Victory is ours, Allahu Akbar

up y'all

Is up here.

What's up, y'all?

We got a lot of shit to talk about.

So

Teepo, what's up man?

Appreciate you.

What's going on, bro?

Rabbi Tahir, what's up, man?

Man, Rabbi Tahir.

Rabbit to here be a cray cray.

He be posting cray cray.

Rabbi to Yearbo.

Let's let's chill it.

Chill it with the cray cray.

Um

What is up, y'all?

Okay, so we got a lot of shit we gotta talk about.

There are many items of relevance for us.

And uh

JBUZ, what's up, man?

What a great name.

What a great name.

Thank you for that name.

Harold with the five.

What's up, bro?

I don't know what the hell JBUZ even means.

I'm gonna be honest.

Brutal Stalinists with the 10.

What's up, bro?

How are we doing?

What's up, brutal Stalinists?

What's up, bro?

How are we doing?

So um

Be lung.

She smell of your Elizabeth be spying for Israel in the

Alright, we just roll with it.

So, um

Guys, I know a lot of you think I'm crazy.

I'm gonna be fucking honest.

Let's have like a blunt conversation face to face as though you're right in front of me right now, face to face.

I understand I sound fucking crazy all the time.

I understand a lot of people are very skeptical of the new direction of infrared as of recent.

People are extremely skeptical.

Of like this whole Islam thing, you know?

A lot of people like, Haz, what are you fucking doing?

This is fucking crazy.

No, but a lot of people, they're like, what the fuck?

And they don't tell me that directly because they think I'm a crazy fuck.

But like, they're telling themselves, they're like, what the fuck is this Islam thing?

Like, are you fucking crazy?

Have you lost your fucking mind?

And it's like at face value.

Yeah, of course.

At face value, it's fucking crazy.

Like it makes no sense.

If you, one year ago, two years ago, you asked me about pursuing this direction, I'd be like, fuck no.

But it's like right now, there is so much moral energy being concentrated into our movement.

I have such an oceanic feeling that we're like on the cusp of something incredible.

And as soon as we get this sustainer thing or whatever we're calling it sorted out, where I can actually invest in infrared and I can afford to be on YouTube and I can afford editors and we can expand infrared, this shit will rise like you've never fucking seen it.

And I'm so glad to be part of it.

And I believe in it so much.

We are for now the Spartans on kick and I'm talking to you the Kizelbosh.

I call you my Kizzlebosh.

You are the Kizelbosh, which means we are like the elite fighting force, those who are aware and we're just in the preliminary early stages of this.

And you're going to see how this is going to pay off later.

But to give you more reassurance, I want to explain many people are not very religious at face value, and I'm one of them.

I'm going to be honest, I'm not, I think that people who are who don't really, they're not really into the religion stuff, actually, those tend to be some of the best people ever.

Because religion is always an excuse for hypocrisy, and it tends to just be something so vulgar, just to just be so open about.

And we tend to want to be private and quiet about it.

Because when you're so open about it and you're just putting it, rubbing it in people's faces and shit, there's something really disgusting and disingenuous about it.

And I think we can all feel that in like the deepest.

Heart of our hearts, we just sense there's something wrong with that, right?

Totally understand that.

But I've always told you guys that like a lot of

I'm this is all vision based.

Like I've had the vision.

This year specifically, like I've had this profound vision that like this is the direction we need to go in.

It just when you synthesize i in isolation, it's like, whoa, America is fear why are you doing this?

This is fucking crazy.

Americans are scared of Islam, it's a foreign thing, it's why are you importing this Shia Islam shit?

It's just 'cause of your own background, right?

I'm like, I get how it looks like that, but I have when you synthesize everything in totality.

And you just think holistically about the situation we are right now in the world, there's such a clarity about why this is the right path and this is the necessary path forward.

And it's confusing as fuck because what do we mean by this religion stuff?

And what do we mean?

Well, for those of you skeptical of religion, I'll just put it something very simple to you like this: go back to Marx.

Because for Marx, religion was all about the feeling.

Religion was the only way we feel humanity.

That's what Marx was saying.

It's the affectual relationship to the Gatungswessen, the species being.

That's our effectual relationship to it.

You can have a rational relation to it in your head through philosophy, through Hegel or something.

But religion is more material because that's how we feel the species essence.

And the species essence is humanity itself.

The essence of like the humans, the human race, you know, like the way we relate to our most fundamental material being is through religion.

And that's why it's about feeling.

Religion inspires you with

Such a vision for feeling, for right and and moral purpose, right and wrong, art, all these kind of different things.

And I think people who are trying to bracket religion.

I'm gonna like I could explain it to you theoretically for why we have to do the Islam shit from a theoretical perspective, I guess.

The thing is, Marx was like, Yes, Feuerbach, you're right.

Christianity is the culmination of the human essence expounded in the form of religious alienation.

And all we have to do is move from that to communism.

To like direct praxis, and we can fulfill and satisfy the same thing that's bound up in the Christian religion, but just in practice and in the world.

And objectively speaking, and I'm open to disagreement.

That this is why I think it's urgent and it's punctual, actually.

Because.

Islam poses a problem for Marxism.

It's actually a problem.

Marxists expected that the Islamic world would just convert maybe to Protestantism, or with the development of capitalism, Islam would just go away because it belongs to an outmoded mode of production.

But the opposite happened.

And we're here in a situation that was not anticipated by the classical Marxists, even by the Soviet Marxists in the beginning, right?

It's like Islam is a problem for Marxism.

It actually is.

Even from the roots of Marxism, like Islam is a massive problem.

It poses a big challenge because Christianity was supposed to be the last religion, really, that is the last form of estrangement from the human essence.

And there was no real engagement with Islam, which comes after Christianity.

Remember, Islam comes after.

And like Islam has renewed relevance.

And they're like, okay, Haas, but that's such an abstract, like theoretical issue.

Why are you focusing on it?

Well, I'll tell you why.

Because right now, the country is fucking focused on it.

It's like all the stars have aligned in a way that makes sense of this.

Americans do fear Islam, but they think a lot of you are underestimating the anti-Islam backlash that's coming.

Because a lot of you, partially correctly, can understand that it's fueled by the Mossad and by Israel.

But the thing that you're missing.

Is that I actually think anti-Islam feeling in this country is very organic.

I don't think you can just say it's Israel and it's the Mossad.

They're tapping into something that was already there and is very, very compelling and very powerful.

It's the fear of Islam is very real.

The backlash and the hostility toward it is so real.

It's really, even I didn't appreciate the full extent of it.

And I maybe I have a prediction.

I think that the current Hassan Piker, Zoran, Abdul Al-Syed, this like current Islam wave, there's going to be a massive backlash, like a massive one.

And I don't think anyone's prepared for it.

Least of all Marxists are prepared for it.

Because Islam poses trouble from it's an existential like we have to open ourselves to the existential problematic.

What is Islam and why is it driving the masses crazy?

Those of us who are educated are like, well, I know about Islam.

It's not a big deal.

I meet people from Dearborn.

They're very nice people.

Good for you.

But.

You know, while some may say, Haz, you doing this Islam shit is a betrayal of your American patriotism, I would respond by saying, actually, no, I'm tuned in with the masses, I'm tapped in with them because I love and I care about the American masses is why I'm doing this, actually.

Because you are dismissing their anti-Islam feelings, and I'm trying to work with it in a new way.

You're just dismissing that shit, though.

And you're just saying, oh, that's Israel and it's Mossad.

But that's not true.

A lot of it isn't Israel.

A lot of it isn't Mossad.

A lot of it is deep feeling, deeply legitimate.

Not legitimate in the sense of defensible, but deeply sincere.

Like it's deeply, it's not like a fake thing.

It's very, very deep-rooted in the masses.

Don't underestimate it.

If you underestimate it, you're going to do the same thing the Social Democrats did in the turn of the century because when they were looking at the anti-Semitism backlash, they were like, ah, just whatever.

This is going to be a nothing burger.

Turned out, that's what allowed the Nazis to lap the German communists because the Marxists were too dismissive of anti-Semitism and didn't take it seriously.

And now, of course, there's many Zionists and a lot of Jewish Marxoids who are like, well, yeah, we should have taken it more seriously in the sense of being more punitive to it.

No, you need to take it more seriously in the sense of understanding where the masses are at.

I'm doing the same with Islam.

My goal is to create a new bridge between Islam and America.

But.

Not a bridge between Muslims and the Middle East in America, but I want to target and I want to under what they call Islamophobia.

Like we need to deal with that.

But we can't deal with it by calling people racist and scolding them.

The way we have to deal with it is to show people what it means to ride with Islam.

You can ride with this.

It's like Islam is a bunch of horses galloping your way.

And I want to teach Americans you can ride the horse too.

This is not some thing that you're alienated from, it's a part of yourself you're alienated from, right?

And like I want you guys to think because like a lot of people are so Philistine.

They have such a small and narrow perspective.

And the thing that they're they're trying to do basically

Is they're trying to be like Yohaz

You are not thinking about the implications.

Orvo, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

And I'm like, look.

Okay, honest to God, look.

Um

You we have to have a way of confronting, articulating, and confronting and recognizing that this is a big existential thing going on in the country.

You will mark my words, I'm early to it.

The Islam backlash in this country is so explosive, you have no fucking idea.

It's really big.

Like, there's a genuine, deep-rooted, spontaneous, organic fear and revol revulsion to Islam in this country.

And it's not just the Mossad Syop, although the Zionists and the Mossad are exploiting it a lot.

Simply saying, you know, what about Jews, Jews, Jews?

That's what Muslims typically do.

That's what people who are educated typically do.

Not going to cut it.

Because the truth is.

A lot of the pro-Zionists are pro-Zionists just because they hate Muslims that much.

So this needs to be sorted out.

I want to sort it out by drawing out the contradictions within Islam.

Finally, some people are asking how this can be materialistically or geographically justified when America has nothing to do with Islam.

And to that I say, well, look, I just want to lay on the table for you where we're at, where I'm thinking, you know?

If you understand objectively the source of the material existence of the American people, it's tied to the system of super imperialism.

We are entangled in the Middle East and it's part of our mode of production.

I want to like our goal should be: yes, get the fuck out of the Middle East and have nothing to do with it.

But who's going to start?

Who's going to start doing that by totally divesting yourself from the American financial system?

Because that's what it has to take.

You have to divest yourself entirely from the entirety of the American financial system and just stop and just live off the land.

Yeah, I don't think a lot of people are going to be doing that, to be frank.

So we either take responsibility for where we are materially right now, or we could continue to pretend that we're the real American patriots, despite the blatant hypocrisy of being integrated in an objective global system, the center of which is now in the Middle East, right?

Because of the system of super imperialism and the petrodollar and so on and so on.

Like, this is just the truth bomb that I'm dropping on you.

And if you need an analogy, the analogy that I think about a lot to help you understand what I'm cooking here, I want you to think about the Roman Empire.

So the Romans.

were conquerors, and they were also at like America today, they were at war with Persia for centuries.

And with the rise of the Sassanids, Persia went underwent a kind of

Zoroastrian Revival And before the Zoroastrian Revival you had a prominence of the Mithras cult in Persia.

And anyway, I don't want to bore you with, you know, mystical esoteric stuff, but I just want to tell you the Romans were fighting the Persians.

The Romans were also conquering land in the Levant and so on.

But if you understand dialectics, the outcome of that

Was that among the military of Rome, you had the rise of the Mithras cult.

Meaning, although you're at war with Persia and Persia is your foreign enemy, there was a syncretic encounter that happened internally where they started getting exposed to these foreign beliefs and ideas, which ultimately conquered Rome.

And the final example of that was Christianity.

If you want to simplify the story of, I don't like talking about religion so much, but like understand why it's important, just the logic of it.

Rome occupies Judea, and then Judea conquers Rome through Christianity.

Like this religion that came from one of these provinces they occupied that was foreign to Rome, the city of Rome and Italy, ended up becoming the universalized world religion.

So people talk about how, like, Haz, you're moving away from the American patriotism thing and now you're on this Islam stuff.

And I'm like, look, this is like the myth.

We're building like something like the Mithros cult.

We're building some kind of syncretic encounter or dialogue.

I like to call it a dialogue.

It's an engagement between different worlds and different perspectives.

And.

That's also where your communism comes from, if I may remind you.

You're a communist because you found the encounter with the Soviet Union or China compelling.

But there's too many American patriotic LARPers that think they're wise guys, that are like these, they're LARPing as like civic nationalist Tucker normies.

And they're like, no, I came across communism because I just want what's best for the American people.

Yeah, buddy.

If I rewind your entire life story somewhere along the line, you're listening to the Red Army Corps or some shit.

Stop fucking lying, okay?

The truth is, we're all here because we've been exposed to ideas which are foreign.

They're foreign and there's nothing wrong with that because America is entangled with the world and the globe the we don't have to be Philistines who isolate ourselves from the world.

Well isn't that cosmopolitanism?

Not when your country is objectively cosmopolitan in the sense of being entangled and interdependent in a global system, that we're just inter we have to engage with that in a really sober and honest way.

Like, America's borders don't end with America, unfortunately.

I know that's a tragedy for many, but it's a lost cause.

America's borders.

The whole world is American, but the whole world is also something America has to confront and deal with.

And that's the you could say, I didn't sign up for this, too fucking bad.

That's the situation we're in now.

You know?

All sorts of foreign things are pouring in, and foreign ideas, and traditions, and schools of thought.

Boy, would I not like to be around you in the Republic of China era.

Imagine you're Chinese and some guy next to you, Marxism is foreign.

We don't want to, we're a China first.

We only care about China.

Why are we adopting these foreign ideas from Germany?

It's like, okay, buddy.

Or imagine you're Russia, you're saying the same shit.

Oh, Marxism is foreign.

It's not rooted and native to the soil.

You know, it's just people need to stop this over-correction of LARP.

I know there's an immense skepticism of me because of this new orientation and this new direction for infrared.

But it's rooted in Philistinism, frankly.

It's rooted in Philistinism.

And like, I feel like I'm pretty on the pulse about this shit.

Oh, this is Shia Islam?

Why Shia Islam?

Well, it makes sense to me why.

Because Islam is the hot topic of the nation right now, taking the nation by storm.

Objectively, it is.

It's on everyone's minds.

Everyone's obsessing.

I am so tapped in.

I'm the one tapped in with the American masses, not you.

You're just some fucking arrogant fuck.

I'm talking about the people who are skeptical of me.

You're just some arrogant fuck in some ivory tower who thinks you believe in this caricature of America that doesn't exist.

I believe in, I know about the America, which is like literally tens of millions of people terrified Sharia law is coming.

Have you seen the Texas City Council meeting of the guy who's like trolling them by dressing as like an Ottoman guy?

And all of these normal white people were like freaking out.

They were genuinely terrified of this guy in a costume.

But that's where we're at.

You know what I mean?

Like that happened like a few weeks ago.

Like this is where we're at as a country.

I have a pulse on this country.

Islam is fucking terrifying to people.

And we have to engage with that.

Because if your response to the rise of I don't like the word Islamophobia, but it's the truth.

If you're terrified by the rise of that sorry, if your response to that is to be like to deflect and be like, well, well what about Jews in Israel?

Nobody cares.

They're not gonna care.

Think about Alex Jones.

You think Alex Jones is gonna be convinced by talking about Israel or some shit?

Normies aren't either.

The normies that you're glorifying and you worship are not gonna buy your way of trying to deflect their attention from the Islam thing.

I'm just I'm sorry.

There's no way around it, you know?

And I just feel so strongly about

This dire.

I just feel it's kind of beautiful that we're cultivating this community and this culture, which is memeifying a lot of it.

And it provokes such a confusion in people.

How do people categorize us?

Like, what are they gonna say?

That we're like some Islamic extremist group when we don't even like pray, or some of you do, but like we don't even we're not even legalistically Muslims, and most of you aren't Muslims in any like formal sense, but we're still like identifying with the symbolism and stuff like that.

Like, isn't that such a mind fuck?

That I think it works.

I think there's something about that that works.

Like how do I the the goal of peop lot of people just are not infrared people because you don't get it.

The whole point of infrared was to become undefinable within the discourse.

MAGA communism, undefinable within the discourse.

Okay?

By the way, I love how I look on TikTok and I saw TikTok with 40,000, 50,000 likes.

That's like Trump, Comrade Trump, who is destroying the US Empire with his incompetence.

And it's like memeing him next to Kim Jong-un.

And it's like this meme of Trump as a communist because it's supposed to be ironic.

And then I'm kind of sitting there like, that's the entire gas and all of the fuel for MAGA communism.

That's why we...

You think we weren't laughing when we made memes of Trump in like a commisar outfit?

You think that wasn't funny to us and we didn't enjoy doing that because it was funny?

Do you think somehow that's like we were actually trying to say that this wasn't Photoshop and he actually wore this?

But it's like that was the whole point of MAGA communism, right?

At the time, it was hilarious and we mind fucked everyone.

And that's kind of what's going on now again.

But this time, well, last time it was the same.

A lot of people didn't understand it back then.

And now a lot of people don't understand this Islam shit now.

And they're super confused by it.

And they think that I'm just doing this because of my own parochial ethno-religious background.

Which is dis as disappointing stupidity and Philistinism.

But I don't I don't wanna you know, there's no compulsion in faith.

If you guys, your heart's not in this shit, it's not.

Some of you, I could tell that you're starting to get it, you're starting to understand where we're at.

But uh where we're at with this whole thing.

But we have to be we ha the way I think we need to deflect from the rising tide of Islam fear mongering, we have to make a space

within discourse and within culture that

Allows the contradictions within Islam to actually spill over and be something that we can articulate and engage with artistically and tastefully.

And you know where else in history that happened was in during the Italian Renaissance.

It was the same thing.

So many of the rugs that were imported to Venice with Mother Mary and Jesus, if you look at the edgings of the rugs, it's Islamic calligraphy, right?

So we need to we need to engage with it on a higher dimension and create a culture that is comfortable with doing that.

