COMMUNISM IS RISING | HUGE DRAMA 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

Comrade Kid, what's up, brother?

How you doing?

Appreciate that.

What's up, y'all?

What's going on?

How y'all doing?

Don't mind me looking fresh as fuck.

How y'all doing?

I've been homeless for months.

I've been homeless.

I've been looking homeless, but now I'm cleaned up.

Kuzaz with the 10.

What's up, man?

Appreciate you.

What's up?

Damn, it's been a long time.

It hadn't even been a long time.

A lot of shit has been popping off.

A lot of people crashing the fuck out.

A lot of people losing their minds.

Yellowstone with the five.

What's up, man?

Guys, the yacht, the yacht's not going to pay for itself.

All right.

The yacht's not going to pay itself back off.

I still got that monthly mortgage on my yacht that I got for $50 million.

It's not going to pay for itself.

Okay.

It's not paying for itself.

My thousand-dollar cigars aren't going to pay for themselves.

All right, guys.

You know, it's so funny.

One of our big hate stalkers, this happens always, it always happens at like 3 a.m.

or something.

One of our dedicated hate stalkers who lives not even in this country, I was in the Discord, and you know, these people say, Well, I'm not going to debate you, I'm not going to give you content.

So, I did like a Volk Vulture-style text debate.

I pinned them down.

What is the actual basis of your position in any kind of way?

Right?

I was like,

They're like, they're like, you're unemployed.

You just stream.

I'm like, okay, let's break that down.

I'm a jobless loser who just streams, right?

I was like, how does that not apply to people that you respect across history, like Marx or Lenin or so on and so on?

And then he's like, you're comparing yourself to Marx and Lennon?

I'm saying, no.

But before they became somebodies, they were nobodies.

Okay.

Before they impacted history, they were selling content through the written medium, right?

That's what they were doing.

I was like, so what makes the streaming medium so much less important than the written medium, right?

What makes one vulgar and the other one esteemed and worthy of respect?

And they're like, oh, so you're like an OnlyFans content creator then, right?

You're like a girl who's like showing her tits or something.

And I'm like, okay, this is the kicker.

This is what I want to bring to y'all's attention.

I was like, okay.

So you're basically saying is everyone watches me who does watch me because of my good looks.

That's what you're saying.

You're saying that I'm getting that people tune into the stream and watch me because I just look so good.

I'm just so handsome.

They're like, no, no, you're you're hideous actually.

I was like, okay.

So why the fuck why does anyone support me then?

Can you explain why people support me?

He's like, well, because because you give them a masculinity.

I'm like, okay.

So I'm the only masculine person in the world.

That's why people support me because I'm the only masculine person in the entire world who has elevated testosterone levels.

I was like, why can't anyone who has high testosterone levels do this then?

He's like, oh, you're a Redditor.

I'm not going to debate you.

I'm like, buddy, buddy, I have you fucking pinned down and cornered, you little bitch.

We're not on stream.

You don't have to use your voice.

You're not showing your face.

This is the text format you so prize.

People always tell me, you won't debate me through text.

Okay, here's the fucking debate.

What the fuck is your position?

They're like, this is Reddit.

I'm not going to debate you.

Buddy, if you're not going to debate me, you little bitch, if you're not going to debate me, then fly to America and fight me.

Exactly what is the problem?

If you're not going to debate me, then what is...

No, no, no.

I'm going to be calm about this.

Because there's these low testosterone little bitches who need to be slapped into the ground.

They've never been slapped enough in their life.

They need the Ottoman slapped.

They need to smack down into the ground.

You know what these fucking ants, these flies, these little gnats, they say?

I'm not going to debate you because I don't respect you.

But what is the debate you tell yourself?

What is the internal narrative you give to yourself?

Are you claiming you've just adopted this position for irrational reasons?

You don't even have like an internal narrative where you're like, okay, X, Y, and Z, X is Y, you know, whatever.

A equals B, and B equals C, therefore A equals C.

It's like, do you have any procedure in your head whatsoever that justifies your position?

Or is this personal when you don't even fucking know who the fuck I am?

Is this personal or is there actually a rational?

Well, I'm not going to debate with you about it.

Then debate it with yourself, you bitch.

Transparently show the public the line of reasoning and whether you've sufficiently opened yourself to scrutiny in terms of the fucking chain of reasoning that has led you to adopt the position that you have.

But then the truth is very tragic, actually.

You guys want to hear the truth?

It's very tragic.

And I'm not just saying this to shit on

I'm not just saying this to shit on our enemies.

I'm saying this because everyone needs to self-critique.

The truth is actually more simple.

These fucking losers.

Were at one point in their life humiliated by the community.

They're typically millennials.

And yes, I'm going to keep shitting on the millennial generation.

I am baffled about people who take this personally.

Why can't we speak objectively about sociology in a materialist way?

Fact is, millennials, the older ones, were not raised on social media.

They have a sense of control over discourse that is an illusion.

They cannot cope with the reality of the artificial discursive intelligence that's at play.

Artificial discursive intelligence is what creates communities.

Artificial discursive intelligence is what sets the standards.

Artificial discursive intelligence is the very basis upon which recognition is possible.

But they think that all discourse is an interpersonal relationship.

Like you walk into a cafe.

Oh, I'm going to shake your hand.

You know, you shake my hand.

You recognize this is personal.

I control this space.

This is the relationship between two people recognize each other.

No, it's fucking not.

It's an impersonal, artificial discursive intelligence.

And when millennials are exposed to this fact, they crash out and they go to inhuman lengths to restore the sense of control over discourse that they never had in the first place.

And this is the common threat.

You notice the common thread.

Dan Cohen, Caleb Maupin.

Every single one of my hate stalkers, every single one of them, they all have one thing in common.

They belong to a generation that believes they are Sahib Kiran.

The millennials think they are Sahib Kiran.

They think they're the chosen people.

They think that they are the generation that will lead the revolution.

No, you won't, you little bitches.

You're not going to lead the revolution.

The revolution will be led by the people born in the new era, not the hangers on of a dead era who are still fucking coping, pretending that they're at the avant-garde when they're even behind the fucking boomers.

You're not at the avant-garde.

Only those molded by the new era, molded by the artificial intelligence, molded by this what we call the social media, molded by the cybernetic form of socialization.

They alone will lead the revolution.

And these millennials are holding us back.

Now, am I talking about millennials individually?

No.

I'm talking about the sociology of people who adopt a specific ideology and worldview that is based on narcissistically assuming that in the transition between two eras, the old era and the new one we now live in, they are the subject.

They are the main character.

They are Sahib Quran.

No, you are fucking not.

The subject, the subject.

Is collective.

The subject is artificial discursive intelligence.

It's not any one individual.

It's not every, it's not a specific subject.

That's what they don't understand.

We're in the post-subjective age, an age beyond mere subjective recognition.

Amila with the 10, thank you so much.

So this is the truth.

And I want to talk about something for the purposes of self-criticism, not just of me, but everyone needs to self-criticize.

What is this pettiness?

What is this smallness inside every human being, especially in America, that leads people to become traitors, to become wreckers, to become crash outs?

What is this smallness and pettiness inside of them?

It's always surprising.

It's never surprising until it fucking happens.

I just saw, you know, you see it, people in ACP, it happens to them too.

Absolutely happens to them.

And I wanna fucking say something.

I wanna say a few things actually.

There's some people that claim Rifle with the five, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

There's some people that falsely get around to saying a load of bullshit.

You j in my book, it's a load of fucking bullshit.

You've got a lot of fucking people that say bullshit like, well, Haz, the problem is the community is too aggressive.

They swarm people too much.

Hey, bitch, you can share your opinion in public all you want, but people are allowed to share their opinion that they think you're a fucking retard.

None of that is coordinated.

None of that is organized behind the scenes.

These are individuals, the same sacred individuality you regard for yourself.

Well, guess what?

Other people are also individuals who have their own opinions.

And if people collectively, if a lot of individuals commonly think you're a fucking retard, you can't attack ghosts and say, oh, I'm under attack by the mob.

No, mobs are full of individuals too.

Every form of individuality is interpolated by an artificial discursive intelligence, which is collective in scale.

That's just true for everything.

Just like you share your opinion, other people can share their opinion too.

It's as simple as that.

And if if your opinion happens to align with that of a community, that's not because you're in a fucking cult and you're a drone and you're destroying dissent.

It's because you are part of the same artificial discursive intelligence as literally everyone else, and you've taken a position.

You know, it's like seeing the sky as blue.

Okay, you see the sky is blue, everyone says this oh, well, look at the sheeple saying the sky is blue.

Well, the reason people in this community tend to see things eye to eye, tend to see things in more or less the same fucking way,

Is because they're experiencing the same fucking thing.

It's because they're coming to realize the same fucking things.

Because they're in the same structural, discursive context of knowing what's actually fucking going on.

If you're a specific type of person that's with ACP and all you do is see people lie and bullshit about us 24-7 and with your own eyes you know it's false that's gonna create a very specific archetypal subjectivity which you alone are not gonna have other people will have it too

And so it's always this dynamic between people encountering the horde.

They're like, I hate, even some people, they like me, but they're like, I like Haas, but I hate his community.

Hey, listen, there's, if you want to be an individualist, everyone's an individual, including people that are operating in ways that look like they fit the pattern of a community, okay?

Or a cult, there I say.

Everyone's still a fucking individual, right?

And so I just wanted to get that off my chest because it's not a fucking excuse for the way people crash out.

I hate to say it, guys, but I'm telling you the truth.

Stop.

Now look.

Look.

I tell you what I think is right and wrong.

That's all I can do, right?

Harassing people for no reason is wrong.

Attacking people for no reason is wrong.

Okay.

But simultaneously,

Every single person who turns on us, every single one of them, we're fucking traitors.

They have the bones of traitors.

They are scum.

They are not human.

They're traitors.

They're born traitors.

They're predestined to be traitors.

We cannot there's nothing we could have done to placate them.

Somewhere down along the line, they would have revealed themselves as the traitors that they are.

Because they're weak, because they're stupid, because they're useless.

Or because they don't believe in this cause.

They're here to fit in, they're here to find friends, they're here to find social circles, they're here to find a sense of belonging.

That's not belief.

Because the minute you feel ostracized, then you turn on the entire principle.

This is the truth.

These people who turn on us

Cannot be placated.

I want to say something anytime somebody emotionally lashes out against us in public.

Even if they're a member of our party, even if they're one of us, it's on them.

It's not our fault, it's their fault.

Because what they're doing behind every one of these reckless crash outs is a fundamental form of disrespect.

You don't crash out on shit that you actually fucking respect.

You do it.

Even, you know, I have a theory.

Crazy people are not.

Innocent at all.

They knowingly are disrespecting the public in the same way a dog is pissing on a fence.

They're crying.

You notice how crazy people will be like on the street?

They'll be like, oh, I'm a dinosaur.

But then somebody will pull out a gun and be like, oh shit.

And they run.

Suddenly, they fucking the sanity snaps right back into them and they act fucking normal.

And suddenly they know how to react rationally and they do all the things rationally.

It's a form of disrespect.

It's basically somebody stretching their legs out with their fucking nuts spread out, farting in our fucking face like they don't give a fuck.

Yeah, I'm just gonna fart with the wind, say whatever the fuck I want, I don't give a fuck.

I'm just gonna be a drunk fuck.

It's like that's what these people are doing.

They're intentionally disrespecting us.

It's an intentional form of disrespect.

That's it.

Don't try to t assume those people can be won over.

Those people are already our enemies.

Even before they openly attack us, they're our enemies.

You don't actually crash out on the shit you actually believe in at all, in terms of principle.

You don't.

It's so disappointing, you wanna know what's fundamentally disappointing?

How many people get epiphanies?

Oh, I just realized I hate the ACP.

I don't agree with them ideologically.

Really, you subhuman little piece of shit, you fucking dog?

Really?

You just realized you disagree with us on principle?

Just so happening to align with the cosmos of you having some petty interpersonal feud with people who give you negative feedback?

I'm gonna post some dumb retarded shit.

Then I'm gonna have 10 people call me an idiot for it.

Oh, actually, guys, I realized I don't agree with any of the ACP's principles.

I just realized that.

I just realized that these people who I claim to be to agree with all their principles, coincidentally, because my little ego was offended one fucking time for the most petty reason possible, because I got 10 1% negative feedback that Haas gets every day.

I suddenly came to the epiphany that actually, on principle, I reject everything the ACP believes.

