🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

Welcome everyone.

to the headquarters of the resistance.

Headquarters of the Resistance, news coverage, uncensored, completely off the chain, on kick.

What's up?

Got a lot of things to cover today.

Although I want to do a Twitter space with Jackson, but

Let's see w what he says.

I just let him know I want to do a Twitter space.

And I want to debate Zionists.

I want to debate them.

So that's on the agenda today.

That's on the itinerary.

Wanna preface this also by saying I'm tired as fuck.

Like I'm about to get knocked out.

I didn't sleep, so I'm just fucking crazy tired.

All right.

Just letting you guys know that.

But uh

streamed earlier than usual.

And I told you guys I'd stream early.

And this is a good start, right?

Maybe tomorrow we'll do at 6 p.m.

Who knows?

But uh

There's things I want to talk about.

There's definitely things I want to talk about.

No, I didn't eat any yogurt actually.

The things I want to mention and talk about.

Are related to the question.

Yo, Joe Sizzlag, let's go!

Let's go!

We are truly entering.

he said.

We are truly entering a profound era.

Sorry, I have gag it's not gag reflex, it's fucking uh

Protein what is it called?

Burping, whatever that's called.

Where I'm I've liked the hiccups and shit.

Gastrointestinal adverse reaction.

So bear with me.

Acid reflex.

Exactly.

That's what it is.

Anyway, I want to let you guys know something.

We are entering into a profound new era.

One that is both exciting as it is scary, strange, unforeseen.

Surreal

Wondrous.

There's many words I could use to describe it, but we are definitely

reaching beyond the threshold of what's normal.

Uh, in a sense you could put it like this We're not in Kansas any more.

We are definitely not in Kansas anymore.

The end of the state of Israel is upon us, but that's not even the beginning.

That's not even the beginning.

The real beginning

Are the great powers

the great pre modern powers of the world, reforming, struggling, clashing, and struggling to be born.

And I say this with a great degree of pessimism.

As it regards humanitarianism.

The war in the Middle East will extend far beyond

Israel's lifetime, and I can promise you that,

It'll go far beyond Israel.

And you'll see in the Middle East ancient empires struggling to be reformed.

Reborn, I should say.

And there's no telling what that's going to look like.

But it has the possibility.

Thank you so much, Anonymous.

Whether you like them or not, launched a global revolution.

Or marked one.

Now I'm not one to be a conspiracy theorist, but I mean I am, but

I don't believe this was done without the knowledge of Iran or without the knowledge of Russia and China.

Syria, the Syrian civil war, was probably Lionel, let's go!

The Syrian civil war.

was probably the most profound geopolitical event of the twenty tens.

And it was at that moment that I believe.

Russia, Turkey, and Iran came to the drawing table and decided

How they were gonna draw up the new maps of the Middle East.

Maybe it's not that direct, but they came together and came upon an agreement of how things are going to develop

And I believe this.

I believe Syria was the game changer.

In other words, I believe the present war.

That is

Brewing and developing.

In Palestine.

Has its origins in Syria and in the Syrian civil war.

And the powers that are behind this, it goes far deeper than you could possibly imagine.

But I also want to say that in the post Zionist world,

We are

We are approaching the end.

of the so-called central dialectic of so called Judeo-Christian civilization, of Christianity struggling with its Old Testament premises, as Marx would write about in the Jewish question.

That is no longer what is central to the world.

And as such,

And perhaps an entire era of European history of obsessing over the internal Jew is over.

It is simply not at the center of the world anymore.

There's new civilizations emerging.

Which have their own

Struggle.

their own sense of impossibilities, identity,

And culture

which are beyond the West, the so called Judeo Christian West.

And I want everyone to understand that this is not about.

I mean, I've said this many times, this is not about Jews.

It's not even necessarily about Israelis.

Israelis.

It's a made-up identity.

It's not even about the Jews in Israel, per se.

Majority of the Jews in Israel are pawns.

Sheep.

the real elites behind the Zionist entity,

Go far beyond that region.

And so the war playing out is between the unipolar world order, whose headquarters is in Israel, and the multipolar world order.

And as I pointed out in my post, Israel will collapse as a state.

It's not going to be a an attack on Jewish people in Is in in Palestine.

But it's going to be a collapse of that entity, that state, that government, that military machine and security apparatus.

And it's going to be replaced probably

uh with a with a global DMZ, a a British Mandate two point zero, except headed by the UN, probably Russia, America, Saudi Arabia and Iran will oversee a transition into a new kind of state.

and it will simply change form.

It will change form.

And this is not an ideal outcome, obviously, but I'm just giving my realistic appraisal.

Because many people think that the Zionist entity will use the Samson option and start nuking people, and I don't believe that.

I don't believe that, because Zionism is not at the top of the pyramid of global power.

This is what the idiot right-wingers want you to think, but it's not.

Zionism is not at the top of the pyramid.

I repeat, Zionism is not at the top of the pyramid.

Just like apartheid wasn't, and just like Rhodesia wasn't, and just like Nazism wasn't.

Zionism is a tool of the real.

unipolar elites of the so called New World Order, the international capitalist class.

So at the hour in which the Zionist entity is going to collapse, they're not going to use nukes.

They're going to try to renegotiate, just like South Africa did.

Mind you guys, South Africa had nuclear weapons.

And what happened to the apartheid state?

It was renegotiated in a way favorable to the international capitalist class.

So that is what they're going to try to do in the case of Israel.

They're not going to use nukes.

It won't happen.

It won't happen.

Because there's a country, I don't know if you've heard of it, it's called Saudi Arabia.

Which is one of the most important puzzle pieces, one of the most important linchpins of the world we live in.

and the international ruling class in its interests.

Saudi Aramco.

And I think Saudi Ara Saudi Arabia will play a big part in renegotiating the new terms of uh the occupied Palestine.

And I was thinking about something today.

And it's like

People think that Jews are the ultimate evil.

They say Jews are narcissists, they only care about themselves, they're ruthless and brutal to everyone around them.

And I think to myself and I say

What suckers?

What soccers?

Because the most brutal

most brutal fucking people.

The most ruthless, conniving, cunning, cannibalistic people.

Our people.

And the whole thing of

The Jewish scapegoat

It's like it makes you fucking forget the fact that human nature is fucking evil most of the time.

People are so fucking brutal and it's not even funny.

Join the IDF Twitter space.

Are they taking debates?

If they're taking debates, I'll do it.

But it's like no, motherfucker, human beings are fucking evil as fuck.

And they will go to extreme lengths.

Extreme, extreme lengths.

To do evil.

So it's not a Jewish thing.

And I hope everyone keeps that in mind.

And I hope everyone remembers that the criminal violence of the Zionist state.

Is not extraordinary in the history.

of colonial, imperialist violence.

By the powers that be.

Evil, yes.

I'm thinking of these matters.

We're witnessing an era.

of multipolarity of the revival of ancient civilizations.

rising from the ashes.

And with this

A new ground of how we understand conflict and what we make of conflict.

and contradiction.

and the central antagonisms underlying human society.

Give me a second, I have to fucking

I'm congested and um I have like huge acid reflex.

Give me a sec.

I hope your attentions fan is capable of waiting.

Debater and so Q, really.

Really?

No way.

Lion of Zion.

What is this?

Hello.

This has gotta be a troll.

What's going on?

Hello?

Your mic is not working, you're muted, just like the IDF.

Did your mic have some weather conditions that are preventing you from entering this debate, delaying it?

What's going on?

Ugh.

Fix your fucking mic.

I can't hear you, no one can hear you.

Go on Discord settings and make sure the output is good.

Fuck.

This is so annoying.

This is so annoying.

Fix your mic.

Cannot hear you.

I know it shows he's talking, but it there's no output.

So that means there's no output.

Is this my problem?

Let me see.

Settings.

Voice and video output.

Uh

Hello?

Speak again.

No, this is my problem.

What the fuck?

Speak again.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you guys hear him?

Hello?

You guys can hear him?

Okay.

Alright, what's going on?

Alright, so I could already tell you're the fucking Russia defender.

I'm a usual.

I'm a usual.

Yep.

Yeah, you're Yankee Tangies bully.

Alright, so I knew it.

I knew it was going to be a troll.

I'm not trolling, though.

Okay, what's going on?

Alright, so specifically, I wanted to debate you and make a broader point to the left on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to be clear, though.

I'm not a Zionist.

I don't believe in like a homeland for Jewish people.

I don't believe in any of that.

I think that's just like religious nonsense.

I don't care about Zionism, but I do find it troubling that a lot of people are calling what's happening in Israel resistance or like breaking open the prison gates when that's not really what's happening on the ground.

And I think it's wrong to say that and not support Israel in this.

So what's going on?

Um I believe what's happening is that the British made a big mistake and c just like with India and Pakistan created uh uh conditions that would lead to a conflict.

And additionally, I also believe that the Palestinians have dele delegitimized a lot of their struggle by resorting to uh an incredible amount of violence and civilians and the targeting of destroying Israel as a state and destroying Jewish as a people and a religion, as opposed to trying to fight for autonomy or existence.

Um, well first of all, I think a lot of the so called atrocities simply cannot be confirmed and I I don't really see any evidence that they're just killing civilians.

They killed civilians willy-nilly.

I haven't seen any evidence of that.

The festival attack was pretty well documented though.

Right, but if you look at the videos, there's crowds of uh Israeli police among the uh there's p Israeli police among the crowds where they're exchanging fire.

So it looked like it was people got caught up in the cos crossfire rather than like um straight up massacre.

Yeah, well that's true, but there's also a video of like for instance someone sticking their head up and then one of the militants just shooting him right in the head.

Like that there's video of that.

Well it was a it was an exchange of fire, so I don't think it was uh an attack on civilians.

Yeah, but they just went into a festival and then there was a big gunfight.

There were no soldiers there at the time.

Like, where were the soldiers?

I don't know.

That wasn't a military base.

It doesn't Well how did two hundred and sixty people die though?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know where these numbers come from.

I don't know what anything where any of this comes from.

I mean, they claim that they've decapitated 40 babies.

Yeah, but we can't confirm that entirely, so I don't wanna die in the beat.

Was all of it on footage?

Um, there's a good amount of footage on it.

I don't know about everything else.

The festival was right next to a strategic base, from what I know.

And

I think they wanted to take hostages, I think that's what happened, and then they got into a shootout with Israeli police and then uh civilians got cro caught in the crossfire.

But why do you think Hamas is justified in taking random, like, Canadian and random people as civilians?

Uh, to negotiate the release the to negotiate the release of prisoners, uh, who are withheld without trial, a lot of them are innocent in Israeli prisons.

First of all, but these people are not part of that as a leverage against uh

Attacking civilians in Gaza.

Yeah, but Israel's trying to avoid attacking civilians in Gaza.

Hamas are doing the opposite.

No, they're not.

We they're clearly not, dude.

It's like a thousand people already died at least.

Well, why are they trying to create a humanitarian corridor in the southern Gaza though?

They're not because they're bombing convoys, transporting civilians to the south.

They're preventing roadways from getting there, and they're straight up killing people just trying to flee.

So it's like no, the roadways are those roadblocks were created by Hamas.

And second, that's been debunked.

The explosion of the convoy literally came from the Hamas government and the Gaza Health Ministry.

That didn't come from any independent source.

There's no evidence to suggest Hamas bombed civilians fleeing to the south.

There's none.

Well, what's the evidence Israel bombed them?

Plenty.

There's a footage of a missile attack on a civilian uh truck.

No.

That's not true.

Yes, there is.

There really is.

Now what about the woman who's like h taken hostage and paraded around the streets?

Like you support like sh that like she was raped and then put on a truck?

I don't see any evidence.

I think that parading her, she was injured by the way, not killed.

I think that is pretty brutal.

That's true.

And it's not that I support it.

It's just that I'm not in a position to judge because I don't live in Gaza and I couldn't possibly understand.

Do I find it acceptable?

No, I personally don't.

But I understand the limitations of my perspective because how could I understand what it's like to be in Gaza living under a blockade, an illegal blockade, where people can't get medical treatment, they have no future, nothing.

They're just they can't do shit, basically, right?

It's like they're in a prison camp.

Yeah, but Iran created all those conditions, though.

Iran is the reason that those conditions were.

All Iran did was give the Palestinians the ability to fight back and have leverage to fight back.

Yeah, but they're striking like Tel Aviv.

They're not striking military targets.

There's open military targets for Israel.

And it's a war.

The war is very ugly.

Okay, why can't Israel do that?

Why can't Israel just say that to make that argument?

Well, Israel's been doing that, and that's why they see fit to Stalin, Barry and Gulang, let's go.

Israel has been doing that for over 70 years.

They've been killing civilians and committing atrocities.

And striking Tel Aviv is warfare.

These are if you impose a blockade on a people, that alone.

Is a form of warfare, first of all.

Yeah, but this w there's people in the West Bank are not being bombed.

They're not being killed.

Why do you think that is?

It's because they don't elect terrorists into the government and Iran is not backing like these giant market attacks, right?

Like the people who are getting bombs.

They're regularly being brutalized, shot at, imprisoned, kicked out of their homes, evicted, and so on and so on.

Yeah, but the w the reason the West Bank was occupied in the first place is 'cause these nations keep trying to invade Israel, right?

They keep trying to attack Israel through the West Bank and then they occupy it.

The reason they keep trying to attack Israel is because of the Napka, where Palestinians were expelled from their homes and all these Arab countries absorbed all the refugees and they see it as a uh

A crime against their own people.

Yeah, but the Arabs in um Palestine never accepted a Jewish state, and that's what happened, like, right?

Like, they never wanted a Jewish state, but well, wha why why the Jews are okay with an Arab state?

Why sh well

Uh, the thing about an Arab state, where whether you're an Arab national, I'm not personally, but an Arab, at least an Arab state, allows for Jews to live in it who are Arab.

Like Mizrahi, they don't Arab anymore, but Mizrahi, for all intended per intensive purposes, were considered Arabs by their neighbors.

They were just Arab Jews.

What should happen to the Ashkenazis, though?

What should happen to them?

Uh what do you mean?

They they they most they all came they didn't all come during the creation of Israel, a lot of them came after.

Right.

They were a minority.

Um what do you well what what timeline are we working with?

Because they came from Bad Empanada is saying that all these people, right, they're all settlers.

Like even the civilians, even though like the people who flew in Israel, these are all settlers and they're deserving of like, you know, being removed, killed.

Like is that your position, or do you take a different position from Bad Empanada?

I don't know what he's talking about, but it is not the position from what I know of even Hamas to expel the PFLP, Hamas.

They're not saying they want to expel all the Jews living in Israel.

There are real settlers in Israel who are stealing Palestinian land.

They definitely want a right of return and a rearrangement of.

Who gets to live where, definitely.

But as far as outright expelling all the Jews, I haven't seen any evidence that that's what I'm saying.

Have you read Article 7 of Hamas's Charter?

Have you read that?

Hamas's Charter was revised in 2817, so but their actions haven't changed, though, from the Charter.

Like, they're still trying to kill Jews.

And we've seen that October 7th, right?

Didn't we see them try to do that?

It's it's if they were trying to kill Jews, they would be doing it internationally.

It's not about Jews, it's about this.

Well, that's what they did on Friday 13th.

They called for a global day of jihad.

Didn't they do that?

So, Laura Loomer and a lot of people were making a fuss about that.

And you know, as well as I, that was just a protest.

That was a call for.

Someone got killed, though.

Wait, someone got murdered in France.

Like, there was a person murdered in France.

There was an Israeli diplomat was stabbed in China as well.

Israeli diplomats were not.

Not my brother, there was a child in Chicago who was a Palestinian child who was killed by someone who believed in this Global Day of Jihad theory.

And they killed a Palestinian child over it in Chicago.

Yeah, but did Israel ever call for a global attack on Arabs in the world?

Like, did they do that?

They didn't call for one, they did one.

How?

When they engaged in the Nopka, they they declared war on the entire region.

Yeah, but they just want like that's not their land though like like the Palestinians and Israelis don't have a right to that land it was occupied by the Ottomans and then the and the the British it is their land it is their land because even under the Ottomans it was still their homes it was still their olive gardens it was still their uh sorry their olive trees it was still their um towns and you know it's not like it it was theirs for all intents and purposes that's where they lived it belonged to them it was their life their culture it was theirs why does that matter though the British were colonizers who came and

were illegitimate colonizers, obviously, and then uh to continue their colonialism

They created Israel.

