task?

A historical freedom.

Individual freedom

What does that even mean to you?

Freedom for what?

You're not ready for individual freedom yourself, and I can tell you're not.

Because the only time in which you're going to be ready for individual freedom is when you recognize that part of yourself as an individual that is simply fundamentally oblique to any collective institution, to any other person, that is only yours.

The choice that is only yours and no one else's.

Once you're ready to make that choice, I'll be ready to call you my comrade.

Thank you so much, Kras.

Once you have

real a real sense of what individual freedom is.

Where you are truly alone, where you're not just repeating the talking points of some right wing community you came from, or what Fox News told you, or what some Cold War anti-communist slop told you.

Once you're really an individual, left to the silence

Left to the true isolation, the true individuality of what you are.

the only road available to you and you'll see that on your own

is guided by a red star.

That's what individual freedom is.

Republican Party in Fox News is communism.

Trump is a commie.

Is that indivi is that freedom?

Is that individual freedom?

What what individual freedom are you trying to carry on?

That you think we want to take away from you.

That's what I want.

What are you s what individual freedom are you so insecure about?

You want to know something, Doctor, and I'm not trying to scold you.

Really, I'm not.

I I'm just excited, you know, because I'm a

Such a great orator, right?

I have never been worried about my individual freedom.

Because I will die for what I believe in.

I was, I have never, ever worried about someone taking my freedom away.

Did you know that?

Because when when push comes to shove, I have something to live for.

And no one can take that away from me as long as I am breathing.

As long as you can come and shoot me.

You can come and shoot me in the head.

You can stab me in my heart.

And my death will still be mine.

You understand?

That knife that goes in me.

That's still me.

That's still my freedom.

My death is mine and no one else's.

That's individual freedom.

If you're insecure about your individual freedom, if you're worried someone's going to take it from you, sounds like me sounds to me like you're too cowardly to live for something you believe in.

Why are you scared of someone taking away your individual freedom?

Why be scared?

If you're truly free, no one can take your freedom.

Remember that.

Remember, I said this, guys.

If you're truly a free man, no one can deprive you of your liberty.

Think about it.

If you're truly a free man, no one on earth can deprive you of your liberty.

Because even if they kill you, that death was only yours and no one else's.

Think about that.

Think about that.

No one can take your freedom.

Only but only if you have something to live for.

Remember that.

Only if you have something to live for.

Now that's a good way to conclude it.

That's my response to libertarians upset that their individual freedom will be violated.

No one can take your individual freedom.

Absolutely no one can.

So don't be scared.

Because if someone can take it away from you, you've never had it.

Totally gonna debate me.

All right, get in VC.

Get a VC then.

I'll wait.

I mean, I'd prefer to just go to bed.

Ed Gentry, what's up?

What's up?

Alright, what's your username?

I'm really hungry and I wanna go to bed, alright, so

Let's let's let's uh make it quick.

I don't wanna wait ten minutes.

Give us your username so we can immediately uh.

We can immediately bring you in.

Tomorrow.

Okay, tomorrow then.

Okay tomorrow.

I need like thirty minutes to destroy you.

Just come now.

She's come down.

I'm not I'm not gonna be live tomorrow, so just get in V C now, just tell us your username.

Well you stream tomorrow, I'm not streaming tomorrow, so just get in now.

Uh i if you say you need thirty minutes, it doesn't matter if it's today, tomorrow or the next day.

I'm not just going to have you on so you speak uninterrupted for thirty minutes straight.

It's going to be a debate.

How long it is will depend upon

How it goes, but you're not uh there's no guarantee it's going to be thirty minutes long unless you have a thirty-minute speech you've prepared, in which case you're going to have to condense it if you want to come on stream.

Just uh just tell us your username and we'll we'll give you a member.

Alright, fifteen, fourteen.

Thirteen.

Mm, I don't think this guy joined the server at all because I'm looking at the people who joined and he's nowhere to be found.

This guy's scrolling.

Doctor J.

Well, have you been is he is he in the server?

Doctor J.

We don't you you didn't join our server.

Do you see him, Emirio?

I don't see him.

Can't find your server.

I think he's trolling to keep me up.

Um

Joining now.

Okay, no, he's actually joining.

Ah.

Alright.

Alright.

Yo, Iron Rose, what's going on?

What's up, Iron Rose?

Alright, let's get him the roll.

Alright, get in the show queue.

Get in the show Q V C.

Get in the uh show Q V C.

Dr.

J.

Wow, okay.

Hello.

Unmute.

You're muted.

Just unmute yourself.

Alright.

Hello?

Just unmute yourself.

You're muted.

No, don't leave.

Just don't click leave.

Don't click disconnect.

Click unmute.

All right, I got it now.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

That's awesome, man.

You already got it set up for quick debates.

That's awesome, man.

Yeah.

That's gangster.

Yeah, what's up?

So let me ask you a question, man.

Do d do you not think that America follows currently all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto right now?

No, but well, let's assume it did hypothetically.

It wouldn't matter because the ten planks were not ten points of principles of communism.

They were strategically ten things that they said if a Communist Party takes power you should just immediately start doing this.

But no, they don't.