And once we can do that, we as a body can engage with the American people

And we can actually

I don't want to say educate people about Islam because that's not our goal.

But we can address and transmute this obsession and fear they have with Islam into something they can tap into and partake in themselves and relate to.

And that's actually my goal here, right?

And, you know, you guys have to consider something about your chairman of your Communist Party for now, at least.

You need to consider something about the leader of this movement.

I look like how I look like.

I'm Hazal Deen, Adam Tahir, you know.

That Tahir thing is carrying a lot, right?

Just recently, the Times did a story about us, and they named me as Adam Tahir.

So what can I say?

It's out of my hands now.

But uh

This doesn't look good.

I hope you know that.

This doesn't look good.

Like, think put yourself in my shoes.

You have Zoran now, you have Hassan Piker.

Now you have Abdul Al Syed.

You have Ilhan Omar.

You have Rashida Talib.

You have all these Muslims becoming prominent on the left.

And it's like I feel like K Karl Marx probably felt when he saw LaSalle and all these fucking Jews like becoming prominent in the social d democratic movement.

And it's immensely awkward for me because

I'm like, well look.

I don't really fuck with any of these people at all, but I know I'm going to get lumped in with them.

And I know that if we acquire more prominence than we have now, my background is going to be exploited and used against me and used against you and used against all of us.

Because how is it a coincidence?

It's almost like the Judeo-Bolshevism shit now.

Why were so many Jews Marxists back then?

Like, it was just a thing that was happening.

But I see the writing on the wall because the same shit is happening now in America with these Muslims and the left.

It's like it's happening.

And what?

It's just a coincidence that I'm also the chairman of the American Communist Party is some like Arab guy, right?

And it's like, how do you think it would be effective to respond to that?

Should I be like Patrick Bette David and be like, look, or should I be like Jenk Uyger and be like, look, I'm just a typical American like you?

It's kind of true, but at the same time, why don't we use it to our advanc why don't I just use that to our advantage?

I'm always looking out for what's best for the movement and for the community.

And it's like,

Why shouldn't we exploit this and magnify it in a way, you know, in order to actually deal with this big fear people have about or disastrous obsession people have with Islam?

Like, bro, I'm not just gonna sit here and be taken off guard.

Debating people and talking to people, and then you know, having who but you're a Muslim and you're an Arab.

Okay, I'm gonna wear the Arab shit, like, or the Muslim stuff, not the I'm not Arab anymore, the Saudis can fucking have that.

I'm gonna wear the Muslim thing like right front and center, so f we're fucking immune to it.

Like, what can you do, right?

It's awkward as fuck because I just don't, I don't have anything to do with these.

It was the same.

Honestly, there's so many parallels to the Jews shit in the late 1900s because a lot of Jews started becoming professional career climbing people who were getting involved in socialist politics because it was a career.

Same shit is happening with a lot of Muslims in America now.

Just like it's just happening.

It's the same thing.

And I look at that the same way Marx looked at, you know, LaSalle and those other people.

I'm just kind of like, it's like Marx had Engels.

It's like I have Jackson and now Eddie and Carlos and stuff.

And I'm like, look, I'm not part of this.

You know, I'm not part of this milieu, but I am going to be.

I'm looking out for a future where I am going to be like considered part of it.

But that's not fair.

Just like it's not fair that Marx keeps getting called a Judeo-Bolshevik.

It's not fair.

Marx had nothing to do with all those other people.

And that's why I'm big on the Shia thing.

In a way, the Shia thing is just a way for me to divide myself.

It's not even just Shia.

It's not even Shia.

Oh, you're just doing it.

No, I was raised as a traditional Jafar, not a religious one, but my background is like a traditional Jafari school, like traditional Orthodox Twelver Shia.

But the Shia that I'm talking about is the Alevis, the really, really heterodox, crazy types that have been forgotten by history, right?

That's the thing I'm exploring and that I'm interested in.

And the reason is because I believe there's a contradiction within not a contradiction within Islam, but there's a conflict for the soul of Islam that we have been entangled into, and we should engage with it in a syncretic way.

And I want to be full confession about something.

I'm a product of some kind of encounter between Islam and America, like I am objectively.

My parents were not the most religious.

nor the most foreign, believe it or not.

You know, they came quite young,

But uh um

I unlike most Muslims in America, I I have been very Americanized.

I was an atheist for ten years.

You know, most of my friends were white or black or something.

And I was very alienated from the Islam

Islamic roots that defined a lot of my childhood and stuff.

So, you know, I just have this perspective which.

Um, is a product of history.

I mean, this is history, right?

History is just a constant encounter between different worlds.

You can, you can say, Whoa, this is all because of sure, but it happened, and here we are.

And, like, I'm the son of this nation, I'm a son of this country, I'm a son of this country.

It's like you don't like it, and you don't consider me legitimate, but I wouldn't be here.

This is what, this is what I am, this is the perspective that I have is because of this.

And for me to just be like, well, you know, I need to LARP and pretend to just, I need to just like assimilate.

And I'm just like,

Well

Iparda, what's up?

I can assimilate, but as I'm trying to assimilate for a long time, I'm seeing everyone losing their minds about Islam and shit.

And I'm like, okay, you know, this whole thing is just fucking.

It's like

The country is changing.

And Americans are going to be flooded with new ideas and new perspectives one way or another.

The Muslims who immigrate here fundamentally are changing.

They are.

But Americans are also gonna change in some way, you know.

Uh they're just being exposed to new like even for example, the prominence of um

Like, for example, the prominence of Islamicate culture.

I just see it taking storm, the country by storm.

In in some ways that are direct, in other ways that are indirect.

For example, in for Gen Z, coffee culture is starting to replace alcohol culture.

Like Yemeni coffee is spreading everywhere.

Islamicate food is spreading everywhere.

Islamicate practices like bidets and shit are just starting to spread.

I just see it happening, that there's a fusion going on of some kind.

Objectively, right?

There's just such a fascination and interest.

And every time I say that, people look at me funny like I'm biased.

And I guess I am biased, but then I look at what's going on and I'm like, but the country is actually losing its.

I see other people talking about the same shit that I am now.

And I'm like, we do need to deal with this.

Like, you know how there was a Jewish question?

Now there's a Muslim question.

We can't just avoid it.

And if we're weak on this issue, we're going to get fucking lapped.

In good faith, like that's really what I have to tell you.

It's not about religion at this point, in the sense that you'd think.

Uh in the sense that you would think it's not about strictly religion, it's about

I want to teach you about Marxist materialism, okay?

For Marx, religion is the affectual relationship to the absolute.

So, before you have time to mediate through consciousness and rationalize and philosophize consciously and draw theoretical conclusions, our world of humanity hits you in a certain way.

Like, first, you get hit, you get struck by the absolute in your heart, and you feel that shit.

And that is.

That is the language of religion is born from that.

It's effectual.

It's rooted in feeling, right?

What's up?

So, like, Marxist theory and socialist theory, all these theoretical and rational, also philosophical stuff, that's actually secondary.

Objectively, in the order of how our sensibilities and our worldview is shaped, that's the secondary thing that comes after.

First thing that we feel is a relation to the absolute.

And that's why Islam is terrifying to people.

People are, I don't buy that it's racism either.

It's more like people look at this force, it's a force.

They look at this force.

It's like they look at this like force, these hordes of people that have different customs and ways, and they have this other belief, and it's like it's so insistent and it's so it's it's moving, it's motion.

And like

People look at that and there's this inner terror that they feel because that's the sublime that's moving.

The sublime have you guys watched Dune when he's like the beauty and the terror, when he's in that ecstatic, trance-like state, and he's like the beauty and the terror.

That's what the sublime is, its terror and its beauty, all of that bound up into one.

Um

And that has that's still for ordinary regular Americans.

Most of you guys believe or think wrongly that that's outdated from, and since Obama, it's changed.

But for the Americans we're trying to reach, it hasn't changed.

That's what I'm trying to tell you.

A lot of people are terrified of this Islam shit.

Lot of people are terrified of it.

Still, the same way under George W.

Bush.

And it's not simply because of nine eleven, it's because they have this comprehensive meta-narrative, this civilizational meta-narrative, that Islam is this virus, this force that's trying to conquer and subjugate

And they're trying to take us over and like they there it's a violent religion, it's this plague, it's like they're the orcs from Lord of the Rings or something.

It's like it's it's a very compelling narrative for I think way more Americans than a lot of people realize, actually.

Way more than people realize.

Seems like this is all so unenlightened.

That's why a lot of these people

Who are skeptical of this direction?

They're just these enlightened people.

What do you do?

No, this is still a big thing in America, like a really big one, right?

And like it's uniquely Islam.

It's uniquely Islam they have this fear of.

There's nothing else like Islam.

And then anyway, um I want to talk about though like why that is in terms of the sublime and shit.

Because religion is more important than Marxists ever understood it was.

Marxists took it took for granted that Protestantism would be the last religion ever and then it would be over.

That's not true.

It's still living.

It's still a living force.

And you know, the thing about Islam that's different from Christianity and other religions.

I'll tell you what's different about Islam, because like we have to engage with this, right?

Um, Islam, okay, let me tell you the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Ready?

I'm gonna, I'm gonna drop you with a bomb that will be so it'll clarify so much that you'd be like, wow.

Okay, in Christian cathedrals and in Christian churches of any sect of Christianity, when people visit the holiest sites of Christianity, the exception to this I'm gonna say is the Pentecostalans and some of the third world evangelical syncretic forms of Christianity.

But let's just talk about Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy, right?

Let's just confine it to that.

When you go to church, everyone behaves ethically.

There's an ethical conduct of how people behave in church.

So when you go to church, you become an ethical subject.

You're like, well, I'm going to behave the right way versus the wrong way.

Why?

Because there's a degree of premeditation before you go to church, before you even step in.

You have a premeditation of consciousness that interpolates you as an ethical subject who will do right rather than wrong rather than follow your immediate impulses or what immediately immediately feeling.

So you're not just driven by the feeling of belief.

You're driven by a certain ethical framework of premeditation, which on the face value, it seems like that's a superior thing.

And in a lot of ways, it is, but I'm going to explain the contradictions.

But you want to know what's different about Islam, I'll give you two different examples of it.

One,

When you go to mosque

Let's just be frank about this because this happens.

Now, it doesn't happen in a lot of places.

For example, in Turkey at Hegia Sophia, I don't think this happens.

But in Dearborn, for example, I've had so many people tell me stories of how when they would go to mosque and they would leave their shoes, their shoes get stolen.

I'll give you another example.

If that's just like an odd exception, right?

I'll give you another example.

Look at Mecca.

In Mecca, people die from getting trampled.

And when people are trying to touch the black stone at the Kaaba, they're pushing each other aside.

Like everyone is only focused on their sublime spiritual experience.

But the ethical consideration for people around them, it's not really.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not saying all.

A lot of people are good people who are helping the old lady and they're doing, they're acting in ethical ways.

But if you zoom out and you look at how everyone's behaving, it's this, there's this combination of the purity, of the religious feeling that's driving you.

And it's blinding you to ethical considerations entirely, right?

Um, why is it so?

Does that mean Christianity is superior?

Well, no, it's not that simple because you could say that Islam is less ethical, or you could say it's more honest.

How do you really feel about this belief?

When you go to church, there's an element of that that is being suppressed in favor of an ethical superego where you're acting on behalf of conscience.

But who are you really in the innermost of your being?

Because simultaneously, though Christians can be far more ethical when they go to church, what about when you're unleashing your passions in other ways?

What about when you encounter, for example, pagans or people who are outside of European civilization, people who are foreign, strange, or fear you?

So much bloodthirstiness and savagery and rape and killing and genocide.

And look at European colonialism.

Even Spanish conquistadors, when they first stepped foot in America, they were not angels, okay?

They were not these tolerant angels.

There was a lot of excesses and fanaticism and all sorts of different things that define these encounters.

So what I'm trying to say is it's not just

When you don't confront the sublime, that is about the sublime feeling of faith, when you're not confronting that.

And opening a space for that to be dealt with or

engaged with in some way, it's gin that which is repressed will return in a different form.

So the the Christian critique of Islamic civilization would be that Islam lacks the ethical dimension of conscience.

broadly and vaguely speaking, that's not entirely wrong.

But the Islamic critique of Christ Christian civilization is that it promotes hypocrisy.

That's also not entirely wrong, you know?

Um

And you could say that conquest and pillage is normal throughout history, but European colonialism had excesses that were absolutely abnormal.

That went way too far in terms of their savagery, in terms of the lack of any recognition of.

The other that was just completely foreclosed.

And look at today.

I'm going to tell you another thing.

The American fear of Islam is extremely inhuman, to be honest.

It kind of is.

It's a mentality that basically says, yeah, shoot these women and children.

Yeah, shoot the pregnant Muslim woman who's wearing a burqa or something.

She's an enemy invader.

The way that women and children get dehumanized in this kind of like,

Anti-Muslim propaganda, like that's not normal, man.

I'm sorry.

It's just like it's not.

That is also some.

That's like, again, you're being, you behave at church, but like, are you dealing with that?

That side of things that is not getting released in the context of the holy and the divine and the spiritual?

And in any case, you know, one of the reasons why I like the Alevis so much and I like this history of Shiism is because I think Shia Islam is actually trying to open up, not an ethical, because I don't believe in ethics, but more like the moral dimension more.

It's trying to understand the relationship between faith and conscience in a way that allows for an authentic confrontation between those two things.

And in a way that I think avoids hypocrisy.

The Alevi saints like Pierre Sultan, who are in the Anatolian countryside, standing up for ordinary people against the tyranny of the Ottomans, they're absolutely dealing with this inner reality of, you know, through Sufism, through the Alevis.

It's like, I think something is there for sure.

But there's something about Islam that provokes fear because it is an unconditional relationship to the absolute.

Just direct.

It's not being mediated by the faculties of institutions or the superego.

But the superego, remember, is not the same.

If we're talking in a Freudian framework, the superego is not the same as the drive.

So you're driven, and that's the truth of what you are.

The truth of what you are is actually your desires.

Not what you think you should desire, but what do you actually desire?

Caleb Maupin might think that he should desire being a traditional man or something, but what he actually desires is being spanked.

So what you actually are driven toward is the truth of who you are, and you have to confront that.

And you have to reflect on it, otherwise it's going to get released in destructive ways.

And by the way, 530, whatever, you're totally wrong.

Even these people that you're mentioning, cruelty and violence, yes.

But the.

The kind of ontological violence is unique.

There is a type of violence of European colonialism that is unprecedented.

And when you, because many people just assume the Mongols behaved the way the British did, oh, yeah, the Mongols were doing.

No, it was very different.

Even Mongol violence was within a cosmos.

It was within a cosmology that made sense, that was rooted in an interplay of mutual recognition and had a sacred significance always as a subtext and as a background.

And though Western historians, not even historians, because the historians usually look into the topic and realize the truth, the Western imagination usually just projects upon the past the kind of cynical game-theoretic understanding of violence and conquest that was inherited from the modern world or started in the early modern period.

And it's just not true when you study history.

Yes, there was immense violence, but it was not violence detached from a sacred world of meaning, okay?

Which.

That type of rupture and violence is very unique to the history of European colonialism.

When you see other types of conquest and subjugation throughout history, you also see a process of integration and fusion and an interplay of mutual recognition that gets developed along some conclusion.

You do not get this kind of ontological annihilation of the other and this complete suspension of the process of the development of mutual recognition.

You don't see that.

And he's like, they were not kind to us.

Again, this is just a Philistine response because I'm not talking about kindness in any capacity at all.

I'm not talking about nice or mean or anything like that.

Okay, you died.

I don't care, dude.

You don't even know what I'm talking about.

You need to desist yourself from the conversation if you're too retarded to understand what I'm saying.

Or, or the worst part is you're not actually putting in the effort to understand what I'm fucking saying.

You're not putting in effort.

You're just fucking having a knee-jerk reaction.

Put some fucking effort into understanding what I'm trying to say.

It could be as violent as whatever, but it's not an ontological violence that kills your soul.

It's not killing the way in which.

You fundamentally exist within a world.

It's not fundamentally killing the soul of your people and annihilating that.

That's the difference.

The worst excesses of violence and cruelty in the past usually still ended up with a dialectic of mutual recognition playing out, however cruel and horrific the atrocities were.

Take the Mongols themselves, who you like to mention.

Yes, the Mongols they were very cruel to the Muslims in Baghdad.

But what happened later?

The Mongols became Muslim.

A lot of them became Muslim.

Mongols were very cruel to the Chinese, but what happened?

They were assimilated by the Chinese through the Yuan dynasty, right?

So, this is this dialectic of recognition that you're ignoring, but which in European European early modernity created fortresses that repressed and suspended any encounter with the other.

Like this full-on, like you are a pagan, not human.

You are an absolute outside other, just like nature is.

We have to enclose ourselves from any kind of raw contact with you, and we just have to completely separate from you.

That is very unique, actually.

Like that's not common throughout history at all.

And that's a fact.

You know, a lot of people will say it's the same.

It's not the same.

I'm talking straight facts to you.

Okay.

Because back in the day barbarians would come and rape and pillage the civilizations on a regular basis.

You know, why do you love talking out of your ass?

That's my question to you.

Why do you love talking out of your ass?

You don't think there was senseless barbaric violence in non-European societies as well?

The difference is how it resolved itself.

And by the way, I will tell you in the I've studied this extensively.

Why were the Turks in Anatolia?

Because sometimes there's people who are Byzantine LARPers that the Turks came and ruined everything.

Okay, why did the Turks come?

Does anyone know?

Ding, ding, ding, because Byzantine oligarchs imported them as mercenaries to kill the fucking families they were feuding with.

So you're a Byzantine chief or landlord and you have this guy, you want to take his land, you would import Turkic mercenaries to be the instrument of your feud.

And these what lo and behold, these same mercenaries would then turn on you one day and get their shit sorted out and then become the rulers.