To manage it for them.

Yeah, but do you th do you believe that the Zionist Jews who mass settled um during the British Empire uh control of it, do you believe they had the right to do that?

Those those Jewish settlers?

No, at the time I don't think they had a right to do it.

Why?

Because what gives them the right to go to another country randomly and just take land from people?

Well, isn't that what's happening now in Europe and America?

People are coming to these countries.

They're coming as legal immigrants and the government is allowing that.

If you want to change the yeah, well the British government allowed that.

The British government allowed the settlers to come in though.

The British government was an occupier and a colonizer.

Yeah, but that's never been in those people.

Like, they've never controlled that.

So, why do they have the right to govern what it is?

They like do the Inner Mongolians have the right to control the ship.

I don't think you know how the Ottoman Empire worked.

They were in control of it.

The Ottomans were not randomly importing random groups to come and take people's homes.

There was a stability and order that existed.

That was an unwritten law that respected people's way of life and not disrupted.

Yeah, but d why do they have the right to say that they can't come though?

Why do the Arabs get to say Jews can't be here?

Isn't that just ethno-nationalism?

You uh so so Jews cannot come to a place, whether they're Jews or otherwise, settle there, claim it's their land, and then establish a state w as all states are founded on violence and say this is ours and not yours.

They can't do that.

Why not?

I mean, put it technically they can, but they can't do it without consequences.

You can't expect people not to fight back.

Yeah, but w doesn't that just go down to like might mix right, that Jews can do what they want, Arabs can do what they want and no one's like in the right.

In practice, that is how it works.

So why do you condemn Israel and say there's not their land?

Uh because I recognize Israel's a criminal anti-human state, but at the end of the day, me recognizing that isn't ultimately what's gonna lead to Israel's destruction.

What's gonna lead to Israel's destruction is being overpowered by the actual regional forces, which it can't it can't fight all of them.

Yeah, but why should Israel be destroyed though?

Why why should you destroy Israel?

Because it's incompatible with the form of humanity that exists in that region, with the form of civilization that exists there.

It's just not.

But that sounds like so you're basically saying that you don't want Jews to be in the Middle East.

You don't want them to have their own sovereignty.

It's not about Jews.

It's about an artificially contrived colonial state.

And when I say that, I mean the state of Israel is not based in any authentic community.

It's not based in any authentic civilization.

It's not based in any kind of social relations that are indigenous to the region.

It's a total...

Neither is America, though.

I think America is different, though, because while America lacks a few of those things I talked about, like a fully fledged civilization and social bonds and stuff, America is searching for one, right?

At least America is searching for one.

And it has an open door where like there's multiple possibilities of what that could look like.

That's why America has all these different communities and ways of life and searching for a way of life.

Israel is an artificial form of statehood, which has a false sense of certainty that it is a real country, a real nation, a real state, without having the material premises and conditions for being that.

Right, but I I'm saying that I don't believe most states, at least a lot of states, like states like Brazil or states like Jordan, like a lot of these states are just made up borders, made up like countries.

Like a lot of countries are created this way.

Like I don't think that like why can't we just have a three statement?

I think if you look at Brazil, I think there's an interaction, for example, between the Portuguese Empire and indigenous people and they fuse together and there is an organic process of civilization you see in Latin America from the mixture of those elements.

Israel has the idea of a state just founded on Jewish identity is incompatible with Judaism, first of all.

Second of all, is premised on the view that Jews are a nation, which is not based in reality.

How can Jews be a nation?

In the same way Armenians are a nation, right?

Not not at all, because Jews all around the world differ from each other as far as their national uh the nations they belong to.

They're not one nation.

They all yeah, but from their perspective it's a religious argument.

They all derive from Abraham, right?

It's the same religion, sure, but Judaism has different forms across the different national contexts.

Well then it's not strictly ethno-nationalist, right?

You have the three main divisions of Ashkenazi, Mizrahi and uh Sephardic.

Right.

And then Ethiopian, I don't know if that counts as Mizrahi or whatever.

What do you think unites them as Jews?

What do you think they're arguing?

Nothing.

Nothing unites them.

It's totally synthetic.

I mean, their religion unites them, but they have no na nation which unites them.

Yeah, but like why like look at the Syria like Syrian Arab Republic, the Egyptian Arab Republic, like these countries explicitly define themselves as Arab Republics.

So why can't they call themselves a Jewish state?

Because Arabs are indigenous to that region.

They've been living there.

So what?

So, the land and the people living there have a connection, a sacred connection to each other.

But that comes one day and is gone the next, though.

Like, why does that matter?

Well, even if that's true, that has to happen in an organic historical fashion, a way that makes sense as far as people's way of life is concerned.

You can't, you don't just have this thing where you artificially decide to make up a state, plant it in a region it's not indigenous to, and then say, okay, we have our own nation now.

It's circumventing and leapfrogging over all of the historical laws of development of nations and countries.

Yeah, but that was 75 years ago.

Like, we can't roll like you can't roll back the clock, right?

And go back to the Belford Declaration or go back to 1948.

Like, all that happened, right?

So, you can't, like, so are you arguing that you're just like, you can't roll back the clock?

But then again, Israel was never a complete completed project.

Zionism was never successful because of the Palestinian issue, which was never resolved.

So, on account of that same issue, it will be the demise of Israel as a state.

But why can't you just resolve the issue peacefully with the two s two states, one Palestinian state and one Jewish state?

Why can't you just do that?

Yeah, well, the alternative is to like let Hamas and Hezbollah roll into Israel and like mass deport or genocide everyone.

Like what what what is the solution?

That's not what they're gonna that's not what they would do.

You don't think if Hamas was in Tel Aviv they wouldn't just start killing Jews?

You don't think that?

N I don't think that.

I think what would happen is that bigger powers would immediately intervene and they would negotiate the dismantlement of the Zionist state.

Yeah, but do you really believe that Jews are going to be safe in the Middle East if they don't have a state?

Like, do you think they will be safe?

They will be as safe as everyone else.

They will be no less safe or no more safe than everyone else living in the region.

And if you can't take that risk of, then you don't belong in the Middle East.

If you're not willing to be in the Middle East and commit to building civilization and states that are proper to that region, which involves war, there's going to be wars, there's going to be conflicts, it's going to be dangerous if you can't handle that, it's called you migrate out, you leave.

So they either they're so they either they get genocided or they don't.

They don't they're not gonna get genocided, but what I'm trying to say is they will not have any more protection than anyone else has, than the Palestinians have.

They have to find a way to coexist.

And uh build a state

Uh for the people in the region.

Yeah, but from the Israeli perspective, why would they want to just let, like, Hamas and Hezbollah, like, destroy Israel and then become, like, an ethnic minority in the middle of the Middle East?

Why would they want that?

Because Israel is an illegitimate state.

Well, who determines what makes it a legitimate or illegitimate state, though?

The people who live on the land.

Well, the Jewish people there determine that it is legitimate, though.

Well, they're not the only people living on the land of the Sham or the Levant or Greater Syria.

So why can't they have their land and the other people have their land?

Because the division is artificial.

What gives them the right to put up a wall and say, this is ours?

Nobody respects that.

Nobody recognizes that.

Well, all the borders were created, all most of the borders were just created by colonial powers.

So the borders were out of the window of the world.

You're exactly right.

I agree.

And Israel is part of that.

So when people in the region want to create borders or states that reflect their national character or their civilization, that will involve dissolving Israel.

And it will involve uh dissolving most of the borders ultimately.

Yeah, but th then that's not really objective, right?

It's just might makes right.

This is the law of history.

So then why is there any moral case against, um, like, why is there a moral case against Israel?

Why can't we just say red team, blue team?

I'm team Israel, I'm team Palestine.

Why is there anything else?

Because morality is not abstracted from the material premises of the morality.

Like, Israel is.

You think there's a moral equivalence between Hamas and the mighty?

I'm going to put it to you this way.

Humanity is a form of might.

Humanity is a mighty thing.

Human beings want to establish an existence worthy of their historical reality and character.

Okay, and that's a form of might.

And when you attempt to suppress them for that and occupy them and attack them and beat them down.

That is a form of criminal violence and antihuman savagery which will this is what Israel's doing.

Israel's vain attempts to stop the regional powers in that region from forming

Speak for themselves.

You see it in how they brutalize and attack the Palestinian people.

The reason they're doing that is because they're trying to stem the tide of something that will ultimately prevail in the end.

Yeah, but you you realize that Israel has like made calls to different places and tried to well reduce civilian casualties extensively, whereas Hamas just doesn't care.

Like isn't there a moral difference between trying to actively stop civilian casualties versus just not caring?

Let's assume that's a moral difference there.

Let's assume that's true.

Israel has the higher ground in terms of strength, so it can't it ha it can afford to be quote unquote more moral.

No, it can't because it's surrounded by enemies.

This is immaterial right now.

Hamas is in Gaza, which is an open-air prison.

It's under a blockade.

Israel is occupying all of Palestine, has unlimited access to unlimited resources with the help of the world's greatest power.

Of course, they're going to be held to a different standard and possess more of a responsibility by the international community and even by the United States itself to not be brutal.

That's what happens when you're in a position of, temporarily speaking, more power.

Yeah, but you're uh like the Israeli left's position, right, your position or many other pro-Palestine positions happened in two thousand five, right?

Israel withdrew from Gaza and the result of that was that I Iran came in, uh Hamas came in and then started trying to destroy Israel.

So like from their perspective, why would they want to stop the settlements and withdrawing for the from the occupation?

Never ended.

Every time they uh like give one inch of that, like release parts of that occupation, it just they they release any of it.

When have they done that in 2005 when they created the Palestinian Authority and they withdrew from Gaza and the Israeli government actually destroyed settlements of Jewish settlers in Gaza?

They actually did that.

This was after the intifada that rocked Israel and they had no choice.

That was a concession of war.

Yeah, but regardless, they ga that happened and then it things got worse, right?

Would you agree it got worse for Israel once they did that?

It doesn't matter if it got worse, the strategic objectives of the Palestinian people were not fulfilled, and they will seek to fulfil them to the bitter end, which is a right of return.

So then why doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself?

Doesn't it have the right to defend itself from that?

Or should it just get killed, like or destroyed?

Like shouldn't it defend itself from that?

The state of Israel has no moral right to defend itself.

People have the right to defend their lives, but the state, the Zionist entity, the military machine, the Israeli government has no right to defend the territories quote unquote defend its claim to the territories it occupies immorally and illegally.

Well, how is it immoral?

Because it's an outright robbery of people's land.

Okay, but why don't you condemn the Ottomans or the British for doing that too?

I do condemn the British.

I don't condemn the Ottomans because, first of all, the notion of nation-states and national sovereignty did not exist in the pre-modern period.

And there was a code of honor and there were laws governing rights of conquest that were implicit and organic to people living in that region.

And it made sense to them.

It wasn't like some completely alien power came and you know, acts history unfolds.

In an organic fashion, in a way, becoming of the development of civilization.

Colonialism, but we don't live in a world of uh what organic states anymore, though.

Like, like, we have micro states, we have like South and North Korea, like, none of this stuff is an era of organic civilization state is coming back.

And Israel will not be spared from that uh resurrection.

Is that preferable?

Do you want civilizational states more?

Yes.

Yeah, why do you want that more than what we have now?

Because I believe that is what history is striving toward, and that is what people in the region are striving for, and that is what that's the direction defining the arrow of world history, is the resurrection of the world's most ancient states and powers and empires.

What if like that doesn't account for like Brazil or America or a country that don't have a rich civilizational history though, right?

We're building one here in America.

We will pursue that.

We will pursue.

Why can't Israel build one?

Why can't Israel build one?

Because it's because it's in a crowded neighborhood.

That's why.

Because it's not in the right neighborhood to do that.

If Jews in Israel wanted to come to the US and participate in our civilization building, they could have come and done that.

But they went to somewhere that was already.

Struggling to deal with the modern world in its own way, and it didn't work for them.

America has the largest US population outside of Israel, right?

Like a lot of them have decided to do that.

And that's fine.

There's nothing wrong with American Jews.

Why can't they be in Israel though?

Like, why do they have to just give up their s state there?

Because it's not their land.

Yeah, but I guess we loop on this, like, who determines, like, leg there's no legitimate nobody has a legitimate claim to any land, it's like that's not a people have claim to land based on the laws of history.

But if you go with the laws of history, the Jews have had it far longer than another group.

Like, that's not really an argument in favor of having it, right?

It's not a problem.

Under what circumstances

Were Jews expelled from that land, and under what circumstances did they return?

That's what we're talking about.

Yeah, but like isn't the historical argument kind of like useless because like can't you can't just say hey I was I'm Jewish and my people were here two thousand years ago.

By history now I'm taking your house to be clear by history I don't just mean the past in general.

I mean history in the sense of how people create actively through time a shared reality.

So it's not just about the past, it's about the inheritance of the past.

And the inheritance is what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about something ha that happened thousands of years ago.

I'm talking about people living in communities, living in civilizations in ways that made sense to them, in ways that reproduce their conditions of subsistence, in relations of production that were commensurate with their humanity and their lived existence.

And some abrupt artificial synthetic project, which is a creation of modern technology that comes, uproots them from all of that.

and throws them into this abyss of uh negalism, confusion and chaos.

Strella's terny, let's go.

Yeah, but like I've said before, it seems like that's the way the world is now.

Like Luxembourg is not a real civilizational state.

You're right.

Singapore is not a real state.

These are not real states, right?

Do not envision a future for Luxembourg.

But we live in a state that is not like legitimate.

Like our state is not created upon like some tribal ancestor or whatever.

Like we took over the land.

Maybe not you, but or me, but I guess like the colonists that came here.

That's true.

But I think the difference.

You can't change that.

Like you can't do land back, right?

Like are you arguing for land back or?

It's true that the American the landmass upon which we live was stolen.

But at the same time, the United States of America is not a definite project.

Meaning the land, yes, was stolen unjustly and many indigenous people were dispossessed.

But at the same time, that was not on the basis of some kind of definite pretense to nationhood or statehood.

It's an open door as far as what America will be.

So in this strict sense,

We cannot say America is like Israel because America is not a synthetic nation because its national identity is not defined yet completely.

And the future of an American national identity probably will involve taking cues, learning from the wisdom of indigenous people and their sacred relation to the land that is here.

Why would you say it's stolen?

Why would you say the land is stolen, though?

In America?

Yeah.

Because with the westward expansion, indigenous peoples were driven from their lands in the Jacksonian.

uh Indian Removal Act, they were removed from the lands in which they lived, they were sent to the west of the Mississippi, and then afterwards they were driven out even from there by uh westward expansion and settlement.

Right, but how do you think, like, for instance, let me ask you this?

China has a 91% ethnic Han majority, right?

That majority comes from, like, actually, if you go through the history of this, for instance, there was a Jia people who, um, there was Ron Min, who is an emperor.

I don't want to go through all the history, but he basically said that these people are part of the five barbarians, right?

These five ethnic groups in China that are non-Han.

So he ordered the extermination of this people, right?

And also the extermination of people who were perceived to be non-Han at the time, right?

And there's many examples of things like this happening in China.

So the Han majority only exists synthetically through mass ethnic cleansing and genocide as well.

So can you call China a legitimate state either?

I'm not condemning China for it.

I'm just saying this is kind of how history is.

I think that's a lot of people who aren't sure.

What synthetic means organic history does involve a lot of violence.

By the way, what you say is not really accurate, but.

Regardless, history doesn't mean it's devoid of violence.

But when we're talking about synthetic, we're talking about an attempt to create a natural uh nation or history in an inauthentic way.

So the conditions in which a country like Israel country like Israel comes about is not the same as the conditions in which China comes about.

Notwithstanding though.

What defines it as legitimate is the authentic process in which a people struggle to realize an existence out of themselves, struggle to make sense of their being, of their material conditions, of their history, of their past, of their common belonging, their common tongue, their language, their relations, the sense of civilization, how people treat each other, how people coexist, how people live, how people live in relation to land, not just with other people.

