🔴 RED NEWS | UK RACE RIOTS | IRAN WAR | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

He's so psyched.

One day I woke up on the street.

Sun was so hot, weather was sweet.

I tried to sell my sheep.

He's so psych.

I'm ill this life so as I can, but I ain't heard no fucking chance to leave another way.

Ah, yeah, yeah, aye.

He said, ah, yeah, yeah, y'all. He said, ah, yeah, yeah.

My dreams come through and I get hurt.

When life's so fucked up.

Ah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

My dreams come through and I get high And let that day become my wife

He's so psyched

I've got no friends on escalate

And got no millions in the band

but mama raised no fool

he's so sick

I steal a life

and every night

I roll big pipes and came about best life

He said, ah ya, y'all, y'all.

My dreams come through when I did happen hurt when life so fucked up oh yeah yeah oh yeah yeah my dreams come through and I get high and let that day D-D-D girl my wife

He's so psycho The He plays melodies in my dreams feeling unsatisfied by the lies I've been telling myself is the glass stories of love cannot feel it when I am high He plays melodies in my dreams

Feeling unsatisfied by the lies I've been telling myself

Is the glass stories that I cannot feel it when I am high

when I am high

when I am high and you know I'm

I'm

I'm Please I've placed melodies in my dreams feeling unsatisfied by the lies I've been telling myself is the glass stories that I can't feel it when I am high

He plays melodies in my dreams

Feeling I satisfied by the lies I've been telling myself is it my stories about cannot feel it when I am high when I'm high when I'm

I'm

I'm Oh! Yo! Oh! Thank you. You know, The The The The Oh, Oh, Ha ha ha ha

ha ha uh and so I'm Ha'a'a

I'm

Yeah

I and I love I'm

I'm

I'm I'm Thank you. I'm a lot of I'm I I'm

I'll open the door of the apartment

Eranimu Devi

Clark Kent

I'm here for all

so many crystals in glass

and they pass to pot deck

make morning.

Yeah, Ha!

Let's go, let's go.

Oh, all the time,

you were truly mine.

I remember the time

who loves sunshine.

Oh, the time.

You were truly mine.

I remember the time

full of sunshine.

Yo, I'm trying to do this one day at a time.

I put my whole life into these lines.

Yeah, nothing can stop us now.

You don't want a problem, pal.

Yes, I came a long way since I was a problem child.

Same guy always been trying to make my mama proud.

Reaching for the stars praying I won't ever touch the ground. I gotta do this now.

All the sun's still shining. No matter how you get it, gotta see the silver lining.

Remember when we came up everybody tried to clown us. Not the same people trying to say that

they're the ones that

found us all the minutes all the hours all the tears we devoured now we up till the power

screaming out the world is out missing close to my voice looking at me through the glass i don't

gotta lie to you i don't gotta wear a mask i just gotta be me and stay true to my last.

Dying day I did everything I could

to make it fast.

For the time,

you were truly mine.

I remember the time

who looked sunshine,

sunshine, sunshine.

All the time, you were Who loves sunshine Sunshine You're a lot Time

You're truly mine

I remember the time

Full of sunshine

Yeah

We always told each other we can do anything

that we want

And nothing could stop us.

I got the ball not gonna drop it.

No one can take this away from us.

That's a promise. Can't let this moment slip away.

Can't have that on my conscience.

I admit I lost my way.

I was unfaithful, but it's a new day and I'm so grateful.

I still got a chance

To show you that I'm worth it

Can't take back what I did

Because you know that I'm not perfect

Hold my head up to the sky

Through the clouds I'll survive

No regrets I'm alive

No more tears let's get high

Remember this moment

For the rest of our lives

Just know that I love you and memories will never die.

This is all I've ever known.

The stage is my throne.

This is where I belong.

Don't never feel alone.

Just remember this day and everything that I said.

The sun will still shine long after I'm dead.

You are all the time, you were truly mine.

I remember the time.

Full of sunshine.

Oh, the time.

You were truly mine. I remember the time full of sunshine. The The I'm not I'm going to

I'm going to

I'm going to The and the oh my

oh

and

I'm I'm going to be. I'm going to You know, The The The The The I'm not you're going to The You know, The Thank you. The The The The The The

You know, The The Thank you. I'm The I'm a lot of The The The The Thank you. I'm not you're The The Thank you. I'm not. I'm not.

I'm The The I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

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

I'm not a lot of The The Thank you. I'm going to The Thank you. I'm not I'm going to The The You know, The I love no my own and the uh...

I'm

I'm

a and the I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm and the other people are I don't know

and

I'm. I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm The and the I'm not I'm

a lot of

I'm not

a lot

and and The I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm not

a lot of

I'm I'm I'm and I want to know

I'm

I'm Ed Gentry, what's going on, brother?

I appreciate the five.

Let's get down to business.

I don't stream for no

reason guys

it's always important

not just here to be a streamer anymore

I'm actually

I have a job

you know

um

no I mean I

I'm streaming right now because I feel like I have to, to be honest. Like, in terms of the topic, before I forget about it.

Crass, what's going on? I mean, I mean to say I have things of substance that I need and would like to share with you.

And I understand how late it is and how late it's been.

Sammy, what's going on, brother? I appreciate you.

I understand how late it's been, how late these streams have been.

I don't know what else to tell you except i'm busy i've been

busy all right i've been busy j b with the five i don't really i'm not really primarily a streamer

anymore i mean you may not see it guys I'm not really primarily a streamer anymore.

I mean, you may not see it, guys, but like a lot of my future, I'm really banking on this book that I'm writing, like for a lot of it.

Of course, I'm finalizing the manifesto, and we are doing that as well. But my book, like,

that's my heart and soul is really there right now. But streaming is very important. I'm just

not a full-time streamer anymore. And I'm very busy throughout the day,

like very busy on a given day.

But I

decided that I was going to suit up and

get ready for this stream

because it's important.

I have important things to talk about that I wasn't able to

talk about Tuesday, which was the Maga communism thing I wanted to talk about. I didn't I wasn't able to

get to that on Tuesday. So I'm making time for that today. The Patreon is kind of dead. And I have not done a Patreon Q&A in a long time. So maybe we'll do that tonight. Thank you for reminding me.

Yeah, we could do that tonight. Sure, yeah. I'm seeing there's about 21 questions. Okay.

Last time we did one was May. It's been a long, long time.

I just been very busy, guys.

Anyway, but I'm here now, and there's a few things, a few things we have to talk about.

So just, I'm just going to tell you now, not because I'm like, you know, trying to do this thing where I'm a streamer,

but here's the topics for, I'm, I'm telling it to you now so that you remind me in case I forget, because last time I forgot about one of the important topics. So there's a few things I want

to touch on today.

The first thing, let me think.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Nick Fuentes said some nonsense.

I could respond to that very quickly.

So there's that.

There's the Maga communism stuff.

And then there's this other thing I wanted to talk about, which was, um, about capital and Marxism and the academic nonsense I'm seeing on my timeline sometimes.

People name dropping me and shit and they just don't want to confront anything I say directly. So I'll just use the stream as an opportunity to respond.

Yo, artist, what's up?

So I'll talk about the Nick Fuentes thing that he said, and I'll, I guess it's kind of related.

I'll talk about the 2024 elections just a little bit.

So he said something, what did he say he said something like i'm beginning to notice this new trend this is why i don't want to say this in writing

because um it would be so misunderstood.

But what did he say? He said something, I'm sick of this new internationalist trend of Muslims and communists who are getting involved, you know, showing solidarity with other with other dictatorships,

something like that.

And then he goes,

I'm 100% America.

Yeah, Maga communism,

whatever he's saying.

So to respond to that, he's 100% America with a 99% Irish,

South African Boer, pan-European and Catholic integralist margin of error.