Same thing happened in the Roman Empire.

People think, oh, the barbarian invasions of Rome.

That never happened.

It was the Roman patricians who used these Germanic and Goth and Alan barbarian chiefs as their mercenaries to settle their feuds with others.

Same thing with the Arabs.

It's always the Islamic conquest of Persia.

It's always these people who are at the top who use import foreign mercenaries.

And then the mercenaries get entangled in the drama.

And then they realize, why are we being the puppet of these people?

Let's unite.

And then whatever happens after that.

But rarely do you ever have a situation where barbarians are just coming out of nowhere at all, without any context, to come and rape and conquer and pillage because of the cynical laws of natural selection and social Darwinism.

Even in the case of the Mongols, the reason the Mongols invaded and conquered China and every other sedentary civilization in their proximity was because Mongol chiefs and warlords were being entangled in the disputes between different wealthy cities and patrons, and the Mongols would be used as mercenaries.

And so they were embroiled in these conflicts because they were being instrumentalized by corrupt sedentary people.

So that's the story of history, not these innocent, you know, Lenin Lives, what's up?

It's a fact of history that armies did this.

So we're just gonna ignore everything I fucking say.

It's the elite's fault that they come in but it's always the masses that suffer when it happens.

But at the same time, you're you're decontextualizing these things from cycles of revenge.

Nobody is fully you never have these innocent lamblike people who are not entangled in any way and shit, that just get victimized.

It's always a cycle of revenge.

The people that are called barbarians throughout history, these are people who.

Usually are living very brutal, gruesome lives.

And I'm going to explain what barbarism is.

Barbarians live gruesome lives where there's endless feuding cycles of violence.

And so they form pacts.

You're in or you're out.

If you're in the pact, you're protected according to certain laws.

You have rights and you're recognized.

But if you're out, it's a dog-eat-dog world and it's fair game, so to speak, right?

That's not a universal rule, but that tended to be how it was.

And so

In such circumstances, there's no such thing as you're innocent and you're peaceful anywhere.

Especially if we're talking about w I don't know even what populations you're referring to.

You know, that's the thing.

Christianity has sought to break the cycle of revenge, but no other religion has followed suit.

I just have to laugh at what you're saying.

Do you know what feudalism is?

Like, have you ever spent any time reflecting on anything?

Have you ever reflected or thought about any of the things you're saying?

How is any cycle of revenge ended when we call the w word of feudalism as literally the feuding of families?

You realize the whole history of Western Europe from the point of the end of the Roman Empire.

Up until the end of World War II, it was nothing but petty, parochial, egotistical, private interests slaughtering each other in endless cycles of revenge.

You do know that, right?

Or do you not know that?

If you want to say the Byzantines freed themselves from this cycle, you're lying.

Because the only reason the Turks came to Anatolia is because they were used as Turk as mercenaries between different feuding Byzantine princes.

By the time the Byzantine Empire collapsed,

Because they had taken on so much credit and debt from the Venetian bankers.

So, why are we pretending like there's one religion that's so peaceful and only based on self-defense when the entire history of feudalism was about feudal warring people killing each other, slaughtering each other endlessly to the point where there was no peace?

Peace is something that is only enforced by conquerors.

Who inf who have enforce universal laws and create Asiatic states with common works and common public infrastructure, water works, uh trade caravans, you know, with with camel stations or horse stations that provide for travelers, secure roads so bandits can't come.

Yeah, all those things depend upon what you saw in Asia.

You didn't even have that in Europe though.

This is what I need you to confront I need you to like honestly confront confront this.

You're saying like we've been peaceful this whole time and now we have this aggressive enemy that's come from within.

This is exactly what Americans need to confront as a lie.

This is the root of this fear of Islam.

It's like we're all just minding our business and peaceful and then this aggress it's like a psychological projection of your own violence you're not even willing to confront or acknowledge or take responsibility for.

Whenever a white person wants to resist immigration, there is always the leftist argument we can all just get along and play nice.

Then you see the people on the other side, you deserve to be genocided.

You know what your problem is?

You just lack a moral.

You lack moral

Superior, you lack moral authority.

That's your problem.

You don't have moral authority.

You're so worried about what all these people are saying and thinking, but you're not worried about what's right or what's wrong.

And that's your problem.

Honestly, honest to God, that's your problem.

Like, you have, you don't have confidence in the moral dimension.

So why should it have confidence in you?

If you have no confidence in the moral, why should the cosmos reward you with the fruits of morality when you have no faith in it yourself?

What is right versus what is wrong?

You want to be moral, be moral.

This is about right and this is about wrong.

If immigration is so wrong,

Then let's put everything on the table and know what are the debts morally.

Why do we have it?

Because the same people that bitch about immigration, a lot of them, were also the same people that were the cheerleaders of George W.

Bush when he wanted to go kill the terrorists.

So what do you fucking want?

It's time for some fucking accountability.

Be straight with your moral cosmos.

You know, you have an issue with immigration, okay.

What about right and wrong?

The there's no s the the power comes from the masses.

That's what you don't understand.

The power is a reflection of the masses.

You can complain, or you can become a selfless soldier.

I will never look at an American and tell them you have a right to be whipped up on this bullshit.

and adopt these deranged, depraved, anti-human world views.

There's a red line in the fucking sand now, if you ask me.

For example, Asmund Gold recently was in a clip and someone said

What about women and children crossing the border?

And he's like, Yeah, kill 'em, shoot 'em, shoot the women and children.

Otherwise, they're never gonna learn.

And I'm just like, This is the Israeli facation of our society.

And it's like a I'm drawing a line in the sand.

It's like

You wanna go be with that?

Go fucking be with that.

But we're drawing a fucking line.

This is about right and wrong.

Simple as that.

If you can't have the confidence and moral authority, you don't have a nation.

What do you think nations are?

They just because of your chicken tendees' bloodlines?

That doesn't mean a fucking thing.

You know, you want to address the root cau so some people whenever white people say things like I feel like I'm being crowded out of my own country and these uninvited, unhospitable guests are coming here and they have no respect for me, I ask them the question, You're speaking in the plural, what respect do you have for your own white people?

What have you done to serve even the white people of your nation?

How have you become a collective being?

You're not a collective being, you're an individual.

First of all, second of all

Well who has moral authority?

Is secure.

If you're doing right versus wrong, it's this lack of.

I will critique the problem with.

American and entirety of Western civilization.

I'm going to critique Western civilization right now, and I'm going to drop a bomb on you.

Western civilization in many ways is rooted in hypocrisy.

Why?

Because they separate the moral dimension from the material dimension.

And as much as Westerners love to be moral, there's always this worm of doubt in the back of their head that says Am I being a sucker?

Am I being taken for a ride?

I know I'm doing the right thing, but

Am I doing right?

And not I'm doing right, like, I know I'm doing the right thing, but

Aren't I gonna get trampled over and eaten?

It's almost like.

Morality comes at the expense of reality, you know?

And then you have these Jewish intellectuals.

Like God Saad, who are like, This is the suicidal empathy of the West.

You need to become more like Netanyahu, who has no regard for morality at all.

And then now I'm saying, why don't you discern the material force of your morality?

Why don't you discern and have faith that what is right morally is aligned with the cosmos materially?

And it's this lack of faith in that that produces this civilizational ailment that has you mistrusting the cosmos.

Has you worried, and I'm worried about this immigrant who wants to come and take all of our stuff.

Okay.

Do you have the moral authority to enforce justice?

That's the question you should ask.

If you want justice, then have justice with a capital J, not a half-assed justice though.

You know?

And it is a fundamental civilizational ailment and if we don't start reflecting on it or thinking about it, we will get lapped as communists, we will get lapped as communists.

Some call it a blind naivety.

If you don't have a blind naivety toward the cosmos in the sense of an optimism, you're not a fucking American.

You want to know who an American is?

I'll name you two Americans that I know.

Okay?

I'll name you Eddie Liger and Jackson Hinkle.

Two guys that always believe.

That's what's in front of them is the light at the end of the tunnel.

However fucking bad the situation is, they're always optimistic that everything's gonna turn out fine and it's gonna be okay.

And everything's gonna be fine.

I mean, people have the audacity to question how American I am because the shit that I say, but the two most American people that I know.

No one can dispute their American status.

Exactly have this mentality that the cosmos is aligned with us, that we that we believe we're gonna win.

Don't worry, have a lion-like confidence in the victory.

Of our position.

Things will turn out fine.

We are aligned with the Cosmos.

That is the American way.

Not this fucking God sod, fucking pessimism, this fucking like.

Doomer black pill bullshit.

Oh, like I'm just gonna be.

We're just gonna get overrun by immigrants, and they're all just gonna.

This is cynicism.

This is cynicism.

When you have a lion-like moral authority, you don't let cynicism conquer you.

You have something to stand on with authority.

Because I'm going to tell you the truth, a lot of these right-wingers are people

Who are afraid of the white they think there's a white genocide and they're afraid of it, right?

Something like that.

I'm just gonna tell you the truth.

These people secretly believe.

That

They secretly envy

The

You know, brown or black or whatever they imagine it, subject who just enjoys without conscience in their mind, like just pursues and takes and has no mediation at all.

Even the Jewish Netanyahu or something, there's something about that that they look at it and they envy it.

They're like, although I know it's morally wrong, I'd be a sucker if I don't do that.

It's like, imagine you're, it's almost like that's where the cuck fetish comes from, honestly, because it's like they feel like they're sitting in the cuck chair and they're watching this happen and they're like, well, am I just sitting in the chair just like watching this shit happen?

And um

It is a fucking psychopathology that has to be dealt with, for sure.

Because when you have moral authority and confidence, you're not envying.

People who c do immoral things.

You don't envy them.

There's no part of you that says, I I'm repressing this immor because you're repressing something inside yourself because you're not fully confronting your own evil.

You're not confronting the thing within that you're projecting onto others, right?

And it's like

When you have a correct account of right and wrong.

Like, you know what to me is a powerful position when you say

I'm not even going to entertain recognizing the immorality of anyone, immigrants or otherwise.

I'm not even going to entertain that.

What I'm gonna do is have the confidence that what I'm doing is correct and what it is right.

Then we seize power, we take the power.

We elevate the moral authority as the supreme principle, as the highest law, and we enforce it on everyone, regardless of who they fucking are.

I mean that's the superior position.

That's how you have a proper account, right?

Like let's say you're in England.

Behead all of those grooming gangs, fucking kill the perpetrators, behead them with a sword, with a fucking Highlander sword from Scotland, make it fucking medieval.

Lawfully behead them.

That's not because you're letting immigrants get to you and you hate them and you, oh, I hate these.

I just want to, I hate all these brown people.

No, you're enforcing the fucking law that applies to everyone, regardless of who fucking does it.

Right?

That's your moral authority.

That's how Russia is.

You know, Russia, they don't let anyone fuck with them.

You know, in Russia, they don't fucking let anyone fuck with nothing.

In Russia, at least institutionally, I know there's sentiment in Russia that's hateful, but the Russians have a much stronger position because they don't have a pathological hatred of the Muslims.

They do understand and recognize Muslims.

But at the same time, they enforce the law uniformly.

And they will not make an exception for you if you break the law.

Those terrorists at the Crocus thing, those guys got chopped up, their fucking ears chopped.

You don't fucking break the norms, the morality of the civilization that applies to everyone, right?

It's like they do not fucking let bullshit slide, right?

Amila.

And at the same time, they don't even fret over it.

They don't lower them.

Let's say there's some scumbag terrorists.

They don't lower themselves to trying to.

You know, pathologize and all this.

No, you fuck you fu you fucking cross that line, you fucking get what's coming to you, right?

That's the Russians have such a strong mentality, they have such a

Uh a correct way of dealing with such issues.

Because they don't look it into the face.

They just say, This is the fucking rule.

This is what we believe.

This is the morality.

This is the authority.

And anybody, regardless of who the fuck they are, who falls afoul of that gets what's coming to them.

So that's how it is, you know?

That's what it's like to have moral authority.

Um

So uh you know

I don't entertain this position, this v self-victimhood shit.

It's like.

A true moral authority is a universal principle.

You don't petty you don't become a petty, hateful person who lowers yourself to pettiness and hatefulness.

Uh y there's a lot of immigrant groups that are alienated and young people, you know, you could sometimes they do gloat, you know, and I see it.

They're like making memes about white genocide and shit.

And then and then some white people will look at that and be like, you know, this is proof that why lower yourself?

Those people lack guidance.

They don't have anything.

They literally are just why would you envy that?

You know?

Shouldn't isn't it better to be more like you're to be patronizing actually?

Just be like, you're literally you're lower, you're you don't have guidance.

You know?

Like the same way you see someone immature, you know?

Regardless, I digress.

I'm not going to be here lying to Americans about the reality.

I'm going to be here telling the truth.

The truth is, is that some people don't like this direction that we're going into, and it's like.

But like there's no turning back.

They don't like the direction, they don't like this strong emphasis, the strong point.

And uh

On the one hand, it's like, look, at face value, that makes sense.

But on the other hand, the the winds are there's such a sh huge shift in the tide, and if you can't see it, you're just a Philistine, you don't see what's going on.

Do not underestimate the Islam backlash.

I'm living in mid like I see it.

People guys, I don't know if you're seeing this, but like Laura Loomer is winning a lot right now.

The big winners of the past three months in America, there's been this like counter-revolution that's happened, and like Laura Loomer and that, those type of people.

They're winning big time.

And uh, the Fuentoids are going over to Laura Loomer and shit.

Like, Laura Loomer is her sentiment is reflected at some ground level.

And you see footage of Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, that's being shared.

And people are fucking freaking out, and there's definitely a fear.

Amer people have this fear.

They're like, I don't recognize my own country anymore, I'm a foreigner in my own country.

And uh you can laugh at it and make fun of it, but th a lot of people genuinely feel that way, and that's

It needs to be addressed.

It needs to be understood.

I mean, if we are going to be winning the masses.

Then we can't delude ourselves.

Guys, can I tell you the truth?

Like, I just wanna tell you the truth.

I

See how the left and liberals are responding to this and that's not going to work.

Like there's such an overcorrection.

Like Abdul El Syed is being treated like he, everyone's always like shocked.

Oh my God, he's just like a normal person.

Oh my God, Abdul is so cool.

He's like smiling.

Oh my God, Abdul is like really nice.

Oh my God, he's nothing like what they're saying about him.

Oh my God, Abdul's super positive.

Like Zohran is like always smiling all the time.

And it's like, in this, I don't, there's this, even liberals have to perform this extreme over-correction.

Oh my God, he's not the scary terrorist.

And then I'm sitting here and I'm like, you know what's not fair about this shit?

We're all human.

We're all fucking human.

Like, you're telling me Abdul El Sayed doesn't fucking yell and lose his temper all the time in private and look scary as fuck?

He's Egyptian, I know for a fact.

I know for a fact he gets angry a lot.

Same with fucking Zoron probably.

Like, we're all fucking human.

Do we not all are we not allowed to have flaws?

So every time someone's a fucking Arab and they have some flaws, there's gonna be a bot they're gonna blow themselves up and it's the fucking next Osama bin Laden.

Like they have to just be these perfect cartoon people.

To in order to be accepted.

I'm just gonna like draw a line in the sand and tell you guys the fucking truth.

Like, I will take a bullet before I start performing like this, like a fucking monkey for Americans.

I'm a fucking American, too.

This country has fucking kicked dirt in my face, just like every other American.

I've had the same thing as every other American.

I'm not gonna fucking pretend to be like some fucking nice guy.

Oh, you're scary.

Like, I don't give a fuck.

I don't give a shit.

You know what I mean?

Like, I'm not gonna fucking do that.

If there's people who expect me to fucking be like that, literally take a shotgun and try to shoot me in the head.

I will never fucking be like that.

I will never ever be like that.

I'm a human being.

Like anyone else.

Like, I'm not about that shit.

No, I'm gonna fucking be who I am.

You're better off literally trying to kill me before you impose this expectation on me that I'm gonna be some fucking cookie cutter, Abdul Al-Syed, fucking Zoran Mamdani fuck.

Be a fake fuck, just I gotta fucking prove to people how fucking harmless I am.

I'm not fucking harmless, actually.

I'm fucking angry as fuck.

You gotta be relatable to Americans.

Okay, if Americans don't accept me for who the fuck I am, I don't give a fuck.

I'm gonna be who the fuck I am.

You don't accept me, fuck you.

I'll keep it fucking real.

You can't handle real?

Go be a fake bitch with your fake bitch world.

I'ma keep it fucking real.

You have a fucking problem with that?

Turn around and go fucking cry about it, bitch.

But I'm the only one.

I'm you notice I'm the only one.

You take a room of ten men.

All non-A-rabs or A-rabs for that matter, I'm the only one that actually defends women, by the way.

It's always me, by the way.

It's always me who's the non-judgmental one.

It's always me that can hang out with any type of woman at all and be completely chill with them.

John, what's up?

It's always me who will never tell a woman how she has to dress.

Like, if I just see a random woman half naked, basically naked walking on the street, you will never see me tell her to put clothes on.

Because it's none of my fucking business, right?

Flacco, what's up?

That's the injustice of the world that I live in.

I'm the most chill guy ever.

Who will never tell a random woman or make a big deal about how she dresses or whatever.

And yet there's literally a guy next to me who's like one of these fucking anti-Islam people and that guy's losing his mind and fucking freaking out.

And it's bothering him.

And I'm like, this is the world we fucking live in, you know?

All the evils they project on foreigners, you have those evils yourself, right?

Um

Bro, you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna like I need to be like woke 1.0.

Where's the compensation for me about how I was crucified as a misogynist just 'cause I'm an Arab and a Muslim?

What else was the reason?

They literally would crucify me as a misogynist.

They were like, You hate women, you have a problem with women.

All right.

And it's like I started joking about it even because it's so fucking absurd.

And then the jokes themselves became real.

You know that they share a quote: Oh, what do I think of women?

I hate them.

He meant that!

Fucking A-Rab!