And this is an organic process which becomes ingrained in people's unconscious and becomes part of what they are, literally part of their humanity.

Zionism was the intention to create that from scratch artificially because the problems of Jews in Europe they decided Herzo and others decided on the intellectual basis I guess that Jews are nation we're gonna try to create a Jewish nation in Palestine we have no connection to that land

We're going to go there, settle it.

And we're going to try to emulate

The process of how a people come to be a nation.

And it's a total synthetic, fake, inauthentic because it comes from their limited understanding of how nations form.

Nations don't form because people have an intention to synthetically create one from scratch.

They form on the basis of the people's relations becoming commensurate in a way that makes sense to them naturally and organically in relation to geography, in relation to land, and in relation to material relations of production.

Yeah, but th if you look at the Jewish people, they're also kind of in in synthetic or like very weird circumstances, right?

They're not like other people.

It's a religion, but it's a religious.

Like Han Chinese Han Chinese people can call like a place home that they've been for a thousand years.

The Jewish people have been kicked out of like hundreds like like what uh how many countries?

Like they're in kind of synthetic solutions which require synthetic solutions.

Jews have been kicked out of Europe because Europe did not tolerate any non-Christians.

That's why you didn't the the Muslims were only kicked out of Spain, but there's no Muslims kicked out of France or Muslims kicked out of Britain or Muslims kicked out of Germany because mu Muslims were never allowed to be there to begin with.

So Jews who were temporarily tolerated were always kicked out because there was no religious tolerance.

Jews were fierce monotheists, so it makes sense that pagan empires would also persecute them in history.

So Jews, their peculiar equality in nature comes from their religion.

Yeah.

Yeah, but there's like tw there's like twenty six, like what is it, twenty six Arab Muslim states.

Why can't there be one Jewish state there?

Like why can't they have diversity of uh maybe there can be a maybe they should make it in Germany, maybe they should make it uh somewhere else where it's not going to be an obstruction to the development and humanity of the people living in the land in the region.

Why does it have to be?

Because they're not Arab and Muslim, they can't have their own thing.

They have to be Arab and Muslim to be part of it.

Isn't that no, they could be Kurdish or they could be Assyrian or they could be Chaldean or they could be

They could be Mizrahi.

The Persians have their own state.

The Turks have their own state in the region, too, right?

Like, why can't Kurds or Jews have their own thing, too?

Uh because all of these nation states are artificial.

Kurds are not artificial.

You can maybe argue for that for the Jews, but the Kurds have been there for a very long time.

And they've wanted a state for a very long time as well.

Why can't they have their own state?

I'll explain it to you like this.

Because the Kurdish group, just like the Turkish speaking group and the Arab speaking groups, their whole identity was formed in relation to each other, not at each other's expense.

It seems currently.

So the notion that they would have to create a nation state for this fixed identity is stupid.

Why why why should each different group have its own sovereign state?

Why can we not have a state

That is based upon recognition of the difference of uh different peoples.

That's not what that's my point.

That's not what exists in the Middle East.

What you have is Syrian Arab Republic, Libyan Arab Republic, Egyptian Arab Republic.

Like they're allowed to have these Arab Republics, they're allowed to have ninety nine percent Arab Muslims, but you're saying the Jews and the Kurds, they're you're not allowed to do that.

Maybe they won't be allowed by history.

I mean, Iran is not like that.

Iran is a multi ethnic uh empire.

Uh I don't think uh Arab nationalism or Arab nation states will last the test of history.

I don't think they will.

But are they immoral?

But are they so the question of whether uh they're legitimate from let's say the perspective of international law or morality is different from whether they can withstand the test of history.

Those are two completely different questions.

Do you think it's immoral for Egypt to call itself an Egyptian Arab Republic?

No.

Do you think it's immoral for Israel to call itself a Jewish state?

It's immoral for Israel to exist.

Why?

Because even if the Arab nationalism of Egypt is transitory from a historical perspective, that reflects a people organically trying to make sense of who they are, failing maybe in one instance, but nonetheless, it's rooted in them, even if it's their misunderstanding.

But in the case of the Zionist entity, this is a completely artificial country, a state, where people all around the world come and bounded by no common mores or bonds of civilization, coming to settle there and have what kind of existence?

Have an existence based on what?

Based on being Jews?

Well, it's a secular state, so it's not like it's even a religious state, it's not.

So, what connects them?

Well, what that connects them is according to them at least, the Ashkenazi Jew, the Ethiopian Jew, the Maserati Jew, all these Jews and wh although they they were scattered around the world and looked different, all of them can trace back their lineage to Abraham, right?

The the twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve tribes of Israel.

Who cares?

Well, who cares about Arabs doing the same thing?

Like, none of this is Arabs live there.

But that's where they live, that's their home.

Now, but it can change.

Why does it change?

Why would it change?

Why would it change?

Those demographics change.

Arab is not a religion.

Arab is just.

There are Arab Jews.

They may not like to call themselves Jews, but that's what they are.

The Mizrahi Jews in Israel look like me.

They look even more Arab than I do.

Yeah, but they all o or originate from those twelve tribes of Israel, even if they've scattered out and look different now.

It doesn't matter.

That's their religion, of course, but sociologically speaking, they're Arabs.

They eat the same food, they listen to the same music, they have the same culture, more or less, they have a different religion, that's it.

You don't get why uh the Arabs get to have their own thing, but Kurds and Jews don't.

Because Jews are not a nation.

Kurds do have their Kurds historically did have their own lands.

They still have autonomy in Iraq and Syria.

But, um and they they control their communities, they control their lands, but what they don't have is ultimate sovereignty of the whole why is that acceptable though?

It's acceptable because the states that were created in the Middle East were not created under the conditions of reflecting the character of the people in the Middle East.

I mean, look, there's something called natural Syria.

Why is Syria divided?

Why does Jordan exist?

Why does Iraq exist?

Why does Lebanon exist?

All of it's synthetic.

So why why is this?

Why is Israel different?

Because the why why is that?

Because the orientation toward which people in that region are striving.

Is integration and is casting off the legacy of colonialism, not going back to it or deepening it or doubling down on it.

No.

Yeah, it's one state devouring and taking overthrowing the government of another and forcing it under its wing, right?

Isn't that just what imperialists have done forever?

No.

This has nothing to do with European colonialism.

It's a process of organic integration, which I completely support.

Repeat that again?

I'm against small countries.

Wait, wha wh what's wrong with a small country?

You can't be a small country.

No.

And not.

Because it's stupid.

Well what's stupid about it?

I mean look at that.

Because every small country will inevitably act as a parasite either on the region or on the world.

Because no small country can sustain itself.

Only when people pool together their land, their resources and their labor can they create and advance the productive forces.

But when you have a small shithole tiny piece of shit country, how does it support itself?

It supports itself by being a parasite on the world or on the region.

So I'm against small countries.

Yeah, but isn't it nice to like go to a place like Singapore?

Like look how nice Singapore is.

It's a really nice place to be.

Okay, and without the international uh financial system there'd be no Singapore.

There would be no countries without the financial system.

Yes, there would.

China would be here, Russia would be here, Iran would be here, India would be here.

Singapore would still exist.

Maybe it is not because of economic reasons.

It's separated because Singapore is not a state.

Singapore is not a state.

It's not a country.

It's just a city.

That's all it is.

It seems like you have a very arbitrary way of viewing it.

Okay, you're going to tell me Singapore is a real country?

It's not.

Singapore is not a real country.

It's a city.

It's a nice city with an ambiguous sovereign status.

So what?

It's a city.

It's a city which doesn't need to be regulated by other states.

But guess what?

If Singapore ever did anything to offend the sovereignty of any country around it, it'd get gobbled up.

But I don't think it wants to.

You're right.

So it's fine.

There's been plenty of uh city-states in history, and that's fine.

But uh, beautiful.

Aren't city-states beautiful?

Like, look at Rome.

Like, it was I think that was beautiful too.

Rome wasn't a city-state, but regardless, city-states have in the beginning, it was in the beginning, okay.

Basically the Roman Empire came.

Israel's not a city-state, that's the problem.

Right.

It's a small country though, right, so you don't think that should exist?

No.

What about Lebanon?

No.

Different Lebanon, right?

No.

That's a nice country too.

I mean, uh, up until recently, it was very beautiful.

Uh, why why it was beautiful for the Maronites and no one else?

Well, up until a lot of refugees came in and then ex extremist groups came in and there was a civil war, right?

Because it was beautiful only for the Maronites and no one else.

I don't believe that's true.

French Lebanon, have you seen the pictures of French Lebanon and then look at Lebanon today?

You see the difference?

Have you seen the pictures of what my uh the m the Muslims had to live in?

Were the Palestinians?

Well, when the Palestinians came to Lebanon, they broke the political uh the very careful political balance in the country actually because they started to change the religious makeup of the place.

And that's why the civil war happened.

No, they didn't.

And that was the that was the reason for the civil war.

No.

The Shiites had been in Lebanon forever, and they were oppressed by the Maronites.

Same with the Sunnis.

Shias were with the Sun the Christians against the Sunnis, though.

Not really.

At one point.

Not really.

I just don't know why this wait, why are we talking about this?

I forget where we're talking about.

Because small countries are stupid.

I told you, small countries are stupid.

So, why do they exist if they're stupid?

Why would it be created?

They won't exist in the future.

They exist for now because of confusion.

Yeah, but every country exists for now.

No country has a definite future.

China has existed for a long time.

And it could disappear tomorrow though, right?

Like any country.

I doubt it.

Doubt it too, but it can happen.

Probably not.

Why would Luxembourg disappear then?

Isn't that just your opinion though, like on what states are legitimate or not and what should exist?

Isn't that your opinion?

It's not my opinion.

Why can't I just say I just like big country I I just like small countries and I think that they're better.

So we should have more small countries.

Why can't I just say that?

Good luck.

Good luck.

Then you're going back to Mike Makes Right, then.

Like, well, if you can't do it, you shouldn't have it.

Okay.

So what?

You you agree with Matt Mix, right?

Yes.

So if you have the right if you have the ability to rape and pillage a town, should you be able to do it?

You won't be free from the consequences.

Well, what if there are no consequences?

Like, what if a bunch of white men are around like they used to?

There will be consequences.

What if there aren't?

There will be.

Because it's human nature, because human beings are a mighty existence.

Human beings don't just, they're not animals.

There are things that offend the sensibilities of human beings.

These are one of them.

So when you engage in dishonorable acts like this, you will have consequences as far as how others see you and treat you, how your own people would have to cope with that, how you would have to cope with that.

What kind of existence is that?

How are you going to live with yourself and live in a civilized country and society with others if this is your mentality?

Yeah, but what if someone just says, Screw your civilized country, I want my anarchists LARP like people they usually get strung up by rope or beheaded in history.

But what if they don't?

That's my point.

Like morally I'm not saying that.

But because they offend the sensibilities of the people.

Sometimes people agree with evil.

Some people uh they do that evil and they go.

Just like the Tower of Babylon and what happened to it.

Evil has not always gone uh checked.

There's many times in history where evil has gone unchecked.

Sure, but w eventually it can't.

Well, eventually everything can, right?

Like, eventually, every country or every military collapses.

It's just how things are.

But I don't think that you should justify everything by saying, Well, can you keep that town?

Well, then it's yours.

Like, I think we should have rules on this stuff.

I think we should say, Hey, we do.

Maybe this is for you.

This is for me.

We now have rules based on mutual recognition.

And that's fine.

I'm not against that.

Do you agree with the rules-based order of the United States and NATO?

No, that's not rules-based order, that's international law.

That's what ho upholds what what you can have, what you can have.

Russia and China believe in international law.

They have their own interpretation of uh how sovereign countries should establish norms, uh, standards that they hold to one another, about how they should behave.

Uh and that's fine.

You think China should be able to say, Screw it, uh, your international law, I want to take over the whole area of like the sea, take over, like, the EEE zone of Vietnam or Philippines, like parts of that.

You think they should be able to just go in and build artificial islands?

You're okay with it taking them taking over everything?

Yes.

What if Vietnam doesn't like that?

Shouldn't they fight back?

They can try.

What well then the United States backs them and then they win.

So then what?

They won't win.

How do you know they won't win?

Look at Joe Biden.

Yeah, but when Trump comes back, he's gonna be like Trump can't do anything.

Trump doesn't care.

What will he do?

It literally just built one of the most biggest military bases in the Philippines recently.

Like, China's not going to make steps that are.

No one cares.

I just think we should sur respect the sovereignty of countries, that we should respect their ability to Sure, but I I agree, but the sovereignty of a country has to be based in something real, has to be based in something that respects the regional conventions, and the regional convention for thousands of years has been China's the big dog and everyone else is a tributary and that's how it must be.

Yeah, but if they all gang up on China, then they're gonna be able to.

No Muana, let's go!

Yeah, but global politics has changed now.

Like before, like if you were in a region, right, you were kind of screwed.

Now you have like global powers.

China's being very gracious.

China is being very gracious.

China's not telling people they have to change their government or way of life.

All China is saying is you cannot claim this sea because we know if you claim this sea, you're going to allow America to engage in aggression against us.

So you can't do it.

You must respect China's presence.

think the US wants to aggress on China though.

Yes, they do.

Everything that has they've done has been a reaction though.

It's been the Chinese from the beginning America has tried to overthrow the government of China, beginning in probably before this, much before this, but we know beginning with Tiananmen Square, the springtime of nations, they have done everything they can to subvert, uproot and crush and shatter the sovereignty of the Chinese people and the country of China.

No, I just think that Chi the US sees China as a competitor and an adversary, but I don't think the US and that doesn't give them the right to act as an aggressor against China.

What does the U S have to do with China?

Why not?

Wait, why not though?

And under your war view, why can't the US act as an aggressor uh against China?

they by the laws of physics they can, but not without consequences.

Yeah, but what if they say, Screw your consequences?

We're gonna go in and we're gonna stop you from taking Patwon.

Then eat a few hypersonic missiles for breakfast.

Put some sprinkles on it.

Put some sugar on it and milk.

Do you think China has the right to take Taiwan?

Do you think they have the right to do that?

They have a duty to do it.

Does the US have the right and duty to defend it?

That's gay and retarded, no.

So basically, it's like I the countries I like.

No, why should I care about Taiwan?

No, no, tell me why I should care about Taiwan.

Why should I care about Taiwan?

I'm not saying you should.

Why should any American care if an American came to me and said, Oh, Taiwan, I would say you're gay and retarded.

Why should China care about Taiwan?

Why is that our problem?

Why is Taiwan our problem?

Why is it China's problem?

It's because it's literally been part of China since forever.

Who and Israel was a country two thousand years ago, who cares?

Say let them try to cash through two thousand years ago to the bank and they will come back with a Hamas rocket up their ass.

I'm giving you the truth.

Two thousand years ago means nothing.

And and hundreds of years of China having Taiwan means nothing too.

Like why does it matter who yes it does because it's just blood and soil.

It does matter because Ch because Taiwan is part of China.

That's why.

Aye.

Because of history, because it is.

Look at history.

What if it decides that it doesn't want to?

What if it decides it doesn't want to anymore?

Then it has to face the consequences of trying to secede.

But what if they succeed in that?

Then they succeed, I doubt it.

So, you're okay with Taiwan being independent so long as they can achieve it.

If they can achieve secession, then it's fine.

If I was Chinese, I would fight them to the bitter end to stop it.

And I'm not Chinese.

Right, but you're American.

You're American, so why should you care?

Like, if Taiwan succeeds or whatever, America should do nothing to intervene.

Do nothing to intervene and see if Taiwan is not even told to be aggressive.

I don't think China should intervene either.

I think we should just sit down.

You can think that in your head, but when you tell Americans we should go die to stop it, why?

Well it serves our interests.

Whose interest?

Island chain.

Huh?

Whose interest?

It's US interests.

What do what is US how how translate that into something that makes it so it's a it's a guy in uh in New Hampshire who lives in New Hampshire on a farm?

How is that in in his interest?

U the US has a stronger position in the world and and for instance they can negotiate s uh from a stronger place in trade deals, for instance.

They that has nothing to do with military power.

And bring up military power.

That has nothing.

If China secures the first island chain, then their economy would would greatly benefit from that.

And it would be also a weaker position.