I actually, like, yesterday you're like, I'm with the ACP.

I totally agree with them.

They're totally on the, you know, they have the right.

But then one day later, because they got some negative feedback that had nothing to do with the principles themselves, they have the they just like woke up like from the matrix.

They're like, oh, the cult, I've escaped the cult.

My eyes are open.

Why did it take your little bitch ego getting offended for your eye, for your matrix epiphany to happen?

If you were truly a principled person, you would have opposed us from the very beginning.

But why does it take such small, petty things that lead you?

To crash out and attack on every single one of the people who are our enemies.

If you notice this pattern, tanky, you can't name a single full-time hater that we have or traitor.

You can't name a single traitor or full-time hater that we have whose origin story had nothing to do with principle.

None of these people's origin stories, as far as their problem with us, has anything to do with principles.

Every single one of them had their little petty little egos offended like literal babies, like literal children.

It's not even about the substance.

You need to understand what immature little babies these little bitches are.

It has nothing to do with substance.

Let's say I type on X.

You know, uh, my favorite ice cream is uh coffee ice cream.

And then ten people are like, That's retarded.

I like vanilla.

That could be enough to provoke these crash outs.

Because it's like the negative feedback of them millennials not getting their little participation trophy.

And realizing they're not the center of the universe and they're not the main character.

And them realizing like, oh my god, I'm not the subject of all the discourse.

Oh my God, I'm getting I'm getting negative feedback.

I'm getting feedback that doesn't reproduce my fucking sense of y elated status.

Suddenly, that's what drives these people to have the epiphany.

The epiphany!

Oh my god, I've always disagreed with ACP's theory and principles.

Oh my god, I've always hated Haas.

Oh my god, now I realize I disagree with infrared on principle.

Wait a second, you little bitch.

If you were a principled person, it wouldn't have taken something so small and petty for you to have this epiphany.

You small little petty bitch.

That's why you're a subhuman dog.

A human being has principles.

You're not a human being.

You are a petty bitch.

If anyone acts like a baby around us, they've never respected us from the beginning.

You see, sometimes there are contexts where principle is life and death.

You only respect the principles you respect.

People who trifle in matters of principle, people who change on a dime because their little feelings got offended, because their petty egos got offended, people who switch up like that.

On a dime.

The only thing changing being the social context of how they've been interacted in one context.

People who switch up like that

It's not that they have no principles, it's that they're not accountable to the real principles that they have, which are conformity to the U.S.

regime.

Because nobody just passively exists in this system and status quo that we have.

Ultimately, if you're not standing up and in some kind of way taking seriously the need to create an alternative, you are in some way actively.

Reproducing the system.

And those are the principles you actually respect.

And you may be like, well, I don't have a choice.

Doesn't matter.

All you're saying is that your respect is based on fear.

You don't crash out on the US government.

You're like, well, I can't.

They'll shoot me.

Okay.

But that's still the principles you have.

They're just based in fear.

Do you understand what I'm saying, guys?

It's like you still have respect for the regime.

It's just that your respect is based in fear because you're a fucking coward.

I don't have any fear of anything.

The reason why I don't resort to lawlessness isn't because I'm scared.

It's because the praxis and strategy I'm pursuing and which I believe in is one where

I have to maximize a relationship with the American people, with the American working class.

who by and large follow the laws of this country.

We have to ground the context of revolutionary struggle in the objective contradictions that exist among the masses.

So, I don't have to fear anything, but these people, their principles are rooted in fear.

Name a single one of the traitors and wreckers.

Name a single one of them.

Every single one of them bows with sublime veneration, their regime or state, whatever country they live in, the status quo.

They can say, well, I can't do anything about it.

All you're saying is that your principles are based in fear.

They're still your principles, though.

Sombra, what's up?

Right?

Those are still, just because it's, just because, oh, I don't have a choice, you do, you always have a choice.

Every human being has a choice.

Your choice is living a life as a cattle based on fear.

That's okay.

But that those are the principles you believe in, you understand?

Those are the principles you actually hold hold hold closely to yourself.

And you trifle with us because you treat us like a social club.

Everyone understands something.

Every single one of the traitors of our movement, I'm going to use graphic language.

They have to see them like a rapist.

It's like they're trying to use our community, but the rape, it's instead of like a direct physical sexual assault, it's for social validation and recognition.

It's like a dog raping a toy.

That's how they see our community.

They come to us and they want.

They're just trying to take this recognition, and the minute they don't have access to it anymore, they go full record.

That's kind of a form of rape, if you ask me, because you're basically saying we involuntarily owe you on a personal level psychological validation.

And if five people decide to push back on you for having a different opinion than you, then you attack us and declare us enemies and try to discard us.

Well, you're a kind of social rapist.

That's what you are.

And what has to happen to those type?

I believe rapists deserve the death penalty.

I also think social rapists deserve the death penalty.

Simple as that.

They're trying to use us like a dog uses a fence to piss on.

And if we deny them that right, then they have the right to attack us and go to war with us and all this shit.

Fuck you, you fucking bitch.

A dog that pisses on the fence, maybe not a dog, I don't hate dogs that much, but you get what I mean.

A fucking disrespectful little bitch like that, dogs that piss on the fence tend to be put the fuck down metaphorically, right?

ML, what's up?

You are a fucking cancer.

And we remember every single one of them.

That's the thing.

Nobody forces you to have anything to do with us.

But if you decide to have something to do with us, if you decide to have something to do with us, we need a better actually.

I know we're all about recruitment and stuff.

But part of having effective recruitment is having an effective way to filter people.

Nobody who is here should be here or should be allowed to be here because they're getting some personal psychological gratification from the social recognition they get from others.

The only gorillas I want.

Are the ones who are so devoted to their principles that if a gorilla says Haas.

My will is aligned with the same will as yours.

We have the common principle.

We have the common belief.

And if his gorilla is attacked, if 30 gorillas decide to clown on him over some bullshit, he doesn't crash out and go, My incentives for being here have disappeared.

I'm going to fucking go be a wrecker.

They go, that doesn't change shit.

This comes from my heart.

I don't give a fuck.

This shit in my bones, I believe this shit.

I'm not gonna fucking let somebody twenty, thirty, a hundred people, if they give me negative feedback.

That doesn't change the conviction that I fucking have.

Fuck it, we're going up against the entire regime.

You be a communist, you're signing up to go against hundreds of potentially tens of millions of people.

Nothing compared to this type of shit.

Those are the only gorillas I want following me.

The only ones who are here for the principle, for the belief, not for monkey games of social recognition, gossip circles and gossip clubs and friend friend groups.

Friendship has to come after.

That's not the premise.

Y'all can be friends.

That's fine.

But the premise of this community is the belief and the principle, and nothing else.

So if your friendships start failing and your fucking feelings get hurt because you posted something retarded or something that five people decided to disagree with, guess what?

If you were a principled person, that would not make a difference for you whatso fucking ever.

Simple as that.

Because this is a pattern.

It didn't just happen one time.

This has happened dozens of times in the history of the infrared movement.

It's happened more it's more times than than than is acceptable in the ACP.

It's happened too many times.

That ty that exact thing I'm describing, where people fucking crash out on us because of some small petty fucking reason.

I keep going back to the Dan Cohen thing because it's just such a irony.

Dan Cohen was there when that bald-headed fucking freak crashed out on us because he got his fucking feelings hurt, because he got his ego bruised.

And then Dan Cohen was there, like, yeah, this guy's crazy, whatever.

And then Dan Cohen goes and does the same fucking thing.

You know what that proves to me?

This isn't about bad apples.

This isn't about, you know, I don't know, bald people being bad or something.

Everyone has the ability to be this little fucking bitch inside of them.

And when you have awareness of that fact, when you have awareness of that fact

You can actually fucking have some self-awareness and be like, What the fuck am I doing with my life?

Do I want to live a life based on being principled?

Do I want to live an honorable life?

Does that matter?

Well, if it if it doesn't matter to you, speak now.

Speak now so I purge your bitch ass out of here.

If honor means nothing to you, raise your hand and speak now so I can purge you, get you the fuck out of this movement.

I don't give a fuck how much you're well liked by people.

If you're not here for honor, get the fuck out.

Simple as that.

If you don't care about honor and principle, get the fuck out.

I don't give a fuck who you are.

Even if a billionaire came to me and like, I'll I'll give your party a hundred million dollars if we could if I could if I could just uh

Shit it up and no, fuck off.

Principle and honor is the foundation.

It's like oxygen.

You don't have that, then you can't breathe.

We don't have that, then we can't breathe.

Simple as that.

Every at every level of human nature, especially in America, which is not a collectivistic society, you have petty ass bitch motherfuckers who make themselves the subject of everything.

And even the smallest dispute, even the smallest petty thing, they'll allow that to turn into, oh, I just had an epiphany.

I just had a complete epiphany about my principles.

No.

You had a change in terms of your interpersonal relationships.

That's what you fucking had.

Boo fucking who.

Nobody gives a bit.

Nobody fucking cares.

Boo fucking who.

Nobody gives a shit.

You know what I mean?

Boo fucking who.

Who fucking who?

You're not owed anything in this fucking life.

It's like such an incel mentality.

And men and women can both have it, not just men.

Both men and women can have this, whatever you call this mentality, this entitlement, this notion that people have to be friends with you or you are owed positive feedback.

If you're not getting the positive feedback you want, you have two fucking options: you fuck off and leave.

Or

You have a principled debate about why something.

Anything but changing your principles would be a justifiable response.

And I want to say something, all right?

I wanna say something, I wanna I wanna especially say some shit, right?

Yeah.

The day that I feel like I'm not getting any positive feedback for the shit I'm doing or I'm saying, I'm fucking leaving.

And I'm not gonna take, I'm not gonna hold a grudge.

I'm not gonna try to seek revenge and be angry about it.

I'll just fucking go.

I'll just fucking go and do literally anything else but be bitter about it for the rest of my fucking life.

Okay.

I y and there's a final thing I want to address.

Final thing I want to address.

There are some people, there are some people, and I genuinely, people are so stupid, they think I haven't thought about this.

They go, Haas, don't you think you're holding ACP back a little bit?

Don't you think the party might be better off with someone else who's less controversial, who's less polarizing?

Wouldn't it be better?

Wouldn't it be better if there was less of this toxicity associated with you?

Hey, you know who thought about that for years?

I did.

If you think I didn't think about that, I don't care what you say.

I'm telling you the truth.

ACP launches in 2024.

I thought about that.

I thought about that through the entire year of 2025.

Okay.

And I'm going to be honest with you about something very, I'm going to be very frank with you about something.

And this is my two cents I'm allowed to give.

Everyone's allowed to give their two cents, I'll give you mine.

I've never claimed to be the perfect leader.

I've never claimed that.

In fact, I began extremely inexperienced.

Extremely inexperienced.

And I don't claim I'm perfect, alright?

I don't claim I'm a messiah, I don't claim I'm perfect, I don't claim I'm the the second coming or something.

So, first of all, I'm not here to gas myself up and say I'm the best guy ever, okay?

But what I will insist upon, what I will insist upon

What I will insist upon

To my dying breath, with utmost conviction, with 100% fucking certainty.

If you want to go down this path, I'm not talking about me.

I'm talking about this path.

I'm talking about communism with a capital C.

I'm talking about Marxism-Leninism, independent of the Democratic Party.

I'm talking about a path that they're wrong and the communists were right.

I'm talking about the path of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, that path, that simple path.

Revive the Communist Party, make the Communist Party great, turn it into a party of millions.

Then my words which you should regard

With utmost sincerity, certainty and conviction, okay, follow these words carefully when thinking about who should lead you.

Whoever leads you better be a fucking warrior who's ready for war.

Meaning

They will be just as if not more toxic.

Controversial, polarizing, attacked as me.

When considering the question

Of optics and toxicity and controversy.

Understand that if you follow this fucking path, you're at war.

You're asking for war.

This is a war.

There's no way to fucking be neutral about it.

The minute, the minute you declare yourself the Communist Party, you are at war.

And someone who is weak, someone unwilling to fight.

And someone unwilling to defy the discourse, like I am.

Cannot lead you.

Someone who would, for example, take this retarded cigar thing.

Someone who would go, Oh, I'm sorry for this cigar, they get stepped on.

Okay, if your commander gets stepped on, you get stepped on.

Everything gets stepped on.

They take and they take and they take until they destroy us.

Versus someone who says Suck my fucking nuts, bitch!