This guy is not 100% American.

I mean, his biggest ally is Keith Woods,

who's Irish.

Say what you want about us and our camp,

but the highest

ruling clicks, the upper echelons, let's call it that, of this

entire movement, is overwhelmingly and probably almost exclusively American. We do have foreign

friends, of course, but this movement is an American movement.

I mean, you look at myself, you look at the plenary committee of the ACP itself.

You look at, you know, RTSG, they're a mixed bunch, but I mean, even they're mostly American.

Infrared is mixed, but it's probably mostly American.

But the movement as a whole is definitely mostly American. ACP is definitely American. But the movement as a whole

is definitely mostly American.

ACP is definitely completely American.

We don't have to fly out foreigners

for our events to have

a showing, to have main...

Almost all of our influencers are

Americans. So this is just nonsense.

But it's, you know, it speaks to the question,

why do we care so much about the world?

And what's going on in the world and multipolarity?

He goes, you know, the Taliban stuff and the Russia stuff, that was just a joke for us.

But these guys, they're actually serious about it. And it's like, yeah, we are serious about it.

That's the thing. Like, it wasn't a, it's not a joke for us. We actually were and are serious, completely dead serious about it.

But it got me thinking about something that I want to talk about.

I think I might have touched on it before a little bit on stream. But it's this

kind of problem I have, honestly, with the word globalism. Because I'm not going to say it,

because it'll get clipped of me saying globalism is based.

Because people have an undialectical, one-sided view of things.

And they'll just pin you down on that.

But I would just like to remind everyone of the Hezbollah flag.

Just begin from there.

Just begin from there.

And I want to introduce you to a concept that's different from...

If we understand globalism in terms of liberal universalism and bourgeois cosmopolitanism

of course we reject it

but that is more a kind of ideology

and an ideal and an aspiration but the the dimension let's call it that of globality that is not an idea that is not a concept that's actually an objective development of world history.

And some of the

thinkers in the age of globally are

like Malcolm X. You know, Malcolm X

was a thinker in the age of globally.

He was saying that instead of the

civil rights movement, constantly

petitioning the U.S. government, let's take it to the U.N.

That's what Malcolm X was saying.

You know, a lot of the great freedom fighters of the 1970s, 60s, these were thinkers in the age of globality.

You know, a lot of super-based people.

It's, it was a

it's, it's, I reject

completely terrorism. I have completely

reject terrorism.

But let's just say the PFLP and all these different types of groups, MK and South,

that was all like a single global thing going on.

They were all working together.

Like there was no notion of narrow parochialism.

And I don't think that this dimension of activity and communication and reality, and I don't think that can be called international anymore. It's not enough to talk about internationalism. That's kind of superfluous. We are living in an age of globally, right? The information age is inherently an age of globally. The Iranian revolution, that was a revolution in the age of globally. It was in a sense globalist, right? And I want to contrast that with the narrow

parochialism of

you know this small

nationalism

which I think is totally

bankrupt and is just the other side of the coin

of bourgeois cosmopolitanism.

Globality is, first of all, we should recognize it as a dimension of world systems, okay?

And multipolarity is an alternate form of globally.

Multipolarity, polarity itself is a category of globally.

I mean, a pole.

What is a pole?

A pole is a pole of the globe. Okay, that's what a pole is. The problem is not globally per se. The problem is

unipolarity, right? Where there's only one pole, which doesn't even actually have the substantive quality of a poll, but nonetheless, there's only one kind of hegemony that dominates the globe. That's what we reject. But we don't reject global civilization. We don't reject the age of the internet and, you know, global

communication and economic, you know, integration. And we don't reject these kinds of things.

Of course not. And if you don't believe me, think about Xi Jinping because he says the same thing.

I'm saying now.

He said there's a shared future for mankind.

And we are not parochial, narrow-minded people who are trying to larp as if, you know, America exists in isolation from the rest of the world.

And I find it interesting he talks about Muslim, because it's part of our, the next infraredsyop, which is going to be Rocky Mountain Islam.

But it's interesting because there's a very, there's a very close relation in my view between Islam and this new kind of dimension of gl-I mentioned Malcolm X already, right?

And it's not the Islam of like, you know, the ISIS cosmopolitan, you know, anti-social national nihilists, I totally reject that. But I do like this notion of a higher calling of humanity, which is not a prescriptive universalism, but rather a way that humanity as a whole can recognize itself in common in a way that goes

deeper than like a liberal, universalistic form of human rights or something. It's more like at the level of the symbolic texture, of the signifier, the word. It's very difficult for me to explain this. And it's not like a global country or something or a global government i'm

talking about it's just more of this kind of acknowledgement and recognition of one

humanity you know which i kind of which in a I accept, it's just difficult to talk about that when there's so much baggage according to which we associate what, this notion of one humanity with liberal universalism. And on that front,

Dugan's critiques are completely legitimate.

Completely legitimate, right?

But once we accept that critique,

and once we accept multipolarity,

and once we accept a kind of plurality

of civilizations and histories

and polls, polls to me Islam is a kind of gateway to a new ability to

re-derive a sense of the universal at least in my view right and I'm not talking about Salafism and all this not I'm talking about if

anything again they call me like I'm a Sufi Freemason or something if anything

it's more a kind of mystical Sufi kind of view right it's definitely not, uh, like I said, I don't like to talk about

religion a lot because you know who's going to come after me, actual established, you know,

authoritative Muslims, whether there's Sunni, whether they're Shia, it doesn't matter. If we try to create an American Islam, the first people that are going to try to destroy

it are these established Muslims.

So I don't even talk about religion because I don't want to deal with it.

I'm already dealing with the gatekeepers of Western Marxism.

I don't need to deal with the gatekeepers

of Islam either, right?

I can't fight a war on two fronts.

Once we conquer Marxism,

we're going to,

just kidding.

This is not we. This is literally just

my crazy brain. It's not even like

the consensus of the rest of the

infrared showrunners. This is a

purely Haas

derangement.

Anyway, um, anyway, uh, anyway, uh, anyway, guys, sorry, we're getting way ahead of ourselves, like, by probably by like 10 years or something.

Anyway, uh, what was I saying?

So he's,

but,

but so I'm not ashamed of that at all.

I mean,

this is a global war.

It's the more,

I am fully,

fully committed to an American vanguard of multipolarity.

America as part of the multipolar world. And that doesn't mean America will become some other country or lose its specificity far to the contrary.

It means America can really be what it actually is.

Because its relationship with the rest of the world becomes clear with other civilizations.

When that can become clear, then what we are can become clear, right?

But he goes, you know, I'm only 100% America.

And it's like, in the age of the internet,

it's kind of like there's no such thing.

There's no such thing.

Information and communication has no nation, really.

In order to return to a national specificity,

you have to pass through the kind of dynamism and abstraction and, you know,

and how should I say the kind of dimension of

that's not cosmopolitanism

okay that's they're very different cosmopolitanism

is national nihilism.

It's a negation of the nation.

Globality is just a dimension within which nations or civilizations can derive a context from or out of, right?

You know, it's like China, for example,

China has all of the dynamism and sophistication,

and, you know, it has all of the kind of avant-garde features of a global civilization, but it's still

uniquely and specifically Chinese, you know? That's what globality means. It's not something that

comes at the expense of national or civilizational specificity. On the contrary, a unique pole of a globe gives expression to a global civilization in a unique way.

So, for example, one of the features of global civilization is recognition of the other, rather than a narrow, parochial, exclusive nationalism, where, according to some features of race or religion or ethnicity, you completely and totally exclude others.

In a global civilization,

you can somehow integrate the recognition of others.

And liberals put the twist on this,

calling it multiculturalism.

So for them, it's indiscriminate.