Why can't we benefit our economy?

Are you saying we don't have enough resources and ingenuity to develop our own economy?

No, we do, but we don't want to bring sweatshops back home to America though.

Okay, then eat a dick.

I don't know what to tell you.

Wh like do you think do you think we should bring manufacturing back to the US?

Yes.

Why should we bring the sweatshops from Bangladesh and China over to the U.S.?

You can call them sweatshops.

I call it increasing technology in the productive forces to decrease the amount of human labor needed and we can produce f plenty.

Fine.

Well well, I hope you'll be the first one to sign up for it, right?

The twelve hours a day.

Would you do that?

People who people who need it will sign up for it.

Yeah, but I think we should be in a position where we don't need it, right?

That's the point of a country's interest, right?

Like if you can make sure that you have higher wages, you can make sure that you don't have to do that.

And then Americans can just die of fentanyl mining stuff and phase it out, then you would do that.

So Americans will just die of fentanyl overdose 'cause they have no jobs.

How do I ha what's the point with that?

What?

I'm confused by that.

Americans need jobs.

Yeah, but you can't artificially like you're trying to artificially create a market.

If the market is sent overseas, you can create a market.

It's artificially created.

It's artificially created.

That's fine.

I thought we were talking about like not artificially trying to create circumstances, but letting things naturally happen.

This is what ca happens naturally in capitalism move overseas.

You can artificially create a market because we can plan and control the economy.

Well, it didn't work for the Soviet Union, did it?

Yes, it did.

How did it work for that?

They became the world's second biggest superpower in ten years.

Yeah, off the backs of like what?

Like virtually slave labor.

You can call it that.

I don't care.

And Russia, if you said that, they would say that's nonsense.

Really, you think the Russian people want to go back to the Soviet factories?

Yes.

Come on, man.

You don't believe that?

Yes, I do.

I think Russians are are good with their tech industry.

I think they like the modern capitalist society and getting to go to McDonald's, maybe work a six-hour job and not have to fucking.

99% of Russia is not like that.

Only talking about Moscow.

Yeah.

Some parts of Moscow even.

So, what do you think people do outside of Russia?

You think they're working in factories?

They don't have a huge massive.

They're leaving.

They're migrating out.

Because they lost their imperial power.

They lost their imperial hold on the territory they used to have.

That's how they used to sustain themselves by stealing up.

They will restore themselves.

But that's what I'm talking about synthetic, right?

Like the Soviet Union was s is synthetic.

Like what is a Soviet?

What even is that?

That's not a real thing.

No such thing as a Soviet.

What is a Soviet?

It was not synthetic.

It represents the form of land power that has corresponded with the uh Muscovy for

Centuries and centuries

What is a Soviet?

What is that?

What is a republic?

A Soviet form of political association.

No, I mean a person.

Like I'm a Soviet person or a Soviet citizen.

What does that mean?

It means you're united in a uh a union state.

That roughly corresponds to a historical land empire.

Yeah, but there's no such thing as like that's just synthetic.

Like that's why even Stalin started calling it Mother Russia for Mother Russia.

Just because they didn't call it the Tsardom of Muscovy two point oh doesn't mean it di it's not a successor.

It's a successor to an organic civilization state.

Yeah, but they tried to like lie about it.

They tried to pretend like this is a this is well, we're all equal here.

It's just a Soviet rep we're the Soviet Union, but in rally it was just like a Russian, another Russian empire.

They didn't lie about the centrality of the Russian.

Where is the Soviet government?

Russia had the largest Soviet government.

Why do you think that is?

Because Russians were the largest in numbers.

Thank you, Alphon.

Do you forget that Russians were the largest in numbers, numerically?

That's true.

Why do they have the right to govern everyone else, like the Kazakhs or the Ukrainians, or the U Uzbeks?

Why do they have the right to govern all those people?

They don't govern everyone else.

They're the main ethnicity of the civilization state.

Ethnicity?

Well, wha what does that have to do with anything?

M all Russian means is a specific uh nation or ethnicity molded in the image of a specific empire.

For those who w uh

Are part of that empire but maintain their prior civilization and way of life, they have a different culture and nation and ethnicity.

So the Han are the same.

Han is just a mixture of all these different people who were molded organically in the image of the Chinese empire, right?

Right.

And they came, and that's the same with Russian.

Russians are mixed with Tatars, they're mixed with all these kinds of different peoples, and that's how they became what they did.

But they still allow and coexist with people who did not assimilate into that ethnicity.

And that's what makes the empire so mighty.

And.

Powerful.

Yeah, but the second those r that Russian ethnicity lost its control, right, all these different ethnic groups, like the Ukrainians or like the the Kazakhs, right?

The Kazakhs or all these people all Ukrainian is not a different ethnicity.

Well, of course it is.

Go on any ancestry test, it'll tell you that.

You think that's the fake.

Who will tell me that?

If you if you like were to do an ancestry test and you were Ukrainian, it would tell you it wouldn't say Russian, it's Ukrainian, right?

Ukrainian is a type of Russian.

Even then, like Uzbeks, like Uzbeks now have their own nation, like Kazakhs have their own nation.

You're saying that's a bad thing?

These people have their own autonomy and their own like states now?

They have their own states, but in the future, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, they will have a different state.

They're not those are not they should just submit to the Russians?

You think they should just bow down?

Maybe not.

Maybe not, maybe not.

It could be a new Timurid Empire.

It could be a new Central Asian Empire.

Yeah, I was going to say, like, a Central Asian union.

Like, what about that?

Maybe, maybe whatever they see fit.

But wouldn't that make Russians upset?

Wouldn't they want maybe it wouldn't?

Maybe Russia can have Europe and take Poland and take all these shitty small European countries and be fine with Central Asian Empire.

Right.

And maybe Israel just gets destroyed.

Or maybe Israel normalizes relations with the Arab world, such as like Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian.

Russia already created a future for itself.

If Zionists want to LARP so bad as a nation, they can go live in the Jewish autonomous oblast in Siberia.

That's also, I'm not against that either.

I'm not against that.

Well, let them go there.

Let them go there.

Will the Russian government allow them?

Like, will they be able to have their own state?

They will let them.

Why not?

But they have to be part of Russia, they're gonna be part of Russia.

Like, I don't, like, from my perspective, I don't care about Zionism.

As far as I'm concerned, Jerusalem should belong to Christians.

It shouldn't belong to Muslims or Jews.

That's my perspective.

But I also recognize that Jews are in a really, like, bad situation where, like, they're surrounded by I don't know why.

It's it's just been that way for a very long time.

I don't know why.

Arabs have been like on the run.

They've been on the run for a very long time.

No i no one had a problem with Jews in the Middle East.

Yeah, that's not true.

Mohammed did.

And the Islamic coalition.

No, he didn't.

He he yeah, the Koran says kill the Jew, find the Jew and kill him.

Because they fought some Jewish tribes they had some beef with.

That doesn't mean they hate the Jews.

They had beef with a lot of Arabian tribes, including Jewish tribes.

So what?

Yeah, but so they weren't buddy-buddy then.

Why would they be fighting these tribes if they were?

Because a lot of these Jewish tribes converted to Islam.

Yeah, but w the Jews were not did the Jews did not like him.

They might have an issue with.

uh Jews living in Italy.

They had a problem with some spe they had some beef with some specific

Arabian Jewish tribes

Yeah, but that's how ethnic clashes work, right?

Like you're not gonna be mad at the African Jews that beef with each other.

We're probably gonna be af mad at the African and whatever, like if you're fighting had beef with each other.

So that doesn't mean the Jews hate the Jews.

It just means there's just some beef.

Yeah, but they wouldn't say, Hey, we hate the Jews, we would say we hate this tribe, right?

They wouldn't be like the ethnic Mohammed is saying no, the Jews are you seriously complaining the Holy Quran is not politically correct?

No, I'm not complaining about anything.

I'm just dismitting your claim that and Jews were a buddy buddy as well.

I'm worried it in a way that is sensitive to people's feelings in the twenty first century.

Who cares?

So, you're trying to reinterpret kill the Jews?

Like, what if Hitler saying that?

They don't say kill the Jews.

What about Hitler saying that?

Who said that?

They didn't say that.

It says that in the Quran.

No, it doesn't.

Do you want me to pull that up?

It says Jews are people of the book.

And usually this.

The Jews were tolerated under Muslim rule.

Oh, to be clear, this is the Sunnah, not the Quran.

But let me read this.

It don't it doesn't matter what you're pointing to.

Well, it does matter.

Then why didn't the Muslims exterminate the Jews in the Middle East?

Why didn't they do that?

Well, they didn't succeed.

They didn't try.

They didn't even try that.

Oh, come on.

Let me read this.

Hold on.

It says, The last hour will not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide behind a stone or a tree.

And then the stone or tree would set eschatology.

There is a Jew behind him.

Come and kill him.

You need to shut up for a second.

That was eschatology about the end times when Jesus will return and whatever.

No that has nothing to do with reality right now.

Why would they say kill Jews though?

That's a specific sunnah, that's a specific polemic with Jews, uh, specific hadith.

And it doesn't mean y uh attack Jews.

It's just a theological polemic and it's about eschatology, so it's not based in reality right now.

But it was based in reality because they literally did kill Jews though.

Muhammad literally did kill Jews as well.

Like, what do you mean?

What what do you mean?

He didn't exter he didn't try to exterminate Jews.

No, he didn't.

He killed like thousands of them like in like he didn't like you think he just killed soldiers or did he not go into towns like every other raven tribe and just wipe people out that opposed him?

He didn't wipe people out.

That's literally how he died.

That's not the most important thing.

Where do you think all the ethnic groups that aren't Arab, where do they all go?

They're still there.

Not the ones in the Arabian Peninsula.

A lot of them are gone now.

So what ethnic groups were in the Arabian Peninsula?

But we can go through that, but that's where ethnic ethnic homogeneity comes from in all these countries.

Like, except maybe Japan, because it's an island.

There's no ethnic hom homogeneity in the Middle East.

There's none.

Yeah, but I'm saying the countries that have like 99.9%, like that didn't come from nowhere.

That came from everyone becoming Arabized and adopting Iran.

Iran is different, right?

Iran is different because Iran didn't end end up doing that.

Iran has been like mixed of everyone, right?

Persians, I think there's even like another below people as well.

You're confused.

You're confused, my son, but go ahead.

In Sham or the Levant or Syria or Egypt.

when the Arabians came

Those people were already Semitic speaking, meaning they could probably converse with Arabs to some extent.

So they organically adopted the Arab identity because they were Semites.

They were not really different people.

One was nomadic and one was not nomadic.

So there was not a huge all the Arab meant was the Bedouin and the nomad, but everyone became Arab because they adopted a regional identity.

Now when it comes to Indo-Europeans, like the Persians, they were not Arabized because they were not Semites.

They were a completely different historical linguistic group.

That's why Kurds didn't become Arabs.

That's why Turks didn't become Arabs.

So the ones that became Arabs were already related to Arabs or themselves, in a way, Arabs, in some sense.

Yeah, but it says right here, like after that, nearly all male members of the tribe is a bad term.

Arab is just a broad term.

Uh, yep, the Syrians were Arabs, but they weren't called Arabs 'cause it's too broad.

Yeah, there was a Jewish tribe right here.

I'm looking at like Vanu Khwaraziah, and then Muhammad beheaded 600 or 900 of the men male members who had reached puberty.

And then took the women and children as slaves.

So he kind of like destroyed this tribe, right?

What's your source?

Um, this is on Wikipedia.

You wanna see that?

A post in general.

Debate a go debate a Muslim sc scholar about this.

My point is is that ethnic groups like wipe each other out.

That's the history of these places.

So to say Israel or America are exceptions to that is not really fair, right?

That's not when they people fight in battles and then one loses, like Genghis Khan, who went and destroyed Baghdad, that's not the same as going and

Exterminating people for being different.

Yeah, but I just explained like with China, like they literally would look for people who are not who are different and just fucking kill them.

Non-Han people.

They call them barbarians.

China China has always been tolerant of non-Han peoples.

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

The word is called Wuhu.

It's called the Five Barbaro who were the Five Barbarians?

Barbarian all all barbarian meant was those not fully assimilated into the Chinese civilization.

Well, it was specifically not it's specifically known as non-Han.

But that's what Ron Men did.

Ranmen said look for the non-Han people and killed them.

They weren't marked for extermination.

Yes, Ron Min specifically ordered the extermination of ethnic groups that were not Han in China.

Then why did they survive?

Well, the Gia people didn't.

And the ones that did were uh what do you call it, ended up being mixed into the Han population.

Usually when they say people were exterminated in history, it didn't survive.

They lost their patriarchal uh authority and they ch changed.

They fused or they adopted a new identity or a new tribal leadership.

But it's very rare in history that a completely whole people are just wiped out.

Like no, it's not.

It is rare.

It's been the whole course of history.

Not true.

How many native group ethnic groups are gone now?

How many of those are that's not that's that's also an exception in history because uh that was modernity, that was capitalism.

There was hundreds of ethnicities in China.

A lot of those are like gone now too.

Because of all these massacres.

They're gone because of history.

Where are the Gia people?

Where are they?

They're gone now, right?

They're in my basement.

Unmin uh specifically exterminated those people.

Like, I feel like you're almost like if non-white people exterminate people, you're kind of like it's kind of history.

But when British people do it or Israelis do it, all of a sudden it's like unacceptable.

Nope, nope, can't do that.

Nope, not true because it's like this third worldism Eurasianist stuff.

Like it's just this weird like, I don't know if this is your perspective.

Are you done?

That's not true because I'm gonna keep going, my son.

That's not true because in pre-modern European history, including Roman history or before the Romans even, peoples had war, they were just like anyone else and they were white and they were European.

The problem is that the point of exception comes with modernity and capitalism, not because they're white.

Yeah.

So Vikings.

Why do you condemn the British specifically, but not the Vikings fighting the Saxons, the Celts fighting who and isn't?

That's also the same.

So what is unique about like uh Brit the British Empire or Israel, stuff like that?

The thing that's unique about that, I'll tell you why, because the thing that's unique is that you have what you may call the utilitarianism, where rather than an organic process of a people evolving and regionally integrating and developing a new civilization, you have these kind of mercantile interests like the British East India Company instrumentalizing human beings and resources just to realize raw profit and nothing else.

So it that is kind of when it changes, when there's this kind of instrumentalist view that's imposed on being and upon reality.

Where people and nature are seen as a means to some transcendent ends.

But typically in civilization, some kind of ends is harmonious with those things and has the substantive character of other human beings or nature involved in it.

So the unique thing about modernity and capitalism is how it completely levels all distinctions, traditions, mores, and so on within reality, liquefies them, and churns them out as raw material for some completely abstract and alienated purpose.

Um so for instance, right, let me give you two two like examples, right?

So one, let's say uh uh an empire, right, some sort of empire sees another empire, they fight each other, they wipe out the other empire and they kill that ethnic group and or and then the rest of them assimilate and that happens, right?

And let's say in the second example you have some empire that comes in and says, Hey, we want to settle this place, kick these people out, if they don't leave, we kill them and then we start to basically create a place for our people, right?

Do you think there's a moral difference between these two?

So I didn't catch what you said really, but empires when they conquer and defeat a weaker empire.

The difference, I think, from modern colonialism is that there's skin in the game.

Typically, or not typically, always, the empire is also transformed by the conquered.

There's a fusion that goes on, where the conquered and the conqueror engage in a process of mutual recognition, creating a higher synthesis.

And this is actually what leads to an expansion of the empire.

It doesn't only expand in territory, abstracting the culture and the people and the resources.

It integrates all those things as part of one empire.

So instead of conquering a people and then saying, okay, all your land is mine, you're going to be completely instrumentalized as a tool for my purpose.

What happens is that an integration occurs.

And the empire, even when it enslaves all these people, itself is.

Is transformed.

Just like Rome, the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire enslaved all the people it conquered.

But even then, what happened?

The Rome Rome, the city of Rome, became a kind of multi-ethnic.

Uh amalgamation of different peoples.

Uh and Rome was there any moral equivalence?

Is there a moral equivalence between doing it one way or the other?

Is there a moral argument there?

Or is it just kind of the course of history, but you prefer one over the other?