I will not back down.

I will give you nothing.

Because you're not even a good faith actor to begin with.

They're gonna attack you no matter what.

You need to understand that.

They're gonna try to destroy you with everything they fucking have.

Every communist organization in this nation, everything has been done to destroy them and still fucking happening.

The past fucking three months, holy shit, there was like a story.

Dozens and dozens of splits.

All the major organizations, splits, splits, splits.

Fucking wreckers.

They come and they wreck and they destroy.

Only a fucking warrior can stand up to that.

Only a fucking warrior.

When the fucking military psyops rigged the fucking social media discourse to put the heat on your leader.

On your party, fuck this guy, fuck this party, yada, yada, yada.

Some people go, damn, why are we so attacked?

It must be because it must be because what?

The person fighting the war on the other side?

This is war.

You're gonna be.

Oh, no, no, no.

A competent leader would be very popular.

Really?

Tell me.

Tell me you think that.

Tell me it's possible to be popular in this niche.

I'm humble.

I don't see it.

Because I have 10 years of experience watching.

That's how I know.

I've seen principled people.

I've seen it.

I've seen them come.

They were weak.

They got destroyed.

Every single one of them, every single time, gets destroyed.

Caleb Maupin, the weak, was a weakling, and his optics were bad.

He was cringe as fuck, he was always cringe.

But anyone who says, Oh, I always knew that Caleb was a bad person 'cause the spanking thing, it's like, Well, no, you didn't actually.

Caleb started off as a soft-spoken guy in a suit who never insulted anyone in their fucking life and was just going on fucking uh stream being like, Well, I I kind of do respect the Soviet Union and I he's just saying the most milquetoast shit.

Look at how much he was destroyed and stomped on.

Why?

'Cause he was weak.

'Cause he was a fucking weakling.

And the more he showed weakness, the more they would step on him.

And then only retroactively can people say, Well, I always knew this guy was a bad person.

You didn't always know that.

Actually, you didn't.

He was cringe for sure.

But it doesn't matter if you disalign with the discourse that's created by U.S.

military psyops, they're coming after you.

This whole thing about me and Jackson being traitors, Randy Fine, Laura Loomer.

Let me ask you a question.

Genuinely, correct me if I'm wrong.

In your life, have you ever met one Laura Loomer fan in your life?

Like, have you ever went to the grocery store and be like, oh, I'm a big fan of Laura Loomer.

Have you ever met a single person who said that ever?

But she has a following.

Sometimes she ratios people.

Sometimes she gets 20,000, 30,000 likes.

Let me ask you a question: you think those are real?

You think those are real?

How much of it do you think is real?

Okay.

So consider the possibility that if you're in this kind of fucking movement

This is what happens.

If you are a threat to the discourse created by US military psyops, John, what's up?

They're gonna fucking come after you.

And they're going to create the perception that you're the most unpopular, hated person in the world.

In reality?

Like, you guys see this shit.

I'm so glad you see this.

If I tell this to someone, they'll literally think I'm clinically insane.

But how many of you see in accounts with 200 followers, but then they say something about ACP?

Oh, 5,000 likes.

Okay.

If that happened one time, okay.

If it happened two times, okay.

If it happened three times, okay.

If it happened a hundred times, okay.

But it's happened like thousands of times.

How can we believe it's real?

We can't.

I can't.

I just, you can't.

There's those people don't exist.

And in real life,

Leftists have a broad spectrum.

There's three, three types of leftists who know who interact with us.

Some like us, others are kind of indifferent toward us, and then a fringe minority will be like, get out of here, you fast scum.

But all this hate you see on the internet, it never translates in real life.

Nobody sees it in real life.

You see one mentally ill furry do it in real life.

Marginals.

And isn't it obvious to you that what the s what the fucking the whole Department of Defense, the whole fucking PSYOP division, what they do is they'll take these mentally defective, mentally ill people and prop them up.

Like, there are some authentic actors who obsessively hate us, but they would not have any traction if it wasn't for the fact that there's this artificial discourse created against us.

So

You know, what I'm trying to say is, I'm not claiming I'm the best at all ever.

I'm just saying if your complaint about me is the controversy, the toxicity, and all that kind of shit, you're not cut out for this.

Okay.

This is war.

It will never.

Actually, maybe you should criticize me for being too much Buddhist, actually.

Not pet not not not vicious enough, actually.

How often do I t attack people on X?

Almost never.

I'm quite Buddhist actually.

quite moderate, quite restrained.

And Jackson, who's Jackson?

The guy smiles every single day.

You never see a photo of Jackson where he's not smiling.

He's always smiling.

He's not a toxic, angry person like I am.

Fascinating how that book was there.

So

Look.

I can tell you the simple truth.

Whenever, I'm gonna I'm gonna ex I wanna teach you guys something.

I wanna teach you something.

When an aggressor, when unjustly you're seeing thousands of people attack you, and it it leads you to reflect and say, What am I doing wrong?

What am I doing wrong?

If you keep doing that, I'm s I I have to go with the analogy.

It's an unfortunate analogy, but I just gotta give it to you viscerally.

So you understand.

Like, it needs, you need, it needs to get in your fucking head.

In prison?

In prison, when you're at the cafeteria.

And some dude comes and takes your food.

Okay, takes your honey buns, something like that.

And then you start getting into the habit of going, well, what can I do better?

Or how can I blame myself?

You're not, you're not gonna make it, man.

You're not gonna make it.

Not gonna fucking make it.

You gotta go find that dude and fucking beat the living shit out of them in front of everyone.

Or else you're cooked.

You start getting into the fucking mentality and the mindset of being a fucking victim.

You are not cut out for this shit.

People need to understand that.

Like, people need to understand that.

That's how they're making you into a victim.

Oh, how can I appease people?

You gotta fight, fight, fight, fight.

That's how it fucking works.

Okay?

There's right and there's wrong.

Okay?

I I'm willing to debate almost anyone about anything.

Actually really anyone.

I'm willing to debate anyone.

I've proven that many times.

About anything.

Just so I can expose to you guys, okay, I'm presenting you right and wrong.

Let's see other people present right and wrong.

What leg do they have to stand on?

What right do they have to what what what right do they have to stand on?

What are their principles?

Nothing.

Their principle is dog eat dog.

I'm gonna come and I'm gonna take your shit.

What are you gonna do about it?

You do nothing, you start blaming yourself.

Buddy, they're challenging you.

I go to sleep at night happy that the guerrillas cause mental anguish to our bad faith actor enemies.

I'm happy y'all do that shit.

I'm not going to lie.

Cause if you weren't fucking doing that, they would try to f- Oh my god, how much they would try to abuse.

They already do, by the way.

Y'all are fighting and standing up for your own dignity.

That's what you're fucking doing.

I don't want to be in an army of victims.

I want to be in an army of lions.

Not victims lions.

They try to make you into victims if you don't defend yourself.

They try to make you into victims if you don't fight back.

Who has the moral high ground?

We do.

Is it wrong to say that?

We have the moral high ground, we do.

We do have the moral high ground, absolutely.

Sometimes our enemies try to posture in some moral way, they try to find and exploit some perceived inconsistency in our morals or principles.

But the level of scrutiny they apply to us is never applied to any human being on earth because it's impossible.

Because moral consistency has nothing to do

With contextual omnipotence and omniscience, just the impermanence of context forever, that everything is always the same exact context and everything always looks the same way.

No, everything has to be considered in its totality.

How does it relate to everything else?

What's the context?

What is the relationship that it has to other things?

Our enemies in bad faith, they'll exploit something out of context.

They'll strip it of its underlying rationale.

They say, look at Haas and Jackson, look at ACP, look at this thing they said four years ago.

Okay, what's the context though?

What's the actual angle?

What's the rationale?

No, no, it's just in a vacuum.

There's a universality of context, really.

It's bad faith.

See, they don't ever apply that scrutiny to anyone.

They've never applied that to anyone.

But us.

But as

This smallness, it's like everyone's got a dog inside themselves.

Have I told you guys about the earliest symbols of state sovereignty?

The master of beasts.

The master of beasts is like this: Got two rabid dogs to your left, to your right.

That's sovereignty.

You keep that shit at bay.

You stop.

Don't be the fucking dog that pisses on a fucking fence.

You stop.

You respect.

Just like when you go to the White House, no, you don't see nobody going up to the fucking US Capitol building and taking a shit on the steps.

You don't see nobody going to the White House and taking a piss and making a mess.

It oh, it's 'cause of fear.

That doesn't fucking me change anything.

Respect can be based in fear.

Respect can be based in principle and belief.

It's still respect.

We're going to be doing TikTok, by the way.

We doing TikTok debates.

I want you guys to understand something.

Our crime is believing in this shit.

It's always been our crime.

Believing in this shit.

Believing in it.

Some people call us revisionists.

For example, sometimes they call us revisionists.

Kuzaz, what's up?

Sometimes you got Maoists calling us revisionists.

For example,

Someone posted a picture of the Filipino Maoists in a jungle fighting, and they go, Ho, compared to this, you and Jackson are nothing, Oz.

All right, is that a photo of you in that jungle?

Have you taken an AK-47 and gone to the jungle?

Is that what you're doing right now, you LARPing-ass bitch?

Shut the fuck up and sit down.

Oh, is that a photo of you?

I'm a Maoist.

I'm the fuck are you doing then?

Nothing.

I'm in the Maoist party for for a party.

Oh, toward a party.

We're in the organization.

It's called Toward a Party.

We're not ready for a party yet, but we want to be we wanna be in an organization toward a party.

Okay.

Got you.

That's the shit you have going for you, okay.

So, with all that grandeur, you seem like a know-it-all who knows everything.

With all that grandeur, you don't know how to make a party?

The bare minimum?

It's just a bunch of nonsense.

JK, what's up man?

Appreciate you.

How many of our enemies are enemies because they're principled people or because they fucking got fucking butt hurt?

Because you guys

bruise their ego by giving them negative feedback one time in their life.

And then they became obsessive haters.

I mean, it's just as simple as that.

It's so petty, it's so small, it's so sad.

Midnight would stop.

We saw midnight.

The number one enemy I want to tell you something, Osos, the number one enemy in the world, the number one enemy I want to explain, the number one enemy of American Communism, the number one enemy of American Communism, I want you to remember this.

Number one enemy of American Communism are the psychologically unwell and unbalanced.

You ever encounter on on social media those people who randomly just start attacking you because they're like, I have this theory that aliens invented uh dialectics and there's an alien UFO dialectic and then we kind of will just be like All right, I mean what difference does it make?

We don't know.

And then we just kind of like, we're not attacking them.

We're not even like publicly disagreeing with them.

We're just like, okay, we'll just go our own way, you know?

And then randomly, they'll just come at you and they'll be like, how dare you collaborate with the aliens?

And then you're by being silent about this and not validating me and not by even contradicting me sometimes inadvertently, you have declared war on me.

I'm going to destroy you.

That's what I mean by like that's the number one enemy of American communism, the mentally unwell, the mentally unbalanced, who don't understand that just because somebody is not giving you the attention and recognition you think you deserve doesn't mean that it entitles you to start being an aggressor and attacking them.

They have done nothing wrong to you, actually.

If you have an entitlement issue that you think you deserve recognition.

You want to debate me, you can debate me.

If you persuade and convince my audience and take fifty people with you, good luck.

I've never closed myself off to the risk that you're going to convince the people who are watching me.

You know?

But it's like these people who feel entitled that they ha you have to, if you don't ag not only like if you if you if you inadvertently disagree with them about things, that's a declaration of war.

But it's like if you don't specifically agree with them.

And talk about the things they like to talk about.

You're an enemy.

You need to be destroyed.

That's the number one enemy of communism in America.

The mentally unwell, the mentally unbalanced.

Simple as that.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm a profoundly balanced person.

On stream, I'm yelling, all this kind of shit.

When this camera turns off, the whole day I don't even say a word.

I'm meditating, I'm reading, I'm whatever, I'm locked in.

I release all my anger on stream.

That's actually balance.

In my life, that's balance.

That's balance in my life.

Okay.

I'm like this here so I can be chill for the all the other time I live my life.

Okay.

Somebody named Alex Alex Zio wants to speak to me.

What's up?

Hey, what's going on?

What's going on?

That Marxism is Islam.

Mm-hmm.

Marx literally said that religion is opium and stupid.

Do you consider like uh yourself a smart guy or like a dumb guy who just like walks around being a dumb guy who's like a midwit?