It's an indiscriminate integration of others.

But in China and Russia, it's actually different.

There's a recognition of others that they agree with global civilization, the respect for differences and right to

autonomy and self-determination to an extent, you know, tolerance of diversity, whatever you want to

call it.

But it's in a uniquely Russian way. It's in a uniquely Chinese way. And moreover, it's

determinate. The various ethnic minorities and religious minorities in Russia have a historical

relationship with the Russian ethnicities, right?

Same thing in China. The Han ethnicity has a historical relationship with the Tibetans and the

Uyghurs and, you know, all these other kinds of religions and so on and so on.

So it has the feature of global civilization of the recognition of the other, but it's in a determinate way, right?

And that is not narrow parochial nationalism.

That is a determinate globality. That's what a poll

is, you know?

That's what a civilization is.

A civilization is not

a pure ethnic

race of people

to the exclusion of others

a civilization is a specific way in which different people

come into

you know

agreement with each other and coexist

that's the meaning of civilization.

So,

I don't care, though.

I don't care. I mean, at this point,

it's kind of ridiculous.

It's like right-wingers will cancel me.

I mean, I don't give a fuck.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck. It's like, think of whatever

you want in terms, oh, you're, you're, you're actually, it's like when Nick Fuentes was trying

to cancel me, saying, oh, you're, you're complaining about racism? It's like, so you're

trying to cancel me from the right now?

I don't, if you're trying to cancel

me from the left,

you know, everyone knows what my

response was. But

you're trying to cancel me from the right, it's the

same response. It's the same response.

It's not different.

I'm going to say what I want and what I believe is true.

And I welcome anyone to respond to it substantively.

But this whole virtue signaling thing of, oh, you know, well, you know what, why don't you respond

to what I have to fucking say, right?

Anyway, and you know, our receipts

speak for themselves. I mean, Nick Fuentes,

in the same breadth that he's talking about, oh, we're too international. This guy upholds

the global hegemony. He wants regime change in Venezuela. He, you know, he supports, he supports

imperialism and colonialism.

As much as he says he wants a based Catholic

version, translation, he supports

the world system

of American unipolar hegemony.

And that's why he has

these allies like Keith Woods, and that's why he's always, you know,

he got upset about the fucking boars in South Africa and all that.

He's a white internationalist who believes in pure white Europe or whatever, as if that's

something Americans should care about.

So he's just being a hypocrite.

Jackson and I, we will make friends with people around the world

and we'll show them, you know,

we'll show them like solidarity,

but we're not going to try to intervene in their affairs.

We're not going to pretend like it's the exact same thing that what we're trying to do here is what we're what they're doing over there.

Like for example, the American Communist Party, believe it or not, nobody, nobody gives us any orders. I promise you that. We take orders from no one, and we actually consider ourselves sovereign. So when we're making friends with people from other countries.

That's a relationship of respect.

That's not a relationship of us going and taking orders from anyone.

That's a relationship built on respect, mutual respect.

You understand?

We are not, we are not, we are American communists. You understand? We, people, I don't know if this is somehow not understood. We are the American Communist Party, Okay. We are fully sovereign. We are the American Communist Party. And nobody will

ever have anything to do with us unless they give us the proper respect and recognition, befitting of that title.

You know?

And yeah, we have a sense of pride in this.

And it's kind of crazy.

I mean, it sounds like this is insanity, but it's like at this point, you know, a great deal of my patriotism for this country is attached to the pride I have in this party.

Like, oh, you're a, you're patriotic.

I was like, yeah, I'm patriotic for the vision of America

that's, that's being forwarded by the American Communist Party. Like, that's what I'm patriotic for. Our red flag, our banner,

our Communist Party, you know, our communist party, you know?

It's kind of like that.

So, yeah,

it's very different, though.

It's like, we're not...

We understand the global context of our domestic struggle we understand that struggling against the regime is inseparable from the imperialist global system upon which it rests. Okay?

So I feel like that addresses everything, honestly.

Now, what else?

Okay, Maga communism.

Now, I think Jha-Hu... now um i think jahoo or someone or i don't know some people were kind of confused because i pamphlets deem me and he's like wow i like how you guys are doing this ACP thing.

And, you know, there was some concern about Maga communism.

And I was like, yeah, well, Maga communism was just a slogan, you know, and even a kind of meme.

And then he shared that.

And then so people are like, they're like so haz you're claiming that you were just joking the whole time and you weren't serious okay well clearly i was serious clearly i was serious.

Clearly I was serious about Maga communism,

but that doesn't change the fact that it was a meme.

And then you put two and two together,

and what am I actually saying? I'm saying that memes are dead serious. In the information age, memes are not just jokes as funny as they can be. And there is, of course, always an element of irony in a meme, memes are dead serious. And I can actually prove that and explain that theoretically, which is what I wanted to do last time but which I forgot to do.

So let me explain what a meme actually is.

Now,

sit down and don't fall asleep and, you know, pay close attention to what I'm going to tell you.

Now, there is an established and most importantly accredited way by which we make sense of the world as a given society.

And notice I use the word accredited, given its proper credentials by institutions.

And obviously, in a Western society, in capitalist society, let's say, that is the view of the institutional bourgeoisie, right?

Which is, of course, one-sided and undialectical.

It's a view of reality.

It's even an ontology, if you want to call it that, according to which everything real conforms to the self-same rigidity and identity of a concept or an idea.

Right? So for something to be real, it is a self-same form this is the basic

precept of ideal the idealist outlook that underlies bourgeois civilization if you can call it that

right so it's a view of reality according bourgeois civilization, if you can call it that, right?

So it's a view of reality according to which contradictions have no place. It's a view of reality according to which reality consists in the the um the self same consistency of form right in so far as the content of

reality can be validated according to a pre conceivedconceived form it is real that's why in bourgeois metaphysics

you know and lenin will write about this too when he's critiquing the skepticism of empiricists or

whatever you know they will really say you know, the truth is not real. You know, nothing is real, actually, because we can't actually say anything about reality because, you know, our measurement of reality is always imperfect. And it's always subject to change. We don't know for certain if that's actually the truth of reality. It's always subject to change. And so on and so on. Lenin is dealing with something much more specific, right? Imperial criticism. But this is the basic kind of positivistic outlook, which, you know, it claims to reject metaphysics, but it's basically a view of reality according to which, you know, you have a preconceived kind of method, and as far as the content of reality conforms or can be validated by that method, passes the test of being real right so i don't want to

get too much into this stuff um i hope everyone's paying attention i see people gibbering about

fucking nothing in the chat. But this is kind of the the, the official,

legitimated and accredited metaphysical view of reality, right? So this is the default view of

institutions. Anything that doesn't pass through the test of this kind of originating in

empiricism, but today they'll call it, you know, fucking post-positivism, whatever.

But anything that doesn't pass the criterion of self-same formal rigidity, first of all, does not have the status, metaphysical status of reality. And so nothing can actually

pass through that. What they will say is, okay, this has credibility. This has, there's evidence for

this, right? Experts agree. They legitimate and they entertain this. So we don't have absolute proof of anything, but at least here they're on to something, right, because of the scientific method or something. I'm kind of botching and very, very radically simplifying this.

Okay, so there's a conventional way in which we accept.

There's an authoritative way in which reality can be made sense of.

So what are memes?

Well, in essence, a meme is...

It's a way of representing reality that, for whatever reason for one one way or another right cannot be

reduced to the form of conceptual thinking to the self-same consistency of a concept for example

look at the chat and the

soy jack mean, right? It's like

something about that just makes sense.

Right? It just makes sense

immediately. And then

after the fact, you will

run, you'll twist yourself in a pretzel trying to explain that by reducing it to the form of conceptual thinking.