I think you're abstracting morality from history and I disagree with that.

Well, if you do if one genocide is done out of like uh the natural course of events and the other is done out of a specific purpose to like uh economically benefit or whatever, you you're saying the the you're morally neutral on that then?

I don't think you can cast moral judgments on ancient empires.

I do think morality could be relevant.

Uh and or morality has an organic existence, by the way.

It could be relevant for the future.

Um as far as

Wouldn't it be God?

Like objective morality.

You don't believe that things are wrong by rule.

You're saying that it's just sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not.

You're trying to.

subject all history and reality under the standard of like some video game where there's rules and there's there's n uh rules develop organically and concretely throughout the course of history.

They they don't exist at the expense of reality, they are a part of reality.

They are reflected through the development of reality.

Yeah, yeah, but I'm saying, do you believe in objective morality?

Do you believe in that or not believe in that?

Yes.

So, is it so?

Why would it matter if in like 500 BC the Tang Empire wipes out one group or the British Empire wipes out the Namibians?

What is the moral difference there?

There isn't any, right?

But they're both morally wrong, and they should both be judged as well.

Morality is meaningless here.

I don't know what you're talking about.

If you wipe out another tribe, an ethnic group and kill all the people there, that's not wrong.

It's wrong by the sta yes, it's wrong, but that wrongness has a concrete reality.

So in the example of the Namibians, the wrongness is reflected in two ways.

One, in the confusion, disarray, and existential doubt it imposes on the British themselves, who have to reflect on how this is compatible with their own civilization.

And then two, with the alienation this imposes upon the Namibians, which becomes a part of how they come to define themselves, come to terms with their reality and modernity.

And uh and so on.

So this is how that wrongness is felt.

Is there some kind of

uh transhistorical United Nations or international criminal court that exists which is going to

uh give people uh specific punishments for violating rules?

There isn't.

But can't you look at it in one sense where you make that argument?

But for the British Empire, right, you have the centralization of capital, and then they want to expand, and then they create these colonies and all of that.

All of that, it may not be civilizational, but all of that also didn't happen out of nowhere.

All of it happened due to the objective material conditions at the time, right?

So, why would you condemn, like, go out and have all this moral combination?

Why don't you just say, Hey, this is what happened at the time, it's the reality, it was bad, but it is what it is.

It's not necessarily that I condemn it, it's that I accurately recognize that this empire has outlived the conditions of its existence, that it emerged under the conditions of the rise of what we call capitalism and modernity.

And now that we have undergone the communist revolutions, which reconciled organic landed civilizations with modernity, the Anglo-Empire has outlived its historical significance and basically now exists as a pure parasite trying to repress, keep down, and suppress the organic development of the world's people.

Now, this is in this sense a descriptive.

claim that I'm making.

People are rebelling and fighting back against Anglo-Saxon modernity, not out of uh moral indignation, but as as a extension of their existence.

Yeah, didn't would you agree that Hong Kong was made better during the British rule, though?

Like, didn't they make Hong Kong better?

Better in what sense?

Like, uh, I believe it was a much better place to live in China.

It had all these, like had first of all, people had all these, like, rights they didn't have in China.

There was much more economic development and stuff like that.

Like, wasn't it better?

Wouldn't it be a better place to live in Hong Kong than like the rest of China at that time?

Couldn't you argue that?

No.

Why not?

Why not?

Because part of what we call a quality of life is having purpose and meaning, not just being the most comfortable.

People who are comfortable kill themselves all the time.

When the peoples of China are participating in a great process for the rejuvenation of their civilization, for the building up of their country, for the building up of sovereignty, to be what they are, to have dignity, to have uh

Independence

That is fulfilling a purpose and a destiny felt by each individual, which no amount of wealth and no amount of comfort or luxury

Could possibly replace.

And this is something people die for.

And the Chinese specifically would die for it.

So if you want to say did Hong Kong have a better was Hong Kong more developed?

This is the more scientific description was it more developed than the rest of China?

I I would guess it was.

But what's your point?

Hong Kong was pumped with all of the wealth and capital at the disposal of the British Empire.

China had to build itself from scratch.

It didn't have some British Empire to inject it with resources and capital.

It had to take its resources, it had to take its labor, it had to take its wealth and aggregate it in a way pursue it to the common goals of development of the Chinese people, and they succeeded.

Can't can't you argue though that the Anglo Saxon liberalism or modernity has given us things like freedom of speech or these things that places that like China don't have?

Isn't that a value that right now you're expressing?

Aren't you benefiting from that?

Why are you not benefiting from that right now?

Because when my freedom of speech becomes politically effective, the feds assassinate me, they persecute me, throw me in jail, or kill me.

It that's not true?

Yes, it is.

It every single effective political dissident in this country has been either jailed, killed or driven to into exile and persecuted into nonexistence and irrelevance.

Yeah.

Well, those people also don't get s they don't also don't succeed, right?

Like a lot of them don't even like Bernie Sanders versus didn't even win, right?

Like he failed.

Well, they they their their victory has been prevented.

Yeah, but he also never got like the majority of the vote.

Like he he was always trailing behind Hillary in the polls and he was always trailing behind Biden.

Like he never had the whole party again with him.

Like populist his momentum his momentum was crushed.

Oh.

His mom Because look how he was treated.

By the way, Bernie was not a dissident.

Fred Hampton was a dissident.

Malcolm X was a dissenter.

Yeah, but someone said Martin Luther King died with a 25% approval rating.

I don't know why someone brought that up in chat.

Like, he wasn't even popular at the time.

Um, because they don't kill you for uh star uh imminently about to start a revolution.

They kill you for being politically effective, which means you have potential, you're effective, you you are winning people over.

You haven't won everybody.

You still can speak though.

No one's stopping you from speaking.

What stop the minute I s I start becoming effective, they they come they come after me already.

The tech transactions are not.

That's what Russia does.

That's what every country does though.

Okay.

They they have barriers, right?

Certain countries have barriers.

That's fine.

So stop pretending that you're f you have freedom of speech and you don't.

Yeah, every country has barriers, but the difference is I can still say like like you can't say like I disagree in China or whatever.

What what good is it to say anything if it can never be politically effective?

Because I feel like saying it.

Okay, then you also masturbate and watch pornography and do drugs and it's all fine.

This is freedom to you.

I disagree.

Anyway, I'm going to bring up the next one.

Okay, sounds good.

Yeah, see ya.

Uh guys, before I bring them up, I'm gonna go take a piss really quick.

I'm gonna go piss and I'll be right back.

Okay.

Give me a sack.

Okay, the debater in Arabic wants to debate me first, and then they angle back.

Got it.

I'm gonna go take a piss.

Be right back.

Alright, let's bring up this guy.

Hello?

Hello.

Yeah, what's going on?

We say salaamu alaikum.

So uh yeah, we were gonna talk about the future of the Middle East, yes, and the Islamic world in general.

And last time I uh debated you about Islam not being compatible with this bullshit ideology of yours, uh so-called socialism.

And um yeah, I was defending the position that Islam only compatible with Sharia, which is not a man-made uh law nor an ideology, it's divine uh uh and uh l clear divine uh law.

You understand?

I hope my English is uh clear.

So go make your Sharia.

Sorry?

Go implement your Shario.

No, no, Sharia will be reimplemented.

Look at the Islamic world, it's a failure.

Do it.

We will do, we will do.

The Revenance is uh like you believe in the Persian Revenance.

I don't know why you like these Persians so much.

Who's the alternative?

The alternatives are the the Maghribians.

What have you done for Palestine compared to the Persians?

Uh to the Per for Palestine?

Where does Hamas come?

Okay, we've been disconnected from the rest of the Middle East for centuries now, so we cannot do anything.

Why is that my problem?

Is there your problem?

This is the reality of things, you know.

Uh if we were next to Palestine we'd have provided more than, for example, Jordan and your Shikh country, Lebanon, together.

Iran and Hezbollah are the only two people who help Hamas.

And for the last 16 years from the second Intifada they were unable to react.

So why do everyone react now, huh?

Why?

Are you gonna react?

We wi listen, listen, you know something.

What did you say?

Then sit in your country and shut up.

Okay, so first and foremost, unfortunately while I'm in my country is in a struggle.

And you made the point when you were talking to the Zionists.

You said small countries should not exist.

I agree.

Do you supp so do you support Western Sahara being annexed by Morocco?

I support Morocco being annexed by Western S Sahara.

But this is not possible in the reality because Western Sahara basically non-existent.

Just wait.

Wait for what?

For your multipolar world.

Just wait.

Wait for what?

Wait for what?

Just for war?

Just wait.

What do you mean wait?

You have Just wait.

Yeah, I would build uh

What do you mean wait?

Wait for what?

Wait for the future?

For any future.

So you think we should wait for uh your uh Dugan and uh Russia?

They don't give a fuck about us.

They don't give a fuck about Western Sahara.

They don't give a fuck about the rest of the world.

Yes, Sahawi.

What?

Are you Sahlawi?

Yes, of course.

Sahrawi were always led by communists.

Fuck communism.

Well, those are the heroes of Sahrawi liberation.

You better sit down, boys.

Show respect.

Show respect to the leaders of the liberation of Sahrawi people.

Okay, okay.

First of all, first of all, this communist of shit of yours is not even functioning because first of all what have you done?

What have you done?

Me, I work, I'm a part of the patriarch, the sorry, the proletariat.

I'm more working, I work in aviation, I'm a mechanic.

What do you do?

What do you do?

You be speaking about communism.

You be speaking one second, one second.

You be speaking about communism and all of that.

You sit on stream and you give false hopes to these people.

Why don't you represent, huh?

What do you mean between me and you is I don't disrespect the leaders of the liberation of my people, but you sit communism.

But you sit here and disrespect the leaders of Sahrawi liberation, you traitor First and foremost, Ibrahim Gali and most of the C the the Council, the National Council of Western Sahara,

Does not believe it has so socialist values.

I agree with you.

One second.

I agree with you.

That's they have socialist values, but actually, there is there've been a transformation phase in which they literally give up on all that bullshit because it doesn't work.

Then why do they still call themselves socialists?

They don't call themselves socialists.

Yes, they do.

They call themselves the popular front because they represent the popular belief.

Let me educate you on something.

The word popular front comes from the common term.

The common term is the third international, the communist international, which was based in Moscow in the 1930s.

They coined the term popular front.

So the whole paradigm of Sahrawi liberation was from Marxism.

Uh listen, we don't represent it no more.

We barely struggling to re-even represent our Marxism, you would not have an identity fuck Marxism, fuck this shit, Marxism, even China gave up on it.

They're corporate now, yes, yes.

You have a filthy tongue, you have a filthy, disgusting tongue, you insult, you disrespect and dishonor the leaders, the historical leaders of the struggle of Sahrawi liberation.

Fuja ecomp, you get up.

Listen one second.

You say, you say.

I'm trying.

What I said is about China.

China is you said something last time.

I have been hearing you, by the way, since our last debate.

You corrected me with all the respect.

I talked with the people of your community and they corrected me on a lot of things.

And I don't believe in socialism still, but I believe that China is not socialist.

China is a corporatist nation.

And one of your things that you said this is.

How is it corporatist?

One second, one second.

Let me finish.

Let me finish the statement.

You said that this working party or the party state of China, the CPC, is dominated by working class, people of the working class.

But this is not true.

Since the reforms, the Dengist reforms in the late 70s, most of the people that were joining the party were not part of the working class.

They were part of the scholars or and the m of the elites and of the oligarchs of the Chinese society.

So let's not bullshit ourselves.

Yes, there is.

The business owners and the Communist Party are a small minority.

Okay, can you prove can you can you provide the proof for it?

Because I can provide you proof that uh like uh

That the uh that the corporate reforms led to a uh like a big p like uh oligarchs and elites joining the C P C, the State Party.

Because this bullshit you selling the dream to these people.

You're selling the dream.

Business owners are less than one percent of party members as of twenty thirteen.

Three percent are individual business owners.

Uh professionals are twenty six percent.

Government employees are eight percent.

Uh clericals are thirty two percent and workers are thirty percent.

Okay.

So according to what you are reading right now, they consider entrepreneurs and skilled expertise w workers as being workers.

No.

No, they don't.

The only so those people are four percent of the party.

That you mentioned.

Yeah, bullshit.

I call it bullshit.

Okay, call it whatever you want.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Yeah, listen, we ain't gonna be no socialist Middle East.

We'll go back to Sharia Allah.

The only system compatible with Islam is Sharia and fuck this socialism of yours.

You be you corrupting the kids, you corrupting the the youth of nowadays.

What's wrong with owning okay, who will o own the natural resources in uh Western Sahara?

And uh, who was gonna own them?

Yeah.

Listen, listen.

I believe there is people the the the smart people where will own those.

There's a hierarchy in society.

There's smart people.

Who will own the oil.

Huh?

Who'll own oil?

Yeah, uh the the the elites.

Okay.

The people that are smart enough and have have accumulated enough capital to create a business and direct it.

Not gonna be owned by the state because it's incapable of doing so.

Morocco owns all the energy.

For as of now, yes, I agree with you.

The state does.

Yeah, not totally.

Southern Hamco is owned by the state.

Yeah, OCP, I agree.

The f the problem is with you and your Marxist believers, I don't believe in collective I believe collective farms that you were you guys be like talking about like it's a achievement, it's a failure, it's a failure.

Collective farmers, it succeeded for its goals.

No, no, it's it's bullshit.

Because if you think I think you're you're listen, you're just a little too emotional, you're not being rational and you know, you're you're too you're too you're saying bullshit this, bullshit that.

You're not educated.

I can educate you on collective farms if you want, but it doesn't sound like that's what you want.

It sounds like you just wanna insult and say nonsense and speak nonsense.

Do you want me to explain to you collective farms?

Oh, you can yeah, y if you can add something.

So in the late nineteen twenties, the Soviet Union had a problem.

They needed to industrialize because they were gonna get invaded and attacked.

They needed to modernize and give their people a decent standard of living.

Running water, electricity, literacy, education, integration.

And they needed to build, build, build roads, cities, homes, highways.

So what they did is they created collective farms so they could organize the outputs of agriculture.

And when they did this, they produced far more agriculture than they did before.

They used the surpluses of agriculture to buy technology, machinery and equipment, and they industrialized the hell out of uh their country in ten rapid years and defeated the Nazis.

So it succeeded.

That was their goal.

But couldn't the same objective be been fulfilled with the production and marketing?

There's never been an example of that in history.

Uh because it was not tried by the Soviets.

That's for sure.

No, no country has ever been able to independently industrialize that wasn't a slave of the West.

If only countries that independently industrialize had a form of socialism or communism.

Listen, man.

For me collectivization is nothing but a new type of serfdom.

It's basically it's it's it's a new the collectivization of agriculture is not a principle of communism, it's just what they needed in Russia at the time.

Part of the Russian culture too, by the way, because they always had peasant communes even before communism.

So that's just part of their civilization.

Uh other countries don't have to do the same things the Russians did to be communist.

Communism just means that the people own the resources and uh not parasites, especially not imperialist parasites.

The people own the resources,

And use the resources to develop and enrich themselves.

That's all it means.

Okay, and we know where that led to a famine, a grandiose famine.

Uh but first of all unprecedented prosperity and the last famines, because there had always been famines and those were the last ones those countries ever experienced.

You can ice it, you can ice it l this is the reality, the core of the thing, the the the the like the voice within this collectivization policy that the Soviets enacted.

Uh maybe it achieved some short term objectives but caused more harm than no it in the long term.

That's industrialization is still the foundation of modern Russia today.

The Russian economy is made up of some private, some state owned enterprises, but all of them are organized and integrated from the methods of organization originating in the Soviet period.

So the whole Russian economy today is still based on that.

Ah, to be honest, okay, it doesn't matter, but for me, collective farms, and I talked with farmers before, i in uh private farmers are more tied to the land than these collective farms, uh collective farmers would have ever been.

And they because in collective farms, these people are less tied to the land and they're expected to perform the same amount of labor as private farmers.

Yes, yes, yes, they did, yes, they did, and some of them didn't want to do so, and they were sent to to where you know.

Look at the figures in the studies, the collective farms outperformed.

The agriculture increased.

So it worked.

Yeah, and caused the famine.