He meant that!

What the fuck?

What am I dealing with?

I don't know, guys.

I see the backlash coming.

I don't know.

Like, what do you guys think?

I just see it coming.

Like, I see this.

There's these big guys.

It's literally just like the story of socialism in Europe.

The socialists were scoring all these victories and then.

And then the fucking head of BP Royal Dutch Shell and like Franz Thyssen, whatever, they all fucking come together.

They put Hitler in a costume and they have one card.

They drop this card and the card literally just says Jew.

And that was it.

Like the socialists had all this momentum since LaSalle.

They were like breaking all this ground across Europe.

And then post-war period comes.

And it's like they invented this card.

The card literally just had three letters on it.

Jew.

They were nuked.

All socialism nuked.

All the gains that they made, nuked.

Like they could not react to that shit.

It was dead, you know?

And like the same shit, mark my fucking words, is going to be about this Islam shit.

Just understand that you ignore it at your own peril.

Down the line.

The like Sharia law, Islam shit.

It's no, it's not going to be racial.

It's going to be about Sharia law and Islam.

They're going to say that Zoran and Hasan Piker and Abdul Al Syed.

And Rashida Talib and Ilan Omar that this is a vast Islamic conspiracy to enforce Sharia law.

And like, bam, it's all the gains of the left are gonna be wiped out.

Just ignore this shit at your own peril.

Like, I'm just I'm maybe it's not gonna happen in the next six months, but I see this happen.

Like, I see it's coming.

Yes, it's a bunch of like fucking um

Uh

It's like soon to be uh I I it yeah, it is always like Israeli Jews pushing this shit.

I'm not gonna lie.

Like Jake Lang.

Jake Lang, the guy who marches in Dearborn.

Well, there's an elephant in the room about Jake Lang's early history.

And then if you look at this other guy doing documentaries going into Dearborn, Michigan, they also have a strange connection.

But if what they're saying works, it doesn't matter who they are, right?

It doesn't matter what background they come from.

Um

People are not going to come after Jews.

I'm going to tell you why they're not going to come after Jews, alright?

Because Jews are not a vulnerable population.

Going after people who are overwhelmingly

More per capita privileged, like wealth-wise.

And the Jews in question who are unpopular, by the way, the bagel shop owner has not become unpopular.

The Jews that have become unpopular are the ones who are associated with power, like APAC and the Zionist lobby and shit.

They can't be targeted without a revolution, because they're on top.

But it's easy to uh target Muslims 'cause they are more vulnerable.

They're not they're not as powerful.

Like they're you could just go to Dearborn and start harassing random strangers and attack them.

You know?

Like that's the main difference.

Um

I'm not saying I'm not worried about like, oh, there's going to be a new victimization of Arabs and Muslims.

I'm just saying, like, this is going to fuck the left.

Master, you're like, this is gonna fuck the left, and nobody sees it coming except me.

And I'm the only one preparing us for it.

And when this bullshit happens, like, I wanna create a refuge.

of people who have a strong position, a morally strong position, you know?

Like, I want us to fucking bridge world.

We need to be the bridge of worlds.

This is not just about.

This is about a universal thing, a universal

A world revolution.

What else are we fucking fighting for but world revolution?

There's nowhere to fucking go.

You can't leave.

This is here.

It's all here.

The whole global system culminates here.

Everything is here.

We're entangled with the fucking world.

We're affected by the world.

We need to become perennial.

We need to become Chinese.

We need to become Iranian.

We need to become Russian.

We need to become Siberian.

We need to become Mongolian.

We need to become Uzbek.

We need to become Kazakh.

We are the world.

We will be the world.

We are the dark shadow of the world, Tartaria.

That's what it means.

We are the cosmic race.

The Mexican philosopher, he made a book called The Cosmic Race.

He said, The Americas is the land of the cosmic race.

The whole world culminating into one.

That's what we are.

That's what this is.

And it's instead of the direct race

Like a biological thing.

It's the all the spirituality and all of the beliefs and ideas of the world.

Like, let me tell you something.

We cannot retreat from the new left.

We have to accelerate.

Where did the Black Panthers get their Marxism from?

From China.

I promise you, there was a bunch of black people who watched the kung fu movies.

They were like, hi.

They were like, they watched those fucking karate movies.

And they're like, I fuck with Mao Zedong.

I fuck with this Mao shit.

Like, that is like, you guys don't even know how shit works.

When, okay, people make this critique that the American left has always looked to the world for inspiration too much instead of here.

But I'm like, before we can get here, the whole world, we have to exhaust it.

Like, we literally have to take everything, the all.

We have to make this a place of renaissance.

And then we can get here.

We need to have both.

We have to accelerate this new left thing.

Like, the crazy fucking.

I'll say some crazy ass shit.

The crazy fucks in the sixties and seventies that were doing mushrooms and acid, forming Maoist cults.

We don't need to do the drugs, but like we need to like accelerate this thing.

We can't retreat from it.

We should actually push the gas on it.

Like through its its extreme conclusion and then get the opposite.

Like, we need to like be on some.

We need to we do need to tap in.

We need to tap into the California Renaissance type of thing where it's like.

All these weird cults that happened in the sixties and seventies, like we don't need to be like that, but we need to accelerate this weird encounter between like American soul searching across the world for like

uh purpose and and a a language and a cosmic articulation.

of their like that's we need to accelerate that, you know?

And and the way we can do it without becoming like retarded is just by being open-minded and not dogmatic.

Like instead of being like the Buddha called me yesterday and I talked to him, give me all your fucking money.

And join my commune and and then let's all kill ourselves tomorrow 'cause we're gonna be aliens.

Yo, hold on, we're not claiming to know all that.

You know, we're just being a little open minded.

We we're not gonna be dogmatic at all.

Like, we're not gonna you know what I mean?

Like, that's the problem with cults is like they actually thought that they were certain about things that

If only they were a little open-minded, like the ones that were like UFO people that were like

We're all going to go ascend tomorrow.

We need to kill ourselves.

Hey, wait, wait, wait, wait.

How do you know that?

I'm okay.

Maybe I'd entertain it.

I'd I'd be like, wa well, w you know, I'd let you speak and say why you think that.

But if you can't convince me, then I'm just going to say no.

I'm just kidding.

I mean, I would never entertain that.

But you have the idea.

Like, we could be open-minded about shit without becoming dogmatic and assuming we've stumbled on the holy grail.

I'm trying to actually.

develop a very holistic, comprehensive world view that is universal, that is like the world culmination of world history type of thing.

That makes sense of world history and makes sense of where we're at right now.

And, you know, can I look at you and tell you that there's nothing at all beyond the realm of what modern science verifies?

Well, why is it that when they audited and reviewed, they brought in psychologists to review the CIA's remote viewing programs and found that there were non-random statistical correlations?

in the experiments that could not be explained by chance.

You tell me what that fucking means.

Honestly, tell me what that means.

Why were the Soviets so into panpsychism?

Like, why were they so into that shit?

There's something there going on, probably.

Or maybe not.

I'm not dogmatic.

I'm just asking questions.

Like, they brought a guy in to see if it was random or not.

And I verified it even with ChatGPT.

I even asked ChatGPT, which is a shit lib.

ChatGPT is literally Dr.

Fauci, okay?

I brought these sources and I said, think harder and research more because I want to know if this is true.

And ChatGPT literally told me they're like, yes, it is true.

It was non-random.

It is unlikely that it could have been random.

Some skeptics thought that there must have been something missing that they didn't get.

But yes, the CIA's remote viewing was not.

Could was not, you know, it it did pass the the experimentation.

So I'm just like, okay.

I'm like, fuck.

I mean, if that's true, what is that s wh what are the implications?

Like, you wanna know, okay, I'm gonna tell you some shit that I think.

I think that the Soviets discovered this one wa some way.

And they could not reconcile it with dialectical materialism as they understood it.

So that's why these top orders in the KGB are rumored to have started to become more occult and interested in like Sufi ideas and all these mystical traditions.

Because, like, they could not explain this shit within standard Soviet ideology.

And it's said, maybe, maybe we can speculate, maybe one of the reasons why the USSR dissolved was because.

They discovered shit that just couldn't be explained by what the Soviet scientists and military were finding, what the CIA also was.

It created a crisis of like faith in materialism, I guess.

And they're like, we can't really explain this according to what we thought we knew from materialism.

So, what does this mean?

We don't know.

We don't understand it.

And they just basically like that's why they got demoralized and abandoned Marxism-Leninism.

I I deadass think that happened.

Maybe.

If the CIA was doing remote viewing experiments and the Soviets were also doing it.

And they took it seriously and like we have publicly available information that the in that the experiments were were could not be explained by chance.

The results could not.

Uh what does that mean?

That

Well, it means potentially, it means that we are more affected by the cosmos and by the universe than we think we are, in the sense that we can feel more than we think we can feel.

Like, my explanation for remote viewing would be maybe something like you can actually feel the effects of someone across the other side of the world more than you think you can.

Because although it's not directly affecting you in a experientially immediate physical way, it is still a

It is still like a uh uh

I sound crazy as fuck.

It is still a distortion of space-time.

And think about it like think about the analogy of like let's say there's water, right?

Let's say

You make a splash in the water.

Like you can be very far away, but at even the far level, you will feel the effects of the ripple, right?

Maybe the tone of the scientists were giving the right answer.

I don't know, man.

Just look it up yourself and see what you could think of it.

I'm not even claiming to shut that down.

I just don't fucking know.

We would just have to explain how the fuck all this shit is working.

If it is true, we have a lot of explaining to do, and we have to think about what that means for Marxism.

And like it's so weird how we can just feel things.

I'm starting to sound you know who are like low-key.

I'm gonna just be more on this feminist arc.

You know who are low-key right about a lot of things?

Women, specifically like grandmas and also mothers, but women in general, you know.

The mothers have this power for sure.

Because uh

When women are accused of being superstitious, when a woman is like, I can, I can feel this, I can feel like, what are you talking about?

This is illogical.

But they're so sensitive, they can feel something, they can detect something.

And people are like that's just this irrational, retarded woman, right?

I'm kind of on the side of the women where I'm like, but you know, they are so sensitive to the cosmos, it is crazy.

Especially grandmas, and I think the reason why mothers and grandmas are more psychically and cosmically in tune is because when you have a child, you become entangled with another being that you have to give so much care and attention to that you become like entangled across space and time to their being, and it affects you so much, right?

So, it's like that's probably my explanation for it, honestly.

It's like just this intense focus on another being that you care so much for that is also came from you, that was a part of you at some point, especially that it's like.

Part of you goes somewhere else, right?

So it's like, I don't know, I think there's something to that actually.

I'm not saying it's always correct, but it's never something you can dismiss.

It's never something that can be dismissed.

There's always a strange resonance.

And I want to ask a simple question, like why is it wrong to

Why is it wrong to harmonize Marxism with that?

At least kind of like be open minded to maybe how it could be.

Like wha you know, because the typical respon No, Marxism is strictly just about logic and I'm just like

Mm.

Maybe Soviet grandmas could have saved the USSR though.

You know what I mean?

It's like it just I don't know.

I just I I just

I think that uh w we need to

We need to consider these things.

That's all I'm saying.

You can you can disagree with it, but we should at least consider it.

We should consider that we know less than we think and that we're more in tune in ways than we know.

That's it.

You know, we th we know less than we think and we're more in tune in ways than we know.

Uh this is the first time in the entire history of infrared that I'm like I've been and I know it's something I've been doing this year.

It's turned off a lot of people and made them think I've lost my mind.

That now I'm going into the crazy town.

It started with the astrology thing and they're like Haas has officially lost his mind.

But

But uh

I mean

Go be in your sane world then.

I don't I I look at your world of sanity and it's not doing so well.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm just like.

When you pretend to be the most sane person ever, it's like you're you know, it's not looking good for you.

I don't know.

Like, I see so much psychological intense conflict inside of you and I see all this.

Unresolved

This is your sane world.

It's like go be in your sane world then.

You know, like are you really so sane if you're in this sane world and what is sane about you?

You don't have confidence in your life.

Usually get zero.

You usually get zero bitches.

You usually are crying about it.

You usually have no confidence.

You usually.

Can't even stand up for yourself.

You usually like.

You're usually just not in a good place.

You're usually just like not in tune.

You're usually just like.

Fucking, I don't know.

Like, what why would I want to be like you?

If I'm going crazy or something, then who should I be like?

You?

The sane person?

I'm talking about people who call me crazy.

I'm like, okay, I'm crazy, but tell me who what is the paragon?

What is like the paradigm of sanity I should be conforming to here?

Because I honest to God just like do not want to be like you.

Like, what does that even fucking mean?

Who is sane?

Like, name one person right now who's sane.

Just one person.

And I will unravel the nature of their insanity to you right now.

Barack Obama.

That guy's so fake.

That's one of the most fake people ever.

It is crazy like when you read someone's Wikipedia and you're like this person also believes in aliens and shit you're just like okay this person's fucking crazy.

And like

This person believes in, like, um, I don't know, like, this person believes in uh astrology and all this other stuff.

It's like, okay.

But you know what I honest to God, you wanna know when I think it does become insane?

When you treat it with the dogmatism and certainty that science types treat science with, when you insist that panpsychism, that you are certain, you have certainty with the same experimental, or I should rather say, with the same empiric, experiential certainty that this is how th things are.

And that you know that with airtight certainty, that's when I think it becomes crazy.

I kind of think when you're just open-minded, when you're like, I don't know, but I'm maybe, maybe, right?

It's possible, maybe we should think on a different way about things.

Then I think you're safe from being crazy.

But when you're like, I know for a fact this is how it works.

You're starting to attach the belief that you like you're that's when shit gets fucked up, right?

I think but you know what I think?

I think even Scientoids who are like genes are real, you're crazy, bro.

You're a fucking crazy as fuck.

Like you're not sane.

You're literally 'cause you you draw these people out in the conversation.

You ask them what a gene is and they can't even fucking defend it, but they still insist that it's real.

There's so many examples of cyanoids being crazy fucks in the same way that the problem is not superstition versus realism.

The problem is these people who think they have control versus people who are chill with the cosmos.

Like you have a control attitude toward the cosmos or a chill attitude.

The control freak people are the ones that are crazy.

Every cult you ever heard about, like the UFO cults, where they all kill themselves in the end.

Those are people who have a a false sense of control.

The problem is not that they're entertaining superstition because all your grandmas are superstitious.

The problem is they're making it about control, right?

Like, isn't that the truth?

The problem is ultimately, like, the control aspect.

I don't want to control nothing, you know?

Like, even if I were to entertain doing remote viewing, which I already have, I'm like, but even if I was like,

My relationship to that is very lynchian.

It's not about control.

It's about just you vibe with it sometimes and you kind of.

There's sometimes there's things I can't really put into language because it's just like you're on a frequency and you understand it's a s I you know, I can't.

You don't wanna fucking explain it to anyone, you know?

It's like you wouldn't get it.

You wouldn't fucking get it.

But I could explain it, but you wouldn't fucking get it, you know?

I've had accidental remote viewings for sure where I don't like know what I'm doing, but I'm definitely visiting places.

I think so, actually.

I think I've been places and I didn't know what I was doing at all.

I also don't think that when you're dreaming and you're remote, when you're dreaming and you're like actually like seeing things that are real, I have okay, first of all, like you can't think of it like a realism.

There's going to be a lot of distortions and a lot of shit that's around you that is a projection of your psych, but there's going to be an underlying form that is real.

So let's say you visit a house.

The house is not going to be like necessarily exactly how it is in real life, but it could be the same layout and it could be this exact table that's there.

But for example, the cupboards could be like blurry or some nonsense.

But the table is like, so it's never like everything is direct realism type of thing, you know?

You have to like have this dynamic, very creative worldview where you just understand that nothing is necessarily absolute, but it is in a frequency, a certain tendency prevails, you know?

Um

I'm not saying I know Ivers remote viewing, that's fucking crazy, but I I am saying that I have had spooky dreams for sure.

Like everyone I know has said the same thing that they have.

Everyone I know has had weird spooky dreams, like everybody I fucking know has had them.

And the the biggest form of um

You know what's fucking really scary about infrared when I think about it?

The main

Prophecies of the infrared movement all happened.

In an extremely intense period of when I was like insomniac and I would literally be like

Lucid dreaming during the day because I was just was not sleeping and I was just in such a state of aggravated, intense mental stress.

where like I was going in and out and I was lucid dreaming a lot, a lot, and a lot of sleep paralysis.

When I would sleep for like maybe one hour or something,

I would have crazy sleep paralysis and crazy lucid dreaming where I'm going in and out, right?

And then when I was in that like frequency, that vibe state,

That's when, like, CPUSA thirty-six and something about.

The American West just started making so much sense to me.

I don't fucking know, man.

I don't know.

Like that's when that's when the thirty-six idea just came.

And it was like

It so much started making sense, and it just felt so intensely real.

It just felt like I don't fucking know, man.

And I'm not saying that was illogical or irrational because I could see the rationality of it.

Like, yes, the Communist Party, USA, and like.

That's the way forward.

This country is undergoing so many contradictions.

This is the way we can basically.

Sail through all of this more or less, and it's like I had such an intensely acute understanding of the contradictions the country's facing because of a lot of.

Contemplation, a lot of theory, a lot of analysis is happening for our collective, infrared collective, but it's like, bro, the

Basically like the prehistory of ACP is like

Some crazy state of like half awake psychosis, honestly.

Fucking crazy, right?

It's absolutely insane to think about.

But I was like so um aggravated in such an aggra it was like such an intense stress, cortisol maxing state.

Where like everything was just drive, drive, drive, drive, right?

So, like, I was like combining these feelings of this intense, aggravated state of like restlessness, unable to sleep.

With this, like, really intense imagery of, like, a fucking American Civil War and, like, the Communist Party being an important part of that, and, like, I don't know, man.

Like,

Probably a lot of that is the projection of a a restless man, you know?