What do you think?

I would say I'm pretty reasonable.

Yeah, just like some dumb guy walking around being a dumb guy who just like never thinks about anything.

Okay, let me ask you a question.

How do you so you just know me from this TikTok, right?

Nothing else?

No, I mean, I saw a debate you with Nick Fuentes, who crushed you.

Okay, so we'll get to that in a second.

But so you know who I am.

So, knowing who I am, do you actually elevate?

No, no, hold on.

Do you think so highly of yourself?

Do you think you're so intelligent that this thing, this contradiction you're pointing out to me, I've never considered it internally in my own internal monologue before I actually say this?

Like, do you genuinely think I've never thought about this in my life until you confronted me with this contradiction, supposedly?

Like, of course, that's what I'm saying.

You're so smart.

You're so smart in comparison to me that I've never even thought about this before, right?

That's why, I mean, that's why I'm not even white.

You can hear the twang in your voice.

You're not even white, and you're a fucking Nick Fuentes dick rider.

Nick Fuentes, dick rider, bro.

You're a stupid Marxist.

Marx was Jew.

What the fuck?

And you are brown.

You're bro, bro.

You're smarter than brown.

And I'm smarter than you.

Brown white nationalist.

White nationalism is stupid.

That's Nick Fuentes, your king, who you follow.

He's Mexican.

I mean, okay.

What can I say?

What can you say?

You're a brown, self-hating, brown white nationalist.

You're pathetic.

Your whole existence is bowing before colonizers.

Oh, before colonizers, bro.

Yeah, you literally worship Nick Fuentes.

You worship white nationalists.

You really hate yourself.

Nick Fuentes, bro.

Nick is brown, he's Mexican, and he's a You Are a White Nationalist.

But you're brown nationalism.

You're a self-hating brown white nationalist.

I've never said anything about white nationalism.

You're a Nick Flintis follower.

What can I say?

Nick Fuentes.

Okay.

So we can go down two dialogue trees 'cause you're an NPC where you're gonna get schooled.

Which one do you wanna go down?

Do you wanna talk about the opium of the people or do you wanna talk about the debate with Nick Fuentes?

Which one?

I mean go with opium.

Okay.

So where did Marx write religion is the opium of the people?

Where did he write that?

Do you know?

Manifesto.

Okay.

And you're wrong.

Goodbye.

Go do some more homework before you decide to challenge me on things you have no familiarity with.

He said the com he said the manifesto.

Why challenge me?

Why would you even bother challenging me?

I'm a dragon.

Why would you challenge a dragon?

You think it's easy?

Why?

Because on the internet you see people ratio me sometimes, so it's it's gonna be easy for you to come and challenge the dragon.

I'm a dragon.

Why are you gonna come in my cave and challenge me?

I'll literally eat your head off.

Your head will be torn off.

I ask you a simple question.

Where does it come from?

He goes, the manifesto.

Ah, you're wrong.

Get out of here.

You're illiterate.

You don't know anything about Marxism.

You don't know enough about Marx.

You haven't read enough Marx to cite him or quote him with any degree of reliability.

You're resorting to conventional tropes.

Now, had you phased yourself politely and went, Haz, I'm a dumb guy who's not educated.

Typically, you know, the common stereotype is that Marxism is against religion.

You know, I've heard this opium quote before.

So how do you square those things?

But this guy came in as an expert.

He's calling me stupid.

He's saying Nick Fuentes can beat me in debates.

He's saying all these things that position himself as more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am.

Well, if you're going to come at it with that angle, you're going to get smacked down.

Simple as that.

I got restricted by the way.

Nick Fuentez uh beat you in a debate.

Ask these people uh what do you mean?

They don't even have any answer.

Nobody who even if you go on YouTube, the top comment is making fun of that dumb little kid.

Why are we even talking about this irrelevant Nick Fuentes?

And before you say, oh, how can you call him irrelevant?

I have the whole future ahead of me.

His entire potential is gone.

He reached the apex, and there's no he's confused about what he is.

He doesn't even know what he is anymore.

I started out my whole career being like supposedly a critical toward Israel and stuff, but I'm just like this Laura Loomer.

What?

He's a Laura Loomer, Zionist, Democrat, Richard Spencer, Neo Yahtzee.

Republican, anti-communist, pro

Socialist, apparently, I don't know.

Gavin Newsome supporting, Laura Lumer supporting, Randy Fine supporting.

It's like what is this guy what is he what's his angle?

What does he even have?

Nothing.

He has an e he has an identity crisis.

He's done.

He's nothing.

By the way, the guerrillas tore his entire lieutenants a new one.

The gorillas, they never knew what guerrillas wore.

They encountered us, oh my god, you guys viciously beat them bloody into the fucking ground.

They're a cult, they're a cult.

We'll show you what a cult looks like, actually.

We'll show you what a fucking cult looks like.

These swine

You guys get dunked on.

Who are you talking to?

Talking to me.

On Twitter, you got dunked on.

What does that have to do with anything?

What does that even have to do with me?

Explain.

What does that have to do with me?

You got dunked on.

You are cattle.

So you're saying you just go with whatever's popular, really?

That's the type of person you are.

Oh, you got dunked on.

Okay, you have no sovereignty.

You have no independence.

You're not a human being in my eyes.

You're not even like an animal.

You're just some nothing.

You brought up your own family.

We destroyed them.

We absolutely destroyed them.

We caused them irreversible trauma.

They're never going to recover from it.

Simple as that.

Destroyed them.

Oh, you got dunked on.

You know, all his stuff is botted.

It has nothing to do with reality.

Just look at his viewership, how much it went down.

That's all you have to look at.

Not this botted nonsense on X, it's totally botted.

You're just coping.

You're just coping pathetically.

It's like they got destroyed.

It's as simple as that.

I don't know why you're coping about this.

The right wing has overwhelmingly turned on this little boy.

What else can we say?

What else do we want, you know?

What else would be victory if not that?

Ah, here's this guy again.

Yo.

He's here to tell me about how I'm theologically incorrect because of the plenorumora of the uh locatoicus of the um the uh the logos of the um Saint Ephesius of the E Epicurean variety of the um

What?

He just keeps coming and leaving.

Hello.

That's the best response you could conjure up.

What are you talking about?

What are you even talking about?

Oh, they made fun of some of your people's appearance, okay?

We destroyed their appearance.

We drew the lines that led them to be destroyed as a movement and as a community.

They've lost all the support and networks that they had.

They become marginalized and existentially confused.

We drew out all the necessary contradictions.

What more do you want?

Oh, but they made fun of someone's appearance.

Okay, you...

Okay, what are you like?

I'm sorry, but if you're a man...

If you're a man, that doesn't mean anything.

But even if it means something to you, why would we...

Why would you even bring that up?

All of their lieutenants are much smaller than even the smallest among us.

They're out of shape, they're hideous looking.

The even the boy wonder is like a hundred pounds soaking wet or something.

What what who is talking about whose appearance, for what?

She didn't destroy anything.

Your crew is dysgenic.

Okay.

Look, I'm a tolerant person.

You are a homosexual.

You're looking for handsome men that you find handsome.

You don't find enough attractive males in my army.

Or there's one person you find extremely unattractive.

And now you're upset about it because you're a homosexual looking for a boyfriend.

It's not my problem.

Go somewhere else for that.

Like, why are you crashing out at me for something I don't care about?

There's someone in your party, I don't find them attractive, uh, therefore you lose.

Alright, what is this?

What is this, a runway or something?

A fashion runway?

What are you talking about?

Are you like a straight man?

No, you're not.

Nothing wrong with that, but just this-you're in the wrong place, whatever you're looking for.

If you say any of this IRL, we got a tough guy.

I'll say it IRL.

And what you claimed you would do, you would do nothing.

You would do nothing.

You would cry just like you're crying now and you'd go home.

Crying.

I'm in Michigan now and you won't do anything.

You won't do anything.

I promise you won't do anything.

I promise you you won't do anything because you're not made.

You're not built like that.

You're not made of that.

You're nothing.

You are nothing less than on the bottom of my shoe.

You won't do anything.

I promise.

Wanna bet?

Yes, you will do nothing.

Nothing.

You will do nothing but cry because you're not built in any kind of way except to be stepped on.

A drop an addy

Okay, go there right now.

If y if you promise to get in your car, you're gonna go there right now.

Yeah.

Oh, you think I'm joking?

We got a tough guy here.

Yo.

Hello.

What's up?

All right.

You didn't read what that?

You haven't read me.

That's the problem here.

Uh why do why should I read you?

There's nothing you're providing that I'm in need or guidance of.

Nothing.

There's nothing you say I'm in need of guidance of.

The core point, the core origin in Islam.

Okay, teach me what I'm missing.

Go ahead.

You believe in the alienation from Christ that exists in the Western churches.

I don't disagree with you.

I think the Western churches turned their back on Christ in the fifth century.

But it wasn't lost in Christianity.

It remained.

Christ remained with us in the East.

Okay.

Great.

Good for you.

So why are you bothering me about it?

Because

Islam in and of itself is just the antithesis to this Christianity.

It exists as contradiction, as so you mean to say that you would wish for a world in which Islam did not exist.

Well, sorry, that's not the world we live in.

No, I don't say that at all.

I'm saying that.

I'm saying Islam must exist.

Islam must exist, but it is going to be sublated by Christianity in the end.

There's no need to identify as Islam when you can just say that.

Walk me through how that's going to happen.

You say it yourself.

In the escatan of Islam, Christ will return.

You know that you will be sublated.

Well, everything gets sublated.

Everything in the world does.

Absolutely.

Into Christ.

Well, we we have to agree to disagree.

Well that's what I'm trying to show you.

You can agree with me.

I don't think everything ultimately gets sublated into Jesus Christ, I don't think that's true.

Everything reaches his judgment.

True.

The true believers and the sinners will be separated, like the chaff and the wheat?

Yes, but I don't I mean, you're using the word sublation very loosely here.

In my opinion.

Because every sublation, okay, I want to explain something to you, right?

What we call dialectics, okay, which is a Western tradition.

Dialectics is the culmination of Christian mysticism, hermeneuticism, and esotericism.

Okay, and that gets expounded into the form of philosophy.

And Hegel is the one that carries that lineage to its conclusion.

Now, the dialectical cycle that Hegel describes is literally just Christianity expounded into the form of philosophy, right?

Where you have God the Father, you have the Son as Jesus, and the sublation as the holy community.

Okay, that's not in coincidence or like that.

It's not like, oh my God, it's a miracle.

That's baked into the premise of the entire lineage of Western philosophy culminating in Hegel.

So Hegel's philosophical system is just expounding Christianity into the form of philosophy, the comprehensive end of philosophy.

But

The notion of sublation that Hegel

Um concludes with

Does not sufficiently sublate the original problem which philosophy.

Was born to respond to.

And this problem is drawn out by the young Hegelians concluding in Marx for this incomplete or unsatisfactory sublation.

Because the true sublation has to transform our understanding of the dialectical process in the first place, not indefinitely reproduce it forever.

Yes, absolutely.

It's taking your original pros or your initial thesis.

It moves through its contradiction, through its antithesis.

And renders it superfluous.

Absolutely.

Raises it to sublation.

Raises it up.

Past and prevails, which it originally was.

Right.

I agree, absolutely.

This doesn't start with Hegel.

This does not begin with Hegel.

It it absolutely is concerned, absolutely.

No, uh it it began much, much earlier.

It was formalized and it was directly spoken as by the early church fathers.

Okay, in indirectly it was.

No, directly.

Not as philosophy, not as philosophy.

No, as philosophy.

Okay.

Truly.

So did I say that?

Where do we have the equivalent of Hegel's science of logic in the early church fathers?

What's the equivalent then?

It is Saint Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius, book 5.5.

Okay.

And that's the same thing as the science of logic, where he talks about the relation of universals and particulars and singulars and how the rose is red and all that kind of stuff.

Like he talks about that in that book.

Nearly identically.

No, no, not nearly identically.

Does he explicitly talk about it in those conceptual philosophical terms?

Yeah.

He defines the dialectical process in the exact same steps that Hegel does.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Not using those exact words.

Okay, what words does he say?

Using that exact process.

What words does he use?

He uses humanity no longer remains within its own boundaries and properties, but is lifted up towards that which prevails and surpasses.

The conceptualization, theoria, of the properties of flesh and the divinity remain undivided.

So you're just directly talking about religion.