The minute you try to explain a meme like rationally or logically is how people would put it.

Something about the meme gets lost. Something about what it actually is gets lost, right?

Well, why is that? Because according to bourgeois rationalism

and the

narrow sense

of logic

within

idealism

the undialectical

idealism

I should rather

say

things things can must have they must conform to the law of identity they must be self-same

formally self-same objects, right? They must kind of have the quality of conceptual and logical and

formal consistency. And anything that doesn't have that isn't real.

Now, in everyday language and our everyday intuitions and our everyday experience of reality,

propositional logic is not what what what what what has supreme uh uh significance right i mean like

what people will say as well there's the lot you can be like spock from whatever what's his name spock from star trek where i'm just

going to think logically or you know but we're humans and we're animals so we have passions

and we have emotions so there's this distinction between like the pure logical thinking and the animalistic passionate animal side and that's how most people reconcile the obvious

inability for one-sided formalistic rigid thinking to actually be applied to how in our everyday sense we experience

reality, right? But that's just a complete nonsense cope, you know, the passionate, contradictory, and whatever, emotional side of the human

psych is not animalistic. Animals don't dream like we do. They don't have sub, they don't

fixate on desires and fantasies like we do. They don't fixate on desires and fantasies like we do. They don't have sub, they don't fixate on desires and fantasies like we do. They don't, they don't have this

kinds of angst that we do, right? They don't have drives like we do in the sense of psychological drives. They don't have pathological

fixations, okay, which clearly disturb the integrity of any kind of serene, stoic, you know, conceptual thinking

or rigidity.

Animals are animals,

sure,

but they're not,

animals are not like crazy,

okay?

They're not like

the animals you see on TV, like where there's a shark attack on TV and the shark is just so angry and it's so aggressive.

It's like, have you ever seen an animal attack another animal like a predator versus prey?

It's very quick and it's very snappy.

And it's not really persistent. It's,

I never see persistence. I never see the tiger like trying to break through a door, trying to at all costs, like, like attack someone like a monster does. That is something different. That's like the Freudian death

drive. That's not what beastial animals do. Beastial animals will go up to prey. I mean, like they'll

try and then they'll fail and they'll just turn around and just give up and sit down and chew grass.

It's all, I don't want to even talk about this vulgar topic, but, and trust me when I say this, you want to understand what separates man from animal.

Man tries repeatedly after getting rejected the animal doesn't animals

really are quick to give up they're very quick to give up like no matter what it is no matter what

we're talking about here getting food whatever i whatever, I don't want to, whatever, they're very quick to just give up because there's not a pathological fixation for them. There's not a psychological fixation that they're obsessing about and fantasizing about and having desires about and having these

kinds of drives, death

drive about. It's more kind of

just a snappy

affect

that they have, which is

very ephemeral and very

much not something that lasts forever, right? It's very temporary.

Men look at the sky. It's not what I'm saying at all. It's kind of fucking retarded, honestly. It's not what I'm saying at all. It's not what I'm saying at all. It's kind of fucking retarded, honestly.

It's not what I'm saying at all.

Men look at the sky and ponder.

I mean, I'm not fucking saying that.

I'm saying human beings have angst, okay?

Human beings have a death

drive where like

it's that compulsion to repeat

that animals do not have.

Anyway, we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves.

We're getting ahead of ourselves all right animals no animals don't have a subconscious either

all right anyway i want to talk about this vegan stuff and tread these old waters i'm just trying

to explain how in the Western

prevailing Reddit, let's

say, approved form of

making

sense of reality, we tend to throw

different aspects of

experiencing reality

into two boxes. The

pure logical side

like Spock. Anonymous

What's up? American Communist Party is the future.

Thank you for the five. Appreciate you.

We tend to have two categories. We throw, we, we, we categorize different aspects of our human, the Spock logical way, which is, you know, totally robotic and formalistic and mechanical, and then the emotional way, which is animalistic and irrational.

And the truth is, both of these are false categories, which just reflect an inability to understand what reason is, an inability to understand what the human actually is.

You're torn between these two false categories.

First of all, a false category of what true reality is. Truth.

Everyone agrees, oh, the truth

is Spock from Star Trek.

It's the formalistic,

mechanical, robotic view of reality.

But we have this animalistic

warm side, so

that's why we're imperfect.

You know, as

if God is like an analytical

philosopher, nerd,

and because of our animalistic

past, we're just too imperfect

to be like God is,

who's like Spock from Star Trek

he's like a big computer or something

that's satanic nonsense

no the truth is

it's a false notion of reality

that's the problem it's a notion

of reality as such

which doesn't include, which doesn't include contradiction, which doesn't include, you know, the, the kind of Freudian death drive, let's say. Or the Hegelian, right? The Hegelian contradiction as such within it.

Actually, I think this is why the Hegelian eagles are really disturbing everyone.

Because why are they Hegelian eagles? Think about it. Because Spock, who is the mechanical,

formalistic, whatever, the logical side of things, and then there's the female emotional side of

things.

And it's like, here come the Higelian e-girls who are totally messing that up.

They're actually insisting upon the fact that at the level of Logos, at the level of truth itself actually no spock is wrong and that hegel who is this kind of quintessential hysteric like that's what jizek says at least actually hagel is correct and hagel is the one who it can include and account for this so-called feminine side of things, the emotional, the irrational, whatever, and include that within this

kind of notion of what truth and reality is.

So to me, it makes a ton of sense why that phenomenon is making the waves that it is

and disturbing so many people.

Because according to the prevailing

view of reality that sanctioned institutionally and even in a sense civilizationally

reality is something one-sided and sanctioned by institutions and subordinated to conceptual thinking, right?

The terms of reality as subordinated and reducible to the form of a concept,

as opposed to the more kind of libidinal, you know,

kind of objects of desire and drive and

this something the the kind of

object A that makes more sense

in the digital age which

clearly that's not reducible to

a concept like look at any given

meme the Chad

the soy jack meme that's the concept has a lot of explaining to do which

just takes too long but what how it how you intuitively make sense of that is just very quickly right

so what's going on here?

What is a meme?

A meme is a more direct and immediate expression of signifiers.

Signifiers, in the Lacanian psychoanalytic sense, signifiers. Signifiers, in the Lacanian

psychoanalytic sense, signifiers

are inherently

contradictory,

let's call them

formations within the unconscious,

right?

Symptoms of the unconscious would be more accurate,

but to simplify it for you, I'll say formations.

Which kind of... Which are...

How should I say it?

Saying formed would not be really correct.

Saying reflect would not be totally correct either.

They... would not be totally correct either. They are bent and warped in the shape of the contradictions, not only within reality, but the inherently contradictory nature of our relationships with those

reality, at the level of our activity as human beings. Let's put it that way.

So that's what signifiers are.

There are more fundamental ways in which reality is structured within our subconscious.

Let's put it that way.

And signifiers are inherently contradictory. Although they make sense to us, but

when you reduce them to a form of a concept, which is a secondary form of activity, so put it this way,

there's a primary type of activity unconscious.

It's the sphere of what Freud calls a death drive, right?

Which is a more fundamental relationship to the world and to reality and to how it's structured, so to speak.

Like the Marxist relations of production, right?

And then there's a secondary activity, which is consciousness, which is how we reflect that in our minds and in our heads.

So this is the kind of issue philosophically.

You know, a lot of people have, they're like, okay, what is it?

Is it first there's a reality and then our minds reflect the reality.

And then, you know, you have this dualism between the world of reason and the world of logos and the world of nature and the world of chaos or whatever.

But the truth of the matter is that consciously, what our minds are reflecting consciously is not just a purely external reality. It's also a reality we ourselves are culpable in structuring and creating just in ways that are not voluntarily or consciously prefigured or known by us.