I'll explain why.

I mean, unless you're going to interpret it, 10 Plancks Communist Manifesto.

Let's look at it, right?

I'm looking at it right now.

Is that not is that not the blueprint of communism?

Abolition of property in land.

No, that we don't have that.

We have a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Yes, we do.

If if let's let's let's slow down.

Okay.

Number one, abol abolish abolition of all private property and land.

St don't pay your taxes and you'll find out who the real property owner is real fast.

Sure, but that's not what they meant in the manifesto.

They meant that actually all the land would be publicly owned by the state directly.

The the the the pu the the all the lands are owned by the state because you have to pay them.

And if you're not then why do we still have to pay rent to parasitic landlords?

Well, that's not oh, that's another that's another issue.

No, it's not another issue because the point the purpose of that plank in the Communist Manifesto is to it's not to immediately abolish private property in general, it's to abolish parasitic landlords and landowners who basically don't contribute anything to the economy but just sit on the land and force productive members of society and in this context, including capitalists, to just pay them rent that contributes nothing.

I get that argument.

Yeah.

But first, you have to get rid of the argument of abolishing all private property.

And in America, it's already abolished because you don't own property.

It can be taken away from you.

If you have something that can be taken away from you, it's not yours, period.

Period.

There is no argument there.

If it's going to be taken away from you, but we can get into the specifics of that.

And I'm open-minded when it comes to heavy progressive.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Don't interrupt me.

That's not the first plank of the Communist Manifesto.

I agree that as an institution, private property is no longer universal, which means only a small minority of people actually have private property.

And those are the cartel of private banks that own the country, monopoly banks, the international cartel of monopoly banks that actually control America.

Those are private institutions.

They're not publicly accountable to anyone.

They're not public institutions.

They are private.

But that's because they're in bed with government.

But they own the government.

The government is literally in debt to them.

Agreed, but that's not capitalism.

Oh, we can get into it.

You can call it whatever you want, but they still have private property.

It's just that no one else has it.

So I agree with that.

The institution of private property has been extremely exclusive, right?

But the first plank of the Communist Manifesto has not been fulfilled in the United States, to be clear.

Because we still have-I'll agree to disagree with you because I say that you don't own shit in America because they can't.

But the Communist Manifesto was not just saying we want to stop people from owning shit in the last instance.

It was saying we want to abolish and what they meant by private property, a property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes, they wanted to get rid of the private accumulation of rent, which is still widespread in America.

So no, it has not been implemented.

Well, the only retort I could say to you on that subject is that when the go if you give somebody has to oversee it.

So in communism, if you give somebody to oversee that everybody gets fair rent or whatever, so there's no monopolies and no, no.

Listen, all it means is that you don't have a parasitic class from the feudal ages of landowners.

If you were a capitalist at this time and you owned a factory, some guy who would have a charter to the land that your factory stands on and you have to constantly pay him rent, he's not contributing anything to the productivity of the land that your factory is on or even the soil is on.

He's just collecting rent from you parasitically because he has a monopoly on it.

So it was a form of monopoly property that they were trying to get rid of.

In America, the opposite actually happened.

The monopoly property in land extended actually beyond land and is going toward other aspects of life.

The insurance scam, all this kind of all these things we have to pay rent to just to live in this country is an extension of the feudal property and land that the Communist Manifesto was trying to abolish, was proposing should be immediately abolished.

As a capitalist, I agree.

Go ahead.

Are you a capitalist?

What do you mean by that?

I am so far to the right that Trump is a communist to me.

That's how far to the right I am.

That wasn't what I was asking.

I was asking, are you actually a capitalist?

Like, do you actually have capital or do you accumulate capital?

I'm a real estate investor.

What does that mean?

I buy and sell and flip property.

How many houses do you own?

Zero.

I have uh eleven lots.

I wholesale contracts on properties.

Uh I'm a low tier real estate investor, low tier.

I'm not a rich big shot real estate investor.

But I do all right.

I don't have to work a nine to five job.

So you just own so what you do for a living is you just own these lots and nothing else?

No, I flip property.

I get it low and sell it low and make a profit, make a spread.

I don't think I also spoke a little bit of a developing, I'm developing a couple of mobile home parks that were raw land that I'm talking about.

I think you would be classified.

I'm not saying this as an insult.

Like when I say petty, I just mean small scale.

I think you would be classified more as a petty landlord rather than a capitalist.

I'm a small-scale real estate investor.

I just said that.

Not a capitalist, though.

You're just a kind of small-scale landlord.

I don't know why that wouldn't be capitalist.

I think.

Because you're not actually, you're not valorizing capital in any kind of way.

You're just kind of buying and selling commodities high and low.

In this case, in the form of loss.

If I want to sell you a pencil and charge you a million dollars for the pencil, it's up to you to buy it for a million dollars or not.

Right, but that's not capitalism.

To be a capitalist, you have to be kind of producing commodities, which is not what you're doing.

So you're another communist who doesn't understand what capitalism is.

I understand now.

What is capitalism according to you?

I have a pencil.

Yeah.

I want to trade you from your fish for my pencil because it's not capitalism, that's bartering, which has existed for all time.