I already told you, Hegel's philosophy expounds hermeneutical terms that Hegel was born into.

This is synthesis.

This is sublation.

This is why I call it Babel.

This is why I'm calling it Babel.

Because you're not being precise about what you're talking about.

I already said Hegel's dialectics is just Christianity expounded into philosophy in the most comprehensive possible way.

But it doesn't reward to the Trinity.

That's where you're kind of getting it wrong here.

It refers to Christ.

This passage refers to the nature of Christ.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Dialectics at its core.

is focussed in on Christ.

And where does Islam sit with Christ?

It removes him.

Completely.

Entirely.

It is a contradiction.

It is a growing antithesis against Christ.

This is so incredibly frustrating.

It's like I try to talk and you just interrupt me, and I don't even know what you want.

You just want to scream at me about your religious faith that I don't share.

So, what?

Am I screaming?

Because I'm trying to fucking explain something to you and you keep interrupting me to go on your tangents.

Who are you convincing?

I'm not convinced.

So who is this meant to convince?

Do you want to hear my feedback as far as what you're telling me?

Or do you want to talk to yourself about your faith?

You asked for where I found it and I gave it to you.

No, please.

I would like your feedback.

I already have a free.

I already have your feedback.

I already said that Hegel's philosophy is just Christianity, comprehensively expounded into the form of philosophy.

He said, no, no, no, Hegel didn't start that.

And your proof is that Christianity precedes Hegel.

I didn't deny that.

But only Hegelian philosophy expounds this fully and comprehensively into a comprehensive philosophical system.

Now you say, well, it may as well be the same thing.

You're just using different words, but it's still not philosophy.

Directly religious polemics are not directly philosophy.

Hegel brackets God, he brackets religion, he brackets faith, and he purely draws out the logic or the logos of Christianity, okay?

Isolated from God, isolated from any direct relationship or direct ideas about Jesus or Christ or something.

He's drawing out the logic and drawing out a comprehensive philosophical system based on the Christian religion, but not directly.

Not in the sense of directly saying, you know, talking about his belief in God and Christ and stuff, but the logos underlying the religion expounded into philosophy, okay?

So that's the Hegelian system.

That's what I said.

You responded by saying some guy in the fifth century already did that, but he didn't do that.

He was just a Christian.

I already said that Hegel's philosophical system is a reflection of Christianity.

I didn't say he invented Christianity.

Christianity was already there.

We agree.

Christianity was already there.

Okay.

The logic was already there, but it wasn't drawn out in a philosophical way until Hegel.

I think in parts, yes and no.

Theology itself, some see it as a combination of religion and philosophy.

No, philosophy has to bracket theology, because theology doesn't make it sufficiently clear what we're talking about and why.

I don't think that's true at all.

That's fine.

The Church Fathers will have written hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages explaining exactly what they believe, and will do so using countless examples, countless analogy, countless syllogisms in order to show both philosophically and theologically and reasonably what their reasoning is, how they came to this position in the church.

Is that what I said?

Is that what you said?

I'm not certain what you said.

Did I did I deny that religious theologians and polemicists employ logic?

I didn't deny that.

But philosophy as such, okay, what we call philosophy in the modern sense, which begins, let's say, in the early modern period,

Is not the same thing as religion.

They are in fact distinct.

No, absolutely not.

The philosophy of the early modern period, I would say, is reduced.

So we're simply, I don't care about these semantical distinctions.

There's clearly something unique about the philosophy in European philosophy during the pre-modern and enlightenment period.

Okay, let's say beginning with Descartes up through the Scottish Enlightenment and French rationalism, all that stuff, German idealism.

That's clearly a qualitative rupture with all prior forms of thinking.

Absolutely.

Okay, and Hegel's the culmin and and Hegel, the culmination of that process, finally expounds in the purest possible form the Christian religion into the form of philosophy.

Which is evident and clear to all of Hegel's followers.

Like Feuerbach, who writes about the essence of Christianity.

Have you read Feuerbach?

I have, of course.

Okay.

So

So you're just playing semantical games when you insist that phil you know, religion and philosophy are the same thing.

No, they're not.

No, I didn't say that.

I just said they aren't necessarily apart.

They aren't bracketed.

Nothing is necessarily apart, but there is you can meaningfully distinguish religion from philosophy.

Just because the anything can be interrelated and have overlaps doesn't mean it's impossible to speak meaningfully about distinctions.

There's no two things in the cosmos that are unrelated.

That doesn't mean we suddenly cannot meaningfully refer to distinctions between things.

Okay.

And what does this have to do with my initial premise?

You're not even addressing what I said, okay?

The notion that the Christian nature of the Christian nature of Hegelian dialectics is not a surprise, it's not news, it's not a miracle, it's not some epiphany that some miraculously vindicates one religion or another, it is just the plain premise of all Western philosophy and is not a surprise, it's not like a miracle, it's just.

It's just, yes, a Christian civilization is going to produce a Christian philosophy.

It's not, there's nothing profound about that at all.

And again.

Where does this fit into my initial premise?

Of Islam.

It is the antithesis.

You're using words like sublatin sublation, which you're not using correctly.

You're saying all things are going to be sublated into Christ.

Okay.

Yeah.

But sublation

Is not an eschatology as direct eschatology of any religion.

For example, it's possible to speak in Hegel's logic of the sublation of objects.

Objects can be sublated into other kinds of objects.

It's possible to speak even if you apply it to nature, to the sublation inherent in the development of nature, okay?

The way in which one species sublates another or something.

So when you're describing this Trinitarian logic of the dialectical process, that applies to everything.

And it's not meaningful to say things like, oh, everything sublates into Christ.

It's like saying.

The only meaningful way to talk about

Motion is that everything moves toward Christ.

Okay, but that doesn't tell us about local motion.

It doesn't tell us about the way in which we can use the word motion to actually describe things.

So, when you're using sublation in this way, that the only sense in which there's a dialectical structure is this one, that's not true.

Christian eschatology is not the only receptacle of the dialectical process Hegel talks about.

There's many other processes you can talk about sublation.

So, you have to specify within what frame you're talking about when you say these things.

Specify what frame in which I'm talking about.

I I don't know.

You're saying I'm using it incorrectly, but it doesn't seem like I'm using it incorrectly at all.

It's just a a point of reference between us.

What relative scale are we using to talk about sublation?

Right.

Okay.

So I'm talking about creation's movement back into the Creator, back into divinity.

And then you can talk about at a local level, on individual levels, on objective levels, you can.

But I'm just speaking on that cosmological level.

The movement of creation from its beginning, from the fall, the original sin, its contradictions that build up in it.

You don't understand this is where I disagree with you.

Okay.

Because I don't consider creation

has to return to anything.

I think it already has and is processually, continuously, over and over again.

And that's where we disagree.

I don't believe creation is broken and needs to be fixed or something.

Like in some ways.

Hegel's dialectical logic describes the lawful in some way, if you understand it in a materialist way, the lawful development of the cosmos, in my view, right?

And he draws out

Real tendencies inherent to the development of matter.

And

That is not a story of negation and then synthesis, right?

I'm interested in a notion of sublation that makes negation impossible.

In other words, negation is not real.

Negation is an illusion.

The real thing is the sublation for which negation is superfluous.

So t the point is to change our understanding of what objects are in the first place.

Change our understanding of what the first thing is in the first place.

That's a good point.

So, for me, I don't like this notion.

My critique of Hegelian dialectics.

Is that I don't agree with the tripart structure.

I don't think that there's a, you know, a um a fir a premise one, premise two, and then sublation.

I think that sublation attests to the fact that premise one was wrong from the beginning, and we should.

We should discover a premise that will not lead us to be surprised by this ablation.

That's beautiful.

That's very beautiful.

I like that.

That's my view.

That's just my understanding.

No, absolutely.

Uh w in regards to original sin, with something like that,

I don't see as a fundamental brokenness to creation, a fundamental disunity or disharmony.

It's something that was cast upon us, something that we have to deal with.

And it is our duty as humans, as the lords and shepherds of the world, to move back, to get back to an original state.

It's a goal.

It's the new Soviet man, essentially.

I don't agree.

We have to go back to an original state.

I think that...

Not an original state as in like we're going back to Adam and Eve back in the garden.

You know, we're all living hunky-dory.

No.

We're going back to a...

Completion.

a sufficient ending.

In the same way that Christ's death on the cross renewed us of our original sin and allowed us to move in his path towards this new goal, theosis.

And so it's not But I I I just don't agree.

It's just my view.

I don't agree.

Okay.

Then we're at an impasse.

Now, if you had read the last two paragraphs of what I had wrote, which I'm agreed with you here, that's fine.

That's fine.

I said, brother, our disagreements here will never result in us fighting.

These kinds of conversations are left for the end of the day when all the work is done and when Tel Aviv is buried under 40 feet of rubble and salt.

That's when we can talk about this.

It's fine.

It's just, I don't like religious debates because it's there's too much baggage.

Absolutely.

I also think that it's like

I just don't come at it the same from the same place as you because it's like for me, the truth is has to be something more than anything from before.

And it's like.

At best, I have to say something like, you know, like Islam, for example, has been forgotten in the world.

And that there's no th nothing in the past I can point to and be like, my God, it's been here all along.

Everyone always knew it, even from the past.

I was like, no, actually, since the time of the prophet,

The Muslims have been missing something, okay?

Fund fundamental.

Now, throughout history there have been symptoms and examples of them coming to the understanding.

But there was something they were missing.

There was something that was, you know.

That like wasn't there, right?

And

I'm here as a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist in 2026, and in a very good faith way, I'm re-examining and rediscovering Islam, but not in a way that compromises my hereness now.

So I'm not LARPing as a medieval Muslim or something, and I'm not being like, oh, I just got to follow the Muslim theologians from the seventh century.

It's like, no, well, we're here now.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm a communist.

And this is my premise actually.

What about Islam has been missing from the world and from itself?

Why was Islam unable to explain itself?

What is it actually?

How does it reflect back upon itself?

And what are the various contradictions in terms of how that happens?

So that that this is like the thing that I'm interested in.

I'm not really interested in

Adopting a religious identity per se.

I'm interested in understanding

How we got here now, you know, and I don't like generalizations.

I don't like saying things like, oh, we just need to go back to it's funny if I just say, let's just go on, that's it.

In some sense, it's true.

In some sense, it's true when we just say, let's go back to Christ, that's it.

But

It's also not concrete.

I can agree to that to some extent, but my my point of contention always sits with kind of that history.

You know, you, your Lebanese heritage, you always have that rut back to kind of that ancestry back there, their tradition, their history.

While here in the West we're we're we're so s we have centuries of humiliation and satanic nonsense that governs our entire identity for a long, long time.

And for me, I don't even necessarily agree with that.

I think that the words are.

Hold on.

Allow me.

When I look back and I look at the history, I came at it as a Marxist.

Yeah.

I wasn't someone who was always Christian.

I wasn't someone who was always.

I was an atheist for quite a long time like you.

And it wasn't until actually infrared that I took tradition, I took religion more seriously and began weighing them against each other.

Until I finally kind of did come to Christianity and I looked back on its history and I saw this split that happened in the fifth century between the Western Church and the Oriental Church, where in my research this last couple years, I found it wasn't an annoying distinction between how many natures does Christ have.

It wasn't some annoying syllogism.

It was the difference of dialectics and metaphysics.

The Western Church took metaphysics because they were imposing their superstructure of Platonic and Aristotelian logic of how the ideal forms and material work.

And they applied it to Christ, which differed from the Oriental position, which kept the dialectical one that I gave you from St.

Gregory.

And so for me, looking back on that history, I saw, wow, there's something that I can, as a Christian, as someone aspiring to be a Christian, I have Marxism again in my faith.

I can at least, from the very least, draw out Marxism.

I can draw out that tradition that I want from the theology that I see.

I'll give you some dialectics.

Sure.

Two things being true at the same time.

Communism is eternal.

Of course, there's everyone's been communist by default, and the West was a deviation from this.

Then the second thing, communism comes from the West.

Communism comes from the West, doesn't come from the East, because the East was already communist.

So, what does that mean?

That sounds very contradictory and confusing, but what does that mean?

Oh, makes sense.

The communism of the East was always filled by something integral and determinate, and didn't need to be called something called communism.

Communism is an abstraction.

And that abstraction is a consequence of the vacuum.

In the uh socius, let's say, right, in in the the commons.

that defines the history of private property, which is the Western trajectory in the Western lineage.