So what caused the failure of the collectivization?

It was caused by the socialist agricultural policy, yes or no?

Because its rapid implementation led to a disruption in food production.

And this food supply and food production is very sensitive.

It's sensitive to disruption.

So when natural disasters happen, and this was a natural event as well, there was a drought.

When this happens, coupled with a new system that creates famine.

That's what colonialism did to it on a mass scale, on a much wider scale, when it disrupted the food supply of other countries.

Because they organized people into forms of

Primitive accumulation, slavery, far colonial farms, and so on, stole their resources.

So th th i uh the Soviets just uh didn't they didn't go and colonize others.

They built themselves up from their own resources and it led to problems, but all modern countries experience those problems.

They the only difference is the Communists didn't go and starve and massacre others.

But you said something about the collectivization being done t too quickly and even by means of force.

It wa it wa it wasn't too quickly.

They had to do it.

They had to do it.

Because y they had ten years

The Nazis invaded in 1941, so they had to do it.

They didn't have a choice.

If the West left them alone, and if they didn't have that pressure, maybe they could have taken their time.

But they couldn't, under the circumstances.

They were surrounded by everybody, under attack.

So at least you can say that the collectivization policy was uh they didn't think about it thoroughly because it created it prompted a lot of resistance and created like inefficiencies in production and this can be seen.

It didn't create inefficiencies, it created a disruption.

And the blame was the local officials on the ground who were misreporting the facts to the leadership.

Man, listen, at the end of the day, I don't support Marxism.

I don't think it's gonna work out in in in the Islamic world.

And um you guys should be f focusing on Islam.

I don't know why you guys gave up on Islam.

I don't know, to be honest.

This is what I'll tell you.

I believe in uh Marxism just like you believe in Western capitalism.

But who said I believe in I believe in pure capitalism?

I believe in pure capitalism.

I don't believe in the Western world.

I don't believe in a Western ideology.

I also believe in a Western ideology.

So leave Islam out of it.

This is not about Islam.

You don't believe in pure Islam.

I do believe in pure Islam.

No, you don't.

You're mixing Islam with Western ideology.

No, I didn't.

Let me tell you something.

I believe.

If you're not going to mix Islam with Western ideology, then you must return to the mode of production that existed in the Maghreb before the 1700s.

Go back to the ways before.

That is not possible, I will tell you for two points.

be compatible with creation.

must be compatible with reality.

If it's not compatible with reality, it means nothing.

meaning people have to feed themselves, they have to they need water, they need medicine, they need to know how to read and write, and they're and and and there is no immediate solution to how to do that just from the Quran.

The Quran doesn't teach you how to tie your shoes.

You have to learn as a human being.

I don't believe that.

I'll tell you why.

Because you're saying that Islam is basically a regressive since it was made 1400 years ago.

No.

Yeah, that's what you're saying.

Islam can apply today.

It can apply today.

In what?

In the sphere of socialism that you believe in, that's bullshit socialism.

That's what you want to apply Islam through.

You want to apply to Islam.

Okay, as you want to apply to capitalism.

I actually, this is the problem.

Because in your socialism, because you want to enact these social economical policies and reforms, you're going to demolish Islam to an individual level.

You're not going to maintain it on a societal level.

That's actually true.

Because what you guys believe in, look at the socialists in the West.

If I give a look on socialists in the West, targets, queers, LGBTQ bullshit, and how many of them created a socialist country?

Okay, uh ha have you heard of Esteca in in France?

I don't care about I don't care about them.

So no, because I see, listen, man, I am in Maghrib and the closest the the closest countries to me is the Western Europe uh and Southern Europe and the West.

You understand?

So when I judge socialism, I'm gonna judge this from the Western land, which is not what you can do.

Maghrebi Maghrebi socialism will be socialism with Islamic characteristics.

It's not gonna be based on Western liberalism.

Listen, man, listen.

The whole Arab world, let's not bullshit ourselves, man.

The whole Arab world is influenced by liberalism.

You go even in Saudi Arabia, you have these fucking like young people and communism is against liberalism.

We don't believe in individual individualism.

Okay, no, this is the problem.

But you want to bring a modern sense of democracy, you want to bring a modern sense of the communism.

And for me, if these

The real communism of uh Stalin and Mao.

We don't want, we don't care about Western socialists.

In China, for example, they have the socialism with Chinese characteristic.

They don't have LGBT, they don't have all this stuff you're talking about.

Oh, you think China doesn't have LGBT?

They don't allow it in public.

You'll be amazed.

You'll be amazed.

They do have LGBTQ.

And it's not because of it.

Yeah.

No, not in public.

They don't have the pride parade.

They don't wave the flags.

They don't.

So Maghreb has it too, by the way.

Yeah, unfortunately.

This is the reality that I have to face every day.

And a lot of people that I work with, and they don't have the ability to make any change because of this bullshit political arena you guys created with your bullshit ideologies.

Nothing is empirical.

I don't agree.

What did I do?

I didn't do anything.

I've never even been there.

You're a socialist.

Do you know how many diaspora you have in your chat?

You know how many people follow you?

These fake Arabs like the people that are on Twitter and stuff.

Can you know how prominent?

Leaders of the was Nasser a socialist?

Abdul Nasser?

Gamer Abdel Nasser?

Yeah.

I don't like Damal Abdel Nasser.

Okay, well he was a socialist.

Gaddafi was a socialist.

Yeah, Gaddafi failed.

Gaddafi failed in everything.

Who gave Algeria independence?

Who led them in their struggle?

The FLN, which is a nationalist party.

Socialists.

It's a nationalist party.

It's not socialists.

They're not socialists.

Mohammed bin Bella was never a socialist.

He actually critiqued socialism.

He was a socialist.

Look it up.

Oh my God.

I know, bro.

I know.

I know the history of Algeria, you know.

Mohammed, Algeria is not a socialist country.

It calls itself one.

According to your notion, it's not because you be call themselves socialists, so call us.

Who who calls themselves socialists?

They're won by the military.

Algeria.

And Soria.

They're won by the military.

Soria and Algeria.

Listen man, listen, I don't give a fuck about no Syria, I don't give a fuck about none of these countries.

All I care about is Maghrib Unity and it's impossible now.

How can I convince you if you're not listening to reason?

I'm willing to l listen to reason, but you're not bringing any arguments.

You love the Jews.

You live in Sahrawi?

Yeah, I work in a yeah, I work in a base here.

In a yeah.

So

So keep your Sahrawi capitalism.

What do you want from me if you love it so much?

Don't complain.

No, because you have a lot of views about the whole Arab world, you understand?

The whole Islamic world and its extension.

So when you say that the for example, you believe that people in the Middle East and the especially the Hamas that's leading the resistance uh or leading the access of resistance against the IDF do you think they're rationalized with Jews?

No.

For them to promote You think they're like uh rationalizing with Jewish people?

You think they're gonna coexist after even they defeat the the Zionist entities?

They claim they will coexist with Jews, yes.

There will there will be no coexistence, nothing but to play to the international committee so they don't look as genocidal.

I support them.

I support them, no.

I actually believe Jews are the problem.

I believe Jews are the problem.

This is my perspective on Sahrawi.

Oh, they were back in the uh you'll be surprised, uh, late eighteen hundreds, they ruined our country, they collaborated even in the sixties, as of late of the sixties, they were collaborating with the Spanish.

So Okay, so where are they now?

They left left to Israel.

So why do you w what why do you care about Jews?

What does Jews have to do with your life?

And after the Moroccans normalized with the Jews, now the Jews have a Zi they have a lobby, the Jewish Zionist lobby one the Moroccan Parliament which affects Western Sahara.

So why Jews not there's many Jews who are anti Zionists.

What do you say to them?

Uh I think those Jews, I agree with them, uh there should be anti Zionists, but they should go back to Oblast or fucking Europe, wherever they come from, and live whatever.

I don't give a fuck, they just shouldn't be able to.

That's up to the people in Palestine, it's not up to you.

I oh uh you think people I talked with Palestinians uh every day, every day I talked with Palestinians, they tell me fuck the Jews, fuck the Jews, fuck the Jews Well, you c well, look at their situation, they're at war with Israel, so they feel this way, but their political organizations do not advocate uh expelling all the Jews.

Which who is the political uh opposition?

You think the the PLO or fashion is the is is not the truth and the Popular Front Hamas is part of, which includes the Communist, PFLP and the DFLP.

Uh those are non-existent nowadays.

There's nothing but the crying.

The PFLP is not non-existent.

It represents almost all the Christians in Gaza and a lot of them in the West Bank.

The PLFP was nothing but an entity run by Kurdish people who have not no claims to Palestine.

They should not even be there to begin with.

What do you mean Kurdish?

I don't I'm not aware George Haba George Habash was Kurdish?

No, no.

Kanafani was a Kurdish though.

Who?

Kanafani.

I don't I don't have a knowledge of this.

Rassan Kanafani?

I don't I don't know what you're talking about.

He's the Palestinian writer, he's Kurd.

And he he was promoting this anti-imperialist uh socialist bullshit of yours.

So so was Je George Habash, and he was not Kurdish.

He was a Christian.

Yes.

So so what?

So what?

So all of them should leave.

Christians should leave too.

I think Christians should be there but uh to they should ha enact no no governance over the Muslims.

Because for you guys, it's the utopia.

It's up to the people who live there.

It's not up to you.

Yeah, I know what the people think because I am Arabic.

Hamas doesn't say what you say.

Yeah, I'm Arab myself.

When did Hamas live?

Iran doesn't kick the Jews out.

The Jews live in Iran.

They're allowed.

Okay, when you think a bunch of Palestinians see Israelis pissing on dead Palestinian corpse, how do you think they would react?

Especially with their because of their low political education.

Most of the Arabs are not so well indulged in political education, including myself.

Because I don't think it's worth it.

I don't think it's solving it.

It's nothing but wordsmithing.

Look at you guys.

Look at you.

Everywhere.

No, we gotta defend our ideals.

You're not pragmatic enough to solve to find real life solutions to problems.

All you do is let's combat them with our ideals and let's wait.

It's a word smithing.

What do you want from me?

What do you want?

I want from you.

Yes.

Oh I I came to debate.

But you so we're debating.

So so all I can do is spread my ideas when I debate you.

That's it.

Okay.

Debate then.

Why do you think why do you think there will be a coexistence of Palestinians and Jews in the future?

Because uh

Because why wouldn't there be?

Because what the Palestinians are demanding doesn't necessarily uh all the Jews have to leave.

It doesn't necessarily Palestinians then, huh?

You don't know that the Jews still actually support the Zionists.

Was Germany allowed to exist after World War two?

Yes.

Look what they did to the Russians.

And

The same a or worse, worse than what the Israelis did to the Palestinians.

And the Soviets let them live.

They didn't go and kill them all.

But at the end of the day, we know the Nazis are not dead.

The Nazis were funded by your elites, by Western elites.

So, so are the Zionists.

So you saying like the Nazis didn't exist the Nazis still exist.

The Nazis are the elite Western elites that still now govern and and and prosper even with your country and they fund the Zionists.

Okay, okay.

So the the reality we're gonna get rid of the Zionists, the Jews and the Western influence, that's it, simple.

That just 'cause you're Jewish doesn't mean uh you're guilty.

Why you defend the Jews?

Why you defend the Jews?

For the same reason for the same reason the Prophet and his nephew did.

You know that's what happened by the way.

The Zionist guy you were talking to, I don't know if he's your friend or not, but that guy was talking about the Muslims killing Benu Quraida and Ben Unared, which are two Jewish tribes.

And you know what those tribes did, by the way?

They provoked the Muslims and we killed them for what they did.

All of them, the Muslims did.

And now the Zionists provoke the Jewish Zionists have been provoking and oppressing for the last 16 years the Gazians, the Palestinians.

So they have a right to pick up the weapons and attack all Jews.

Simple, pragmatic.

Y y it's like you believe in the Zionist propaganda, but you just say, Okay, I agree.

That's all you're doing.

It's just Zionist propaganda.

The Jews lived with Muslims.

Yes, there were battles with some tribes, with many other tribes too.

There were battles with Christians, but ultimately, Jews were allowed to coexist.

With Muslims.

The Jews, man, there was no recoil.

I know, I have stories, I have stories about Maymoon and all those Jews that lived in the Maghrib, they were nothing but parasites.

Plain and simple.

Parasites.

You understand?

Even there was, they went to another extension.

They polarized themselves.

They started representing all the political spectrum, including Ibrahim Sarfaci, who was a Marxist-Leninist.

Fuck him.

And these Jews wanted to control the Maghrib.

But rightfully so.

You know what Algeria did?

They kicked all the Jews.

By the time they got the independence, no Jew will ever plant a foot inside Algeria.

And this still pisses them off.

You understand?

Because Algeria is pragmatic.

They're not like you.

They're not sympathizing with the Jews.

They're pragmatic.

No Jew will say.

Why do you have a British accent?

I don't have a British accent.

You you do?

Where did you learn English?

Actually myself.

You taught yourself English and you live in the Sahrawi and you're a proletarian?

Yeah.

Okay, and why did you teach yourself British English?

I don't know.

Maybe it sounds richish, but yeah.

I don't know.

I think you're LARPing.

I think you live in London.

Or France.

Yeah, yeah.

No, no, I don't live in France, uh, Nor London, wallah.

I I'm I'm still in Western Sahara.

I don't I'm actually yeah, I w I work with a French company here though.

I don't wanna dox myself and stuff.

So I do speak French.

I don't live in France.

Wallah Wallahl Adim I swear, I swear to God.

So you work with the colonizer?

Why do I work with the colonizers?

Listen, bro, you think I'm going to be jobless like you?

Of course I'm going to work to provide for my family.

I don't have any other option.

There's no state-owned.

But you're so judgmental.

You're so judgmental and you're so whatever.

So it sounds like you're working with the colonizer.

How can you do that?

Why am I working with the colonizer?

I'm working.

Because you're saying Jews are bad because some of them worked with colonizers.

And that's...

No, no.

This is the problem.

Because there was a resistance against the colonizers wanting sovereignty over our land, which they have no right to do so.

But now those Jews were cooperating with the colonizer to maintain sovereignty over the colonized territory.

Yeah, all the minorities did that.

A lot of them did that in the Middle East, too, not just Jews.

So Christians did that too.

So should Christians be punished too?

Where in the Middle East?

Yeah.

Yeah, for sure.

Why not?

So should Maronites be kicked out of the NAND?

Maronites are the worst type ever.

Those people, I don't know.

I don't know why people still talk to them.

I don't know why they still want to coexist with the people.

I mean, they've done a lot of really bad things, but they're not all bad people individually.

Lots of them cooperate with the Zionist entity in Utah and the United States.

A lot of them do, but not all of them.

A lot of them, and the Kurds as well.

Fuck the Kurds.

They cooperate with the Kurdish.

What about the Greek Orthodox in the Nen?

They don't.

They...

They're not all bad.

Yeah, I d listen, I don't have problem with the Orthodox.

They're the only good Christians because I know of stories and how the Orthodox and the Muslims I think you should learn more stories because that sounds like you're just very hateful.

Sound like a very hateful person.

I'm not a hateful man.

I swear I know I want nothing but peace.

You see this is the problem.

You're reciprocating something that you are.

You understand?

I'm not a hateful person per se.

I'm just a pragmatic person.

Problems deserve empirical solutions, which will be based on the reality of things, the conditions of the problem.

You, on the other hand, you believe in diplomacy.

Diplomacy failed my country since we tried it in 1991 and we were betrayed by the Moroccan entity.

We were betrayed by the UN.

We were betrayed by everyone, every member of this.

So, why are you saying this is me?

I'm not telling you to not have a problem.

But you defend Russia and China.

You believe the multipolar world will be nothing but resolve the problem that the Western unipolarity built to.

If you sort out your own problems and build your own polarity, if you want to build a Maghrebi poll, build one.

I'm not stopping you.

We're incapable of doing so.

So, what do you want?

Who do you want to beg to and complain to and cry to then to do it for you?

No, no, no, no.

I don't want to do it.

We're going to get it by war.

War is inevitable.

Okay.

I'm not stopping you.

I'm not stopping you.

Go to war to have a Maghrebi polarity.

I'm not stopping you.