Do you think capitalism has always existed?

Well, the bartering system is clunky as fuck, so we had to replace it with something of value so we could all trade without having to physically hand you a pencil and physically hand me a fish.

I'm not going to physically hand you a fish and you're going to physically hand me a pencil.

Right, but trade.

Do you think trade is the same thing as capitalism?

Yes.

Well, I think you're a little confused because what people describe as capitalism is something that's only existed for the past few hundred years, whereas trade has existed for much longer than that.

So I don't agree that trade is the same thing as capitalism.

I think that your definition of capitalism is actually corporatism, where capitalists or fake capitalists, these corporations, use government to make them create monopolies, which you're against, and I'm totally for it.

So I'm against your prin I'm all for your monopolies.

You're for monopolies?

No, no, no.

I'm for your principle.

I'm stuttering.

Yeah.

No problem.

I'm for your principle.

I totally agree with your principle.

I just disagree with the way to go about it.

Capitalism today is not capitalism and America is not capitalist.

Everybody thinks America is capitalist.

It's not.

It's corporatist.

Do you think capitalism has ever existed at any point?

Yeah, in the early days of America when America blew the fuck up and made all this fucking industry and innovations and every like back in the day in the 70s, you can go buy a house.

Yeah, but that was but that but the Federal Reserve took over the reins of government funding.

The Federal Reserve is the opposite of capitalism.

But you're saying we were capitalist in the 70s, but the Federal Reserve was created in the 1910s.

You're right.

That was a good point.

It was on the downturn for sure because of the Federal Reserve, which is fractional reserve banking, which is shit.

And that's what started our downturn, was fractional reserve banking.

But you need to appreciate the fact that.

The era in which there were less monopolies gave rise to monopoly because it's the logic of markets itself.

How do monopolies themselves take form?

They take form because it's the logic of competition.

By lack of competition.

When capitalists compete with each other, prices go down.

But competition, the logic of competition itself is what creates monopolies because eventually the government creates monopolies by being that the government creates monopolies necessarily.

That's not correct on the order of causation.

What happens is that through the logic of competition, one becomes stronger than all the rest, right?

And then using their wealth, they're able to corrupt the government and buy the government, yes, to enforce a monopoly through like regulatory capture or something, right?

So yeah, they do use the government to enforce monopoly.

I agree with that.

But the only reason they were able to do that in the first place is because they control the very means of production because they have enough wealth and they control enough through the market itself that they're true to a point.

But let's take this example.

Let's say Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook is tired of TikTok taking over.

So they use the government just to delete the competition.

That's the most basic, that's the most basic form of not capitalism.

Yeah, but all I'm trying to tell you is that.

You can't go back to some ideal of capitalism because this is the product of that ideal, according to you.

Well the product is gov okay, so let's take it one step further and talk about communism.

Somebody has to run it.

So in order to have someone run it, it would be government.

Government's the problem.

So even if we let's say I agree with you and let's be all communist and everybody's equal, right?

Somebody has to run it.

And the people that run it are the government.

And the bigger an institution is, the more mismanaged and greed and shit they become.

So giving more power to an entity to oversee communism, you're giving them fuckers more power.

And they're going to fuck you in the ass every time.

You can the whole point is to give power to the people and away from a fucking centralized government.

Communism needs a centralized government that's going to fuck you in the ass.

It doesn't work.

That's not true.

We don't want to give the government more power.

We want to actually completely.

Smash the government system that's in place.

And we want, yeah, we do want a better government.

We want a stronger government.

Then I would agree with you 100%, and I'll be a commie, commie today.

But unfortunately, reality says that when you want somebody to, somebody has to run this shit, and you have to get government to do it.

And government's going to butt-fuck you like that.

Somebody does need to be in charge to help protect our sovereignty and our claim to this land.

Charge.

That's the problem.

You always need an authority.

You always need an authority.

If there's no central authority of any kind, then the whole thing goes to shit, and you know it, and I know it.

There's got to be a central authority.

Yes.

Yes, there has to be.

I agree.

I agree with you on more than not.

I agree with you on a lot.

I just don't agree with you on the way to go about it.

Now, if you give the power to a central authority, the bigger the central authority, the more they butt-fuck you.

The smaller the central authority, the less they butt-fuck you.

That's what I think.

It's not about how big the central authority is.

It's about who the central authority answers to.

If the central authority answers to a private cartel of banks, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.

It's working against the common interest.

But if the central authority responds to the people, again, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.

People.

That's why government has to be small as fuck.

Because they're going to butt you regardless.

The government has to be small as fuck.

And the only way to make them small as fuck is to take some of the government.

If the government answers to the people, why would it have to be small?

Because the bigger it gets, the less it'll answer to the people.

But that's not but that's not true.

The gov the government that's not true.

Why why is the government getting big, making it able to answer less to the people?

Because it does what it wants today.

Where do you live at?

Are you in America?

I'm in Michigan.

Yeah, but listen.

Listen.

Okay.

The government today is, to quote you, but fucking the people, not because it's getting away with what it wants to, not because it's big.

Not just because it's big, okay?

But because it is in debt to and it's controlled by and it answers to a private cartel of international banks whose interests conflict with ours.