Like a cortisol maxing restless person who's just like feeling that they're in a war right now and I'm just like seeing all of this flash before my eyes.

But but there's another thing too which I think is real.

And I think all of you guys have this intuition as well.

We are headed toward an incredibly violent future.

We are headed toward an extremely intense, violent civil war.

And I just feel it the same way animals feel a storm is coming.

I feel that shit.

I feel it very deeply.

Yeah.

I don't just calculate it rationally that it's gonna happen.

I feel it very deeply that it's gonna happen.

The whole reason I talk about this Islam shit is 'cause I feel the American people where they're at and where their dreams are, where their heads space is.

And but I also feel the American Civil War coming like big time.

The rational explanation for the U.S.

Civil War is a systemic contradiction that is not.

See, like the thing about, I want you guys to have some insight into Marxism for me.

I combine Marxist analysis with feeling.

I'm very much, I never, yes, I can detach and coldly create a vacuum-sealed environment mentally where I'm just completely divorced from the feeling aspect.

But whatever conclusion I draw, I have to know what it means also at the feeling side of things, right?

So something can't just make sense like completely logically or rationally, it has to make sense intuitively, right?

That's the

Otherwise you're a Philistine, you're not actually thinking through what this shit actually means, right?

So, um, when I think, like, I combine an intense level of analysis with that.

I don't just have an analysis.

You know, who else does this is logo, to be honest.

Like, logo doesn't just think about shit.

Because he's doing this cold, you know, logical shit.

He's he's actually thinking about, like, what makes sense?

How would this what what would be the vibe here?

Like, Logo is a very tasteful man.

He can sense things things and taste things.

And it's like, that's how it kind of works.

And it's like you do form this objective analysis and you run it through that way.

Where is this going?

But we all are psychically in tune with what everyone in the country is feeling simultaneously at all times because we're all experiencing the same thing, right?

And so, like, we can get a sense of what direction we're headed in, actually, if you actually just think about it a little bit and what could happen, what would make sense if it did happen.

You know what I mean?

What would m it's almost like everything's a puzzle and what would it make sense for this puzzle to resolve into, right?

But you can't be dogmatic 'cause you don't always have perspective.

Sometimes you're clouded by biases and you're not thinking about things through enough, you know?

A lot of people are looking at these like new elections with the Democrats, and it's like this is a pretext for civil war, especially when they're pushing the communism thing and the Islam thing on the Republican side.

When you're making the elections existential, every election has been existential.

How do you not feel the civil war coming?

Every election is portrayed as existential.

Like,

This is about the whether America is going to die or not.

It's so existential every time now.

And like, that's not going to res the system cannot contain such an intensity of conflict and polarization.

It just can't.

Everyone can feel civil war is coming.

Alex Garland literally made a fucking movie about it.

Like, everyone fucking feels this.

Uh so what do you guys think?

TikTok?

Should we be doing tic-tac?

Uh Logo's idea uh another thing I always keep in the back of my mind is Logo's a hundred years idea.

That is absolutely something I keep in my mind a lot, actually.

Um

Logo's a hundred years idea or something or fifty years.

He's like things will just go on as they are for fifty to a hundred years.

And uh

I think about that a lot, you know?

I do think about that a lot.

Are we overly subjectivizing?

You know?

Is something that is only intense and immediate for us actually in the time span of America just going to be a lot longer than we think?

And I lean against the fifty or a hundred years idea.

But I keep it in the back of my mind 'cause maybe it's true.

I lean against it though, you know, I I kind of lean against it.

I think maybe it's an overcorrection for the first thing I talked about of like overly subjectivizing.

Maybe that's an overcorrection.

That's kind of my take as I lean against it, that it's an over correction.

Because I think, okay, if I understand it right, the idea is we're overly subjectivizing the system itself will take another fifty to one hundred years.

And my current intuition or my not strongly, but my current inclination, I would call it,

It's to say, but too many of us are in fact subjectivizing this, and that's precisely why it's going to come to a head, because the American people are also subjectivizing, and that's how civil wars actually happen.

They don't happen because they they don't happen because the system runs out of steam.

They happen because on the subjective side of things on a mass scale we're unable to go on any more with it.

Like from a purely systematic perspective, we can survive another fifty to a hundred.

But can the masses subjectively cope with this system for another 50 to 100 years?

That's when I become more skeptical.

But I don't know.

I think Logo basically thinks he's actually more materialist than me.

It's so funny.

He thinks basically, like.

As long as people can uh

Have their goodies, they'll be fine.

Like, until people start starving, it's going to be okay.

And I'm like, it's kind of true, though, you know?

He doesn't have a point about that.

Cynical as it is, it's kind of.

It's like as long as people can just keep having their chicken nuggies, it's okay.

They will just

It it'll be fine, honestly, for them.

That's a good point.

Time itself has accelerated.

So what appears is fifty years, yeah, it it can it's a yeah, you're right.

There's an exponential function here.

It's not being taken into account.

What do you guys think Tic Tac time?

I do want a visit logo.

Soon.

I just can't afford to.

And uh yeah, that's really it.

It's just I can't afford it.

I would love to go to the Bay area soon and uh

Hang out with logo.

People sometimes they tell me, How why can't you travel enough?

and I'm like, I d with what money?

you know?

Visit chapters, it's like I mean how, you know, with what money?

So

Yes, welcome to the Ultra House.

Uh we actually added a new person, Eurasianizer.

Would I insult him?

Alright.

Erasionizer.

Hello.

I am a proponent of Eurasianization theory.

In Eurasianization theory, we are allowing the land power to spontaneously establish its own order in its region.

And we will not institute a state to do this.

It will be a spontaneous process that doesn't yield for anything.

But I

We struggle.

We have tried to get in contact with him, but failed because of our small numbers in comparison to the whole of the Eurasianist movement, which are currently two programmatists.

Too strong to um

The the End Notes publication about this idea?

'Cause they have we have Russian notes.

And freshizers have start notes.

Start notes?

Yes, privatizers have

Uh correct notes.

Ah, current.

Would you like privatizer to come?

Yes, yeah, bring privatizer.

That's interesting.

Privatizer.

Have it.

Uh, what's going on?

So you're a statist?

No.

You're not a statist.

No, I believe in true autonomous self-organization and self-governance governance, such as I seen under the Mongol Empire and under the reign of the Timurid Empire with Tamerlane.

Forms of spontaneous localized self-organization and autonomy and true liberty.

I respect that.

I respect that.

But wait, but then but then that doesn't that doesn't make much sense to me 'cause I what I've seen is that you're a you're a Marxist-Leninist.

Yeah.

But how does that

That's enough of that.

We finally have other guests requesting.

Jeff, go ahead.

Room.

Excuse me, but

What?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah.

So why are you a acting like a Maroid?

What?

Sorry, our speech impediment.

My speech temperature's told me cut Just you gotta get the microphone out of your ass or whatever.

I don't know what the

Hell I'm listening to Kano, go ahead and

Yo, bro, how you doing?

Uh, terribly.

What's up?

So, like a couple of weeks ago I was in your life and I was I was asking uh uh you about uh gamble addiction advice.

About what?

About like gamble addiction advice.

You gave me your advice and I just want to say you like you changed my life.

Like on God.

Thank you.

Do drop drop drop twenty subs to compensate me, man.

That's how you can thank me.

With with all the new money you have from not gambling, you can just uh spend it on me.

That's uh it's only fair, you know.

'Cause I've saved you so much money, you should you should give me some of that.

Uh king

Uh whatever his name is.

Hello?

Um so what does InfraWoke mean?

Infra woke is better than woke, I don't know, on top.

What does this mean?

Seeing in the dark.

Seeing in the dark.

Mhm.

Okay, and Marxism is true.

What do you mean by that?

Like is it like in true as in one plus one equals two?

Same exact way, actually.

Okay, and uh how would you how would you uh explain that this is the truth, like Marxism is true?

Or am I supposed to argue against it?

Because I would have to know what do you mean by by it, right?

If I have to argue against it and debate with you.

Yeah.

Is this how you debate, like you try an aura farm or something?

You believe in science?

Y I mean, of cor like I believe in that yes, I believe in science, I guess.

So how can you deny the science?

Which is Marxism.

Okay.

Um I'm not uh denying the science.

Um so you accept it Marxism?

As Wood?

True.

Because it's the science.

Yeah.

I mean, uh when you say if I believe if science is true, I didn't mean like uh or believe it's real, like

Of course science is a thing you can do, like you can do scientific studies and science is a word we use.

R that is what I mean.

What?

Okay.

So you accept Marxism?

In in what way?

Like what do you mean?

You accept Marxism as true.

I I feel like I'm not um able to uh say that.

How do you solve how do you solve the system of German idealism?

Explain.

Explain your way of the system of the system of what?

German idealism.

How do you solve it?

Explain.

And what is German idealism exactly?

I need to know.

You don't know what German idealism is?

Is it like is it Nazism or something?

Uh you gotta explain it to me.

I I mean, if you you could just tell me really quick

Uh what German idealism is, like

Have you solved philosophy?

I didn't solve ph uh philosophy.

No, I don't know.

So what?

You just meander and what?

Just I just w I don't know thing.

I don't know anything.

You just walk around like a dumb guy with ice cream?

Uh no, do you?

You you don't you probably didn't solve philosophy like either, right?

Like how can you solve that?

I don't have to solve it.

Something that's already been solved by people who came before me.

Teacher of Karl Marx himself.

Like so, so you're basically saying everything he says is basically answered every uh moral question.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Okay, what is the moral?

What do you think morality is?

Yeah, probably you're talking about like um how we should uh act within a society thing all over again.

What does that mean?

What is should mean?

What is the ought?

What is it?

Explain it.

What is the ought?

The odds?

Like, I'm not.

I'm not.

What is it?

English is my third language.

What does odd mean?

What is it?

You have no answer.

So you're bankrupt.

Nothing.

Nothing in the bank.

You're broke.

No, I'm not I'm not even like I'm not you have nothing.

I'm just I'm just trying to understand like

If this was a bank robbery, I'd be leaving empty handed.

And although nothing would have been taken from you

You didn't have anything to begin with.

Yeah,

Uh what I what I was asking, right, is you believe that Marxism basically answered every moral question, right?

Every philosophy, uh yeah, okay, that that is what you claim.

Correct.

Okay.

And how we uh should treat each other in a society, how uh society should function.

What is a should?

Why are you asking what shot is?

Well, you're using the word, aren't you?

You should know what it means if you use the word.

Why are you using words you don't know how to explain or understand?

Is the question.

Wh when I asked you what you mean by true, I was asking like do you mean I I understand what you're getting at, like

You're trying to um

uh criticize that I was asking you what do you mean by truth, but it's really important for me to know what you mean by truth, for me to be able to understand what you

The ultimate, yeah.

Now I already understand, right?

Truth.

Okay.

Um

Yeah, I I I couldn't tell you, like, if Marxism is still true.

'Cause you live a life of meandering uncertainty, devoid of purpose, devoid of direction, devoid of anything, except ice cream and Doritos.

I don't eat your side chips.

The only thing you need is potato chips.

That's all you believe in.

Potato chips.

I guess you're not.

I'm fishing potato chips and angry birds.

That's your life.

Raw like raw milk and

Maybe two, right?

And that's it.

That's all you believe in.

Just a bunch of nonsense.

One hundred percent.

Like that that is

Well I believe in the majority of the people.

Only the one that we're going to do.

Wait a second, I I need to think about what I was saying.

Uh

ACP is an American reactionary party and you are a

Simpleton.

Quite literally you're you are a simpleton.

Alexeyo Yulsan familiar who is this

Hey, what's going on?

It's going.

How's it going?

I don't know how.

So you saying the arts doesn't work?

I don't know, man, you told me.

Is it going or is it not going?

Mm.

Bottom of mine.

The entire system of super imperialism is going out.

And communism on a planetary scale, that's going.

They were they were imperialist too, like you know that too.

In the sense that you're using the word, there's nothing wrong with it.

In the sense that I'm using the word, there's something wrong with it.

Social imperialism is ba huh, it's good, huh?

Only East Palm and East Western.

It kind of is, honestly.

Like Soviet Union was doing wasn't that bad at all.

What about Mao China?

Was it good?

Yeah.

Mao China was good.

Uh-huh.

Probably near perfect, if you ask me.

Near perfect, huh?

And spiritually, especially spiritually, very close to perfection.

Close to perfection.

I thought you were Muslim, though.

Yes, and

And they were a atheist.

Spiritually they're not alignment.

I could just tell you're so unenlightened, such on a low vibration frequency of low vibration, huh?

You're just like using words you don't understand.

Like communist atheism is a million times closer to belief in the Islamic God than majority of Muslim hypocrites who do nothing for Palestine.

When they talk about God, they're talking about

They're talking about FIFA.

When Mao, even when they were denying God, they were closer to God.

They were closer together.

You don't even think with your head.

You just close to God.

You just look at words like a child.

I just look at the words.

Why are you just repeating?

That's why I mean because you don't have any ideological consistency.

I don't care about ideologies.

Those are idle words.

You don't care.

Yeah, that's the whole point.

You don't give a fuck about ideology at all.

You don't give a fuck.

Yeah, that's the problem.

At all.

I'm a truth seeker.

I'm not an ideologist.

Yeah, and that's your gibber Anglo box ideologies that are written blocks.

You're collecting like Funko Pops.

I don't care about that.

Oh, your Funko Pops don't match.

I don't give a fuck.

Why would I care?

Yeah, and that's why.

How would I give a fuck about that?

Andrew Wilson destroyed you, Zerka destroyed you, Fuentes destroyed you, all of them destroyed you.

It's like the most ridiculous, like right-wing brown person thing I've ever heard in my life.

Oh, really?

Yeah, you are the face of the.

You are literally the voice of the brown right.

Like, you're ridiculous.

Yeah, but still.

No.

Still, Fuentes destroyed you.

Andrew Wilson destroyed you.

Why is it nobody who has an American accent ever says that?

No?

Like how come nobody with an American accent ever says American accent, yeah, because that's what you want.

You're a Marxist.

Wait, what so like everybody what are we even talking about anymore?

I mean, that's what you preach.

I mean, everybody deserves everything.

Like, let's go.

Like, Marxists preach American accents now?

The fuck are we talking about?

Yeah.

Yep.

Let's go.

Mark's zone is good.

It is.

Everyone knows that it's good.

Yeah, it's good.

It is.

What are you like?

Some tethered who was persecuted?

Were you persecuted from a communist country?

No, not really.

Are you like exiled and persecuted because your egg farm was taken, your slaves were taken away?

No, bro.

No.

Are you an entrepreneur living in Miami who's just about to make it big?

Just like, trust me, bro.

Trust me, bro.

It's coming.

No, not even that.

So, what do you do for a living?

Me?

Multitude of different things.

Ah, so nothing.

You're unemployed.

That's great.

Unemployed, yeah.

Sure.

I'm a professional yacht business owner.

I own yacht corporations.

Yacht Companies.

They uh I take 'em out on a mortgage or on a debt, but my community uh funds me.

They they gift subs and I pay back the debt slowly by slowly.

But uh the yacht business is going well actually.

Community drops ten, twenty subs on a regular basis and uh we're all good.

Are you jealous?

Oh what what are you talking about?

You're jealous that uh the truth of Marxism can allow you to

Who thought of Marxism, yeah?

Are you a Roblox character?

Like, do you actually have a personality besides giggling at things?

No, no, yeah, I have.

I have I pretty much have.

It's like you're just dumb.

You're an NPC.

You're an NPC of like the 22023 red pill manosphere.

A manosphere?

It's like the typical and this is the quintessential 2023 Red Pill NPC.

Like, that's what that guy was.

Like, that's all he was.

He was just like this 2023 Red Pill NPC who has no face or personality.

He's literally just a generic mannequin from 2023 from the Red Pill Sphere who never moved on.

Bitcoin wants to talk to me.

What's going on, Bitcoin?

uh nothing much how you doing a terrible you gonna send a bitcoin or what oh god no that's my private property but you claim you are bitcoin are you not i am i am one of 21 million so you only you only are one bitcoin correct that's right that's that's nothing small potatoes that's it's a lot 65 000 what do you mean small potatoes i don't even want that it's too little You don't want $65,000?

That's okay.

I guess I'll keep it.

Yeah, you should keep it.

It's too little for me.

My channel, my supporters give me way more than that on a daily basis.

Oh, I bet.

Yeah.

Anyway, what do you mean?

I don't think Marxism is true.

Why not?

I think it's been debunked for like a hundred years.

I think he was built on uh

On labor theory of value, which is obviously false.

Okay.

Where does where does what is labor theory of value?

Where does that come from?

It comes from Marx.

Okay, you're instantaneously just not educated.

Yeah, he believed in it.

But you say it comes from Marx and it didn't.

So, what are we talking about here?

You're asking me who initially came up with labor theory of value?

Yeah, where does it originate from?

What's the concept?

Oh, I have no clue, but it's false.

Okay.

What does it consist in?

It's not consistent.

You're asking what it is?

Yeah, what's the labor theory of value according to you?

It said the value of a good or service is how much labor is put into it.

Wrong.

No, that's not wrong.

No, it's not wrong.

Instantly wrong.

That's what it is.

That's true.

As opposed to subjective theory of value, which is a utility supply and demand.

Hey, but you're wrong about the labor theory of value.

No, it's I'm not wrong about that.

Okay.

So I know it's not wrong.

Well, you're wrong about that.

The notion that values yeah, the notion that

All of it is from labor is not true.

That's fine.

What do you think it is?

Yeah, the labor theory of value more or less understands that the fluctuations and distinctions in value are primarily a consequence of the laboring social metabolism of society.

But according to Mises and Adam Smith.

Tomisis?

Sorry, according to Adam Smith and Ricardo, who came up with it.

When we take for granted a few things, including the fixed values or wealth that comes from nature, the use values that are rooted in what people basically consider normal to use, the utilities.

So, whether that's impacted by culture or subjectivity or nature is completely immaterial, the value that comes from nature, once we factor all of that and take it into account, only then can we say that labor is the source of value.