But the historical necessity of the West this is also very important.

There's something historically necessary about the West,

Because keeping that vacuum open, keeping that filled with a nothing, and therefore we have the abstraction of communism, which lacks determination, by the way, why that.

That's necessary piece of the puzzle of the story of mankind.

Because all of the other human civilizations in history filled communism up with something.

determine it, yes, but also insufficiently

Self-relating with respect to the universal.

Now, these were universal empires and stuff for sure, but.

There's a reason why modern science and technology and modern philosophy comes from the West.

The West did do what others only

The East discovered all of the brilliant things that the West did.

All of them.

But in the East,

The discovery, all the brilliant discoveries were like having a beautiful dream.

When you woke up, it was all forgotten.

Only did the West have the insomnia to say, I've discovered this beautiful principle and I will commit to it.

I will commit to it with such an intensity, with such a devotion, with such an unyielding stubbornness, and I won't let go of it.

In the East

the brilliant appearance of the light, right?

It would come and it would go.

But it would never be grasped and taken, right?

And acted upon.

They got close.

I mean, they infinitesimally approximated.

For sure.

But that's why Marx came from the West.

It was a definition from absence, defining the other.

We lacked it and so we tried to give it a name and to find it again.

No, it was lacking it yeah, well, no, it it th the name was for the vacuum, for the thing that was absent.

That's party of the that's part of the story of humanity.

It's part of the story of humanity, for sure.

The West played a mainly evil role throughout history.

Yes, I agree.

But that evil is the evil of mankind.

So those.

People who

claim to be anti-West and they go well, you know

The white Yucubian devils and stuff.

It's like, well, look, there's nothing about white people that's more inherently evil than the rest of humanity.

This is an evil that was within all of humanity, but was localized in a specific region.

Why?

Because it's part of the total division of labor of mankind in human history.

So.

Um

The question is about

I I don't think that

I think that the element within the West that is irreducible is

You can't say it's an identity, you can't say it's a culture even.

There's some people, I'm culturally pro-Western, it's not even a culture.

It's an irreducible infinitesimal nowness, right?

And

In the same way the West was blind to the West the rest of the world, the rest of the world was in some way blind also to the West.

I mean, let's be brutally honest, all right?

The British East India Company came and they tore, they destroyed all the gunpowder empire.

So the Mughals.

Probably the decline of the Safavids had something to do with the rise of the East India Company.

And then finally, the Ottomans.

And these were all destroyed.

And why could they not protect themselves from this destruction?

Why did the Ottoman Empire become indebted to the West at a certain point in the 1700s or something, right?

Uh.

When people say before Western colonialism there were all these brilliant civilizations and empires, I agree, you know you're you're you're arguing with the wrong wrong person when you say that.

But it begs the question, how did the West prevail over them?

How did the West prevail over them though, right?

So there there was something missing in them if they could not protect themselves from Western colonialism.

That's why the Chinese today are different from these decolonial Western Sakai people.

The Chinese don't say we're just going to go straight back to our indigenous Chinese civilization.

They say no, we're going to yes,

Exist and go forward in harmony with our Chinese civilization, but acknowledging the necessity of the revolutions of the twentieth century and of Marxism.

When people make this accusation of third worldism, it's so pathetic.

The only third worldists who are resentful brown people who hate white people, it's actually like the Pahlavis, the ass kissers of the West, who want to fit in and be white themselves, but they're not.

The anti-colonial and anti-Western forces in the world, every single one of them has given the devil his credit.

That is the West.

And they made peace with it, and they don't hate the West.

Jackson was just in Iran.

Everyone loved him in Iran.

The Chinese glorify, they venerate, they elevate, they love the classics of Western philosophy, western uh classical music.

literature, theory, you name it.

The Chinese don't belittle these things.

They consider them invaluable contributions to the history of humanity.

There's no resentment or hatred toward the West at all there.

The resentment comes from

The sellouts, you know?

Well

I think part of it I am gonna have to disagree.

So someone fundamentally inherent qualities is historically reductive and anti-Marxist.

Okay.

So Michael Hudson is historically reductive and anti-Marxist.

Do you even know what the West is?

Tell me what the West is.

Tell me what that is.

So we're talking about Western, Northern Europe.

What's the history of the West genius?

Explain it.

So we're talking about the Greeks, the Romans, and then the Western part of the Roman Empire, and then European feudalism.

There's an objective historical continuity between all of those things pertaining to the continuity of creditor classes and systems, pro-creditor systems.

And the legal development of private property as an institution, which nowhere else in the world actually developed.

And you could say, well, they had user-frunk rights and stuff.

Private property as such comes from Greco-Roman law.

And Frederick Engels, who people falsely said was blind and didn't know what he was talking about, is the one who pointed and spelled this out.

We don't see what happens in ancient Greece.

with the rise of private property happen anywhere else in the world.

Spontaneously.

If I'm wrong, point out point out where.

Go ahead, what do what do you want it to say?

Um

What did I want to say?

I I have to disagree on that level of we never understood the original premise.

I I just have to.

I think it was there.

I think it's always been there.

I think it's something we will return to.

God, Christ, truth.

That's what we'll return to.

When you say, you know, Muslims even themselves forgot the original understanding of Islam and that we have to go back and find it.

No, that's not.

I don't think we have to go back, actually.

I think we have to embrace the now.

Or embrace moving forward.

We don't step back.

It's about the now.

What is the now?

The only reality is what's now.

Everything else is a memory, right?

So only the now is real, actually.

That's where I disagree.

But it's the truth.

The now is the only thing even the past is part of the now.

No, for the whole cosmos.

Even the past is just somehow part of the now.

The now is what is continuous, the now is what's living, the now is here.

Everything about the past that is worthy of being called history in the past is so because it is somehow fitting in the now in some kind of way.

But it's been sublated and raised up in the now already.

Sure.

I think that's just a limitation of our anthropology, of our mind.

I think all things do exist at once.

They exist in the now, absolutely.

The the way that you're describing it, I mean that's what I'm saying.

But that's that's what the now is, the now.

You know, what is the now?

Well the now is the now is reality.

The now is what's real.

I'm not even talking about our the immediacy of our experience.

I'm talking about what is the now, what is real, what is actually here, you know?

Yeah.

No, I don't know, man.

At this point, there there is no disagreement.

There's nothing to be had.

I wanted to provide some of my research.

I think the one thing

Just showing other Christians that there is a way to kind of double back to look and see this alternate form of Christianity that exists.

That I think Islam is a descendant of, specifically the Aksumite Empire, the Himar kingdom that existed in Yemen and in Ethiopia, that Islam drew a huge amount from.

And that we have this shared spirituality, the shared mysticism between you and me, Haz.

But that's a surprise to you, but it's like.

Mm-hmm.

I don't want to be rude, but it's not.

I guarantee you, it would be a surprise to the many Christians that are listening to this that are in it.

I get that.

I'm just saying, like, to me, the reason I kind of roll my eyes is because it's like, well, it's not interesting to me because it's already baked into the premise of where I'm coming from.

You know?

Yeah.

No, I speak for that other for you.

But I have to go to sleep.

I have work in the morning.

See you later.

God bless.

Have a good night.

What do you think about Muslims who say voting for election in a non-Muslim country is haram?

I might be the biggest atheist to ever exist in the world, which is why I'm not an atheist, you know?

Like, I don't even know where to begin with that.

Like, what

What are you talking about?

It's like

It's haram or it's halal.

I think meaning is the most important thing in the world, meaning.

Said it's haram to vote while the far right is uprising.

Here's what I disagree with religion about, whatever the religion is.

I don't think that there's any moral code that comes from the past.

which absolves you of the responsibility of staking out a position in the now.

I think that in contrast to the entire history of religion, when people say I just have this moral code of how I should act, it's like that's so easy.

It would be so easy to be a Muslim.

People say no, you have to follow all these rules and these laws.

Are you kidding?

I just have to follow these rules and that's it.

I don't consider that genuine conviction or faith.

I think that you have to break down the architecture of the now, the situation you're in now.

You have to break down.

The formula, the mathematical equilibrium that makes the now the now, right?

Thomas, what's up?

Because everything, it's a story now, it's a situation you're living in now.

It's like you have to carve out the right position now, here.

And there are no laws or guidebooks that can directly tell you what the truth is.

The Holy Quran is not a direct guide.

command set of commandments when you read that book

What conclusions you draw from it?

It takes a lot of effort to think about what did this mean then?

And what does this mean now?

That requires you to put in effort.

And you're not absolved of the responsibility of taking upon yourself the burden of carving out being right now, you know?

Because you're something in the past told you you're doing something right.

I didn't go to Iran, I was in Iraq a year ago, that's the footage you saw.

Working class is excess and automation sublates work.

Therefore, working class.

What are you talking about?

ACP is buns, sincerely a Marxist.

You're not a Marxist though.

If you came on and and requested and used your voice, I could dogwalk you through a million different reasons for why you don't know anything about Marxism and you're not a Marxist.

So stop LARPing in my chat.

You're not a Marxist.

You're you've adopted a political identity online because you're in a furry Discord and you want your fellow furries to be nice to you or something.

It's like you what are you what are you talking about?

You're a Marxist.

You're LARPing.

Everyone accuses me of LARP.

But you're LARPing.

You're you're in an unmediated way without any curiosity just being like, I'm going to be a Marxist in the same way as one hundred years ago.

You're LARPing.

What does that even mean today?

Have you thought about it for two seconds?

What is a derivative?

Explain what a derivative is.

Yeah.

Explain to me the world you live in right now.

You don't.

You just adopted this political identity because, I don't know, you found a Discord or something.

You're not a Marxist.

99% of these Marxists say that we need to stop AI.

You're not a Marxist, you're a boutique.

You're a boutique like hipster, you know, artisanal, petty bourgeois reactionary who's being declassed and confuses that for Marxist critique of capitalism.

You do have some kind of vague petty bourgeois anti-capitalism, which I'm not even saying is devoid of revolutionary potential, but it has nothing to do with Marxism at all.

At all, to be clear.

Okay, Mage, you won't request an user voice.

I want you in your own words to explain to me what is decisively the essence of Marxism.

What is Marxism?

Write one sentence explaining What is Marxism?

In your own words, you can't copy and paste something you get from something else.

Tell me what you think Marxism is.

In your own words.

Did they leave or are they thinking about it?

You'd think someone who's flaunting their Marxist credentials would on hand have a sentence ready to explain what Marxism is.

In a simple way, like you'd think they'd be able to just be like, Well, this is Marxism.

Yeah.

Where did they go?

They just left or what?

They ran, so I asked them a simple question, What is Marxism?

They can't answer it.

And they claim we're not the real Marxists, get outta here.

He's a post-Marxist.

I just care so little for labels.

But you can't pin me down if you if you have to accuse me of something.

You can't pin me down.

And say he's a fascist, he's an Osborne.

No, I'm not.

Clearly I'm just broadening the threshold of possibility of what Marxism is, in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable.

The emancipation of the working class and the abolition of private ownership.

Okay.

Marceline, you're confusing Marxism for a vague definition of socialism.

Which preceded Marxism.

Communism was popular among proletarian masses before the Communist Manifesto was even written.

The notion of the emancipation of the proletariat and the

Common ownership of the means of production.

Was a demand that existed before Karl Marx.

That's not the essence of Marxism whatsoever.

So that's a very poor definition of Marxism.

Jackson Hinkle oh B why because he said bigoted things, oh yeah, 'cause Nazism equals bigotry, right?

Opinion on left comms.

Coping.

They're just coping.

Ayo, you know, Sneeko is his own man, okay?

I don't know why you keep telling me about Sneeko.

He's his own man, and he can.

Come to any conclusion he wants to.

Uh

Jackson also being homophobic is crazy.

What is that noise?

I genuinely don't even know what that is.

Go ahead.

Yo, what's up?

Um so have you ever heard of uh uh Emster Miserationism and uh neo libertarian Fleignism?

So what's the first one?

And sturm Assaturationism and Neolibertarian Fenangism.

Well, dude, you need to like uh you need to like study up, bro.

It's it's the new uh ideology of the FARC um M nineteen revolutionaries of the future, bro.

It's uh it's not a very good one.

But what do you mean?

How how can you argue against and

Says the denguest.

Stop the LARP!

If you are an internet leftist, you are a LARPer.

By default, you're a LARPer, you're LARPing, you're pretending.

You're very loud about how much you're pretending, but it's r it's really exhausting at this point.