And why they're able to get away with the things that they do is because we don't own or control any of the resources at the end of the day.

So they can quite literally do anything they want.

They can do anything.

They can do anything they want to us.

And we're powerless because we can get fired.

We can lose our livelihood right away.

We have no way to actually be sovereign as a people because we don't even own the land we stand on.

I agree.

The only thing I disagree on is we're powerless because the sheeple, the people, are stupid as fuck and we vote for get vote for it.

Like, look at the Trumpies.

Look at the Trumpies out there.

Trump, Trump, Trump.

I don't think we should be blaming the people.

I think we should be blaming the so-called leaders of the people right now who are leading them astray.

Because at the end of the day, man, people, you're right.

People tend to not be educated.

And yeah, people tend to be fucking stupid.

People are voting for their own butt fuck.

Hey, Trump, can you butt fucking people?

People are, I agree.

People do vote to get fucked over.

Like, I agree.

But we have, as Americans, we have a responsibility to continue educating people and to have faith that there can't.

But this is the thing, man.

You know why people keep voting to get fucked over?

Because they respect the Republicans and the Democrats as authorities in this country.

The minute you say you're against authority and you don't believe in authority in this country, no one's ever going to respect you politically.

The only way the people will ever respect you is if you take responsibility for the authority of this country.

Good or bad?

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

I'm not an anarchist.

But I'm telling you.

I'm telling you straight up what it is.

Like, people will not ever wake up from that slumber.

That's like a battered wife.

You know how a battered wife works?

She's never going to escape the clutches of her abusive husband until a bigger guy comes along and beats the shit out of that guy.

And then if he's a good guy, he's going to let her free and, you know.

free her from all that abuse.

But until her brothers or her father or somebody comes in and sets that guy straight and establishes himself as a bigger man and a bigger authority than him, she's going to be trapped in that eternal cycle of constantly coming back to that abusive man.

Why?

Because there's no man that's a bigger authority in her eyes than him.

And, you know, that's what this question ultimately hinges on.

How can...

Free Americans build an authority that's bigger than the government itself, not in terms of the wealth that it has, not in terms of the power that it has, but in terms of the integrity that it has, in terms of the honor that it has, in terms of having something to die for and to live for, in terms of having principles to stand on, and a willingness, and this is the most important thing: a willingness to fight for those principles and to stand on business and actually enforce them and actually defend them, right?

Basic manhood.

That's what this country needs.

Yes, it does.

I agree.

I agree with you a lot more than I don't agree with you.

We're very similar on agreements here, okay?

Now, here's the thing that we had in place to stop all that nonsense you're spewing about how we're getting fucked.

The way to get not fucked is the constitution we had set up, and the constitution nobody follows.

The government don't follow.

That's right back to where we came from.

That's right back to where we came from.

Even if I agreed with you that our constitution is all we need.

If nobody respects the Constitution as an authority, it's just a piece of paper.

Who's going to be the authority that stands on the Constitution?

Oh, we're fucked.

It's too late.

We're fucked.

They ignored the Constitution.

If we had the Constitution and they actually respected it and followed it, listen, we're not fucked.

All you need to do is have the courage and the integrity to stand on business.

As a free American, all you have to do is stand up, stand on business, and lead people.

Be an authority.

Be an authority.

You sound like a fucking politician right now.

So, what?

How old are you, dude?

27.

27.

All right, I'm 47.

I got 20 years on you, dude.

And I like your energy, and I like the fact that you're fucking all in on being involved in political discussion.

This is awesome.

And I agree with a lot of what you say.

The only thing we disagree on is how to go about shit.

So we agree.

And that's important.

We all need to find a common ground.

And that's the problem with Republicans and Democrats.

One or the other, Coke or Pepsi.

There's a whole middle ground that discussion that's not being had.

So I appreciate you coming on here.

And look.

I'm just telling you, if your country's under occupation, which America is, if the country is under occupation.

There is no way around it except having the courage.

To represent an alternative power, an alternative government.

When you say the government itself in principle is, and political authority itself in principle is the issue, you're forgetting that the problem is not government in principle.

The problem is government that we have now, is an occupying government.

We don't have a constitution, you're right.

We don't have a republic.

That's also correct.

But the only way we can restore authority to what the founding principles of this country were by the founding fathers whether you're a Communist or not, by the way, the only way you can restore authority to popular sovereignty

Is by being a bigger man than the Republicans and the Democrats in the eyes of the people.

And what it takes to do that.

Isn't just having more money.

It's not just being bigger in terms of, you know, how much power you already have.

It's being able to earn their respect.

And that's exactly what dissidents in this country are failing to do.

Because it's hard.

I mean, you know why the government gets away with so much?

Because all the revolutionaries are squabbling with their egos and their nonsense and their pettiness and their emotions.

And they can't get their shit together.

and have the maturity and have the worthiness of actual leadership.

And that's the issue really.

If revolutionaries of any kind can sort their business out internally,

There's no mountain they can't surmount.

There's no government too big for them to.

You are running for fucking Senate, dude.

You're running for mayor.

Listen, here's why I'm running for mayor, okay?