But not before you take all those things as a granted and take them all into account.

So, once you account for all of those things, then the differences of the quantities of value in different goods is based in the labor that was put into them.

But that's not the same as saying that you can just abstract that from the context of use values or values inherited from nature.

So, it's as simple as that.

That was a very flowery word salad, but even Marx himself said surplus-value theory comes from labor theory plus profit.

He said that you're shaving off the profit of people's labor, and he even defined labor as you take input, which is labor, and then that's imbued into the good or service.

So he himself believed that.

Have you read Marx's critique of the Gotha program since you're such an expert on Marx?

I haven't read the whole thing, but I've definitely read what does he say in the critique of the Gotha program?

Remind me.

So you don't know?

I read parts of it, but it's just so wrong I can't even remember all of it.

Yeah, so Marx doesn't agree with the simplification you're running with.

He doesn't say labor is the source of all wealth.

Of course, we can say that.

He doesn't claim that all profits are simply the stolen wages of each individual laborer.

He rejects, and he makes that clear in the Critique of the Gotha program.

So clearly, you're not familiar with it.

Yeah, I agree.

That's not even.

I'm just trying to say you're not educated enough to have an opinion on the stock.

You literally said Mises.

You pronounced it Mises.

Who are you to say that I'm not educated?

Pronunciations don't matter when we're talking about the content of what's in the process.

Yeah, you don't even know the modern economists.

Okay, I don't know how to pronounce the word correctly of some guy who, you know, so who cares?

The point is, labor theory.

It matters because labor theory is not.

I'm telling you, you're not even familiar with the theory or with the authors in question.

And you're telling me I don't know how to pronounce his name.

Who cares?

Yeah, I'm telling you that it was debunked.

It's been debunked for 100 years.

But if you don't even know what it is, how are you in a position to talk about it?

I'm telling you, the reason you don't know it's debunked is because you haven't read Modern Economists.

That's my point.

Mises is a modern economist now?

Mises.

Mises, Raws, these are modern economies.

Milk school they belong to is called the modern school.

I'm pretty sure the modern economists are the neoclassical types and the marginalists, not the Austrian school.

Austrian school is modern economists.

Even Michael Humer is Austrian.

I don't think they're really classified as modern by most people, but whatever.

That's fine.

In any case, labor theory of value has been debunked for 100 years.

I can debunk it for you right now again.

Go ahead, debunk it.

Yeah, I can give you their deductions right now.

Go ahead, debunk it for us, and then we'll put it up to scrutiny.

In fact, I can even give you the example that Mises himself.

No, just debunk it.

We give you the floor.

Just do it.

So suppose there's a town where there is plenty of pizza makers.

When you make a pizza and then you go to sell it, it won't be very expensive.

It's very cheap.

But then if I go and drive that pizza to a town where there's no pizza makers, that price of that pizza shot up significantly, meaning that it's not tied to labor.

It's rather tied to utility and supply and demand.

It's subjective value and subjective value.

Does Marx regard labor as individual or social?

Does he regard labor as an aggregate division of labor, or does he regard labor as this completely isolated individual thing?

He regarded labor as the effort put into an item gave it some sort of objective value.

That's not true.

That is objectively.

That's what labor theory.

Why don't you just Google it and put it up for everyone?

Google it for me.

Did Marx regard labor as social or individual?

Just Google labor theory of value and put it up for everyone.

You can debunk me right now.

Go ahead.

Did Marx regard the labor value put it up for everyone?

Google labor theory of value and put it up for everyone.

According to Marx, you can put this into AI right now.

According to Marx, is the labor value reducible to the individual work put into it?

Or can we only talk about the value of a thing when we take into account the social aggregate, which he proves in volume three when he talks about how when we have to account for the average rate of profit, we can only do so on account of the fact that labor is actually socially being done and the products of labor are only at the social level.

Both are false.

It has nothing to do with labor and everything to do with it.

Social labor and individual labor are not the same thing.

Both are false.

But you haven't debunked the social labor part with the example you used.

Of course I have.

Because it's not tied to labor.

And the example itself, because it's tied to subjective.

But if there are more laborers who are making pizzas, then no, if there are more laborers making pizzas.

Then the output that produces whatever price is attached to the pizza.

Is going to be influenced or impacted by the fact that the price is going to go down as a competition.

You don't even know what you're saying.

I don't think you even know what you're saying right now.

Why not?

I don't even think you know what you're saying right now.

Why not?

Because it's literally meaningless.

Why?

Because it means nothing.

You just cut me off, so you have to explain why.

Yeah, because you're not saying anything.

Well, when there's more pizzas that are being produced, the prices are gonna go down because there's more being produced.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

It's it's based on supply and demand.

Very much.

Marx never denied supply and demand.

Right.

He he he he explicitly said that it's tied to labor.

But Marx never denied hold on, no, he didn't deny supply and demand.

He just said when we account for supply and demand,

Then, what makes the difference?

That's the point.

So, then explain to me where does labor come into it if it's based on supply and demand?

So, let's just okay, I'll give you the perfect example.

Let's have a like a mirror image where that town has that many pizza makers, but then there's that many, let's think of a good example.

I don't know.

Yes, go ahead.

There's that many.

People who make shoes in the same way, like the same exact way that there's that many people disproportionately making pizzas, you have the same amount of people making shoes.

You go to the other town, and the pizza costs more, and there's just as much labor being put into shoes, and the shoes also cost more.

But you compare both towns, and in both cases, the price between the pizza and the shoes are not the same.

So, in the town where there's more scarcity of labor when it comes to input into pizza, the price of pizza is still different from the price of the shoe, for example.

So, that's where the labor theory of death.

That's where it would be decisive.

You're not even addressing the labor theory of value.

You literally just debunked yourself.

If labor theory of value was correct and it was proportional, it would be the same price.

But you just accept that it's different prices, meaning that no, it's not.

You just debunked yourself.

Why are you screaming and getting angry because you're talking about materials that go into shoes are more expensive than the purpose of the pizza?

No, but the labor that goes into shoes is not the same as that goes into pizzas.

So, that would be how the labor theory of value explains it.

Yeah, you just debunked yourself because you bet.

I didn't say the same labor is being put into shoes and pizza, I'm saying the same amount of laborers.

So, let's say it's one guy in one town making a pizza, and then it's one guy making a shoe.

The price between pizza and shoe is still different.

And if you go in the other town and you have 30 people making pizzas and 30 people making shoes, the commodity price of the shoe and the pizza will also be distinct.

So, that would be where it would be decisive.

Not when you're just creating exaggerated cases where supply and demand is the main factor.

On the social level, things balance out because of competition and so on and so on.

So, eventually, things get to an average.

Do you accept competition?

What are you talking about?

That it exists?

Of course.

And that drives prices down?

Uh yes.

Mark said so.

Mark said that, but that's what Mark said.

Mark said that that's in part a factor for the falling rate of profit.

Uh, yeah, because price and value are not the same, first of all.

Okay, but Marx is the one that talked about competition driving uh prices to go down so down that they fall below the values, actually.

And that's a constant that leads to capitalist crisis and the falling rate of profit.

Yeah, I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, go Google it then.

Why don't you Google labor theory of value and put it up in front of everyone?

How about that?

You're just not educated, you're not even educated enough to talk about this.

You just debunked yourself like three times and don't explain.

I can keep saying that, but it's just not true.

So, I don't know what that is.

That's fine.

I'm going to keep saying it.

Okay.

You don't know what the labor theory is.

Can you tell me what subjective theory of value is?

Do you even know what that is?

Yeah, it's just a way of avoiding the thing that political economists, like it's avoiding.

They define subjective theory of value that everything's value is just based on what each individual subjectively deems it is worth.

And you don't believe that individuals have subjective preferences and their own values?

They may have subjective preferences, but because human beings live in a society, those preferences eventually generalize and normalize and stabilize to a point where we have to actually reckon with the nature of our division of labor that's producing the goods that society has subjectively decided that it wants.

The notion that our entire division of labor is organized around what each particular individual subjectively decides that they want is ridiculous.

It's just such a preposterous way of modeling.

It's just like avoiding political economy entirely.

It's just a ridiculous modeling how economics.

So what?

Everything averages out on the bottom.

Some people are willing to pay more and some people are not.

But it doesn't matter because eventually things stabilize into social norms and tendencies.

It doesn't matter where the site of causation is, according to you.

That's a completely metaphysical bankrupt question.

We're actually dealing with the question of metaphysical bank robbery.

What is political economy?

Explain political economy.

What is that?

Political economy.

Organization of goods and services and trading.

What is the school of political economy?

Go look it up since you.

The school of political economy.

Now look it up.

Google it.

Go ahead.

Since you're so uneducated, that you're so passionately talking about things you have no familiarity with.

Yeah, you're still running with a theory that has been debunked for 100 years and don't even.

I'm just saying that, but it's just cope.

You can keep coping if you want.

It's debunked a hundred times.

Do you want to cope more?

Well, go ahead and say it again and hopefully wish it, which is true.

Just wish it's true more.

Keep wishcasting something.

Like, what do you think?

You're just repeating something, but not providing any substance for why.

Yeah, because not only did I debunk you, you debunked yourself.

You debunked nothing.

You debunked nothing.

And then I debunked.

I don't debunk anything except.

You don't have to argue debunk you, but obviously people have subjective preferences.

Obviously, who cares if people have subjective preferences?

What does that have to do with political economy?

The reason it matters is because it's directly contrary to what you believe.

No, it's not.

Political economy takes for granted the fact that people have subjective preferences.

It just takes that as the premise and then works from there to actually analyze how the division of labor works and where value actually comes from.

You're against division of labor.

You're against division of labor.

You're a Marxist.

There's no normative dimension to political Marxism.

Political economy is trying to analyze how the economic system is.

You don't even know a division of labor works.

Why would you interrupt me when I just said that?

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, so you conceded the debate.

The fact you interrupted me mid-sentence when I was explaining to you that in political economy, they're not normatively imposing what system they would prefer.

They're just trying to analyze how economics as it exists now works.

And then you interrupted me mid-sentence to do a total non-secures about how you perceive subjectively that someone was debunked.

Thanks for conceding the debate.

You lost.

Goodbye.

He like you keep telling it's like a it's like a religious mantra.

It's been debunked.

It's been debunked.

You can keep telling yourself that, but it hasn't.

Especially not by Austrians.

Like, what a ridiculous thing that you're saying.

You don't even believe in a division of labor.

That's my favorite part.

My favorite part when he's like, you don't even believe in the division of labor.

First of all, the context is that we're talking about the divisions of labor that actually exist now.

Second of all, what are you talking about, that Marxists don't believe in a division of labor at all?

What are you talking about?

What does that even mean?

What would that entail?

There's always, even if people are not going to be assigned fixed roles for their entire life, there's still a division of labor even in communism.

It's just not based on people assigned to a fixed profession forever, according to Marx.

You know, when he gives this.

Example.

I just can't talk to people who lack the patience to hear perspectives that contradict your own.

That guy is a classic example of someone who is being contradicted and then they have to interrupt me because they psychologically cannot cope with the fact that there's a perspective distinct from their own.

It's like if you don't have the patience to hear an opposing perspective, don't go on the internet debating people because you're going to make a clown of yourself.

Imagine being a grown man calling yourself Bitcoin and like gibbering about Austrianism or whatever.

Like, you're like an NPC, dude.

You're just an NPC.

Squared, go ahead.

Hey, how's it going, man?

I like your beard.

Um so I guess I got a like a a little bit of a simpler question for you.

I guess like what's your response to um Bukanen?

Or Bakkenen, excuse me, Bakkenen.

Uh, he was dumb.

Yo, ACP Chan, what are you talking about?

Transportation?

What example of transportation was given?

I didn't even hear one.

Bro, ACP Chan, what transportation example are you talking about?

My interpretation of the L T What are you talking about?

Yo what?

Bakunin?

Yeah, Bakunin.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, he was terrible.

What do you mean?

Um I mean I guess I can like run his argument for you, but his his criticism of um Marx's transitional state.

Um, he didn't know what a state was, and he just doesn't understand the distinction between statehood and authority, and he couldn't even organize anything according to his own principles.

I mean, I don't know, man.

Uh, give me one sec, bro.

ACP Chan.

You're talking about the that wasn't about transportation, though.

It was about whether in one place, if they're making more.

Bitcoin says that this example debunks the LTV, but Marx considers transportation labor to also add to the labor embodied in the commodity.

ACP Chan, he's talking about isolated towns.

So in town one, there's more pizza makers.

In town two, there's only one pizza maker.

He's saying in town two, pizza is more expensive, and in town one, pizza is less expensive.

He claims this debunks the LTV.

That's what he was trying to say.

He wasn't talking about transporting anything between the towns.

Yeah.

Turkmenistan added 100 people.

Bro, Turkmenistan with 100.

That's what I'm talking about, bro.

That's why I love Turkmenistan.

Um

Yeah, bro.

Like, his example was so ridiculous.

It's like it was so baffling.

It's like one of those baffling examples where you're like.

What?

Yo, Strail Stanley.

That's what I'm talking about, bro.

Let's go.

Let's turn it up in here.

Uh, we we'll reach the goal for sure.

Um, uh, bro, I'm gonna get back to you on Bakunin for one second.

Yeah, take your time.

Like, why didn't he just say, like, oh, in in one town there's a machine that makes a bunch of pizzas for one cent, and then in another town

There's uh five hundred laborers that can be even cheaper than the machine.

And it's like

How do you explain to people that, you know,

Yeah, it's just like beyond.

It's so ridiculous.

It's like even Chat GPT could solve that issue for you.

Why are you debating me when AI can help you?

The reason I've gotten less patient with debates, honestly, is like, go debate AI and it will help you.

You don't need to debate me.

Go debate AI.

If you're not willing, I want to debate people who can't win debates or like who are at a stalemate with AI and have already been informed properly.

And it's a genuine debate now.

Met, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

Right?

Like literally put it into ChatGPT.

How would Marx respond to this?

And it would be so simple.

I'll do it for you.

It would be so simple if you just did that.

If in town one there are more pizza makers, laborers, and pizza is cheaper, and in town two there is only one

Pizza laborer and it's more expensive.

How would Marx explain that?

Doesn't it debunk the

So

How is AI going to respond to it?

Like, I'm just going to show you why it's ridiculous to come on my stream and tell me something and make a clown of yourself when you can just go to AI.

Yeah.

Um simplify it for a dumb guy.

So Marx doesn't say that more workers equals higher price, he says, The value of a pizza depends on how much normal labor time it takes to make one pizza.

Uh so

It's about how much labor

In both towns, if they have so in both towns, they have the underlying same labor value.

And supply and demand can affect, on the basis of the labor value, the relative price.

'Cause value and price are not the same thing.

Which is pretty much what I said at all, but I don't know if that would have been more helpful for him.

Alright, um

Bakunin.

Uh Bakumin is uh a fascist, you know.

I don't know if I agree with that, but I mean, I'm I don't really care about that conversation.

I guess I'm just curious, like, what about his critique do you disagree with?

Bakunin is known for being the guy who critiqued Marxism because of this notion that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But the debates between Bakunin and the Marxists were not of that nature at all.

Bakunin had no problem with power and authority.

Bakunin was more like a romantic, petty bourgeois.

Um ultra I wouldn't even call ultra leftist.

He was

I can explain it actually.

Bakunin resented and detested what we call modern statehood and civilization.

He was not so much fearful about the idea of power centralizing and therefore corrupting, as much as he was fearful about the idea of modern urbanized intelligentsia becoming concentrated and basically.

becoming tyrants with respect to the agrarian

Element, you know, the um, because he was like a strict doctrinaire.

Romantic, um

Agrarian revolutionary, quote unquote, right?

But that was just a form of petty message romanticism.

But hold on, hold on, let me continue.

The thing about Bakunin is that he didn't think that the revolution would have required the mediation of dealing with the same problems modern civilization does entirely.

He thought

He thought that it could just be avoided, you know, all the contradictions and problems of modern statehood and civilization.

This was not an abstract problem about power corrupting or something, though.

That's just a big myth that comes to that.

I don't know.

I guess I'm a little bit confused.

Bakunin never really said that power corrupts, absolutely.

That was actually Marx's claim, right?

He believed that the small leading class, right, your bourgeois, is going to be corrupted by their power.

I mean, he's going to invoke a non-P by creating a proletariat, excuse me, a proletariat representative class of your intellectuals, of your revolutionaries, right?

A small class of proletariat people who are going to represent the market.

Bakunin was worried about the intelligentsia acquiring this power.

Um over the um the masses, you know, but when he said the masses, he meant something very specific.

Well, Bakunin was an anarchist, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the total.

Anarchism was not incompatible with authority and power at the time.

The notion of anarchy-compatible with the state, and he was fearful of the state.

But the state, you need to do your history, okay?

The state was the modern state, primarily born in the aftermath of the French Revolution.

The state meant something specific.

I know what the state meant.

I think we might be equivocating.

What do you mean by state?

Statehood, the statehood that anarchists wanted to abolish was actually fairly recent.

It was a recent form of statehood that provoked the backlash of anarchism.

I'm a little confused what you mean by that.

What do you think Barton meant by the state?

So, again, I'll be a historian for you.

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, states started to modernize and standardize entire nations.

So, the notion of a standing army, the rise of bureaucracy, police, civil state institutions for the regulation of society.

These were fairly recent formations that accompanied the rise of modern states in the aftermath of the French Revolution with their centralizing, standardizing, and leveling tendencies with universal law and so on and so on.

And anarchism was a backlash against that.