How do I be a real leftist?

Show me when robots in a mass scale can take blue collar jobs, all right, if if to make your argument, Prometheus.

Deng is a social democrat.

Stop the LARP!

You don't know what social democracy is!

You're using that as a word to describe your own ideological journey, because at one point in your life you were a Democrat Obama supporter and someone corrected you and told you you weren't a real socialist just 'cause you want health care, and they defined that as social democracy.

Social democracy can mean a few things.

We can be talking about the turn of the century of the previous century, right?

It was a large movement in Germany and in Europe with the Second International.

Or we can talk about the contemporary, more contemporary social democratic governments that ruled Europe in the post-war period, more or less welfare states, right?

That were part of NATO, NATO welfare states.

These are the two senses in which the phrase social democracy might have some meaningfulness.

But to describe social democracy as consisting in the view that, you know, you can have, it's like China where there's markets and simultaneously there's socialist pretensions, that's not social democracy, okay?

You just don't know what you're talking about.

ACP is social democracy because they don't immediately abolish commodity production.

I I hope you're joking or you're like pretending or something.

Fi here we go.

The LaSelle and Mussolini.

I feel like these left comms, it's like a group, a Discord of 100 of them who all have a hive mind and they just say the same thing everywhere on the internet all the time.

What are you even talking about?

Oh, La Salle, La Salle, so niche, ha La Salle Oh, La Salle and Mussolini, ah, so niche.

These people are not materialists.

What was was Mussolini a a product of an ideology that wanted to compromise social spending with a market economy?

Or what is the objective phenomena behind Mussolini?

Wasn't Mussolini the leader of the black shirt thugs that were propped up by landlords and the capitalist class to destroy the socialist movement?

Didn't Mussolini not even nationalize one thing under his entire reign?

Why are you even comparing him to this insufficiently revolutionary socialism thing?

Mussolini nationalized not one thing.

The IRI

Took out public money.

To pump credit into companies that the market had destroyed and bankrupted.

But ownership, in the sense of financial ownership, remained with the capitalist class.

It was a Ponzi scheme.

Mussolini didn't even nationalize anything.

So why are we even why are you talking about Mussolini like he was this socialist?

He wasn't.

Not even in like a a a sup uh like a like a conventional sense.

Mussolini nationalized a lot.

He nationalized basically nothing.

The IRI did not nationalize anything.

It was a Ponzi scheme.

To take on

It was literally a bank bailout, Obama style.

That's what it was.

Okay, I'm simplifying it for you.

But the shares that were owned by the IRI were not to be owned by it indefinitely.

It was to get these companies which were bad collateral for the banks, fix up the companies and then give them back to the private banks.

That the state took on these failing companies.

Because the bank's ownership of them gave them bad collateral.

Like, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Marxism rejects all religious beliefs.

It's like these people copy and paste what they learned in uh these like elementary, uncurious cookie cutter readings of things they've never actually explored with any degree of curiosity or detail.

Then spam me with these they just copy and paste and spam me with it.

Io I'm not gonna let you on if the thing you have to say is that I need to talk to Sneeko.

If Sneeko wants to talk to me, he can speak speak to me.

And if I want to talk to Sneeko at a given time, you know, I can.

But right now, I'm very busy, right?

And I.

If Sneeko wants to talk, I've n I've no problem, I'll talk, you know, but

I'm just not the type that just follows people around and asks them to talk to me, you know?

Like, Sneeko already talked to me.

That's the thing.

He already spoke to me.

So it's like, and he reached out first, actually, right?

Um.

Uh so like

It's just like I don't, I'm not built like I'm just going to keep bothering someone and harassing them for clout.

It's just not what I do.

I don't feel entitled to anyone's uh clout, you know?

You need to understand how I'm built.

There's a reason why I'm here in the way I am.

It's like I'm not built that way.

I don't.

I don't beg people for cloud.

I don't I just don't do that.

How quickly is ACP growing?

Pretty quick.

We don't know where to go.

We'll find what we're looking for the show.

Take us beyond.

Okay, now we're going to get into music hour.

How'd you guys like that song?

Be honest.

I don't want you guys to just.

Be sick of fans who are just like Hawes, you make great music.

Give me credit.

If you know, if you're like someone who knows what they're talking about, I'm gonna be totally honest about something.

I don't know what I'm doing with this music stuff, I don't know what I'm doing.

I'm not a trained music theorist, I'm just going off of what I think sounds good, but I also know that there's probably room for improvement, there's probably ways to make it more professional and better.

It's just like I, you know.

All we do is critique your music.

You don't like them?

Yeah, I mean, uh, I'm learning, you know, I'm it's a learning experience for sure.

No, the one that was in the um the the the the intro of the show.

Tempo should have been higher.

Faster.

I do have a faster version.

The opening song, the one from today, right?

The Turkish media, uh what?

The TRT, the Turkish Turkish uh news, or that's

What's the Turkish state news?

It's called TRT, right?

Testostero what?

Oh, you're talking about that looks max maxing stuff.

I'm gonna get a A C P to all right.

I thought you guys would like the Infra Red song.

Nothing compares to the slow infrared infrared show theme song.

You mean the Kanye song or the Wi Wally Wire song?

This song

See

This is a faster version.

Co-worker music, I mean

I like it.

It's not my usual style.

I'm I'm starting to learn guys, I'm learning.

Soon I'm gonna be I'm gonna move away from having any help with AI.

I'm just gonna use the the DAWs, right?

But it's nice 'cause the studio it lets you see the music on the timeline and it lets you mess with every single aspect, the beat, the tempo, the vocals, everything you can arrange it.

And it's like I'm just kind of uh learning, you know?

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not satisfied with anything I've made.

Even the really good one, which I actually listened to myself that I put on Spotify.

Um, I'm still not satisfied.

It needs more polish.

It needs more, there's a there's something missing clearly.

Like, I'm gonna, I want perfection, you know.

FL Studio.

Uh yeah, soon I'll I'll I'll learn not soon, I mean eventually.

One day.

You gotta lock in.

I just don't have time for this music stuff, but I love it.

I don't have time for it though, but I do love it.

Are restaurant cooks proletarian or are they unproductive?

Um

Well, in what sense are we talking about proletarian?

I have no problem calling them proletarians.

I think people who work a nine to five and they're on their grind set are people who have to grind for a living are proletarians.

That's my definition.

Shadow, what's up?

But not all let's put it this way, maybe we can just say not all proletarians are productive laborers.

Proletarian is working class.

Yeah, they're they're working class, for sure.

I'm not so strict about how to define proletarians and working class people.

I just

I just uh

I find a lot of the times when leftists decide to evangelize among workers, they tend to do so in ways that don't have to challenge their own discursive bubbles and step out and have any self-reflection.

That's all, that's all, you know.

Prometheus, proletary doesn't exist, industrial automation and AI abolish them.

Dude, I get that you're saying this, but it's just not true.

Yeah.

Yang Shao Ping or Enver Hojo.

Review the song I sent

Carlos made a song now.

Alright, I'll listen.

I hate it already.

I don't like this at all.

I don't like this country stuff.

It's kind of good.

The great Soviet Union will live through the ages, the dream of the people, their fortress secure.

So

Okay.

No, that was a failure.

That was 'cause it has to go no, it's it was a failure, I'll tell you why.

Because it has to go it has to go when it has that part, it has to go love

It has to have that continuity.

The minute he went, I'll tell you when it failed.

The minute he went, long live us, it has to go.

He would, if he, I was expecting like a country thing where he was like, long live us up.

Like, if he did that high.

That high voice note or whatever, that would have been nice.

You gotta have that part.

I was coming I was listening, Carlos, I was listening to it.

Aye aye.

Alright, let's see.

I need guys, I need something.

I need the original Suno link to the original Allah Cosmos Xi Jinping, 'cause I want to make a mix.

I want to mix the original Allah Cosmos Xi Jinping and make it perfection.

I want to make it perfection.

I can make that song perfection.

I just need the link to the suno.

Whoever has it, put it in original content.

Where is it?

Where's the original suno link to Allah Cosmos Xi Jinping?

Long.

Live our Soviet mother No, it should have to go long live us like it didn't do it right.

Soviet mother

By the people's mighty

For this part it's like he needs

It's not it and free long

Yeah.

It's not something I like.

Long

Live ah, sove ye motherland

Ooh da da da da da da.

Oh hey, clean up.

I will put this on Spotify, but I want to make it perfect first.

I don't feel like it's perfect.

Indian call center music.

The truth is, Indian music bangs.

Why are we pretending like India doesn't make some of the best music on earth?

The one thing you can never say about India is bad is that you can't say the music is bad.

You can't.

That's such cope.

Indian music is some of the best in the world.

You know what one of my favorite songs growing up was?

Y'all wanna y'all wanna be take a trip down memory lane?

This was my exposure to Indian music.

The world of India.

Ready?

Where the fuck is the original music video?

Cause I don't want nothing l less than the original music video.

This was my exposure to Indian culture.

No!

No, this is a fucking mix, but I already gave it away.

Holy shit.

The music video is gone forever.

What the fuck?

I guess the music video's just gone.

Forever.

Naughty, naughty.

This was such a good song.

This was an Egyptian guy and an Indian woman made this song.

It was so good.

But I'm saying like that's how I was introduced to it 'cause it was Arabs found this song popular at the time and then I l looked up the music video and there's a lot of Indians in it and I was like wow, this is the Indian rabbit hole So then I would look up m Indian music Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding dun da da da.

Alright, you're saying that it's not authentic Indian.

Alright, here we go with the the the gatekeepers of culture.

Here we go.

Here we go with the gate It's not real.

Taco El's not real, Mexico.

Just shut up.

I don't care.

It's not real.

Horizon, go ahead.

Yo, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Alright, cool.

I'm 24 for TikTok purposes.

Or we just talk about Marxism equals Islam, or can we talk about?

I immediately just said I'm 24 for TikTok purposes.

What does that even mean?

So you're what?

You're a child?

Get outta here, what the hell?

You know what's funny, when you're young, you're always in a rush to like

Alright, alright, this is the truth, and this is the truth.

It's like young people have this fanaticism where they're like,

They think they've discovered everything already.

I don't know.

It's kind of funny.

I'm authentically twenty four.

Then why are you saying for TikTok purposes?

It just means you have to say it.

Alright, go ahead again, request again.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, are we just talking about Marxism equals Islam, or can we do, like, communism broadly?

Anything.

All right, cool.

I wanted to run, like, a a developing, I would say, like, argument against, like, communism.

Would this be cool with you?

Alright, just like to summarize it, the critique is going to be that communism is described as an evolutionarily unstable state.

Alright?

Now evolutionary instability means that it's a specific state that will deterministically regress into a system that does not contain it.

Alright?

Are we are you are you good?

I don't wanna like ruin your moon, bro.

You stop babbling, you just mean to say it doesn't work, all right?

That's all you're saying.

Um well, it doesn't work like the long term, it won't persist.

Okay, so you're saying it doesn't work.

That's your argument.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

Am I like actually like getting you in a bad mood or something?

Okay, look.

So like in the Communist Manifesto on page forty five, it literally references the fact that if there are sectarian principles for the proletariat to like divide themselves upon, then communism will essentially not sustain and as a result, because of the way that

Yeah, I'm I'm paraphrasing this a little bit, but would you like me to repeat?

Uh-huh.

Read us the passage, go ahead.

Or give us a chapter.

Yeah, it it says two proletarians and communists.

In what relation do communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

Is that cool?

Yeah, it has nothing to do with a communist mode of production at all.

All right.

Um, would you say that sectarian principles are like can be, I should say, genetic in like modality?

But that's not the we don't even know why they said that in the manifesto.

The reason they said that in the manifesto is that

They they're not trying to develop a special ideology or doctrine.

They're trying to develop something that articulates the will of the proletariat and do that in a humble way, that one that acknowledges the primacy of the actual

Proletarian movement whose conditions are hitherto now in existence, you know, to paraphrase Marx.

So it's not, it's not about.

You know, this idea this notion of the the the abstract reality of people forming sects and different belief systems.

All right, um if groupings were to arise in a communist system for people to divide themselves on, does this not threaten the perpetuation of the system?

No.

There would be a type of hierarchical like classism based off of the differentiation, would there not be?

Uh

Based on people adopting collective identities arbitrarily, that's not where classes come from.

Um no, it's not about like their self-perception of collective identity, it's about the arising of groupings objectively.