Here's why I'm running for mayor.

Listen, I'll tell you why.

Because if I met you in person at a bar, I would talk to you just like some guy, right?

But I'm not talking to you like that right now because I'm not just talking to you as me, some guy.

I'm talking to you on behalf of an entire community that's watching this.

I'm talking to you on behalf of an entire movement.

It's not just me.

It's an entire thing we got going on here.

I'm talking to you while also being responsible to the people who respect and follow me as well.

That's why I sound like a politician.

The reason I'm not being just another.

If I met you in person, if I met you in person at a bar, I would sound a lot different, right?

If I met you in person, you know, I'm having a beard at a workplace.

At a beer, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm a human being, all right?

I'm a normal dude.

But right now, I have this platform, I have this audience, and I'm being responsible to them.

When I'm speaking in this way, when I'm saying we have to do this, that people have to have the courage to do this to have that.

Because I'm actually trying to get some shit done here, dude.

That's the thing.

I'm actually trying to make a difference in some kind of way.

Like, I'm not just here to shoot the shit and complain about the world.

I'm actually here because I'm pursuing a path which I believe to be a solution.

Like, I'm pursuing a path that I actually think is going to yield results.

It's actually going to fucking build something.

It's actually going to do something that's going to make an impact on the history of this country itself.

And I might be fucking crazy and delusional for thinking that, but that's what I've dedicated my life to do.

Um

Hey man, I love it, man.

I'm so glad that you actually taught the people.

And you even had it ready to rock when I jumped in.

You're like, hey, Jay, jump in there, motherfucker, if you want to talk shit.

I love it.

It's awesome.

I love the fact that you're open to debate.

And I agree with you on more than I don't agree with you on.

Just disagree on how to go about it.

The Constitution was set up.

That's how America blew the fuck up.

This was...

Indian freaking desert, and then all of a sudden it blew up with infrastructure.

When you worked at a fucking remember, remember?

They wasn't communists back in the day, but they went out.

The dad worked at a fucking factory and he could afford to buy a house.

He could afford to have a house.

You're talking about what FDR did for this country.

That's because of what we're doing.

No, I'm talking about what the Constitution did.

The Constitution that we drafted in the early parts of the country when the country started, that's what made America blow the fuck up.

And the lack of the Constitution, the lack of capitalism is what's destroying it now.

We're actually more communist now than before.

No.

We're super communist now.

We follow all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.

We got through one plank.

I'll get through the other fucking nine points.

We follow all.

All right, we can do that for starters.

So we do have a progressive or graduated income tax.

Most modern countries do.

So that's number two.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

That's clearly not the case in the United States today.

It's also not true in China either, by the way.

So these aren't principles.

Define confiscation of all property of all immigrants and rebels.

Describe that.

What does that mean?

Hold on.

We have to go through all these one at a time.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank.

We don't have that.

The Federal Reserve is not controlled by the public.

It's private sector.

Centralization of the means of communication and transfer.

It's just labeled as private.

It's not spoken.

Dude, do you think JP Morgan is publicly accountable to anybody?

The Federal Reserve is privately owned by a handful of monopolies.

They're 100% private, but they're in bed with the government.

They're not just in bed.

They own our government and control it.

Yes.

It might as well be the same shit is what I'm saying.

It's an occupying power, but it's a private.

It's the private sector occupying us and taking our popular sovereignty away.

How can private institutions own something that's public?

And that's the problem.

That's exactly what an occupation is.

The public should be the one in control, the popular sovereignty.

That's what the Constitution says.

We the people.

That's not what's in control.

The private sector is not in control without the government, is what I'm trying to pound into your head.

They're in control when they occupy and hijack, but they are in control when they occupy and hijack our government and use it for their private interest instead of the common interest.

That's what will happen under communism as well.

Same shit.

Not absolutely not true.

What are you talking about?

Go to the woods and start a commune.

What's the problem?

I'll give you a question.

Communism's got nothing to do with communes.

Communism is about the world.

Listen, communism is about the dictatorship of the common interest.

That's what it's about.

It's not about.

I'll buy you a piece of land in Michigan right now because Michigan's a piece of shit.

I could buy a fucking two anchors in Michigan right now.

Which state are you from?

Which state are you from?

I'm in Florida.

You're a f you're in damn Florida calling another state a piece of shit.

Let's rain it down, all right?

I actually live in a real state.

I actually live in a real state.

I actually hate all states equally.

Well, I don't hate Michigan.

Anyway, uh

Let's let's uh continue on this.

Um, centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state again, not the case.

Extension of factories is 100% uh centralized, communication not in the hands of but not but not in the hands of the state, in the hands of again the same private.

Which is are you not aware of all these fucking all these fucking internet uh uh laws they're passing to keep things in the hands of the fucking uh karoni capitalists, right?

So, it's not the state, anyway.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, nope, uh, and bringing into cultivation of wastelands, nope, improvement of the soil generally in accordance with the common plan, absolutely not.

Monsanto is doing the opposite, equal liability of all to work, establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

That'd be nice for the unemployed FDR remaining FDR.

Maybe did 20% of that, but since then, we haven't had anything like that.