So Mark says, he says, men and women make history, but not as they please.

So we are the ones responsible for creating the reality, you know, that we try to then

consciously understand. It's just that we don't create that reality voluntarily. We don't create it

according to a plan we have beforehand.

We are thrown into it, so to speak, before we have the time to draw conscious conclusions about it.

Okay, so keep that in mind.

So,

so memes, because of the information age, and what do you think information is,

memes have a much more proximate and direct relationship to the realm of unconscious signifiers. They are these

immediate phenomenal expressions of unconscious signifiers that bypass conceptual or rational thinking. I put rational in parentheses because I reject both

bourgeois rationalism and irrationalism. They're two sides of the same point. There is a

rationality, so to speak, of, let's say, the symbolic order, which isn't

reducible to a self-relation of ideas or concepts. Okay, so that's what memes are.

And as such, they're inherently contradictory.

And why memes have acquired so much relevance is anytime there's this new development in reality that our institutions can't make sense of, right?

That the authoritative and established and conventional way of making sense of reality can't account for, the immediate reaction we have to that is irony. It's ironic. And so we make fun of it because it's funny. I mean, look at Trump. There's an established and conventional way of American presidential elections and campaigns.

And then here you have Trump.

And it's like, what the hell?

This is so out of place.

It's like, this is funny.

It's funny how much this is out of place from what it's supposed to be, right?

So that's why Trump, like, was a living meme because there was something about him that was just like, not just novel and new, but new in a way that couldn't be accounted for according to our conventional way of making sense of reality. So he acquired the status of a meme. But literally every single meme, every single meme is like that. For example, even the first memes, I remember

them, I was in high school, uh, like a boss. What were those memes called? Rage Comics.

What was so funny about those memes? Uh, not funny, just potent. What was so funny about those memes?

Not funny, just potent.

What was so potent about those memes?

Well, the potency of the memes consisted in the fact that somehow, for whatever reason,

these silly little comics and photos could capture and encapsulate our moods and, you know, dispositions and sentiments and emotions, in a much more kind of raw and effective way than like a rational conceptual kind of self-expression could.

And something about that was funny to us. There was something funny about how I could draw a stupid face and it's so relatable and it's even more relatable

than if I try to rationally explain it

and according to our

you know

let's call it idealist prejudices

that's not supposed to be the case. And yet, voila, here it is.

You know, Neil deGrassey Tyson on, whoa, we got a badass over here. Somehow is more relatable

than, you know, just spelling it out rationally.

And it's like that to us was something ironic and funny.

So it was a meme.

So all memes, that's all memes are.

That's all they are, right?

Yo, what the fuck? Smley oh my god smudley coming through with a wow smudley

smudley wow holy shit um wow smudley i appreciate it thank you so much smudley shout out smudley man i don't smudley's getting VIP at the event i don't remind me of

that too by the way we're going to have a VIP section bottle service you name it not alcoholic

though come on just kidding you know what hundred subs smudley can You name it. Non-alcoholic, though. Come on. Just kidding.

You know what?

100 subs.

Smudley can...

He can drink whatever.

He can even eat pork.

We'll even get him up if he wants. You can have a whole pig.

Anyway, uh, so that's all memes are. That's all they are. And okay, so, so we know that

they're related to irony, and this is a kind of ironic way of giving expression to this,

and the fact that...

The fact that ironic...

The fact that ironic...

The fact that ironic is um is funny and is the default way is because it's enjoyable because it's a way for us to enjoy

uh as far as i know you don't know my identity so i'm safe from any attention

smoldly what's up brother um what's up, brother?

What's going on, bro?

It's all up to you, man.

Brutal, what's up?

Sublime.

What's going on, man?

I appreciate you.

I appreciate you a loss muddle.

I mean that.

Anyway, I was saying,

it's because it's a way for us to enjoy that because the information age and social media and the internet, it's because it's a way for us to enjoy it because the information age in social media and the

internet it's been very disorienting and it's caused a lot of changes in reality that we don't

immediately have ways of making sense of according to the conventional and accredited and officiated, established way. So it's a way for us to kind of feel like the authority is being embarrassed. It's a way for us to feel like the experts and the scientists and the academics and our teachers at school and the president himself

is being humiliated and embarrassed by something that makes sense to us but which they're not

able to explain. Hot take, what's up? It's like there's nothing funnier

than the emperor wearing no clothes.

There's nothing funnier than like if you're in high school

and like the teacher, like,

their pants fall down or something.

It's like, it's funny.

It's not supposed to happen.

But here we are, right? That's what memes are. That's why

memes have been such a vector in the direction of the far right, because when it comes to

political taboos, which don't necessarily have positive content. It's not like the far right is offering

like a new vision of society in the world. It's more like they're offering a kind of embarrassing

attempt to humiliate at embarrassing uh embarrassing

attempts to humiliate at all cause

everything the

authority let's call it

you know stands for which is liberal

society believes.

So all of the anti-social taboos, when given political expression, that's why the right wing owns the meme game, right?

Until other... right wing owns the meme game, right? Until we came along.

It took a Lacanian to understand what's going on and totally destroy them.

Anyway, I want to keep talking about this because it's really important when it comes to the manga communism thing.

So this is what memes are.

So although they're funny and they're ironic, it's dead serious about what's going on right

memes are they're giving expression to and they're representing let's say signifiers

uh in ways that um there are no conventional means to make sense of in a way that's compatible with, you know, the, let's call it, the fundamental fantasy of liberal society.

And not just liberal society, but capitalist society as a whole.

I mean, we're entering a new mode of production with this

information age and the fourth industrial revolution and so on and so on.

Social media. It's a total game changer.

And the old way of making sense of the world, all the old ideologies, all the, everything, everything is just a kind of joke.

Okay, so, so the takeaway here is it's like a more direct raw feed into the symbolic order bypassing conceptual mediation

and you know conceptual mediation those are the academic institutions those are the scientific institutions those are the academic institutions, those are the scientific institutions,

those are the political institutions, all built upon this kind of basis of idealism.

And it's just totally being bypassed immediately, just like directly, right? And that's what it is.

Memes connect you to the platonic world of ideas.

Artist

Artist, how badly should I roast you right now let me see artist i get that you're a sub and you're a you're

you've gifted subs but i'm going to be fair and just say you are really fucking it up.

Like, big time.

And, like, let's say, I don't even know.

Like, you should go to fucking jail for saying that.

If I was dictator, you'd be in jail for saying that dumb shit.

The platonic world of ideas.

Isn't that kind of the opposite of what I'm trying to say, though?

Aren't I trying to say that ideas and concepts are the result of a more secondary type of

conscious mental activity? And that the order of a more secondary type of conscious mental activity,

and that the order of signifiers, that's not a platonic realm of ideas,

it's a more fundamental kind of unconscious structure of reality

that's born of our material relationship to the world and to ourselves

um those are unconscious symptoms are not ideas they're not ideas they are circuits of juicons, if you will, right? Circuits of enjoyment. They're specific forms, let's call it, of the compulsion to repeat. They are way, there are contortions of the underlying death drive, the underlying Freudian death drive, right?

So that is a very different thing than ideas.

Platonic ideas, that is some nonsense, okay?

Total nonsense.

I mean, like, yikes.

Yikes.

It's time to take the Aristotle pill, too, honestly.

It's like Hegel was not really a Platonist.

I don't know if you guys know that.

Hegel was kind of more like Aristotle.

Hegel didn't believe in platonic ideas. He didn't believe in the kind of

platonic pretence of eternal ideas that are separate from reality somehow.

All the ideality of some, if you read Hegel's logic, something's ideality is just what it is and it's it's it's inseparable from

it's kind of uh worldly reality It's inseparable.