It wasn't a backlash against.

statehood like in some trans-historical sense because anarchism was a recent phenomenon uh in the 19th century and that that was the basic historical context for it emerging well i'm gonna think that like collectivist anarchism sure yeah i can grant that i have the issue and that's what we're talking about so i'll grant that no all the kinds of anarchism you can think of were about well no definitely zeno's anarchism was not in relation to that talking about ancient greeks yeah he was like your first anarchist that's why i said it's not an anarchist you can interpret that's why i just said it's not interpret him as an anarchist i just said that's not why it's that's why it's not related i didn't bring it up because it's all up so anyway i'm not really sure though that that really i i'm i'm genuinely working for like a

Some sort of like specific criticism of what Bakunin said, I guess, for like an answer.

What about his criticism of Marx claiming, right?

I mean, he's going to obtain a PNOPP.

He's going to confront a contradiction within Marx's theory, right?

Marx is going to say that the only way to change our bourgeois over the proletariat class is going to be through revolution, and then he's going to have a steps of revolution.

Again, it's an invention of the post hoc, you know, anarchists, modern anarchists from the 20th century, that Obakunin perfectly predicted all the contradictions that would occur in the Soviet Union and China.

And that's not true.

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

It's just not true.

Based off of.

Well, based off of the fact that what Bakunin was critiquing was entirely a different context.

I mean, Bakunin you can be vague and say, Well, Bakunin exactly predicted that the self-appointed, you know, Marxist vanguard is gonna be the new class that represents the proletariat and rules over them as tyrants.

That's really vague though, but you have to understand the context of where he was coming from, which I tried to establish a little bit.

Because in the case of the Soviet Union and China,

The whole content of the experience of the proletarian dictatorship was an internal struggle against.

The urban intelligentsia, but that had to happen within the modern state, not outside of it, right?

So, the goal was: so, institutionally, basically, on a mass scale, you had the promotion and inclusion of masses of people outside of modern civilization, Russian peasants, Chinese peasants, actually start to become involved in the modern state machine, promoted as representatives and delegates, and becoming educated and becoming part of the institutions.

And it's like

That was a truly democratizing process that Bakunin did not anticipate would happen.

Now, granted,

The we cannot evaluate the outcome of the debate between Marx and Bakunin.

Because the places where it was anticipated that argument would have been decisive, which was Western Europe.

You cut out for a second I lost so you can say that last bit.

The only place where it would have been decisive for there to have been an outcome was Western Europe.

That was the context.

Neither Marx nor Bakunin.

We're anticipating the consequences of the proletarian dictatorship.

Being built in countries where the proletariat was either non-existent or a tiny minority.

So we don't really, we can't really say Bakunin was right about anything, first of all.

And then, second of all, what Bakunin anticipated did not happen, but neither did what Marx anticipated happened, which was that the proletariat would, in the countries where we could identify a strong proletarian majority or a strong presence of the proletarian at least, that they would take power.

I mean, okay, yeah, sure.

I'm not too worried about his predictions, right?

I'm more asking about like his his address his addressing Marx's contradiction, which we haven't really gotten to yet.

Right, Marx is going to suggest that that bourgeois class is going to be corrupted not by an aspect of their nature, right?

But instead of the maintenance of their power, can you repeat that with clarity?

I can't even hear what you're saying.

Yeah, sorry, I'll slow down a little bit.

I might be talking fast.

It's a little late.

I'm a little bit tired.

So Marx suggests that the bourgeois are corrupted not by an aspect of their nature, right?

Because they reject nature in favor of class and whatnot.

What?

Simplificate.

Marx rejects the nature.

No, Marx says the bourgeoisie corrupt as a consequence of the decadent tendencies of the capitalist mode of production and its inner contradictions.

Yeah.

That's kind of a mode economy.

Right.

So I don't mean normatively speaking.

Okay.

That'd be really weird for me to say.

Okay.

But what's going to follow from that, right, if he's making it clear about the class impact upon a person's, let's say, corruptibility, right?

Then if they're going to participate.

Talking about, you're really getting things confused on multiple levels.

The individual capitalist is not necessarily, they're not becoming corrupted by their class position because there's no baseline from which to say they're being corrupt or not.

The individual capitalist is becoming corrupt according to the terms of the bourgeois values themselves.

Those are what become decadent with respect to themselves.

So.

So I guess I'm using corrupt idiosyncratically.

Um what I mean by corrupt is just going to be like, you know, obtaining a set of values that isn't going to be um conducive to like the socialist position.

But Marx doesn't s yeah, but Marx

Doesn't claim that, like, we're automatically there and then it has to be corrupted or something.

It's like he's saying that we aren't there yet.

In a sense, to be clear, I guess am I confused?

Marx didn't believe in human nature, correct?

No, he did, he did, but he didn't believe.

He didn't believe that human nature.

uh carried with it automatically the superstructure of all n readily existent normative values and their corresponding and the activity that corresponds to them.

Right, he believed it was it was you're gonna be your class that that that's gonna be the the predicate for that?

No, it's about the mode of production, actually, which is the self-the self-relation of humanity takes the form of its mode of production.

That's what Marx understood.

By mode of production, I mean, I assume you're talking about econ theory, but wouldn't that just be to I'm talking about what?

You're talking way too fast, man.

Sorry, I apologize.

Oh, you're talking about economic theory, right?

No, I'm not.

I'm not talking about that.

And if you think I'm talking about that, do more education because my patience is thin.

I can't just keep being a teacher forever.

You know, like at a certain point, I need to get paid for being a teacher, you know?

Pay me like $50 if you want me to explain this to you more.

Everyone for the Chicago event and get your tickets.

If you can go, stop waiting.

Go to Chicago.

We're going to be speaking in person.

If you miss that, you are literally like.

Yo.

Yo, what's up, man?

Yeah.

How's it going?

Uh, really badly.

What's up?

What's up, man?

So I want to ask you if you think China is a state capitalist nation.

No, I don't.

Okay.

And why do you think that?

State capitalism described the German state in the uh

Do do you believe that China is capitalist in any way?

Or everything is in some way something.

Okay.

I mean, yeah, so I mean, my position is that I think tendency within China is not capitalism.

You know, even though there's private businesses with investors that get the profits and billionaires guys, if you want this to continue to drop 20 subs, I'm not even kidding.

What are you saying?

Sorry, go ahead.

Uh so even though there's private enterprise with investors that get the profits and wage labor, that's not capitalism.

No.

No, because it's in the context of a mode of production that sublated capitalism.

The birth pangs, of course, of the prior mode of production are there.

It's stamped by them.

But everything is being assimilated in the context of a circuit and logic of production that can no longer really be called capitalist.

I'm not going to lie, man.

I don't really understand what you just said.

I know.

Did you say that more simply?

Yo, Shepson, holy fuck, bro.

Thank you.

I didn't think you guys would actually come through with that.

I thought you guys were being tortured like I am.

Bro, here with the five.

What's up, man?

Um

If I hold on.

I just don't understand a lot of the terminology you're using.

Yeah, yeah.

So in Marxism, there's something called the mode of production, okay?

So, this is what you want to call, if you think about it like that, it's the logic of production.

Like, what is the actual

Pattern

Within which

The goods and labor of society are organized and produced, right?

Just think of it that way.

Okay, so it's a pattern, it's like an underlying pattern, it's a logic, okay.

So, for example, if you think of an organism, there's a logic of reproduction.

When a frog man sees a frog woman,

He beats them frog cheeks in a certain way.

I don't know how, actually, but there's something going on.

There's some mating ritual, there's some life cycle that they have, and then the she-frog gives birth to these little tadpoles or something, right?

There's something to it, but you see how it's a cycle, you know, it's like a circuit, it's like a logic.

I don't see the connection.

I mean, again, my point is that there's space now.

I just want you to think of two frogs having sex and keep that in your mind for now, right?

Just focus on that intensely right now, okay?

And be very vivid in everything because it's very important.

Okay, yeah, anyway.

So in a a mode of production, we're talking about the reproduction of

civil society, which is not just the reproduction of goods and services, but the reproduction of entire ways of life.

So if we build a new town somewhere or if we're going to build a new place where um

There's a new 7-Eleven, there's a new store.

It's like the increase of the population leads to the reproduction of systems, okay?

Economic systems, if you will.

and things.

You can see an immeasurable material wealth, a paradigm for that being produced.

You have an existing population, how do they reproduce their existence?

Because we don't just survive from nature.

And then with the expansion of population, you even see a more evident reproduction of the logic of production, right?

So there's an underlying mode or logic of production of how human beings make the life that they have.

And this is at an aggregate level because there's a division of labor where we're all interdependent.

So what do you do for work?

I'm a software engineer.

Okay.

So kind of a useless job, if you ask me.

But let's pretend you were doing something that mattered.

Like let's say you were a plumber or something.

Or let's say you were like a make pizza?

Yeah, a pizza maker, sure.

So if you were a pizza maker.

You're not all your ingredients and the machinery that you use to bake the pizza and the boxes that you use to put it inside, there's a whole complex division of labor.

You're just one part of it.

Understand?

So, even for there to be the finished product that you have, there's this supply chain, right?

So there's a division of labor.

So there's an ultimate logic of production that regulates that and how all of it fits together and keeps getting reproduced.

Just like the frogs having sex inside of your mind right now, the he frog beat in the cheeks of that she frog, which is in your head right now.

You're vividly visualizing it.

The same cycle of reproduction you can think about biologically, it's happening at a social level as well, right?

Okay, so in the capitalist mode of production, there's a specific modality of production.

Okay.

And the modality of production is rooted in the reproduction of something we call capital.

So there's something we call the circuit of capital.

It's you starting out with money and you invest it in a commodity that you're buying.

So pizza making machine.

And then there's a profit, M prime.

Now a capitalist takes that profit, puts it back into the machinery, and expands.

So there's capital accumulation, the capital increases and it expands.

So that's the logic, that's the circuit.

And within that circuit or that logic of production, suddenly you're looking at a society of a bunch of pizza makers.

So we can see all these pizza makers, but the expansion of this pizza machinery and this whole thing is governed by this logic where.

You're starting out with money, you're putting it in, you're buying machinery and you're getting more.

And that expansive and abstract circuit of that we call capital.

That is the governing logic of production, of the society, right?

At the highest levels, esperata.

So the the capitalism has a history though, right?

And there's contradictions in this logic.

Because

Eventually, for example, you release you reach the monopoly stage.

Where

You're no longer taking money and putting it into things and making profit.

You own so much of the means of production that you have a monopoly, and at that point you can set and rig the prices to be whatever you want them to be.

And what then became there's usually laws against that, though.

I mean, it's fake, anyway.

Yeah, I understand you, but we have to talk about how history got to where it was.

United States has broken lobbies before eventually, eventually, the laws of capitalist production reach their limits because.

Surplus value.

What does this have to do with China having private enterprise?

It can have these features that were characteristic of the capitalist mode of production.

So how what do you d would you define like China as a socialist state?

Well, it's look at its mode of production.

Look at the ultimate governing logic of the society.

And you're going to see a society that is ultimately rooted in.

subordinating the capitalist mode of production to a higher mode of production.

Well, that's just called socialism.

The capitalist mode of production gets assimilated into a higher form of production, which is rooted in planning, rational planning, and concrete

So you're saying of social goals, concrete goals that are rooted in the intentional, rational reproduction of society based on planning.

And they may the capitalist mode of production is not annihilated

But it is subordinated to a higher modality of production.

So, in the early stages of capitalism, it was the same relation to feudalism.

Capitalism first took on a feudal form.

I don't know if you know that, but it took the form, it subordinated feudalism.

And it looks like, well, this is just feudalism.

This isn't capitalism.

In reality, capitalism is emerging out of a feudal mode of production through feudalism.

It's assimilating feudalism and subordinating it to a higher logic.

The same thing happens in the transition of capitalism to socialism.

And it can only happen when you have a proletarian dictatorship, which is unleashing the fetters on the evolution and development of the mode of production.

And that can't be something you wait for with evolution, as the reformists say.

Can I say something?

That requires a revolution.

Before people call me a Kotskyite or something, because they don't know what they're talking about, go ahead.

Okay, so you're saying that, so China does, you do agree that China uses capitalist mechanics.

Yeah, but you can't call it capitalism because now capitalism has been because it serves a higher mode of production.

Not just serves, but it's subordinated to a new logic.

It's no longer the commanding logic of production.

It's just part of a bigger logic now.

Like, do you think Marx would say like, yeah, this is okay, we can have wage labor?

He wouldn't say it's okay.

He would probably say this is an example of how objectively one mode of production is shifting into a new one.

To me, it just sounds like Mark said that's how they that's how it happens.

He already made it clear that.

The new society is going to be stamped with the birth pangs of the old, right?

Yeah.

So like arguments I've heard before, like, I don't know if this is similar to what you're saying, but like that this is like the building phase and that, you know, this it's still and because it's in service of communism, it's still like a socialist state.

Is that kind of what you're saying or no?

No, I'm not talking about utilitarianism.

I'm literally talking about how the way capitalism is overcome is through capitalism, not outside of it.

Eventually capitalism reaches its own contradictions lead to the socialist mode of production.

Yeah, I mean like so how how so i is you do you think that China will eventually not have these capitalist like dynamics?

Yeah, yeah, probably yeah.

But like it's like at what point?

'Cause it's been what like fifty years since they opened up.

I would say after the overthrow of US super imperialism, the dollar when the dollar dies, the whole world there's gonna be a world revolution.

Everything will change.

Yeah, I mean to me look look to me it just seems like the definition of what capitalism is has been shifted.

The goalposts have been shifted.

No, it hasn't.

I I feel like it has because this like it you're talking about because it's in service.

Not really.

Can I speak?

Go ahead.

Thanks.

You're just saying because it's in service of a few.

I feel like it's kind of in the same vein of the arguments before.

It's not what I'm saying.

You're just not listening.

You're saying because there is like what I'm saying.

That's okay.

Okay.

All right.

Can you would you like to restate it?

Not listening.

I tried to explain what the logic of production means and how it's subordinated to a different or more comprehensive logic of production, and that therefore

Capitalism is no longer the exhaustive mode of production, because it is subordinated to a more comprehensive logic of production, where the circuit of capital is just one part of the cycle.

Okay, and what like how does that express itself in what we see in China compared to other capitalist earths compared to analyze their financial system is all rooted in planned economics and none of it is rooted in capital being at the top?

What's at the top is the plan.

What's at the top is a more specific circuit of accumulation and production, primarily rooted in construction and the expansion and reproduction of a specific social system, but not profit.

Why?

China takes on long-term, they take on losses.

That do not conform to the logic of capitalist production for the purposes of long-term strategic industrial goal.

Yes, they they take on a loss in terms of the logic of profitability.

They take on losses.

The government does take out credit that is not profitable in any foreseeable sense.

But which is subordinated and successfully reproduces.

The mode of production.

So a state can basically they can have private property, they can have wage labor, they can have stock markets, they can have billionaires.

Wait, wait, wait, they can have billionaires, they can have you know investors, but is as long as it's in service of some future goal, it's still socialism.

Okay, as long as like, so subordinated.

Like, I'm still struggling to understand what you mean by subordinated.

To me, it does seem that businesses in China are trying to make money and are trying to distribute that money to investors.

What does that mean?

It's not a command of production.

The logic that's in command of production is based on a comprehensive

Rational economic, planned economic system, without which no one is doing anything.

Dude, I don't you're just saying a bunch of words.

Can you say it?

Because you don't want to fucking even think about it to me.

Listen, man, don't you want to educate me?

You're using all these terminology, all this terminology.

I'm not a Marxist, bro.

I don't know all this.

I'll just put on a British accent because you people fucking listen to British people.

Just pretend I'm fucking British, right?

Is it a good British accent?

In China, I will explain it to you so you can understand it in a way that you take seriously.

Imagine you're going to Hogwarts right now for your attention span.

You're going to Hogwarts University, and I'm the professor of the Dumbledore.

Okay.

So basically, to explain it to you, because you're having such a hard time comprehending the topic and the subject at hand, to basically explain it to you in a way that would be more accustomed to your sensibilities and what you would take seriously and comprehend and understand.

More or less, the whole point is that in China today, the capitalist mode of production is based on a principle of accumulation, which reproduces civil society, even in principle from scratch.

So for example, if the process of capital accumulation is initiated at a local level without being part of any wider or comprehensive system, we tend to think of economies as systems as a consequence of systems theory and cybernetics and so on, which came from the last half a century or so.

But before that time, you just had a principle of how does civil society reproduce itself economically, right?

The capitalist mode of production, that is the groundsier, ultimate logic of how the expansive process of the building of what they called modern civilization occurs.

Whereas in China, although there are features that are reminiscent or appear identical to those within societies you could call capitalist or were shaped by capitalism, none of them can be abstracted from the context of a much larger system of socialist planning.

Meaning, without this more comprehensive logic of strategic industrial planning that the party has embarked upon for the very long-term vision in mind, all of these capitalists that you're talking about, they could not exist.

The process of groundsier or capital accumulation could not possibly take off in the first place unless it was being initiated or jump-started, so to speak, by the socialist planning, which is actually the thing that drives the Chinese economy in motion forward.

Do you understand now?

No, listen.

What part of this do you not fucking understand?

What part of this is?

I just don't see how you're saying.

Okay, you're saying the socialist planning is.

It's almost like you need to be put into special education.

Would you like to be transferred to special education because you cannot understand something that a child can?

Yes, a child can understand all these buzzwords.

Listen, from 1978 onwards, China has, you know, lifted millions of people out of poverty.

It's like I'm the joker now, bro.

This guy's like crazy, NBC.

Listen, man.

All I'm saying is capitalists now.

Listen, buddy.

They are.

No, they're not.

They are.

Private business.

Invest this property without the argument before.

It's in service of a greater goal.

I'm fucking saying.

It's essentially what you're saying.

It is essentially what you're saying.

Don't you want to request and explain it to him in their words?

Because I feel like I can't be the only one.

Yeah, maybe, maybe I'm just not able.

I don't know.

Can anyone use normal words?

Yeah, explain it.

We need a dumb guy.

Explain to me like I'm five years old, guys.

Explain to the dumb guy.

I'm going to ask ChatGPT to explain it to you.

Okay.

I'm talking to a really low IQ person on.