You said you had some damn FDR.

Why do you always talk about some fucking FDR?

It's just part of our history.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, a gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country.

Are you kidding?

The distinction between seven years old, dude.

Huh?

27 years old.

27 years old.

I love it, man.

I love your energy.

By a more equable distribution of the populace of the country, the coastal demographics versus flyovers.

It's the opposite of that.

Free education of all children in public schools.

Okay, we have that.

Abolition of child's factory labor in its present form.

Combination of education with industrial production.

We don't have that, but we should.

I wish we had that.

Put the kids to work, man.

Anyway anything else?

We don't we don't we don't even have we have like maybe one of these which is uh progressive income tax.

Pretty much all ten of them, but you you just rambled through it and you didn't let me uh rebuttal any of them.

So Because you're just gonna say that it's centralized by monopolies embed with the government, that means it's the state, but it's not.

Well, what I the way the way I label these things are corporatism.

So I need to explain to you like this, right?

The state.

If it's owned by the state, then it's in the state's interest.

The state is an actor in whose interest things are being owned, right?

And don't know.

Let me ask you.

So that means the state is an interesting.

Huh?

Do you hate capitalism and you like communism, correct?

I don't hate capitalism, I just think it's impossible.

Okay, so you're you're more communist than capitalist, correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

So do you do you think that America is capitalist?

Uh today I d I don't think no, I think we are transitioning out of capitalism.

That's an understatement.

Capitalism is not private industry in bed with government.

That's not capitalism.

We don't have capitalism.

Hold on, but that may not be your ideal of what capitalism should be, but it is what capitalism became and gave rise to.

No, capitalism didn't become that.

Capitalism morphed into something else.

This is not capitalism.

This is bullshit.

Yeah.

You just said it.

Capitalism.

You just said it.

Capitalism morphed into something else, but it was capitalism that did the morphing.

If my Pokemon...

Our government shouldn't have let capitalism fucking do it, but our government sucked capitalism's dick.

And why, why?

Why did the government let capitalism do it?

Money.

And why is so?

Why was money so important?

Think about it.

Really?

Really?

Because money, because you have to acknowledge because economics are fucking everything.

That's why.

Listen, if we love your energy, but you're misguided like all the other twenty-seven-year-olds.

If we neglect the economic.

And ignore it.

Yeah, but I didn't I didn't yeah, I know you did.

But you think I got this from college?

Did you ever did you ever paint your hair pink?

Dude, you need to understand something.

I went to college and I didn't go to class and I cheated on everything I could.

Like, don't get any ideas from college.

The only thing I learned from college was that the one year I took a community college and I took an astronomy class, which I actually learned some things from.

And I learned some math, but I didn't learn anything about politics from college.

I can assure that.

Hey, I think the Department of Education should be abolished.

What do you think about that?

I don't I I I think the whole damn government that we have should be abolished, but I think we that we agree again, we agree again.

Yeah, but I but I also think that we can only do that if we take responsibility for governance and have a new government.

Here here's here's the problem.

Whether it's capitalist or communist or how you believe or how I believe, the problem is that everybody's so fucking stupid and everybody's a sheeple, they're gonna vote for themselves to get butt-fucked every time.

No, because they're gonna vote.

For whoever has the most legitimate authority.

Dude, they'll just buy the news broadcast and the news is gonna tell you to vote.

Why is the news freaking out?

Why are they freaking out about social media then?

It's not news because they're commies.

Why are they freaking out over TikTok?

Huh, what's that?

Why are they freaking out over TikTok then?

Um, because it's it's they're not making profits off of it because people don't buy the mainstream news anymore.

That's why they, yeah, yeah, okay, so there's a good answer, and they're and Zuck wants to push the narrative, um, and TikTok's not pushing the narrative, so they're gonna fucking get rid of TikToks so they can get Zuck the cup on.

Where do you think you learned to blame commies for everything?

Where did Americans learn that from?

I'm just talking shit, man.

I'm not blaming commies for you.

I'm just telling you, where did Americans learn to not like commies?

Who taught them that?

Okay, I'll answer that.

Has the government did commies government?

Commies love big government.

That's why listen, commies.

Big government has to run communism.

Who else is going to run it?

Are you going to go run it with your fucking picket sign?

What are you going to do?

Listen, my friend, that's what the government themselves told you.

That's what they want to do.

Communism gives government more power than they have now.

Anti-communism gives government less power.

No, they got you so psyched, man.

What you got it all wrong, all right?

The commies.

The FBI was created because the commies were trying to overthrow the government.

The FBI needs to be abolished.

I agree.

But let me tell you what happened.

The FBI was created in this country because the commies were fixing to overthrow the government, according to them.

The commies were always fighting everything the government did.

Every time the government was trying to do some new war, was trying to take away our liberties in some kind of way, it was the commies that were standing up to the damn government.

So, what did the government do?

They started demonizing the commies, they started and they started telling Americans that actually all the bad shit that we do, that's commies.

And that's what Reagan, that scam artist, started doing.

Reagan expanded government more than anyone else in history, but he tried to make it seem like he was anti-government, not because he actually was, but because he was trying to give more and sell off more of our government to the private bankers.