Yeah, yeah, I know I've told you to read Plato before as a beginning, because Plato is the

beginning, but my Plato is a Scythian Plato. my plato is a barbaric plato my plato is not a greek

pederast plato my plato is a mongol plato so it's a zoroaster it's a kind of uh persian fire worshipper

Plato

very different

very different

very different

I'm a materialist Plato

the guerrillas and sons

it's a materialist

platonic sun

how do I

how do you know

because there's a fucking gorilla

in front of it representing the primordial kind of material humanity

Anyway, this is too advanced for most of you

You get the meme so it fucking works you don't even have to know the back end thinking that goes into it

You don't have to because it makes sense.

When you see that gorilla and sun,

it makes sense. I don't have to explain it to you.

It makes sense.

Anyway,

um,

anyway,

uh,

what was I saying?

Don't let LaRouche.

I don't give a fuck, dude.

I mean, that's the problem is that some people took the stupid claim that we're La Roussites seriously and we're like, all right, we're LaRushites now.

It's like, but we're not and we never were.

Okay, sorry.

Anyway, just because I went to a Schiller conference one time

in my life doesn't mean I'm a Lyndon

LaRouche follower.

It just means I'm not allergic to

everything he's ever said.

Anyway,

no, Heraclitus is not.

I mean, I don't want to talk about this right now.

By the way, there's no way we're doing a Patreon Q&A.

We'll do that next time.

Sorry, guys.

I've been rambling too long about this topic.

Anyway, let's go back to the topic of memes and stuff.

So, why...

What makes Maga communism a meme?

What makes Maga communism a meme um what makes maga communism a meme is that first of all it was always we all i was always very upfront about the fact that at the level of conceptual

thinking it is contradictory.

I mean, of course it is.

But

why was it so effective

as a meme? Because there is something

about it that still made sense at the

symbolic level.

And a lot of people were literally losing their minds and turning themselves into a pretzel trying to reconcile the contradiction

between okay at the one hand at a conceptual level this is total nonsense and it's totally stupid

but on the other hand there's something

about this at the subconscious level

our intuitive

sensibilities that just

makes so much sense

and it's so persuasive to people it's so there's something about that

that just like clicks for people where like you know what there's something to that right but there

was no way for people to make sense of it conceptually right so that's why a lot of people got

maga communism derangement syndrome let's call it that um m c d s right maga communism

derangement system syndrome why Why did they get that?

Because of the contradiction between the,

uh,

its,

it's value,

let's say,

at the conceptual level and its value at this kind of more intuitive level of the signifier.

Um, level of the signifier. So in this sense,

Maga communism was a meme. And also it it was funny and we enjoyed it as a funny meme. But that doesn't mean we didn't take it seriously. Because honestly, if you read the substack, what was the serious message behind Maga communism? Like, think about this for one moment.

What was the serious message behind it?

I said it.

I said it the whole time, right?

The serious message behind it was that the conventional way in which we make sense of politics in America has broken down.

The so-called political spectrum.

It can no longer account for new developments in reality that doesn't mean left wing

and right wing are gone like historically or even in the contemporary moment that we weren't saying

oh we transcended left and right there is a reason i the substack saying it's not syncreticism.

We're not saying we're transcending left and right.

We're saying that in America, the conventional and institutionally accredited way in which we've made sense of politics has collapsed.

You know? And it's like that's what it proved. And what was the, so that's the negation aspect.

What is the positive content of that fact?

There's this new form of popular sovereignty called MAGA,

cybernetic form

of popular sovereignty.

And that's our new square one

for politics. We don't have to begin with

the Democrats or Bernie. We don't have to begin with the Democrats or Bernie.

We don't have to begin with the Republicans either. We can just begin with this new

meme politics of Maga.

Because it's not really a meme.

And how can I prove to you it's not just a mean you know what country takes memes

dead seriously china does jizhyn ping thought all of the slogans and campaigns harmonious civilization

Mao zay tong thought beginning from Mao Zetong thought actually

those are not concepts

those don't have the rigidity

of self-same conceptual forms

and yet at a social level at the level of all of Chinese society, what is meant by

Xi Jinping thought, what is meant by all of these different slogans representing the

party's direction and orientation, they all make sense.

They don't have the consistency of a, you know, a pure concept or a pure idea.

They don't have the, they don't make sense according to the rigid confines of propositional logic, yet they are just kinds of direct

expressions of the symbolic order as it finds reality in China, if that makes sense. like the reality of Chinese civilization and politics and society.

And these memes are not funny in China because there's nothing ironic about them, because dialectics has become institutionalized in China because it's a communist state, it's a proletarian

dictatorship. Dialectics are taken for granted by everyone at an institutional level.

The fact that there are novel developments in reality, which there was no way to make sense of before, but which now require a new way of giving expression, that doesn't cause turmoil in society. That doesn't overthrow the state. That doesn't cause conflicts. That doesn't

lead to a kind of joker-esque. Everything is a joke, you know, meme, ironic. No, I mean,

it's just superfluous. They understand that because they very ontology, their very way of making sense of reality, is from the outset already dialectical. It's already accounting for the fact that contradictions are real, right? And that's not something that threatens the integrity of civilization itself to them. So memes in China are not funny because there's no need for them to be funny because they're just what reality is.

This more direct way of making sense of new developments within reality, and then the party

finally officiating it with slogans and new kinds of thought

jizheng think thought and so on and so on um new synthesis marxism let me i'll go so far and say

something that in some

context should get me shot, but as long as

I clarify what I mean,

Marxism, Leninism is not

a philosophy, okay?

It's not a concept. It's

actually much closer to me

than it is to

philosophy

Marxism

Leninism

is a direct

expression

of real

political authority and real changes in reality.

Like, socialism in one country is not a concept.

It was a fact of the circumstances of the Soviet Union at the time.

And all Stalin was doing is naming it.

It was a meme, if you will.

It was a meme that wasn't funny and wasn't ironic, but it was just this more direct and

immediate express. but it was just this more direct and immediate expression of information that comes directly from the source of the unconscious order of signifiers as they were being as they were ordered

in the circumstances

of the Soviet Union at the time

so in

communist states

like memes are not

jokes they're not funny. They're like literally just the default of reality. So we have placed less of an emphasis on Maga communism now, not because we repudiate the whole thing as a joke,

but because we no longer find enjoyment in laughing about it anymore. We are now drawing

the serious conclusions and implications from it. And that's what the American Communist Party is.

There's no need to call it Maga communism anymore, like, as much as we do, I guess, because the way we describe and refer to reality and politics, it's like we don't need to clarify that we're not Democrats.

We don't need to clarify that we're not like the DSA.

All of those people are scared to call themselves communists in public for a reason okay that they're literally

called the democratic socialists of america how many of these people are calling themselves

communists publicly and the ones that are, they're very marginal.

I'm sorry.

But it's like, we don't need...

There's enough of a surrealism in an American Communist Party.

It transcends memes.

It's like, look at our party launch like look at our party launch look at our party launch video that's dead

serious but it's somehow not reducible to a conceptual you know, like logic

of self-same consistency

and whatever, but it's like there's something

about it very inspiring and

it's tapping into something.

And it's like, it's that kind of new

sincerity. It's the post irony it's the it's the

horizon of a post ironic era of politics that we are interested in um participating and leading right

um um participating and leading, right?

Um... So it's like we don't repudiate our past.

Every single one of the memes infrared launched

were necessary to get us where we are now. It's like just because Stalin wasn't, you know,

placing emphasis on collectivization in 1943 in the middle of a war doesn't mean that he repudiates the

collectivization campaign.

It means that is a stage which has passed.

Yo, Florence, what's

going on?

So I want to be clear about that.