How do groups arise in your view?

Okay, well like broadly, like there's not like one unified thing, but specific like modalities that we can look at here for like what I would be meaning.

Like genetically for instance, like we agree that evolution is true and as a result there is a mechanistical system that applies itself on populations to create more diversity genetically.

Hmm so it's all just biology, huh?

Well this is the approach that I'm taking right now, sure, but like it's broader than that.

I guess something else could be self-contradictory and self-defeating.

It's like

If all we're talking about is biology, then why are we talking in the first place?

Well, in fact, like, communism is a thing that applies itself on a population of humans, which is biological.

What's the biological reality of communism?

What are the biological processes

That are responsible for the word or communism itself.

For the word communism itself?

For anything.

I mean, what is bi the the notion to reduce any type of being to a s specific field of inquiry of being, like biology or chemistry or anything like that, it's self-defeating, it's self-contradictory.

Because even by partaking in language, you're you're presuming an ontology for which biology is of secondary significance.

I I would not say that there is a reduction fully of the system to a biological like reality.

There is simply a projection onto an axis of a part of the system.

The fact that you're saying that what's the biological reason for you giving this analysis about how biology is just projecting itself upon things somehow?

Well first of all like it wouldn't be biology projecting itself onto things.

It would be the fact that things have constituent parts and one of them is a biological reality, is what I'd be trying to say.

But I'm not trying to say that projection in and of itself is a biological function.

So what is it then?

Right, it's simply that there is a descriptive layer into like communist systems that applies itself on like populations, which is a biological thing and as a result it would be governed by

In that communism is first a meme.

There's the different terms that we can use, right?

Like it's a meme, it's an idea, it's ideology, and it is also.

Sorry?

What's a meme?

A meme?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, a functional unit of ideological inheritance.

What's what what is an idea what's a what's what are ideas made of?

What's an idea?

Well, this is like a perspective thing.

Would you like me to give my opinions on like philosophy of mind?

Well, no, we're not just talking about the philosophy of mind, we're talking about something you regard as having a overriding significance with respect to different minds, not just one.

Yeah, so like ideas would be I take a form of identity and functionalism, so ideas would be something that is evident through matter, specifically like neurons interacting, but of course there's always the possibility of a broader definition.

So ideas are configurations of neurons.

Yeah, and indeed that's where their identity is.

Why stop there?

Stop there?

Aren't neurons are neurons configurations of anything?

Uh yeah neurons are in a configuration, yes.

Of what?

In like spatial terms.

Of what?

Of what are they configur what are they a configuration of?

Of matter.

Okay.

And and why is matter configured in such a way so as to produce ideas like communism?

Well yeah, because there is a mechanistical mathematical system of laws that determines how moments interchange.

Break them down.

Where do we how do we go from matter to communism?

How do we go from matter to communism?

Uh-huh.

How do we go to from matter to the ideas you have about matter's relation to communism?

Both of those, please.

Well yeah.

If if the ideas have an identity with matter, then in fact like having matter in specific conformations will yield the ideas and the thing is that there is in fact like laws of physics and laws of logic that govern the way that intercha the interchange of moments happens, which would yield what we have currently which contains communism.

Can you draw these laws out?

Can you name them?

Can you describe them?

Yeah, like certainly we could, right?

You haven't exhaustively go through all that.

Yeah, do it.

Like Houlom's law, like Newton's laws of motion, the law of non-contradiction, the like principle of sufficient reason.

Law of non-contradiction.

Fascinating.

That's a feature of matter.

That's very interesting.

I indeed I take it on an identity with matter itself.

Yes, it's evident everywhere.

Mm.

And I is it taken no time to think about any of this or have you thought about it?

Um well, indeed I I try to ponder about it, yes, but um I don't see how that's wrong.

Sounds like you're doing too much pondering and too little thinking.

How is pondering not thinking?

Because when you say you pondered, it just sounds like you've had these thoughts in the shower, but didn't even think about how consistent they could possibly be with respect to themselves.

Like, for example, if it's true that everything is just a configuration of particles or something, why have a debate?

What's the point?

Well, here, I think you're using like loaded language here.

It's not like we have a choice in the matter.

If it is deterministic, then it's actually like occurring out of necessity.

So, why debate?

This is my necessity.

Because there literally is no way not to.

But my brain made me have this position, so why are we debating?

Right right, precisely.

You just explained like why we're debating and then you asked why we're debating again.

It's like you just answered yourself.

Why debate?

I mean, how is deb how okay, how could your view explain the possibility of debate?

It's a better question.

Here, I don't want to burden shift, but the retort pretty much just is how not debate.

Well, if everything if if ideas are just a reflection of

Neural configurations and

that's that, then there would ha there would not need to be a negotiation between different neural actors or whatever.

They would just seamlessly adopt what they do because their neurons de demanded it.

This this is false.

There would be a strict necessity here for their confirmation in the way that they are and the way that they will project themselves in the future.

Why?

Because there are laws of physics and laws of logic that govern the way that moments interchange.

That's not a direct response to the question.

Um which resolution would you like me to respond to with then?

You're claiming that an idea is just a configuration of neurons and that's how we can explain the meaningfulness of an idea, right?

Or or what an idea refers to.

To what does an idea refer?

What is an idea?

Well, ideas are just configurations of neurons, okay?

So, your position is just a consequence of the configuration of your neurons, and my position is a consequence of the configuration of my neurons.

How do we know?

If there's so much wiggle room

Then how is it a direct relationship at all?

So there was an initial question.

If it's possible that my neurons are configured in such a way so as to seamlessly give rise to the idea that you have, which is I presume the reason you're debating me, is to see if that's true or not.

How is that arbitrariness possible?

That it could be possible I could have a different idea than the one I have now.

Well, like on multiple resolutions.

It's not arbitrary, it's necessary, and I wouldn't even say that something that didn't occur is possible and won't occur as a result of like the mathematical laws that govern is possible at all.

What wha why what wha wh why is it necessary to be to find recognition and validation in the way you're talking about?

I'm sorry, what do you mean recognition and validation?

Can you not answer it?

Sure.

Just c can you even like re-say it?

I might have missed it.

Why is it necessary to debate your position as true or false if you truly believe in it?

Right, because reality forces me to through the way that it works.

Because of the laws of physics you have to debate me?

Indeed, this would be the case.

It's just the it's just nonsense.

I'm sorry.

It's just total nonsense.

Okay, I mean that doesn't sound like very convincing, but

I guess we have no choice, right?

I yeah, I guess so.

I guess our neural configurations make it impossible.

Alright.

Impossible.

Okay.

Sure.

You know, to broadly respond to where you're coming from, I think that you haven't given it enough thought.

Think that you

You do it I mean, to be very generous, there's some kind of um trend within analytical philosophy.

Which is more sophisticated than what you're putting on the table here.

But you have people like what's his name, Daniel Dennett and others who'll be like, consciousness is an illusion.

And it's like it's just this nihilism that attempts to claim that there is something unreal about the things we regard as meaningful, which calls into question the very

Weight behind words like meaning or reality in the first place.

Like, what is real versus what is false?

Right?

Is what is real strictly what we can?

Um

measure in ways that excise the dimension of

Partiality we associate with the subject.

If that's true, then reality, the term reality, loses all the weight it has.

If reality and meaning are so separated and so divorced from each other, then why should we respect the real for what?

Fear?

you know, because of the necessity of respecting science to stay alive.

But meeting is the thing that makes us put everything at stake, including our lives.

Why should we respect reality if if it's completely

divorced from meaning, you know?

Okay, so I I'm not a nihilist and nor would I deny some sort of like consciousness.

There are definitions that will satisfy you here, nor do I deny meaning.

Like semantic content exists and well I ask you how does it exist and you just say it's a configuration of matter.

That's not a useful explanation at all because what is at stake is the very question what is matter?

The content of what matter is

Cannot be found in some primor base substance.

We're well past the ideas of the 17th century when there were these fundamental particles and billard balls moving in space, and that's matter.

Matter is what we're talking about, right?

So I'm asking you, what is an idea?

And you say, well, it's matter.

That's not telling me anything.

What is an idea?

Because your framework for understanding humanity is that it's just biology.

It's just a series of causal mechanistic determinations.

But the problem with that framework is that.

To even speak of what matter is in the first place at its most fundamental.

You can go down the path of modern science and try to inquire upon the most fundamental possible particle or quote-unquote building blocks of the universe, and they haven't done so with any degree of success at all.

They've just found confusion for themselves.

And so it begs the question of what is matter and why should the direction of causality be the same thing as the

The scale between parts and the whole, right?

The emergent property of the whole with respect to the parts is a clearly observed

uh tendency in phenomena within nature even by modern scientists

So this reductionistic framework just doesn't work.

When you say, well, biology is the reason communism doesn't work.

It's like.

But what are we even talking about here?

What what do you mean biology, right?

How could biology give rise to something that contradicts biology?

It doesn't make any sense.

Well here, right?

So the original point had nothing to do with my specific views on what reality is in matter, it had everything to do with a mathematical necessity.

So even in a different framework what I'm saying as long as evolution has been accepted.

According to my own view?

Yeah, explain mathematically why communism is impossible in the long term.

Right, okay.

I I'm gonna do this on the scope of resolution of the like biological stuff we were referencing previously, because in fact Do you want a different resolution?

Is that why you're making the face?

Can we stop talking about resolutions and just get on with it?

Okay.

So it in fact is the case that life is predicated on an internally facing preference to a genetic identity.

All of the elements that once expressed yield one individual like entity.

And as a result of genetic identity, are you referring to discrete parts of DNA?

Yeah, I'm referring to functional units of inheritance as a set.

Yeah, but those don't exist.

End of story.

Uh functional units of inheritance don't exist?

There are no units of inheritance that we can observe.

Okay.

I is this because you're taking some sort of like view that matter doesn't exist and reality isn't there?

There are no units of heredity, there just aren't any.

Okay, so reality's there and DNA is there.

It's just not units of heredity.

Yeah, DNA doesn't conta contain units of heredity.

It doesn't.

It's not how heredity works.

So what would you say is the necessity of the replication that a DNA molecule will go through that contains within it functional units?

They're not functional units.

They're part of a greater metabolism.

They have a function within that greater metabolism.

But that function doesn't even it doesn't even apply to the

Direct coding for proteins.

If it doesn't even code for proteins, quote unquote.

and there's an interdependence between the DNA and the the metabolic system.

Talking about heredity at the level of discrete units of heredity is totally meaningless.

The entire metabolism is involved in the process of heredity.

End of story

Um, when you say end of story, would you are you trying to like tell me to get off or do I get to respond, like?

What's your response?

Um, what's my response?

Okay, I sort of haven't even thought about it, so that's why I'm kicking you off.

Because I asked, What's your response?

And then you're like, What's my response?

I don't know, that's what I asked you.

Exotiris go ahead.

Hello?

What?

Um why do you say that Marxism is Islam instead of saying Islam is Marxism?

Oh good question.

Because Mar Islam comes before Marxism.

But I kicked you off because I'm in my speed running thing, because I'm going to leave soon.

Just Alex, go ahead.

Uh hello?

Yeah.

Uh look, uh sorry if you can't really understand me, but uh it is just like English, not my my first language.

Moldova.

Moldova?

Yeah, it's in Europ between Romania and uh Ukraine.

I'm not from Moldova.

I'm from Moldova.

No, you're not.

You have a Arabic accent.

You're not from Moldova.

Bro, other people that say that I uh have like an uh Russian accent.

Oh, you actually you might be from Moldova when you heard I go ahead.

Okay, uh so and also uh I might be uh I don't wanna say that I'm wo one hundred percent correct.

Uh I I just read um I the only Marxist book that I re I read it was Capital.

So basically what do you mean like Islam Eagles Islam?

Uh I I mean Marx Eagles Islam.

I I'm gonna I have an essay coming out about it, you know.

If you're just gonna ask me questions, I have an essay, don't worry.

This is strictly debates only.

Uh e whatever this guy's name is, go ahead.

Hey, hey man, how's it going?

I don't want to take too much of your time.

I just wanted to say keep doing what you're doing.

Shout out to you and Free Palestine.

Thanks, my man.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Alright guys, we're wrapping up the TikTok.

Bye bye.

The guy who was like the guy who was like, what was he?

We couldn't have a resolution to this.

You can resolve it to the uh anyway guys, I'll see you tomorrow.

Bye-bye.

See you tomorrow.

Bye-bye.