Reagan talked to anti-communists, but his actions were actually communist.

Reagan was a bullshit artist.

He wasn't a communist, he sold off our government and our wealth to private bankers.

He sold it off to the private monopolists.

He just explains communism.

That's communism.

No, let me tell you something.

You think our constitution is communism?

No, it's why not?

Why not?

Constitution's owned by everybody.

We all own it.

It's all of ours.

Yeah.

Individual liberty and freedom.

But it's ours.

Ain't it ours?

The Constitution.

Who does it belong to?

Everybody.

They'll take it away.

If the government so imagine this, the government takes our Constitution.

And auctions it off to international bankers.

No, no, no, no, no, no, that communism.

They didn't sold the Constitution.

They didn't auction anything off.

They ignored the Constitution.

No, they sold our Constitution.

That doesn't even make sense.

They sold it off.

You're fucking talking like the Riddlers.

They sold off our Constitution.

They sold off our popular sovereignty.

Listen, they sold off our farms.

They sold off our land.

They sold off all of our wealth.

And we don't own a damn thing.

Don't blame communism.

The commies were trying to fight for you.

The commies were literally the good guys.

I'm trying to tell you, 27-year-old, that is towards communism that's going on.

Well, no, listen, man.

The commies were trying to warn you about this shit, and they all got put in jail because of it.

Remember what happened in the 50s?

Why do you think that was?

Let me ask you this.

So in your society, if we started tomorrow, the government would say, look, everybody's equal.

Listen, no, no, no.

Hey, hey, hold on.

That's the beauty of communism.

It's not going to be what me, it's not going to be what I say I want society to be.

Society is going to be how the people want it to be.

It's going to be what the people decide amongst themselves.

You think the people are going to tell the government how they want it to be?

That's what we're doing right now, and it's not working.

It's not working.

I'll tell you what's going to happen.

I'll tell you what's going to happen in communism.

Delusional.

Fucking delusional.

People are going to come together in their town halls.

They're going to decide how they govern themselves.

We're doing that now.

We're doing that now.

Hell no, they're not.

Oh, they're doing it.

I don't know they ain't.

Okay.

Go to the town hall meeting and tell me no, they're not doing it.

The town hall meetings all bought off.

I mean, you go to the town hall meeting in Seattle, Bill Gates all over the whole damn thing.

You are a precious sweetheart, 27-year-old.

I love your energy, bro.

But you're very inexperienced, dude, to debate these topics.

Very inexperienced.

Bro, I love you, man.

I wish you was my kid, bro.

My kid fucking doesn't even think about this shit, man.

I fucking love it, man.

I agree with most of your shit.

I just disagree on the way we go about it.

And I love it.

Why does that red flag?

Why does that tick you off so much?

What's so bad about that red flag?

Because the government's the problem and communism gives more power to the government than capitalism does.

But no, commies are the ones who fight the government, man.

Communists are the ones that were fighting the government.

Yeah, but they have to structure a government to run the communism.

You don't get it.

Listen, you know, look, even if that's true, ain't that better than uh what we have now?

We have communism now.

The government has all the power and they're butt fucking us.

The solution is to give the this is what how I see your argument.

I see your argument.

But the government's the one that taught you that, though.

That's the issue.

I see your argument as follows.

This is how I see your argument.

Yeah.

The government needs more power with communism so they can straighten things out when the government power is what's fucking us now.

No, it ain't.

So the only way to have communism is to give the government more power.

Power ain't the issue.

It's who has the power that's the issue.

And here's another problem with communism.

Distribution of goods and services.

So let's say the distribution of goods and services, let's say healthcare, for example, Obamacare, right?

So that's some kind of communist concept.

No, it ain't.

It's controlled by the...

What are you talking about?

The insurance private sector controls that.

No, but I'm saying in a communist society, we'd have something like Obamacare or some shit, right?

Where the government...

Oh, hell no, it's not going to be Obamacare.

What are you talking about?

Okay, so how would healthcare work in communism?

Uh probably be like China's.

Probably a mix.

So

In America, let's take healthcare in America.

The reason why healthcare costs out the ass is because of big pharma.

You said easy solution.

Big pharma's the fucking problem.

Take no, this is what we do.

Take all big pharma, create a big ditch, line them all next to the ditch, drop them in.

There you go.

Yeah, you fucking pharma.

I agree.

I agree.

But here's how you get rid of them.

It's cheap.

I'll tell you how we get rid of them.

One bullet for each of them in a hypothetical science fiction scenario.

Now you're just being freaking giddy.

Listen, dude.

Healthcare sucks dick in America, and people don't have access to healthcare.

Not because of capitalism.

We have no access because of something similar to communism.

A centralized fucking source of services.

Centralized sources of services eliminate communism.

So we're not going to agree with the language, but it sounds to me like what you're saying is that we have a communism.

You never let me finish not one fucking thought.

Because you're just trying to say, because it's centralized, and I get it.

I get it's your show, and I don't want to.

I'm trying to let you have the floor, but at least let me get finished.

Say your piece.

So, like, with the healthcare system, for example, we want to go fucking fuck capitalism, it sucks.