So go do it.

We're going to do it.

We don't need you to give us the green light.

I'm not stopping you.

So what's the problem?

I'm not stopping you.

Yeah.

But okay, you're not going to stop us.

I appreciate that.

But you should just tone down the socialist bullshit.

You should not be like.

I have a right to uh believe what I believe is true, and you you have not given me a persuasive argument otherwise.

I said and I started my statement with saying that the only system compatible with Islam is Sharia and anything else.

No, you said it was capitalism.

No, no, I said that pure capitalism, yes, I would argue it's somewhat is not as is not haram as much as your socialism is.

Why?

Because I will tell you why.

Because pure capitalism only resolves like the the the the the economical questions you understand that uh unfortunately sharia is not goes into details of it because society same with communism same with socialism

No, because c uh pure communism necessarily have to be without religion.

Why?

And you need to put in a a because yeah, because you you believe that religion can somewhat contradict the s the party uh the state par the the party that runs the state.

And if it does so

What do you mean why?

Why?

Oh you wanna you wanna learn about what the uh after the Bolshevik Revolution was successful?

You wanna uh hear what those those uh Leninist leagues did to uh priests, they were leagues that Stalinists they were atheists Leninist leagues that went for attacks Stalin dissolved them.

Yeah, Stalin w oh you want you think Stalin is an example?

Yeah.

Yeah, a guy a guy who uh not is not even a believer himself.

You think that guy should be an example?

The church said he was a believer in private.

He was a believer when he was almost gonna die.

I'm not gonna doubt you.

The church said he he would visit the church by himself.

Yeah, this you see guys, you're trying to look for ways that you can like uh say, Oh, Stalin was a good guy.

Listen, man, Stalin maybe was good for the Soviet Union, I don't give a fuck.

But you cannot replicate Stalin on the Middle East, plain and simple.

Okay, okay, but communism is not against religion inherently.

Okay.

Do you believe in Arab unity?

Yes or no?

Yeah.

And how would that materialize in the current uh in in the in the reality of things currently?

By also uniting with the Persians and Turks.

So, you want Arab unity to be based on reuniting with other ethnic groups?

SubhanAllah, you are a magician, man.

If you actually do so, you are a magician.

It's impossible.

I'm from Lebnen.

Now, I'm not from Lebanon, my parents are, but I know the culture enough to know you are just as different from me as I am with a Persian.

Matter of fact, I probably have more common with a Persian.

So, it's magic if I'm gonna unite with you or my ancestors would unite with you.

You're different, you're on the other side of the world.

Okay.

Yu your language I no one can understand your language in the nan.

No one can.

Okay, so this is the problem because you don't know much about the history of the Maghreb.

I'm a Sahrawi.

I'm a nomad.

I'm from the nomadic Arab tribes.

You're Maghrebi.

You're Maghrebi.

One second.

You're Berber.

No, no, no.

I'm not a Berber.

I am from the southern tribes of Western Sahara, which came in the late 15th century from the Arabian Peninsula.

That's a million years ago.

So what?

One second.

We speak our own language, which is called Hassani, which is Arabic, basically.

And it's Nori.

And it's illegible.

And no shami can understand what the hell you're saying.

No, no, actually, I talk with a lot of shamis in my language.

I talk about the people who are.

They're nodding along and being polite.

They don't understand a word you say.

That's the Darija.

Darija is what you are talking about.

Darija.

The Darija, the Maghribian dialect, which is Darija.

Mostly spoken in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco.

That thing is not even Arabic.

I agree with you.

It's ununderstandable even to me.

You understand?

I only communicate with them in French in my job place.

So if you go and I'm telling you, I'm not from those people, and you're telling me I cannot.

All right, so you're so let me so you call me a magician.

The geography doesn't make sense.

Your small village in the desert in the other side of the world in Africa, in West Africa, is going to be part of a Middle Eastern Arab confederation.

And we're going to have to skip over all the Berbers and just what?

What do we do about the Berbers?

Okay, I'll tell you what to do about the Berbers.

The Berber's, fuck the Berbers.

Who cares about the Berbers?

Because the majority of the Maghrebs.

One second, one second, one sec.

Algeria and Tunisia themselves declare themselves as being Arab nations.

But they're not.

They're Berber.

What do you mean?

You see, you're trying to isolate them.

I can't understand them.

No one can understand them.

Okay, you want something?

Reality?

You barely speak Arabic.

What the fuck are you?

I know, I know.

I do barely speak Arabic, but I'm telling you, no one from my people ethnically can understand them.

Because they tell me they can't.

And also, I can pick up the vast difference of the language.

Okay, listen.

That's like when I hear people from my parents' village speak, I don't understand all of it, but I get it.

Like, I get what they're saying.

When I hear someone from the Maghreb speak, it's like a completely different.

It's so beyond anything I can comprehend.

Well, these people, in the case of Algeria, was colonized by the French for 130 years.

Even it was considered as being part of France for a certain period.

What does that have to do with Berber?

They implemented linguistical policies.

Bro, the Maghribians, they were the Islamic philosophers.

They carried.

They were more well known in Arabic language than you and any of the people of the Levant.

What the fuck?

I believe in.

Uniting with Persians and Turks.

Fuck the church and fuck the Persians.

Listen man, I'm telling it to you right now.

The Arabs should not rely on anyone, neither the Pers, neither the Turks.

The Turks are nothing but double-faced people.

But they should rely on the Berbers.

No, I'll tell you.

The Berbers, I'll tell you.

The people of North Africa, they have a lot of people who have Arabic lineage, but unfortunately, it was dissolved.

Okay, so should we unite with the Berbers?

I'm not me, but the people in that region.

Should they unite with the Berbers?

Okay, why not?

But why not the Persians?

Why not the Turks?

The Persians are foreigners.

You understand?

No, you're a foreigner too.

Listen, man, what do you mean I'm a foreigner?

I'm afraid you go on a plane, go to Leibnan, and announce yourself, wear your traditional dress, and people will think you're a space alien, I promise.

No one will know anything, you will be completely foreign to everyone.

Okay, man, listen, listen.

I'm I'm I'm a proud nomad.

I'm proud of like okay, but you're just what some Lebanese what some Lebanon you think Lebanon is a country to begin with?

Lebanon is full of fucking homosexuals.

It's called the homosexual, wear your traditional dress and they'll think you're Mickey Mouse.

They won't understand you.

Uh man, you're being very disrespectful to my people and my people.

No, I'm not.

I'm telling you, if you want to call Persians and Turks foreigners, you're also a foreigner.

No, what I'm saying is first of all first of all Turks have a different history they went to the Balkans they went all over Europe they were intermixed they ke they have their own lay a culturally homogenous country yes they were in the Maghreb they were existing yes but they have I will tell you something the Turks since they became secular faggots that double-faced nation that suck up to the West and they think they are too smart for the rest of the world so Arabic countries did that too I will believe listen listen there will be no homogeneous society that will include the Persian the Turks and the Arabs every one of these ethnic homogeneity is against Islam name one not ethnic name I didn't say ethnic I said cultural I said cultural only Islamic culture no ancient Muslim empire was homogeneous based on one tribe or one uh race or one ethnicity

There's never been a homogeneous Muslim empire.

The only homogeneity was Islam.

But this will what will happen is if you bring the Turks, the Persians and the Arabs, the beginning it will be chaos.

It's already chaos.

It's already chaos.

No, no, Middle East can actually reunite.

I'll tell you why the the Middle East.

Because help us man stay it stay in the Sahawi and plan the future of the Middle East on your own.

I don't

I don't believe you.

You haven't persuaded me.

I don't think your vision will work.

And fuck socialism, fuck socialism, man, and fuck everyone, every communist, fuck them all and then and then long live France and the French company.

Long listen, listen, long live Islam and anyone who betrays Islam deserves the sword, simple as.

You understand?

And fuck you as well.

But long live France and capitalism, right?

Oh, fuck France, fuck France.

You wanna you want me to say this?

Fuck everything then, right?

Just fuck everything.

Long I said long no no everything, right?

No.

You see, he's trying to put words on my mouth, but I didn't put words in your mouth.

Yo, what's going on?

Yo.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

So, I want to start off by saying that Arab guy was you know, he really represented the view of uh Muslim Arabs in Palestine and Hamas and what uh you Muslims actually think about the Jews in Israel.

Right, so he actually did my job for me.

I don't really need to debunk that.

Uh you know, even considering disagree because most of the ones I talk to who are actually from the region my parents are from don't share his views.

Um that guy is from a completely alien remote village on in the other side of uh

On a different continent, all the way on the other side.

No one knows where who that guy is, where he comes from, or what his deal is.

But I promise that guy is just com that is just so that is someone so removed from any geography.

I don't even know how he got there.

He claims that he's not Berber, that his tribe was Adabi, and he got there 500 years ago.

And he's stuck there, I guess.

He's stranded there.

That's good for him, but it's like, I don't know what I'm supposed to say to that.

I mean he represented the views pretty well though, even though in the 1988 charter um the Palestinian people voted for Hamas with the nineteen eighty eight charter still in place by the way, but you know we can we can move on from that uh quite quickly.

I think we understand now the views of most Muslim Arabs living within the region towards ra Israelis.

But as a British person I want to first apologize to the Israeli people for Arthur Balfour creating the mandate of Palestine.

I want to first apologize for that as a fault in the British and I we actually want to go into the history of Arthur Balfour.

He actually made a lot of mistakes when dealing with separatist barbarians such as the Palestinians.

So you're just here to dig suck Israel?

Why do I care?

Nixok, Israel, dude, you don't even live in material reality.

You live in like a fancy land that all Arabs and Jews and Christians will all hold hands and be like, Oh, yeah, we'll be all fine.

It's kinda like the idea of communism.

It's complete fantasy.

Why do you care about Israel so much?

Bozwa Care?

Yeah.

Because I think it's an important geopolitical event in the world.

No, no, no, don't gibber.

Why do you personally care?

What's what person care?

Yeah, like what why do you apologize to like what do you what what what's your skin in the game?

Why do you care about Israel?

Well, I thought well, the Northern Irish and Israel actually have a lot in common.

Why why should anyone give a fuck?

Why should I give a fuck?

Why should I care about Northern Ireland?

What should you care about North Netherlands?

Well, I'll tell you right now, it was Arthur Belfor's policies that have led to this disaster within the Middle East.

Okay, and look, if the British try to come back to the Middle East, they're gonna get Hamas rockets up their bum.

So what do you want?

Uh no, no.

Yeah.

What's happening in my Iranian rockets up they bombed?

You're literally crying online about fucking Israel airstriking fucking Hamas.

Like that's what you're doing.

Uh when have I cried?

I've only given descriptions.

So, what has happened is Israel has retaliated to a disgusting terrorist attack, and then you people, you communists, you liberals, you Muslims, sit here and say, Free Palestine, free Palestine, you will start waving your flags then after a terrorist attack where babies were killed, women, women have been paraded around the street and spitting on.

That's the problem.

What's the proof babies are killed?

You have proof?

What's the proof?

Yeah.

Oh, we're gonna claim it's AI images.

Is this you're on the Israeli Twitter dude?

Can you give me proof babies were killed?

Bro, do you really want me to post images?

Uh point me to whatever you want to point me to.

Give me some proof.

Bro, is this your only offici official Israeli Twitter?

But if you wanna like You the burnt baby?

Is that what you're talking about?

Oh, are we gonna play with chicken wings?

Are we gonna play with chicken wings like other people have?

Is that how can how does anyone know that's real?

What what confirmation?

Is there international neutral uh observers who are allowed to go in and witness this?

Or is it j we just take the Israelis at their word that this wasn't fake?

Well, I treat the Israelis at their words.

Why wouldn't Israelis invite international neutral sources such as from China, from Russia?

I'm sure they will.

This event has just happened.

I'm sure they will.

No, they didn't even share evidence with American media.

They didn't even share evidence with American media.

So no.

That's not even true, it's on Twitter, dude, that's the American media American media has only seen what we saw from Twitter.

They did not even give CNN anything that confirms Hamas killed babies.

They gave them nothing.

That's why Western media couldn't confirm any of their claims or reports.

Dude, it's literally on Twitter.

You can open your eyes and why should I think that's real?

It looks fake to me.

AI detector said it's made by AI.

It looks altered.

What reason do I have to believe that?

I mean, if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't believe Hamas if they just posted a photo with no evidence.

You wouldn't just fucking believe that.

I would.

No, you wouldn't.

No, you wouldn't.

If this was China versus Taiwan, and China was trying to post evidence of Taiwanese atrocities, and an AI detector said it was fake, and there was dubious evidence, and it was just this weird-looking photo, you would be the first one to say it's fake nonsense.

So don't sit here and act like you have a moral standard.

I support China, so you're just making assumptions based off nothing right now.

Well, look, you are trying to moralize, and even if you were right about it, there's no morality here at all.

Morals don't exist.

What Israel's doing in Gaza, there's no morals, okay?

So stop talking about morals.

Even if Hamas...

All right, stop calling yourself Muslim then.

Stop calling yourself Muslim if you do not believe in morals.

No, no, I'm saying when you talk, there's no morality.

You say I'm crying about what's going on in Gaza.

There's no justification for what Israel is doing in Gaza.

There's none.

There is justification.

Okay, then there's no morals.

Then stop talking about morals if you're going to say that.

If you believe in killing children and women and the elderly and bombing hospitals and making people in hospitals die immediately and starving people, making them die of thirst and genociding them, do not fucking sit here and have moral outrage about anything to me.

You don't have Hamas attacked first.

Hamas attacked first.

Okay, and Israel blockaded Gaza.

So Hamas also was checkpoints.

And what happens when they blockaded Gaza?

Savage blocked savage Palestinians, these savage Hamas, they do attacks like we saw at the music festival.

That's what happens.

So, do you want the Israelis to just lay down on the floor and do nothing and just allow attacks?

Listen, I have to explain it to you, okay?

So try to explain it.

Yeah.

So the recent events, your moral claim is Hamas, even if you're right about all these sensational atrocity propaganda, which you're not by the way, but even if you were right, your logic is because of that, that justifies the Israeli response.

But Israel also engaged in aggression that predates what Hamas did.

So by your own moral logic, Hamas was justified in committing massacres.

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

By putting up checkpoints, it does not.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, hold on.

We're not talking about checkpoints.

We're talking about a blockade that violates international law, which leads to extremely excessive rates of mortality for the population of Gaza, choking them out, depriving them of basic access to medical supplies.

We're talking about the increasing of illegal settlements in the West Bank and the increased dispossession and displacement of a whole people.

We're talking about the unjust detention and detainment, persecution, shooting, and beating and oppression of an entire people.

Don't sit here and say it's just checkpoints because nobody, even Jews in Israel, don't believe that.

All right.

So, yes, people in Gaza were already under siege even before Hamas did a goddamn thing living in an open-air prison.

By your own moral reasoning, even if you were right about the atrocity propaganda Hamas allegedly committed, even if you are right about that, which should have been a lot of people.

And almost all of it has been debunked, by the way, by your own moral standards and your own moral logic, when you justify the genocide against Gaza, you are saying Hamas was in the moral right.

Hamas, Hamas wants to genocide the Jews as the line of Judah brought up when I was watching him.

There's no evidence of that.

Article 7, Article 7, Article 7.

And I know you're going to argue right now.

Oh, they removed Article 7 in what, 2018, 2017?

Yeah.

Yeah, but guess what?

The the Nazis still did the Holocaust without, you know, any formal policy being in place.

What does Article 7 say?

What does Article 7 say?

It mentions the um the Sunnah.

On the Day of Judgment.

So that's eschatology.

What does that have to do with that?

They they are using it as justification to kill the Hebrew.

Where is that in the article though?

What do you mean by that in the article?

Do they the claim to you something?

Okay.

That's your opinion.

But in article.

That's not my opinion.

There's been historical jihad.

So where's the jihad against the Iranian Jews?

Against the Irvinian Jews?

Yeah.

Well, I don't know about Iranian Jews.

I don't know about that topic.

I don't know either.

That's the thing because it's not real.

But anyway, Israel.

Anyway, Article 7 talks about Islamic eschatology and the Day of Judgment and is using that within the context of their war against Israel.