I'm talking to a super low IQ guy who doesn't understand what I'm saying.

I'm telling him that China is not capitalist just because it has features.

Features of capitalism.

Its entire economy is capitalism.

What Marx called capitalism because in China these

have become subordinated and assimilated by a higher logic of production.

He seems to think this is the same thing as saying that capitalism is in service to the party, when I am just

political goals when I am just trying to say that it has been assimilated and sublated by a higher or more comprehensive logic of production.

That what defines a mode of production is

dominant logic and not um

Not simply the features you find in it.

Please simplify this in a way a dumb guy can understand.

I mean, to me, this sublation thing you're talking about, it seems all philosophical.

Right, right.

That's why I'm asking ChatGPT.

It's not an economic system.

That's why I asked it for ChatGBT to make a dumb guy.

Okay.

He gave me this really long thing.

Oh my God.

Okay, shortest formulation.

You're identifying the system by its ingredients, and I'm identifying it by the logic that organizes those ingredients.

Thank you, ChatGBT.

That's so nice.

So basically, it's like you're just looking at the ingredients and not the over-governing logic that organizes the ingredients.

That's such a great way to putting it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, AI, for that.

Do you get it now?

If capitalism is sublated by socialism, so the system is the thing that organizes the ingredients.

It's not strictly the ingredients themselves.

You take the ingredients on the system.

Why does China still suffer from a real estate bubble if socialism sublates capitalism?

I'll type it into ChatGPT to help you understand for a dumb guy.

So he's now asking the question which Marks understood, which is why archaic forms from a prior

or outmoded mode of production can still persist even if they are assimilated by a newer or more comprehensive or higher governing logic.

Can you likewise dumb it down and simplify it to him in a way that

A dumb guy can understand, don't make it too long.

Okay.

Okay, so um

Okay, this is what it gave me.

Because a new mode of production does not erase everything that came before it overnight.

Old forms can survive.

No, sorry, these are too many.

He's really dumb, and these words are too big for him.

Make it even simpler for a dumber guy.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

No, it's okay, man.

I get it.

I understand.

New systems do not delete everything from the old system.

They often keep old things and use them in a new way.

Example: capitalism still had kings, landlords, peasants, and small shops.

That did not make capitalism feudalism.

So just because China still has things that also existed under capitalism does not mean China must be capitalist.

The question is: what controls and shapes the whole system?

Old parts can stay.

What matters is the bigger system they now belong to.

Thank you so much, ChatGPT.

Do you understand?

Yeah, may I make a point?

Yeah.

Okay, so my point is that you're saying capitalism sublates socialism.

So we should be seeing socialism sublates capitalism.

Or sorry, sorry.

But the process is not completed overnight.

Yeah, I understand that.

But what I'm saying is, like, what do we see different in China compared to other capitalist countries that actually shows that?

Because, like, I said, we still see wealth in a linchpin.

It's the linchpin of the system at the highest system.

So we would look at basically the relationship between credit and production.

In Western countries,

You do have complex systems of planning with the Federal Reserve and so on, but all of those are subordinated to the short-term interests of capital.

Whereas in China, the short-term interests of capital are actually completely a non-factor when it comes to the decisions that are made to actually inject liquidity and credit.

What does that result in?

What does that result in?

It results in an economy that is willing to sacrifice things that would be vital to a capitalist mode of production in the name of actually realizing strategic economic goals.

Uh, the ba probably one of the best examples would be the um way in which the government is responding to the housing speculative bubble by just not rescuing the uh

The speculators by the saying that housing is for homes, not for speculation, for example.

Another example would be the way China constructs cities.

The reason we don't construct cities and we have very poor urban planning and we don't have public transportation.

You're an American?

What?

You're an American, right?

Yeah, the reason we don't have those things, though, is because it's just not profitable.

And it can't be justified according to the logic of capital.

But China justifies those things according to the logic of the fact that they're necessary for a modern, thriving, harmonious, and prosperous civilization.

So they do these things.

And while they're economical about them and they're not just wasting, they still do it, even if it comes at the expense of short-term profits.

And the principle of profit making is of secondary significance after that.

So it's a really different logic of production that's going on.

So you're saying because the government does things that aren't profitable, that's no, I'm not saying because of the government.

I think the whole driving logic of the Chinese economy, the thing that actually drives it and sets in motion competition and all the things that you would characterize as capitalist, begin with strategic initiatives pursued by the state.

Okay.

You said that China, because they didn't intervene or whatever, they didn't try to save.

My point is that we still see capitalist real estate bills.

We still see speculation.

There is still wealth inequality in China.

Yeah, but those are not...

Like I said, think of frogs having sex.

It's ablated.

No, stop focusing on odd words.

Just think about frogs having sex because you're only focused on what's in front of you.

It's burned into my memory, bro.

Listen, listen.

You can't focus so much on the ingredients.

You have to focus on the thing that's organized.

Are the ingredients not the most important part of a meal?

No, the thing that organizes them is you don't think that the patty and ingredients exist in the wild.

The only reason you have a meal is because you organize them in a certain way.

Oh, you mean like cooking?

Yeah.

So that's a different analogy than what I was thinking.

Yeah, so basically like you need to understand that in China, they don't.

Uh

The production is not organized or dominated according to the consideration or along the lines of the

Interests of capital.

It's just capital is just not in command.

What's in command is a long-term strategic vision for how to build a harmonious and prosperous society.

And while that you could maybe break that down somehow into a new mode of production, like beyond that qualitative goal, because there's quantitative and qualitative goals, right?

But even if you would look at it at that level, you have something interesting going on that doesn't conform to what Marx described as a capitalist mode of production.

It's more like.

A social metabolism being re reproduced as a consequence of a specific relationship between um

Between the state and civil society, and you know, in the form of uh, yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking, like, in terms of like concrete things, like there's I can't see any big thing that tells me, like, wow, you have to look at I think, I think, really, it's construction is the main linchpin of China.

So, like, so like trains and shit, trains, cities, infrastructure, bridges.

I mean, the same thing they're trying to expand.

Every country builds the same thing, no, but that's the driving force.

They're trying to expand it with the Belt and Road Initiative right now.

That's the main thing in China: it's really infrastructure, cities, bridges, like all the things that go into building a modern civilization directly.

I don't disagree that China is very good at building infrastructure.

They obviously aren't.

Yeah, but that's the driving force of their economy is that, you know, them building infrastructure?

That their mode of production is based on that circuit of reproduction.

Yeah.

It's based on like there's a reproductive process that's that's rooted in that.

Yeah, I mean, I still like, I don't see how, because you have nice trains and nice roads and a lot of tall buildings, it's about the circuit of accumulation.

It's just all about the circuit of accumulation.

That's it.

I mean, I feel to me, like, and I don't, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, like, it seems like you're using these words, sublation, circulus of accumulation.

Forget about the fucking word sublation.

You're so fixated on it because you don't understand.

That's the thing.

You're insecure that you don't understand it.

So just forget about it.

I'm not insecure about it.

I mean, look.

Just I'll ask ChatGBT to make it dumb for you.

All right.

I'd like to argue.

I'm trying to explain to this guy what a circuit of reproduction is and how it defines a mode of production, but these words are too big for him.

Do not use big words or a lot of words.

Make it simple and use dumb guy analogies.

I'm asking ChatGPT to help you.

Just want to.

I mean, I don't really trust those.

Okay, use loop.

Hold on.

He's saying, use loop.

So think of it like a game loop.

You work, stuff gets made, stuff gets sold, money gets used to hire people, make more stuff.

Everyone does it again.

That repeating loop is what keeps the whole system alive.

So you don't define a system by one thing inside it.

You define by how the whole thing keeps making itself again and again.

A car has screws in it.

A chair has screws too.

That doesn't make a car a chair.

Same thing here.

Having markets or private companies does not by itself tell you the whole system.

Bro, that's so useful.

That's so clutch.

I love AI.

Thank you, data center.

I can build everything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Everything's building more data centers.

We need them.

Everything's in service of expanding infrastructure.

And because of that, because it's not in service of, I guess, profit, you're saying it's still socialism.

Is that somewhere close?

Kind of.

Kind of.

What did I get wrong?

It's not just infrastructure because it's also the fundamentals of the premises of production.

So it's like in order to partake in economic activity, like you need like a city, you need buildings, you need transportation, you do need infrastructure, you also need housing, you also need buildings that are built that stores can be can emerge inside of.

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't just call it infrastructure.

I would encompass that term more broadly to include the fundamental factors of production, really.

Yeah, I mean, I guess fundamental factors of production, really, you know.

Yeah, again, like, I just, I don't see the connection.

I feel like it's an excuse that, you know, China needs to be socialist.

They need to be an example of a successful social state.

So we say, oh, it's in service of, you know, the circular mode of production.

Dude, I don't, like, you keep.

I don't know what to tell you, man.

All right, I'm gonna ask ChatGPT again for another thing.

He is really dumb and he keeps interpreting or representing us liberals, man.

We give you a job, man.

You should be nice to us.

Who?

You should be nice to us, liberals.

We give you a job.

You have to talk to us.

You make money talking to us.

Okay, hold on.

He keeps interpreting or representing China as.

In too much of a normative way.

Like he's saying

You're just saying that it's more that it's okay for there to be capitalism because it's service to socialism, when in reality I am not trying to convey a normative judgment, but an objective analysis of how modes of production actually do transition is too caught up

In the normative and moral dimension, please.

Um, in a simple, short way for a dumb guy using dumb guy analogies, once again.

Don't make it long.

Explain why this norm factor is not relevant to what I'm saying.

So, one second, it's cooking, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, you have a thinking on so you keep turning this into is capitalism good or bad?

It's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about what the system is and how it works.

If a wolf eats a rabbit, saying the rabbit became part of the wolf doesn't mean I think eating rabbits is morally good.

Same thing here.

Saying older capitalist forms can be absorbed by a new system is not saying capitalism is okay because socialism uses it.

It's just describing what happened to those forms and what system they now belong to.

So, thank you, ChatGPT.

You're putting it brilliantly, ChatGBT.

That kind of restays what you're ever saying, you know, that a chair and a car are not the same.

Just because, yeah, I think this is like the AI that gave me these examples.

I would have never came up with them.

Yeah, AI is very smart for sure.

Smarter than TikTok live streamers, probably.

Honestly, I gotta give it.

Like, I could notice in that way.

The chair example is gonna rule the world, man.

The chair example was so like, I would have liked, whatever.

Anyways, again, like, I'm struggling to find the connection.

Like, it's still capital, it's still private enterprise.

I mean, I know I sound like a fucking broken record.

I'm just responding by saying it's still capital and it's still private property.

Like, that's still, you can't have like you can't, like, again, I'm gonna say your favorite word.

I don't understand you can sublate wages and make it very simple for him and, like, extremely lucidly clear, but make it short and simple and use analogies for dumb guys.

Dude, I understand what you're saying.

I'm just looking for the connection, man.

I'm trying to explain.

Yes, it can still be private property.

It can still be capital.

That is not the argument.

A brick is still a brick, whether it is inside a house, a prison, or a church.

But the brick does not tell you what the whole building is.

Same thing here.

Yeah, property existing inside of a system doesn't automatically tell you what the whole system is.

The question is: what larger system controls how that property is used, grows, and reproduces itself?

You're naming the brick.

I'm talking about the building.

Mic drop.

What a crazy thing.

Again, we're just reframing the definition of every economic system.

We're reframing socialism.

You know what, dude?

I've like, you need, you owe me $50 because I fucking like have given you crazy levels of patience and education.

Like, I don't want to fucking hear this anymore.

Uno, go ahead, you're literally the last guy.

Yo.

Hello?

Hello?

Hey man, I just first of all I wanna

What's up with the echo?

Fifteen, fourteen, thirteen.

First of all, I want to preface this.

Uh it's hard to think with the echo, but first of all, I want to preface this debate with uh that I think you have good ideas and we are both on the same side.

Thank you for having good ideas and being on the same side as me.

I really love when people tell me that and it just

Thank you for letting me win that one so easily.

Go ahead, nine Ducats.

Hello, what's up, man?

The sky.

I why what or what is the info woke, man?

Uh

Seeing in the dark.

Uh why are you so against uh intersectionality?

You ask ChatGPT why I'm against it.

Why are you asking me when you can just ask ChatGPT?

Because I think it's a strategic failure.

It's like genuinely a question.

I'm like, why wouldn't you just ask Chas GPT why I'm against it?

Intersectionality is like really stupid.

Then

Well, it's just a mode of analysis, no?

No, it's not.

It's like nonsense.

In what way?

'Cause it's basically saying like a black

A black guy is m less a black guy who's poor and like in the ghetto.

And like is getting shot at by police

Is like an oppressor of contrapoints who has billions of dollars because they're a transgender.

It's really fucking stupid.

Fucking stupid ass shit, bro.

It's like an insult to the reality of struggle and the clarity with which oppression actually exists.

Like, it's like basically saying that, like, yeah, if you're like a fucking like billionaire like Jay-Z and you're black,

In some way, like there's literally like a white redneck who's like living in a trailer who and he oppresses you somehow.

Fucking stupid, bro.

Like, why don't you wake the fuck up, bro?

It's like dumb as hell.

I mean, in a liberal sense, I guess it is.

No, it's like in every sense, it's just like fucking stupid and useless.

Like, fucking forget about it, bro.

Fucking forget about it.

Isn't it a matter of priority?

Forget about it, bro.

Like, socialists or communists can literally just be like, yo, you know, obviously we should respect women and, you know, not demean them.

And we should have respect for them.

Have respect for everyone.

Don't torture and abuse people for their background and don't be abusive.

And that's it.

That's all you need to say.

Like, don't make this stupid nonsense idea that, you know, a skinny person oppresses a fat ass or something.

It's like, it's so stupid, bro.

I don't even need to hear that shit.

Like, cisgenders are oppressing transgenders.

No, they're not.

Just shut up.

That's not how the fucking world works.

The world works where the oppressors are oppressing the oppressed objectively, materially, and it's actually clear.

Clearly rooted in a specific mode of production.

It's not some like, My identity is Charizard and yours is Squirtle.

Squirtle is oppressed by Charizard and therefore X equals B.

It's like fucking stupid, bro.

Like nobody needs to hear that shit.

Just fucking put the fucking fries in the bag with that shit.

All right, I just wanted to hear your perspective, man.

That's all.

See you later.

It's like how much facts am I spitting though?

It's like such facts.

I don't even have patience to think about this shit.

Joy, what's up?

Appreciate you, man.

What do I think of the Saudi Turkey-Pakistan Defense Treaty?

What do I think of it?

The Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Defense Treaty.

The Saudi Pakistan-Turkey Defense Treaty.

It's like

Sarto.

It's like NATO.

It's Sarto.

Sarto.

Sarto!

Yes, sir!

Sarto!

We are doing Sarto!

Sardo!

Yes, sir!

Yes, sir!

Yes, sir.

Yes sir, we will protect Israel.

Yes sir.

Southo is rising.

Sarto is rising.

Rising of Sarto

We are the new defense treat It's like just for fucking LARPers online to give a shit about.

First of all, Turkey does not give a shit about Saudi Arabia.

I know Turks do not give a fuck about Saudi Arabia.

All the great Turks are, they hate the Saudis.

Pakistan's cool, but nobody, like anything where they're Saudi Arabia.

If honestly, it was just Turkey and Pakistan, it'd be cool.

But like, I'm not taking some shit seriously with Saudi Arabia in it.

I'm just not.

I just love the LARPers online.

The fake Sunni LARPers that are like, now it is our time.

Now it is our time.

Bro, just put stop.

Just stop the LARP.

Stop the larp, man.

What do I think of Slavoj Žižek?

AAAAAAAAAAAAA

Yeah.

Bro, I um

Sing a C chanty.

I don't know any.

I don't know any sea shanties.

Fuck you guys keep telling me to sing a sh a she shanty.

A sea shanty?

A sea shanty.

I don't know how to fucking even say that shit.

Like let me look it up, I don't fucking know bro.

I don't fucking know.

America Against America, I have read some of that.

Shanty it up.

I got a oh, I got a sea shanty actually.

This is actually sea shanty status.

Fjurel Isabel, some shit we'll be singing on the high seas.

He'll be singing this shit on the high seas.

She smelled your head.

In land.

This is the part where everybody just locked the fuck in.

We all know and see each other.

This is the part where we're all locked the fuck in.

We see each other.

We're like, we got this shit.

Don't worry.

Go ahead.

Oh well we

Piorella Isabel be spying for Israel in Lebanon.

Straight up, she was.

She fucking was leaking shit to the Mossad.

She's a fucking bitch.

Anyway, guys, goodbye, Tic Tac.

Forever.

Not forever, just soon.

Theoretical.

We all know she smell.

Theoret.

Imagine I upload this to Spotify.

Am I g like, what will she do?

If I upload this shit, it's going on Instagram, Spotify, fucking Apple Music, everything.

And this imagine if it went viral.

Imagine if it started trending.

Imagine this song about Fiorella start trending just because it goes hard.

Like it might, you know.

Fiorella Isabelle.

We all know she straight up does smell.

She does smell.

Yes, she does smell.

The women who were in her room that had to stay with her in Lebanon.

They didn't they had no dog in any race, and they were like, That woman smells so fucking bad, I had to leave.

She smelled so terrible, it was like unbearable.

She really does smell terrible, like apparently.

That's not even a joke, bro.

Like, she smells, bro.

She stank.

She's stank, bro.

I don't even know why she stank so bad, but she's stank.

Anyway, y'all.

It's a sea shanty.

All right, guys.

Guys, just trust that I got this shit on.

The conclusion is trust that I got this shit on lock.

I know what I'm doing with this Islam shit.

I know it sounds wacky and crazy, and it is what it is, but it's like, I just, I, I just think that there we'll see.

Give me like six months to cook.

Give me six months.

If six months from now I'm not vindicated, then I'll take the L, you know?

Guys, goodbye.

Uh see you.

Tuesday.

Bye.