We need to get some centralized health care.

Okay, great.

So, they do it, right?

And here's what the healthcare system does: it has the government that uses our taxes to pay them, so they are guaranteed payment, guaranteed elimination of all competition.

So, why lower the price?

The taxpayer is going to fucking pay for it.

Why lower the fucking price?

And this is in general.

Private capitalists stealing our money through taxes is not communism, dude.

I don't know what to tell you.

Big Pharma's stealing our fucking taxes.

The government takes all our money.

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why is the government doing this?

That's what you got to answer.

Why is the government doing this?

Because they're fucking the fucking owner of the healthcare company and they're butt-fucking each other and they're fucking like, yeah, let's get this free tax money.

Why is the government doing this?

Let's answer it.

Imagine if you opened up a fucking hospital.

You're avoiding it.

And the government guarantees your payments on all the people you serve.

They guarantee that.

Why would the government do that?

Why would the government do that?

I don't know, you Toby.

Because Big Pharma controls the damn government.

Dude, I like you a lot, dude.

We got to have this debate another time, bro.

You're awesome.

Because the government's bought out, that's why.

Hey, what do you think?

Let's let's let's switch it up, man.

What do you think about uh Jerusalem and uh Palestine?

I support Hamas one thousand percent.

Unconditionally.

Um

Just like abortion and just like Jerusalem, Palestine, I'm in the middle.

I saw Jerusalem and these videos have been deleted from the internet.

I watched a million videos.

Israel took tanks and rolled into Palestine with their fucking tanks and their army, rolled into Palestine in the middle of the night, woke up Palestinians out of fucking bed in the middle of the night.

In the house, they've been there for generations.

They've been there for generations.

Yeah.

Rolled up in there, kicked them out the house in the middle of the night, kids screaming, bulldozed the fucking house and planted an Israeli flag there.

Israel's fucked up, dude.

Israel's fucked up for doing that.

Absolutely.

And, you know, what would George Washington do if he was dealing with that shit?

But there's a middle ground.

You can't be 100% one side and not 100% the other side.

You gotta look at both sides.

They fucked up too.

Well, I'll put it to you this way.

If you were living in 1776, are you picking up a musket and doing everything you can to get those British out?

Real estate investor.

I'm going to fucking raise your rent and make you do it for a discount.

Really?

You ain't a patriot?

You're not a capitalist scumbag.

You're not a patriot?

You're not going to liberate America?

Capitalist scumbag.

I'll make you fight for me.

All right.

Well, fair enough.

No, I'm kidding.

Yeah.

Dude, hey.

27, you got a good head on your shoulders and you're going places, man.

I don't agree with any of that communist bullshit, but I enjoyed the combo.

All right.

Well, maybe one day you'll come around.

Change your mind.

Who knows?

No, David.

I'm so far to the right that Trump is a communist to me, dude.

Yeah, Republicans are commies.

I think they're all commies.

I'm the most ultra-right wing you'll ever talk to.

Let me give you something to respond.

I'm so far to the left-wing that I also think Trump's a commie.

Anyway, that's a joke you'll understand later.

But anyway,.

Anyway

Good talking, man.

I'm smacking down the beers, man.

This was awesome.

Let's do it again, bro.

I followed you.

I'm going to subscribe, man.

We need to talk one time on camera or something.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

Fuck Aiden Ross and Neon bullshit, dude.

Like, kick needs to have some real fucking shit on here.

I agree.

Anyway, man, I'll see you later.

Later, brother.

Thanks for the chat.

No problem.

I think that was funny.

Anyway guys, see y'all uh in two days.

I'm gotta go right to bed.

See you guys.

Go run that already.

Alright.

It's first Myron in Jubilee.

Never thought I'd I never thought they'd let my iron on.

Cabana night club then kids five dollars.

When you were a bouncer and getting girls, where did you bring the girls back to?

Did you live with your parents or had your own apartment?

Moot, Meteb, whatever.

And uh we throw parties there.

It's kind of the same life as you.

Hold on.

Nigger donated for the fight.

Bro, stop getting me back.

No, nigger, we didn't forget about the documentary better.

I will.

I will.

I will.

I will.

I will.

Uh I'm gonna grab my PC first thing and then we'll have everything on there.

Fuck the chat go.

Fuck.

There you go.

Monkey, guys, come on, let me just react to this.

Hello, hello.

Okay.

Protestant Zerka donated $5.

If a girl who chooses another guy over you decides to message you to talk again, can you manipulate them to pipe, or should you just ignore?

Yeah, you can easily, but I don't think that builds your confidence.

I think you should ignore.

Unless you feel so much better than her.

Like, I'm not gonna lie, this is fucking crazy to say, but I feel so much on a higher level than the girls I've dated that I can be around them without losing it, you know?

Bill Cosmo.

They didn't do shit with their life.

I'm currently reading Quran since I never have before.

Okay, nice.

What's even the difference?

Seems both stemmed from men.

Yeah, nice.

Good luck with that.

Do you think just being in a fat body and being in the public space encourages obesity?

Yes.

Shame is what led me to an eating disorder.

Was faulty.

It's the morals that you're professional.