But they're not saying that when we take Al-Aqsa and we take Palestine, that that's going to create the Day of Judgment.

That's not what they're saying.

So there's actually no evidence at all.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever that Hamas had the intention of engaging in genocide or killing all Jews in Israel.

There's no evidence of that.

Even before they revised their charter.

Even in their old charter, there's no evidence of it.

Them making references to Hadiths about the Day of Judgment, which are giving expression to the...

When the Interior Minister is saying, kill the Hebrew, kill the Hebrew.

They're making songs about killing the Hebrew.

Let's bring clearance part.

Because this is just like the South Africa argument where the kill the boar means they're going to genocide the boars.

It's not true.

It exactly means that.

They wouldn't kill the Jews.

I don't think there's any way of looking at this house.

I think you're trying to make a mental gymnastic to defend the highest courts of South Africa have ruled that the song Kill the Boar has nothing to do with attacking actual Boer people.

Likewise, if Hamas is engaging in anti-Jewish rhetoric, that's within the context of a war with Israelis who are Jewish.

It doesn't mean they intend on killing all Jews.

It just means what version is South Africa, the current South Africa or the apartheid South Africa?

The modern South Africa.

Okay, so a state which is biased towards black people and biased towards the people.

You could say that.

You could say that.

It's not I can say that.

That's a fact.

So you have to let me finish.

You could say that, but I implore you to go and actually watch the trial and hear all the arguments presented.

And I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with the conclusion that the court arrived at after all the evidence and arguments were presented.

So go watch the trial.

I mean I'm not gonna go watch a trial because you have made a compliment.

So if you think they arrived at a biased or unreasonable conclusion, I implore you to write an article about why it's an unjust, a biased and unreasonable conclusion.

But when you're making songs about killing the Hebrew and you're literally running around with axes and trying to behead Hebrews, then yeah, I do actually do believe that you know you might want to kill the Hebrew.

I know that's crazy to you, Hazen.

I know you live in like an idealistic fantasy where everyone wants to hold hands with and you as the Marxists should be looking at material, but you don't.

You live in fantasy.

So here's some materialism.

During the Great War, when Great Britain was at war with Germany, the Germans were called Huns and they would regularly talk about killing the Huns and destroying the Huns.

So did Britain, after the surrender of Germany, engage in a genocide against Germans and kill them?

Wait, um, no, but that's a completely different context.

No, it's not.

In war, that kind of rhetoric is used.

It doesn't entail that the strategic objectives of one party implies genocide or actually killing the other side.

It means you're giving expression to the war and the enmity with a state, with an army, with a military, with the IDF.

So this is rhetoric that has to be placed in front of the city.

I mean, but then I could make the counter argument with the Nazis.

I can just make the counter argument with the Nazis.

No, you can't.

They've made the Nazis.

Yes, I can.

Yes, I can.

No, you can't.

I'll tell you why.

The enemy starts secretly genociding Jews under Himmler.

So I don't see your argument here.

Wait, wait.

But here's the issue.

The Nazis were targeting a Jewish population either that was living in Germany or dwelled within the occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

But the Nazis were not actually engaged in a real fight with a sovereign power that was calling itself a Jewish state.

So Nazi anti Semitic rhetoric has cannot be placed on the same plane as Hamas's anti Jewish rhetoric, because one is fighting a war with a self proclaimed Jewish power that's what it calls itself and the other was exterminating Jewish people while fighting wars with the Soviets, the British, the Poles and others who were not uh self proclaimed Jewish powers.

So what's your point?

So your point of view is that my point is, when you hear rhetoric like kill the boar or kill the Hebrew, as you said, that is not you can't just abstract that from the context of war if it's about an armed struggle with an institution and with a state.

As Malema so eloquently said in his court case, Kill the Boer was in reference to, for example, when the South African police would come into the Bantu stands and beat everyone up and attack them.

Even if the police officers were black, they would still sing Kill the Boer in protest because Boer represented the institutional power of the apartheid state.

Likewise, when Hamas is making reference to Jews, they're talking about the institutional power of the Zionist entity, the IDF, the Israeli police, and so on and so forth.

So in China, when the Han went to genocide the Jia, they said, kill the Jia and they killed the Jia.

So I don't know, dude.

I think that you're not going to be able to do it.

Yeah, even if that's true.

So there's different ways that this can go.

So you're framing it in one way.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

King, even if it's true that the Han genocided the Jia, I haven't looked into that history, but let's just say it's true.

You're right.

It's a completely different context.

It's almost like songs or chants do not preempt material conditions.

It's the material conditions that give context to the song.

So if they're saying kill the Jia under entirely different material conditions than Hamas, then that doesn't mean the outcome is going to be the same just because it sounds similar what they're saying.

The context is entirely different.

So that's the problem.

Yeah.

And I think it's important to remember the goal of the Palestinians and the Hamas.

Which is regaining sovereignty and the right of return for Palestinian refugees across the Middle East.

So they wanna eradicate Israel?

Well, if we look at this material, that's not gonna happen.

And I think you need to I think Israel will be eradicated.

Really?

Why is that?

Because, oh, there's there's bigger countries around it, because your bigger country logic?

There's bigger countries, peoples and cultures around it.

That's exactly right.

Wait, so what about Ireland then?

Uh, that's that's kind of uh out of my uh ability to foresee.

I mean, Northern Ireland's about to leave the UK, and by your logic, the UK is bigger than you know, the Republic of Ireland, so surely they should just crush the Republic of Vinem, right?

If you want what I think in the long term would be a possible solution for the British Isles, I think an integration of the British Isles under a new union, not the current British monarchy or the kingdom.

I think a completely new integrated union of peoples on a different basis would probably make sense.

I think the reality of your claims is Haas is that the bigger countries' argument just doesn't really make sense.

The thing about the Irish struggle is that the Irish people are fighting for emancipation from the British Empire, right?

And Britain, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom is what we're talking about.

But that doesn't abstract them from the context of the civilizations of the British Isles.

The Irish people have always been a part of that.

So, Irish people, that's also an internal struggle.

That's them fighting the United Kingdom, that's them fighting the crown.

That's why British revolutionaries had solidarity with the Irish because they were also fighting the crown.

And they also wanted to have a kind of people state of the British Isles.

And they recognize that's only possible when these oppressed groups can achieve their emancipation and self-determination.

Then you can form a reunion on the basis of equals who are respected.

Well, I would actually disagree with that rhetoric.

So the problem is, is when you get these savage groups such as the Irish and the Palestinians, your problem is when you're too nice to them.

So the legal act to allow Irish to buy land in Ireland actually was a big problem because Belfort believed that the Irish would be farmed with the Union.

The Irish were not allowed to buy land in Ireland where they live.

What happened to the land they had before?

They were dispossessed.

And that's the whole basis of the struggle.

We owned it.

The Irish were dispossessed of their land and their land was robbed and stolen from them.

And they very justly responded to that by trying to regain their land and their dignity.

Similarly.

But the thing is, the UK made reform, right?

Because, you know, places can make reform.

I know you don't believe in that.

But they made reform to allow the Irish to buy land.

They gave them 10 times more rights.

And what ended up happening was the Irish rose up in the Easter rebellion.

Right.

Israel had been nice to meet you.

The issue with that is that although Irish people had the right to buy land, the majority of Irish couldn't because they had already been dispossessed of their original land, proletarianized and basically broke with no prospect of ever acquiring any land.

So that's an issue with that.

They never had sovereignty.

And the Irish kept fighting for their freedom and good on them.

They were given reform.

Like how, for example, today in Scotland, you might not know this, but they have basically full power over their country.

You know, places can reform and we can probably see a reform in the state of Israel.

But what happens is when you give reform to these revolutionary groups, is that they end up with a lot of people.

Because reforms do not eliminate...

The righteous causes of people who are fighting for a just cause.

If the Irish want to regain their land, why should they settle for breadcrumbs?

Keep on fighting at all costs.

At all costs.

Well, wouldn't you just but didn't you just agree that they should be a part of a greater union of the UK?

So yeah, but a union of free and equal peoples.

Yes.

And by the way, the English should do as the Irish do and fight the United Kingdom.

They were also dispossessed of their land.

I support the English working class.

I support the Welsh working class.

I support the Scottish working class.

I support them all fighting for their dignity against the parasite monarch and the parasite lords and the city of London, which oppresses the...

Well, the Northern Irish, the Welsh, and the Scottish Parliament, they all have their.

They actually have more power and control over their countries than England do.

So, you know, we can.

Well, what everyone has in common, but what everyone has in common is they are dispossessed.

They're dispossessed of any stake in their own homeland.

They don't have any real power.

They don't have any real land.

They don't have any real anything.

They're losing their dignity.

All the jobs are becoming what?

Service sector.

It's financial elites are parasitizing the entire Isles.

And hey man, if you want to go work in the pits, you can work in the pits, because my great-grandfather did, and it was not a nice existence, man.

So if you want to go work in the pits, Isles, you can go do that.

It's not a nice existence.

Well, there's no more decent jobs for people in the British Isles.

Yeah, I I would actually prefer if people, you know, work these service shops rather than dying from a miner's lung and having this poor lifestyle.

Your countrymen don't agree with you.

Um, I wouldn't exactly agree with that.

They're not happy with the inequality.

They're not it's not just about inequality, it's about people who have lost.

Purpose, they've lost a means of living, decent living, dignified living, they've lost an ability to make sense of the world, they've they lost everything.

I wouldn't I wouldn't exactly agree with that.

I think most people just want free time and to be with their family and I agree.

They want why can't they have that?

Yeah, well you don't have that in the Pitts house.

Like I'm not talking about bringing back Pitts.

I'm saying that um

People are working bullshit jobs that they shouldn't have to be working, and the jobs they would have to be working would be not working in pits all day, but probably working maybe two hours a day doing actual dignified work that benefits their country, and then having free time.

Well dignified work is being a lawyer and having the opportunity to write articles and express your views and yeah but that doesn't feed work.

That doesn't feed people.

What's the problem with that?

That doesn't feed people, that doesn't build anything, that doesn't do anything.

You think books don't build civilizations?

No, they're important, but they're not a foundation.

You need a foundation of real stuff.

Well the Chinese can do that for us but I want to get back on tape.

And China will own your country.

That's fine.

Then let China own Britain.

No China won't own us.

Yeah they do.

If China owns your bridges and they own your roads and your bridges and your buildings, they own you.

Nope.

Nope.

We own them because we'll feed opium to them like we did the last time.

But let's get back to JD Palace.

You'll get nuked.

Anyway, anything else?

So the Israeli the Israeli Palestine question is what I want to get back to.

As as we saw before with your Muslim friend and your Muslim brother, uh I don't know what you called it in Islam, it's like uh is it like a word for brother in Christ?

I don't know.

Let's just call him the f our friendly guy from Western Sahara.

Yeah, your your Muslim friends.

I I think he shows and he represents the views of all you um Muslim I disagree.

I don't think he does.

I don't think he does.

There's a reason there's leaders.

There's a reason the Muslim world has leaders, or the Arab world has leaders, educated people who know what they're talking about.

Your average person is not very nuanced about anything.

That's why they're not a leader.

You talk to leaders and I talk to them in private.

I think he just told the truth.

I think he just told the truth.

I know you're like a Westernized Arab and you're not very in touch with your people.

No, no, I talk to educated leaders of society from Lebanon.

I talk to them and I talk to them in private so they don't bullshit me.

And they do not hate Jews.

They have no problem with Jews.

Um my parents had were very good friends with Jews, a lot of family friends, some of our closest family friends were Jewish.

Well, I think I think um Lebanon is a special crazy case, it's not because we're Shiites, we're not Maronites, meaning we are we are the subversives in Lebanon.

We don't we're not like the Maronites who are civilized, we're like the Gnubi Shiites who are wild and savage, as you would say.

So Lebanon's not an exception in that case.

Well, I think you say this, but then what we see on the streets in London and and New York when you know the Arabs come out to protest is you know they they're shining death to Palestine, obeying Palestine.

It's a terrorist attack.

How about you do that when there's no terrorist attack?

But no, you do when there is a terrorist attack.

So I don't know what you're talking about, but if you then you'll sit there and say you love Jews, then you'll sit there and say you love Jews when Jews have just been slaughtered.

Okay, so if you're upset that people are protesting because they're outraged of how Palestinians are treated, if this is how people in Britain were treated or people in a white country were treated, then you would also be outraged.

So it's just natural.

Well, I I would argue that there is a there is a motive within the media of Western countries such as the BBC and etcetera of defending Palestine.

I've noticed this trend within, you know, these when they do do that, it's 'cause of public pressure.

There's no other reason.

What do you mean public pressure?

Like the BBC doesn't really suffer with much public pressure, they're state-owned.

Oh yeah, the Muslim uh diaspora, if you call them that, they're very aggressive and they will boycott you and protest you and yeah.

They're very organized online, so that's a lot of pressure.

There's a reason like Kylie Jenner or whoever had to delete a post praising Israel because you'll get bombarded on social media.

Um and cancelled, so to speak, by the Muslim mob.

So

And also just genuine public opinion, even without the Muslims.

I mean

No one can look at what goes on in Gaza and justify it, no one can do it.

So you support cancer culture?

No, I'm just saying.

So you support cancer culture when it benefits you?

I'm not supporting it, I'm saying it's to be expected.

But you sit here and cry about being censored by the media, Jackson Hinkle getting censored.

But whenever people are censored, you're perfectly fine with it.

They're not being censored, but they're not able to get away with defending crimes without a huge backlash.

Just like if if BBC went and went on public and said that they support pedophilia, there'd be a backlash.

That's not cancel culture, it's just a backlash.

The backlash?

I mean, you can't you can't compare this to Well, if let's say there was a bunch of white children being uh slaughtered uh and bombed and killed and starved and you know B B C supported it, they would get a huge backlash.

Well, I think your people deserve backlash for your crimes, you know, sitting here defending Palestine after there's been a fucking terrorist attack.

Look You know, look, we're gonna have to wrap this up, but here's what I want to say.

I

I don't believe in your heart of hearts you actually believe this.

I think you know that defending Israel takes a lot of convoluted and contrived reasoning that's just not organic.

And I know it's kind of a contrarian position, maybe, but I know in your heart of hearts, you know what the situation is.

I know what the situation is.

And there's no way around it.

There's no way to just.

I think Israel's just been too nice.

I think they've just been too nice.

That's the problem with Israel today.

They've been way too nice after an invasion.

Exactly.

I think.

After terrorists attacked.

As Donald Trump says, wipe him out.

Wipe him out.

Okay.

Well, don't talk about morality then.

I mean, if that helps you sleep at night, it helps you sleep at night.

But.

The rest of the world disagrees with you and there's a reason for that.

Festival doesn't just scream, you know.

Alright, well, go on Chinese social media and share your opinions.

See what they think.

But China support two-state solution.

And they do not support they do not like come out and start supporting Hamas after fucking terrorist attacks.

Chinese social media seems to be.

They don't even support Hamas.

They don't even support Hamas.

Chinese social media seems to.

Tiny social media, well I'm not on fucking WeChat.

Uh I live in the West.

I I've seen We Weibo and WeChat and it seems like people are saying wipe Israel off the map.

Those are their crimes.

Okay, like a few fucking Chinese people.

It doesn't bother me.

I've seen Israeli I've seen Indians like our nation one point four billion people.

No, Indians definitely is you're right India is probably an exception, but the rest of the world Latin America Asia Russia a lot of no that's not even true a lot of young liberals wait Russia's a lot of people in Russia support Israel so what what are you talking about?

Well there's a lot of Ashkenazi Jews that migrated from and they and there's people in Russia who support Ukraine.

What's your point?

Anyway, we gotta wrap this up because I have to take a shit so

Alright man.

Well you got defeated tonight and I think you should reflect upon your views by three different people.

I I disagree with your assessment, but okay.

You can claim that.

Alright man.

Anyway.

Alright man.

Good night.

Alright guys, I gotta take a shit.

I'll uh see y'all.

See y'all tomorrow.

I know I'm ending it kind of early, but it's almost four hours.

You know, I really have to shit, though.

I'm not even kidding.

Like, I straight up do.

Okay?

I straight up do.

Guys

I'll see you later.

Alright.

See ya.

Bye-bye.

See you tomorrow.