Anyway, guys, I hope that wasn't

too complicated

now I want to talk about economics

because

it's being brought

to my attention that there's a new retard

going around claiming that

every single job

in any relationship where someone has paid a wage to do something, and that enterprise is making profit, that that is always a case of surplus value being created by that employee because by virtue only of the fact of being paid a wage and by virtue only of the fact of the relationship itself and that's all you. All you need is some abstract transcendental relationship with no mediation and the actual

creation of material wealth and reality.

It's just a woeful misunderstanding of what Marx was saying.

Marx never divorced social relationships of production from material relationships of production.

He never divorced capitalism from being a mode of production, a mode of material production.

He didn't reduce it to some idealist jibber of being a purely transcendental social relationship.

What he did insist upon and why he emphasized the historically specific nature of capitalist social relations is because he was trying to say there is nothing about

um empirical reality let's say by itself there's no eternal laws of nature that automatically give

rise to value, you know, to surplus value, to the peculiar qualities and features of the mode of production we live in.

He wasn't saying you don't actually,

it doesn't actually need to be contextualized and grounded

in a material production.

He was just saying it's,

it can't be solely reduced to that.

So there's a key difference.

He wasn't saying that all it takes for surplus value to be created is to just, just

to give a wage to someone and then for profit to be made in isolation and how do I know that's not what he said

because I've read volume three because I've read volume three where he says explicitly that surplus

value is a category that is only meaningfully.

You can only meaningfully refer to surplus value in the aggregate.

In other words, as produced by society as a whole.

So there are many sectors of the society which are profitable that is raking in more money than what they initially started off with investing with, but which are just redistributing surplus from other sectors of the economy in order so everything levels out

into an average rate of profit.

Surplus value is produced at the aggregate level.

Not every industry is producing surplus value.

Many industries are parasitic.

They're taking surplus value produced elsewhere, and they're redistributing it for the subsistence of that particular industry and enterprise. The credit system and speculation is the best example of this. Bitcoin doesn't

produce surplus value. It's a way of

reproducing

value that is produced

elsewhere and pumping it into somewhere

else. But anyway, that's just talking

about the 19th century.

Today, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's and whether we can refer to surplus value meaningfully in the same way Marx did in the 19th century.

I think that should be a debate. I don't think anyone can draw definite conclusions and start canceling people for...

I mean, Marx didn't even finish capital.

And I'm saying this because most industries

will never pay off the capital that was necessary,

either in speculative investment or in loans from banks,

that was advanced to them in order to actually start producing profit.

I mean, all of these industries, you name it, they're not producing profit.

Service industries, not even just service in its Toyota's in debt

it's a car company they're not producing profit they're in debt they need

investment and they need lines of credit to be pumped into them to continue subsisting.

And it will never be paid off.

That's what this people are missing.

It's like it's not going to be, they're like, well, once it's paid off, it's never paid off.

That's what you're not understanding. The indebtedness of the economy is such that the initial capital is never paid off through profits. So they're not really profits they're profits only when we take them in isolation

from the bigger picture of this whole fucking company still being indebted and even in the case

where it's not indebted you know directly the initial capital

that was advanced to it in the form of speculative investment that is never paid off so for example

let's say a company is given for this is a stupid example let's say a

company is given uh 50 million dollars to start right in almost every case the company never makes enough profit to pay to match that initial 50 million investment.

So it's never actually the self-valarizing process of capital anymore.

It's not

capital valorizing itself.

That's a precondition for

the, for Marx,

productive labor valorizes capital.

It initiates the process by which, from nothing but labor, capital expands and valorizes itself and grows. But in today's economy, whatever you want to call it, capitalist, whatever, that is not how enterprises work.

And that's what I talked about in my video.

Now, I've studied this, and it's like, I'm not drawing, so we know this.

Now, how do we understand surplus value in the 21st century?

It's really hard.

Something interesting I've noticed is just look at the companies that make the most profit margins.

I've noticed it's two types of companies. One of them is energy.

Makes sense. Energy is a proxy for the entire economy.

And then on the opposite end of it of energy is the most primitive thing.

It's just a raw material, right?

But on the opposite end, the most advanced product of our mode of production that requires the most amount of supply chains are the chips.

Invidia, the chip companies in Taiwan, whatever.

They make like 50, 60% profit margins, 40 to 6, something like that.

Profit margins that seem to be able to catch up with the total amount of capital advanced

in order to produce them produce those margins so that is something I find interesting.

But this is why I think Michael Hudson is worth more than all Western Marxists, because they don't talk about debt.

I'm sorry, but the whole debt thing, I mean, please stop larping and pretending like, you know, oh yeah, I'm just going to one for one apply capital, not even capital, just capital volume one.

And for these idiots, I need to explain this.

Just so my audience is educated.

You know, most of the project of capital, it's crazy, right?

But it's actually called a critique of political economy.

Marx wasn't really

like

proposing his own theory

necessarily

always

he was giving

he was presenting the conventionally established theories of classical

political economy and working through the contradictions and inconsistencies and trying to derive

conclusions thereof on that basis. I see so many people cite theories of surplus value where Marx is paraphrasing Adam Smith and just presenting what Adam Smith was saying about productive labor.

He wasn't even talking about what he himself was saying.

He was just saying this is what these guys are saying productive labor is.

And people make it seem like that's what Marx himself is saying.

And it's like, well, no.

And all I can say is that when you

look at Marx's commentary and critique

of political economy, I don't

know how you can draw the conclusion

that capitalism

for him

and capitalist relations

could be divorced from

material production.

Marx even gives the physiocrats

credit for acknowledging

a material basis. He just rejects the view that it can be reduced to one specific form of, uh, of, uh, of, uh, of let's say technology, which is agriculture.

In capitalism, the constant revolutionizing of the productive forces is such.

This is why, like, for example, people always try to cite Marx saying,

oh, it doesn't matter what type of labor it is.

This is not what establishes so-and-so as a capitalist relation. It's like, well, Marx was not trying to say that the relationship can exist in isolation from its actual material premises in material production. What he was rather trying to say is that it couldn't be reduced to a specific form of material production.

For example, there's different forms of material production because there's different revolutions in the productive forces.

Producing cars is not the same form of activity as far as nature is concerned as, you know, producing a linen coats in the 19th century. So you can't affix to a specific

technological paradigm, some eternal laws of human nature or production and so on because the productive forces are constantly revolutionizing.

But it doesn't change the fact that they still have to be materially grounded.

They still have to be grounded in the production of material wealth for society.

Like the production and reproduction of

human beings ultimately which is what engles says right so these people i don't understand the

stupidity it's like um no of course Marx was not saying capitalist relations.

I mean, think about how stupid it is.

How does capitalism even arise from feudalism?

Or how could socialism even arise from capitalism?

If capital is just like pure transcendental horizon totally divorced from any contrary material reality and it's that they literally believe that they're Gnostics they believe capitalism is this transcendental, you know,

Gnostic, demiurgic prison, prison world. It's just fundamentally inescapable. Oh,

capital is inescapable. Capital is all-powerful. And this is what these hipster gibberers say.

It's like, well, no. Capitalism only arises

as a particular mode of production because

it's a mode of production. It's a specific way of giving expression.

It's a specific way humanity is producing materially its own existence.

It's not a transcendental ideal relationship. It's not a transcendental aesthetic

of the mind

capitalism capitalism capitalist relations

are not transcendental relationships

of the mind.

They are relationships

rooted in

production.

They are relations rooted in production.

I don't know why I need to say this

because Marx literally says this like thousands of times.

But here we are.

Capitalist relations because these people are like neocontians.

These people, they're like neocontians who are like, oh, capitalist relations of production.

And they're fixated on how these relations obfuscate our relationship to reality and all this kind of stuff.

And it's like capitalist realism with Mark Fisher.

And it's like, well, what about how

like it's actually based in material

production? It's not

reducible to that. We're not

saying that. Marx didn't say that.

But it's inseparable from it.

Without that context, it's meaningless

to talk about. It's meaningless to talk about.

It's meaningless

to talk about outside that context.

You can't talk about capitalist

relations of production

if you're not talking about a specific

form of production.

We're not denying the specificity of that form,

but we are insisting upon the fact that it is a form of material production,

like actually producing material wealth and the conditions,

the natural conditions of the subsistence of man.

So it's just kind of ridiculous.

It's like, well, yeah, of course it's rooted in the expansion of material wealth and like what is is necessary to actually and you know what even

if you want to play these like idealist postmodern games i will meet you there i can talk to you

about how blue collar letar, let's say, productive labor, material labor, rooted in physical production, has within the transcendental horizon or whatever, like, that has a more fundamental unconscious significance i'll

meet you there i'll i'll i'll meet you there that's that's as far as you the idealists are concerned

that is ground zero of the platonic realm of ideas.

You want to talk about the transcendental capitalist relations of production.

Those are being materially reproduced and not just reproduced in terms of people's ideas at the level of something physical.

Like, like, like, nature itself is not some metaphysical purport.

Nature is there the otherness.

For you, idealists, right? For Hegel, nature is the otherness for you idealists

right for Hegel nature is the

otherness the negation

so yes

the the context of

capitalism's

capitalism does not just

create itself.

This is kind of like Nick Land's idea of like a runaway AI and coming from the future

and dengering the conditions of its own possibility.

But it's a myth. I'm sorry to say it's a myth.

Capital does not create itself it doesn't it's rooted in a more fundamental

context than itself you don't want to agree with that fine but marx and angles believed that

marx and angles believed

capitalism was rooted in a more fundamental and more material context than just itself how do

i know this because for them that context was a process of transition into a new mode of production, which they called socialism.

Voila!

Not French, but there you go.

There you go.

It's that fucking simple.

If these people were right about the nature of Marx's views on

capitalism Marx would not have believed in the inevitability of capitalism's

transformation into a new mode of production my book probably will not my first book will not talk about

capitalism but it will talk about economics

ancient economics probably

so I think that's all I need to say probably ancient economics probably.

So I think that's all I need to say probably, right?

Anyway, and then, you know, I talked about this in my video that was posted on the Haas channel, but, you know, then what is the status of productive labor and surplus value?

And I said the place we should start is what labor sustains and maintains the revenues, the constant revenues, like oil, for example, out of which usurious interest-bearing credit can be injected into other sectors of the economy. I said we should start from there to understand the status of the proletariat today.

The proletariat is that, see, all of this kind of postmodernist and ecologists, they're kind of correct. The shift in our era is more toward

reproduction. This is why there's this new feminism. It's always about the domestic household

reproduction,

conditions of the reproduction of production itself.

And there's grains of truth in that, because

the proletariat is no longer

maybe a class which is only producing surplus value.

It's a class which is maintaining the streams of monopolistic rent and revenue, which are used as collateral to lend out or inject credit into to pursue more speculative and yes you know speculative adventurous enterprises which are in the hope of actually getting a return on

investment through surplus value or credit, sorry, or profit.

Like, you need to study the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and the Morgans

and monopoly capitalism as it arose in America

because it's a very unique kind of it's very something

Marx didn't write about it honestly

it's something very unique the standardization how

they consolidate these industries which in laissez-faire england so to speak these are industries

that are producing surplus value but they standardize these interests such that they're accruing very predictable streams of revenue and income.

It's just no different than rent.

They're monopolies.

And on the basis of these predictable streams of revenue and income, that could be used as collateral to issue out loans for kind of productive, not productive, but speculative venture capital enterprises

that are unproven as far as their

ability to have returns on investment.

Like, maybe that's going on with

Nvidia and the chips, you know?

I'm not saying the frontiers

have been closed completely, and there's no possibility to entertain that there's profit.

I'm just saying it's an open question.

We should start exploring it.

Then I have to say, like, you know, then I was going to say, what was I going to say?

Yeah, I mean, like, for example, you you know agriculture was the first form of this kind of collateral that banks banking dynasties would arise on the basis of in italy around the time of fascism actually

what would happen is that the big landowners would oftentimes be the same as the big bankers,

the banking dynasties in Italy, and they would use their land as collateral.

And that was the case in feudalism because the revenues in agricultural profit, which was rent, really, were just predictable.

That's why the physiocrats, you know, they place the emphasis on agriculture that they do, but Marx rejected that. Why? Because he was aware of this new, this new development within political economy so far as the physiocrats

were concerned, of

industrial

enterprise, which

did not have the same level

of predictability

as agriculture, and which therefore was more speculative and experimental and riskier.

But eventually, that turns into forms of revenue, not just profit, revenue that become predictable and standardized,

similar actually to agriculture.

So something strange happens where, like, capitalism, as Marx understood it itself, kind of folds back into the feudal, I guess, rent-bearing, the dominant form of income being rent-bearing income.

That doesn't solve the puzzle entirely.

At some level, is surplus value still being produced?

I think so, but I just think, one, it's socialized.

It's not the capitalist production of surplus value.

It's something that integrates the total supply chains, not

only of a given society, but potentially

the entire world.

Culminating in the chips,

chips production.

It's trying to messing up

these predictable revenues.

The chips sector is what is, everything is at stake there.

That's why the war is over Taiwan.

Just look at the profit margins of the chips industry.

It beats everything else.

There's a reason for that because all of these supply chains, see, look, the predictable revenues in rent, they are used to give out loans because they're only predictable, they're only steady revenues in rent,

or they can only increase to offset the falling rate of profit, so to speak, through new speculative experimental kind of venture capital enterprises, R&D, basically, to produce new kinds of thresholds of profitability and extraction of surplus value, so to speak.

So everyone is in debt, but they're hoping chips are going to be the thing that pays everything off, basically.

It's kind of like that.

Like, that's what's going to pay back all the debt.

That's impossible, actually, you're already getting revenue in railroads or in oil or whatever

and then you're giving out interest bearing credit and debt so you're reaping profits from other

industries and everything is being centralized and aggregated.

Lenin talks about that in imperialism.

That's what was happening with the monopoly capitalism.

And it laid the foundations for socialism.

And today it's kind of culminated in Black Rock,

which is now making investments based on algorithms, you know, utilizing information technology, algorithms, which can be aligned, you know, like according to values, according to desires, like, what do you call, ESG scores, right?

So that's kind of a foundation, if not already, socialism. It's definitely a foundation for it. So we will have Red Rock. ACP is Red Rock. We're going to become Red Rock, not Black Rock, Red Rock. We're going to algorithmically allocate resources to the most profitable and productive chapter enterprises. And even then, we will have it so that we will have it.

You'll have to fit criteria.

We'll have our own ESG scores.

You know, how much are you, if you're producing anime, we'll take away the investments.

Just like if you're being racist you get

you get it taken away

or whatever there you go anyway guys

enough jokes I

I'm gonna sign off

I hope you found the stream informative

and uh

helpful to you.

By-bye. By the way, Sunday I'm going on

to debate, I think.

I don't actually know

why I'm going on. I was invited.

What's his name? Douglas Lane. He wants, we have disagreements and he wants to talk about them. I don't know if it's a formal debate, but I know we're going to present our disagreements, something like that.

That's going to be at 7 p.m. on Sunday, so that's going to be much earlier.

So you have that to look forward to.

Fresh and fit, that's going to be decided in a few days.

It will be between the 20th and the 30th.

I think it will either be the 22nd, somewhere the last week of August, is that's when it's happening.

Anyway, guys, bye-bye. See you guys later.

Bye-bye. See you a Sunday.